I am writing in response to the post in the below link:
I have heard that while it is true that America was named after Amerigo Vespucci the fact is that Amerigo was not actually Vespucci’s real name. He had been a captain and his sailors were Arab who were told to refer to him as “Ameerikum” or “Your Princeliness” in the same way in English we would say “Your highness.” This caught on and after a while he just became known by his title, which was a common thing to do back then (one would take on a job title or a geographic place as a name: like Smith, Baker or York). Thus, Vespucci’s original first name was converted to Amerigo.
I’m not sure if this is the origin of the word Amerigo in general or if it is the origin of Amerigo Vespucci’s name specifically. But this was narrated to me.
Thanks for coming to the Board in the best possible manner, linking to the column you’re referring to, and stating a case succinctly and clearly.
However, we have a rule of thumb which we’ve learned to respect. Anything you’ve heard from a friend is wrong.
You’re wrong about this as well. Every evidence we have is that Amerigo was Vespucci’s real first name, not some sort of bastardized title. How do we know? Well, one big clue is that he was named after his grandfather, Amerigo Vespucci. So the name had existed long before the issue of naming a new continent was ever a possibility.
However, that same page offers definitive proof:
What you heard narrated to you is simply a story, made up for unknown reasons, but probably to discredit Amerigo for some bizarre and conspiratorial theory about who should get the credit for naming America.
Hey,
I see what you mean and I thought it was also some conspiratorial claim until I realized that the issue is not about who gets credit for discovering or naming America. Either way it was named after Vespucci, no matter who named it. The issue, and this is why I had the last clarifying statement, is whether the word America or Amerigo is derived from that Arabic title, or whether, as in the article, it is a derivative of Henry or Heimerich. A lot of Spanish words are known to have their derivatives from Arabic due to the conquests. So maybe his grandfather got his name from the Arabic title rather from the Italian or German? This is a question not a statement. One would have to know if the word/name existed prior to the Arab conquest of Spain. Also, this seems closer than to say Henry and Amerigo have any resemblance.
Amerigo Vespucci was a Florentine, from Florence, capital of Tuscany in modern Italy, north central Italy to be specific. Spanish doesn’t have much to do with either his name or family. The Arabs never conquered the region which his family came from, whereas it was in the early mediaeval period conquered by Lombard (German) tribes.
There doesn’t seem to be any logical Arabic connection. On the other hand a contraction of Heimerich - aspiration of the H, etc. makes great logical sense.
Yes, the name Amerigo is a medieval Italian variant of the Germanic name Emmerich, in which, as Behind The Name states, “the second element is ric meaning “power”. The first element may be ermen “whole, universal” (making it a relative of Ermenrich), amal “work, labour” (making it a relative of Amalric) or heim “home” (making it a relative of Henry). It is likely that several forms merged into a single name.”
In other words, the United States of America could well be styled the United States of Henry.
On the British TV show QI they said it was a myth that America was named after Amerigo, and instead asserted that it was named after a Richard Americk, the Welsh financer of a voyage to find the new world that predated Columbus’ efforts.
However, I’ve found very little to support this on the interweb. Seems that it was just speculation on the part of the TV researchers (who’d have thought TV could be wrong…).
A) The reported name was indeed Richard Ameryk, a wealthy Welshman who had invested into an expedition toAmerica, reportedly landing in Labrador, possibly Maine or Newfoundland, by a John Cabot in 1497, two years prior to Amerigo Vespucci’s trip to America.
At the same time, countries were always named after a person’s family name and never after their ‘christian’ name (e.g. first name). This is perfectly logical as first names are rather more ambiguous than last names, just like we call newfound diseases and disorders and whatnot after people’s last name. After all, it is tourette’s syndrome, not Gilles’ syndrome.
B) The fact that their is little online evidence to support this case is sort of the reason why it would be on QI. The point of the facts (or at least, what I hope to be facts. One can never be 100% sure until one finds credible sources) presented in QI is that they bring up common misconceptions, most of which are taught in schools everywhere.
Which means they are written in books everywhere, and everybody believes these things are true (because they’re taught to you in school, from books!). That causes this information to appear on the internet on many occasions, since the people that ‘make’ the internet have been taught at these school, etc etc and so on.
And that’s the thing about internet. Information’s becoming more absorbed into this one massive entity where sources will always remain a mystery and if you ever read something, it’s a complete guess as to whether it is correct. Finding a multitude of pages giving out the same information doesn’t make it right.
Google searches on John Cabot do mention that he (re)discovered America in 1497, and that he travelled from britain.
Searches on Richard Ameryk/Amerike also report that evidence (in the form of journals and letters) have been found that Ameryk was, in fact, the main sponsor for John Cabot’s voyage (so much that Ameryk owned the Matthew, Cabot’s boat), and that he did, in fact, reach America years prior to Columbus or Vespucci.
That in itself proves nothing, but when combined with the fact that name-giving was both serious business and always done with one’s family name, it is more reasonable to assume that it was named after Amerike/Ameryk.
Because why would they not call it Vespuccia? That seems like a perfectly good and sensible name, as much as America would. Perhaps not to us, but that’s only because we are used to the name America, and Vespuccia would sound weird.
Of course, the real question in the article was the origin of the name, and for that I can find no fault.
Sources include WikiAnswers, Wikipedia, and BBC History. Who may or may not be correct. But I am partial to believing them.
Isn’t it more likely that the reason that there is little online evidence to support the claim that America was named after Richard Ameryk is that the claim is simply wrong?
We have Martin Waldseemüller’s map and we know that its “full title is “Universalis cosmographia secunda Ptholemei traditionem et Americi Vespucci aliorum que lustrationes” (“A drawing of the whole earth following the tradition of Ptolemy and the travels of Amerigo Vespucci and others”).”
In addition:
So your task is to show that Waldseemüller either did not originate the name or used Ameryk’s name while crediting it to Vespucci.
The latter is wholly unlikely, so the first course has been the one taken. Unfortunately it rests entirely on speculative conjecture. Evidence is simply not a word that can be applied.
Jonathan Cohen has an excellent scholarly article on some of the other claimants, including Ameryk.
Right now, the “controversy” greatly resembles that of whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There is a cottage industry of books by amateur historians and the entire profession of professional historians who oppose them.
Everybody loves to root for the “underdog” in such cases, but Oswald shot Kennedy and America was named for Vespucci. The cases against aren’t.
What countries are you thinking of that support this rule? It certainly didn’t apply to the Carolinas, Georgia, or Prince Rupert’s Land, although those were named in the 17th / 18th centuries, so may be outside the time period you’re thinking of. But what countries or regions in the New World are named after a person’s last/family name, other than Colombia?
(And yes, we all know what people think of wiki links. I think this info is based on the books Naming of America: Continents, Countries, States, Counties and Cities by Alan Wolk and Cabot and naming of America by Peter Macdonald.)
Not to mention the Philippines, for that matter. The claim is certainly balderdash.
The old “you can’t prove that this theory that I just made up isn’t true, so it must be the real explanation” trick is the beginning of the descent into total madness.
I don’t understand that Wiki quote. That seems to assume that Vespucci named America after himself and that Waldseemüller copied him. That doesn’t seem to be what happened at all.
And Athildur’s complaint about America being a first name is not only ludicrous, it’s contradicted by the historical record. From the Cohen link:
This is what I mean about the difference between professional historians and amateurs.
At no point have I asserted that America was named after Richard Ameryk (look how I introduced the possibility, in post #9).
OTOH this thread, and the question to Cecil, do assert that it was named for Amerigo: I’ve simply tried to counter that this is debatable.
Not quite. I think what it’s saying is that Vespucci called the land America, after Ameryk. But when Waldseemüller got the letters from Vespucci, he assumed Vespucci was naming the land after himself.
Even if this account were true though (and it’s hard to verify without a living Vespucci), it would only make it a matter of pedantry who America was named after. After all, everyone except one guy (who never bothered to give anyone credit) would consider it named after Vespucci.
<missed edit window>
What I mean is, under this theory, he didn’t explicitly credit anybody. And he must have noticed that the name he was considering had quite a similarity to his own first name.
Is there any evidence at all that Vespucci called the land America at any time in any document? Wouldn’t historians have sorta noticed that? Because wouldn’t that negate the whole Waldseemüller named it first thing?
