In “Notes and Comments,” HAHR 52:2 (May 1972), “Two Fictitious Accounts of Ortega’s ‘Third Voyage’ to California,” Fr. Ernest J. Burrus, S.J., branded Francisco de Ortega a liar-forger bent on “lucrative pearl fishing” who produced fictitious reports of “impossible” claims on an “apocryphal voyage to the Gulf of California, January 11-May 16, 1636.
Referring to the “Descripción y demarcación de las Islas Californias [“Demarcación ”] and “Relación circunstanciada de los tres viajes’ [“Relación ”] (originals not extant; contemporary copies in Archivo General de Indias, Patronato 30 and Guadalajara 133), Burrus based his conclusions on these premises: (1) The chaplain, Fr. Roque de Vega, called a Jesuit on four occasions, was fictitious because no Jesuit of that name existed in New Spain, because his ability to “communicate” with Indians at La Paz was absurd, and because he was not mentioned in the jurisdictional dispute over California between the bishops of Guadalajara and Durango or by Andrés Pérez de Ribas, S. J., chronicler of Sinaloa. (2) Ortega, wrecked south of La Paz, could not have reconstructed his ship and sailed for two months in the gulf and the survival of all crew and substantial cargo was “miraculous.” His often gross errors in latitude, lesser ones in distances, and discrepancies between “Demarcación” and “Relación” demonstrate falsity. (3) The diving bell carried by Ortega for recovering pearl oysters was impossible. (4) Viceroy Marqués de Cadereyta expressiv prohibited this voyage.
These and others of Burrus’s conclusions notwithstanding, Ortega did, in fact, make the voyage claimed, more or less as stated in his reports. Precise analysis of these and new documents in the context of maritime history and Spanish seventeenth-century administrative law shows most of Ortega’s actions and claims are totally reasonable.
Vega, parish priest of the diocese of Guadalajara, was never called “missionary” but, in “Demarcación,” simply “padre” or, with equal frequency, “Jesuit”; he never signed the customary S.I. or IHS of Spanish Jesuits. In “Relación,” authored by Ortega, he is “presbítero” as he calls himself in legal documents in Guadalajara in 1611 and 1618. The black cassock of diocesan clergy and Jesuits was virtually identical, the expedition left from a Jesuit mission area, and the confusion of an unspecified scribe explains the error. Vega probably communicated with Pericú speakers by signs similar to those used by thousands of other missionaries in first encounters with Indians. Contact claimed on the third voyage is substantiated by Ortega’s distinguishing the language of La Paz, Islas San José, and Espíritu Santo (Pericú), from that of Loreto (Cochimí). Vega was not named in the 1682 jurisdictional dispute because the question arose in 1633; a royal provision of July 13, 1634, granted California to Guadalajara based on the act of possession by Diego de la Nava, vicar of that diocese on the second voyage, and, as of 1634, the matter was stare decisis. Pérez de Ribas does not mention Vega, Ortega, or Nava!
Ortega was a “carpintero de ribera” (shipwright) employed by Martín de Lezama to build a ship for exploration in the gulf He knew shipbuilding and seamanship and obtained a license for exploration through influential businessmen who financed his venture. He relied on his skills, not celestial navigation. All ships involved in exploration carried full complements of tools, forges, iron, and everything else necessary to build a ship except lumber; Ortega’s experience made repairs using salvaged planking and lumber from abundant palo blanco, etc., a relatively simple task in forty-six days. Almost everything carried aboard was packed in wooden barrels or crates and would float; thus surf tended to wash it ashore, permitting recovery. Coasting as claimed, Ortega could easily put in at night, camp, forage, and fish as did local Indians, and provide an appropriate diet for his crew of twenty. Records in “Descripción mui circunstanciada de los Comederos de Perlas” [“Descripción circunstanciada”] of pearl oyster beds discovered during the third voyage are extremely accurate and conform with reports from later explorations, indicating direct knowledge. Latitude calculations in the gulf are so grossly erroneous compared with headway that they support the document’s veracity; their impossibility under sail is apparent and must have resulted from mistaken dictation, a lack of technical training, wishful thinking, or all three.
Ortega’s diving bell, a common device used by European salvers, was similar to that designed in 1612 by Richard Norwood, a weighted, inverted cask using trapped air. Claims of submersion time were made before its use on the first voyage in 1632 and were never mentioned in relation to the second or third voyages.
The viceregal order prohibiting voyages in the gulf was not issued until November 11, 1636, and did not specify Ortega. On February 19, 1661, based on testimony of the three voyages, Viceroy Conde de Baños granted Ortega permission to build ships and hire voluntary Indian labor for pearl fishing in the Gulf of California and issued a license to exploit beds he had recorded.
While exaggeration, false hope, inaccuracy, and contradiction may make historical documents nebulous, they do not condemn them as fictions or forgeries. Given the harsh penalties, including death, for fabricating and/or forging official documents in Spanish domains, risks would surpass benefits. Further, the original “Descripción” was attested to by the captain and alcalde mayor of Sinaloa, Francisco de Bustamante, Fr. Juan Romero, S.J., a known Jesuit missionary there, three residents, eight expedition members, and Ortega and Vega. It was copied and certified by royal scribe Joseph de Cuenca on October 27, and by secretary of government Luis de Tovar Godinez on November 11, 1636. “Relación,” signed only by Ortega, was also an official document remitted to the viceroy, accompanying “Descripción circunstanciada” of October 20, 1636, another report also based in part on the third voyage. To deliberately falsify any of these documents would have required a conspiracy to defraud the monarchy involving high government officials, priests, sworn notaries, and dozens of witnesses.
Arguments put forth in this communication are primarily based on documents published in my Californiana series (Madrid: Ediciones José Porrúa Turanzas, 1965-1974), 1:66-80, 128-150, 163-178, 228-239, 298-303; 2:149-151, 248-263, 270-337, 366-367, 386-401, 408, 429-430. 453-476, 480-615, 623-690, 739-742. 955-982; 3:65-67, 163-207; and Poder de Padre Roque de Vega, May 30, 1611, Archivo de Instrumentos Públicos, Guadalajara, Protocolo de Andrés de Venegas, tomo 1606-1618, fols. 99-100v; Reclamación de Padre Roque de Vega, March 29, 1618, Archivo de la Real Audiencia-Judicial, Guadalajara, caja 30-1-395, Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico Gity, General de Parte, tomo 11, exp. 63, fols. 64-65; exp. 64, fols. 65-65v. I have presented my views on the matter to Father Burrus himself, and at least in part to a wider audience in a number of publications. However, since the thesis that I consider erroneous appeared in an earlier issue of HAHR, I felt it appropriate to set the record straight in the pages of the same journal.