Gonzalo Pizarro and Francisco de Orellana

Author(s): Philip Ainsworth Means

Source: The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Aug., 1934), pp. 275-295
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2506711 .
Accessed: 20/06/2013 11:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hispanic
American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The

Hispanic
Historical

Vol. XIV

American
Review

August, 1934

No. 3

GONZALOPIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

INTRODUCTION

One of the most picturesque incidents in South American

history was the journey made by Gonzalo Pizarro into the
wilds of what is now eastern Ecuador, during which journey
his second in command, Captain Francisco de Orellana, with
a part of the expeditionary force, departed from the main
body and went downstream, eventually reaching the Atlantic
Ocean. It has usually been assumed by writers that Orellana's
act was treasonable to his chief, although everyone has conceded the magnitude of the tranlscontinentaljourney which he
made.
The purpose of this paper is to discover whether or not
Orellana was a traitor to Gonzalo Pizarro. Elsewhere I have
declared that he was so; now, through the kindness of Mr.
William Charles Cooke, of Bishoptown, Ireland, it has become
possible for me to examine the matter more carefully, using
for that purpose a book by the late Jose Toribio Medina with
which I was not acquainteduntil Mr. Cookecalled it to my notice.' Senor Medina, in that volume, provides us with a wide
variety of materials wherewith the whole question can be
studied anew. It is a magnificent piece of work, and extremely
1 Medina, Desaoubrimiento del Rto de las Amazonas (Seville, 1894).
This
volume was published in English dress by the American Geographical Society
(New York, 1934) under the title The Discovery of the Amazon. . . . It is well to
explain here that hereafter page-references to the Spanish volume, if in roman
figures, concern the very rieh introduetory matter supplied by Medina; and, if
in arabic figures, to the part of the volume which contains the Relaein of Friar

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

276

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

important to students. In it, Senfor MIVedina

makes an eloquent defense of Orellana's reputation and honor, a defense
which I regretfully find to be unconvincing.
THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The chief document presented by Medina is tho "Relacion

del Descubrimiento del Rio de las Amazonas" of the Dominican, Friar Gaspar de Carvajal, whose importance for us
lies in the fact that he accompanied Orellana every step of
the way from the point where Gonzalo Pizarro was left to the
Island of Cubagua off the northern coast of South America
between La Guayra and Trinidad.2 Other documents presented by Medina will be mentioned further on.
In addition to the materials given us by Medina we have:
Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes who, after seeing and
talking with Orellana and others of the expedition at Santo
Domingo, twice wrote about the matter ;3 Francisco Lopez
de Gomara, in his Historia general de las Indias, Ch. cxliii,
where he says nothing of much note; Antonio de Herrera, in
Dec. VI, Bk. IX, and Dec. VII, Bk. IX, Chs. viii-ix, where he
speaks favorably of Pizarro; Augustin de Z'arate who, writing
Gaspar de Carvajal and the other documents presented. It should further be
stated that Mr. Cooke's letter to me, dated a.t Bishopstown, Ireland, June 26,
1933, was occasioned by remarks about Orellana on p. 81 of Means, Fall of the
Inca Empire (New York, 1932).
2 The
"Relacion" is printed in Medina, 1894, pp. 1-83. Another version of
it will be found in F,ernaindez de Oviedo, 1851-1855, IV. 541-574. An incomplete
manuscript copy of Carvajal formerly belonged to the historian, Munoz, and is
now in the Academy of History, Madrid. The "Relacion" was written not long
after the events which it relates, probably in Lima to which city the Friar returned
from. Cubagua without accompanying Orellana either to Santo Domingo or to
Spain. (Medina, 1894, pp. xx-xxi).
8 The first time was in a letter to Cardinal Bembo of wlieh
an abstra.ct appears
in volume III, p. 345 of the 1605 edition of Delle navigatione et viaggi of
Ramusio. According to a note at p. 27 of Medina, 1934, the letter to Bembo was
dated January 20, 1543, two months after Orellana's arrival at Santo Domingo.
The second time was in Historia. general y natural de las Indias, Bk. XLIX,
Chs. i-iv, and vi, being in vol. IV, pp. 381-390, and 392-394 of the 1851-1855
edition already cited. See also Mediaa, 1934, pp. 390-404.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

277

within twelve years of the events, speaks very severely of

Orellana in Bk. IV, Chs. i-v, of his Historia del descubrimiento
y conquista del Peru'; the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, in Pt. II,
Bk. III, of the Comentarios Reales, where he strongly takes
Gonzalo Pizarro's part in the affair; Pedro de Cieza de Leon,
in Pt. IV, Bk. II, Chs. xviii-xxii and lxxxi, of his Cronica del
Perui, where he sides with Gonzalo Pizarro; Pedro Pizarro in
his Relation of the Discovery and Conquest of the Kingdoms of
Peru., where he stoutly defends his cousin, Gonzalo; Fernando
Pizarro y Orellana, related to both protagonists, in his Varones Ilustres del Neuvo Mundo, in which he emphatically sides
with Gonzalo Pizarro; Father Juan Melendez who, in Bk. IV,
Ch. vi, of his Tesoros verdaderos de las Yndias, defends Pizarro; and Father Manuel Rodriguez, S. J., in Bk. I, Ch. ii, of El
Maranodny Amazonas, where he bases his remarks on Lopez
de Gomara, Zarate, and Garcilaso and so speaks severely
against Orellana.4 Modern writers on the subject include Prescott, Markham, Gonzalez Suarez, Jimenez de la Espada, and
V. T. Harlow, all of whom very strongly favor Gonzalo Pizarro 's side of the matter.5
THE EXPEDITION OF GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE
ORELLANA IN ITS EARLY PHASE

Gonzalo Pizarro, bastard half brother of the Marquis Francisco Pizarro,6 was appointed by the latter to be governor of
Quito with the special obligation to explore the wilds of what
is now the eastern part of Ecuador. Associated with him as
Lo6pez de Gomara, 1554; Herrera y Tordesillas, 1601-1615, and 1859; Zarate,
1555; Garcilaso, 1859; Cieza de Leon, 1918, pp. 54-77 and 289-292; Pedro Pizarro,
1921, pp. 414-415; Pizarro y Orellana, 1639, pp. 345-398, and especially pp. 351352; Melendez, 1681-1682, I. 369-376; Rodriguez, 1684, pp. 4-12.
6Prescott, 1847, Bk. IV, Ch. iv; Markham, 1859; Gonzalez Suarez, 1890-1903,
II. 280-297; Jimenez de la Espada, 1892-1894; and Harlow, in his magnificent
Introduction to Raleigh, 1928, pp. liii-lvi.
8 CGuneo-Vidal,1925, Ch. iii, shows that Gonzalo Pizarro was a natural son of
Captain Gonzalo Pizarro, called "the Romain", by Maria de Viedma, Francisca
Gonzalez having been the mother of Francisco Pizarro, also illegitimate.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

278

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

his teniente de gobernador was Francisco de Orellana, a kinsman of his and, like the Pizarros, a native of Extremadura.
The two men were of the same age, more or less, both having
been born about 1511."
It is no part of my present task to trace out the events
of the expedition. Gonzalo Pizarro left Quito with his army
in late February, 1541. It was a well-equipped body of about
220 Spaniards, provided with nearly as many horses, with
hunting-dogs, llamas, hogs on the hoof, some 4,000 Indian auxiliaries, and a great supply of arquebuses, crossbows, and
provender of all kinds, including tools and other materials.
Francisco de Orellana, having attended to some official affairs
at Guayaquil, reached Quito after Gonzalo Pizarro's departure and, with twenlty-three followers, caught up with him at or
near a place called Sumaco or Zumaque, some thirty leagues
eastwardly from Quito, late in March, 1541.8
At the beginninlg, the march into the wilderness seems to
have been conducted with good military order, there being a
vanguard, the main body, and a rearguard; when Orellana
arrived, he was made second in command. The country of
the Quijos, into which the expedition first plunged, was difficult enough, although the Indians there had been to some extent disciplined by the Incas ;9 but it was not long before they
found themselves floundering in a region difficult to penetrate
and devoid of all attractions such as precious metals, cinnamon, and civilized natives. Still, they went onward during
more than ten weeks and, at length, arrived in the land of
7Medina, 1894, p. li, where 'he cites Fernandez de Oviedo, 1851-1855, IV. 384.
See also: Cieza de Le6n, 1918, p. 58; and Cdineo-Vidal, 1925, pp. 43-46.
8Medina, 1894, pp. lx-lxx; Carvajal, in Medina, pp. 3-5; Cieza de Leon, 1918,
p. 56; Gareilaso, 1859, pp. 4-6; Toribio de Ortiguera, in Medina, p. 176.
9Medina, 1894, pp. lxv-lxvii; Cieza de Le6n, 1918, pp. 57-58. On the people
of the regions traversed see Cieza de Le6n, Pt. I, Chs. xxxix and xli-1864, pp.
137 and 147; Montesinos, 1920, pp. 105-107; Cabello, Pt. III, Oh. xxix-Ms.
in the New York Public Library, p. 714.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

279

the Omaguas who, subsequently, became one of the most

famous of all the Amazonian peoples.10
Quite aside from the fact that they later became entangled in the hopes revolving around the mythical realm of
El Dorado, the Omaguas were highly important to the expeditionaries led by Gonzalo Pizarro and Francisco de Orellana;
for these riverine Indians, unbelievably skilful in the use of
their numerous dug-out canoes, first showed the invaders
the desirability of travel by water. By this time the Spaniards had had heavy losses in horses and other animals, in
Indians, and in sundry kinds of supplies, and were in a
pretty bad way generally. It was therefore decided to construct a bergattin (brigantine or lugger) to aid them in their
onward progress and, in a last resort, to take them down the
rivers to the Atlantic. This last possibility seems to have been
definitely in Pizarro s own mind, and is very important.11
Oddly enough, Orellana at first opposed the building of
the brigantine, opining that it would be better to turn back
and endeavor to reach Pasto or Popayan; but, when the plan
had been agreed upon, he became very active-as was Pizarro
and everyone else-in its construction.
Thus, albeit with
great toil and difficulty, a good but not very large boat was
built, this being done at a place some seventy leagues from
Quito on the left bank of the Coca River.12
Most of the baggage, supplies, and various sick men were
placed on the brigantine, and all the rest, with what were left
10 Medina,

1894, pp. lxx-lxxiii; Fritz, 1922, pp. 47-48; Harlow, in Raleigh,

1928, pp. xlvii-xlix; Markham's notes on pp. 175-176 of Garcilaso, 1859; Tessman, 1930, pp. 47-66; Alexander, 1920, pp. 194-204.
11Medina, 1894, pp. lxxiii-lxxv.
Gonzalo Pizarro, in a letter written to the
King from Tomnebanmba(south of Quito) oll September 3, 1542, refers to the boat,
saying: "lo cual todo lo IiGe coil intencio6n, si no topasemos buena tierra donde
See Medina, pp. 88-89;
poblar, de no parar hasta salir 'a la mar del Norte."
Medina, 1934, pp. 54 and 247.
12Medina, 1894, pp. lxxv-lxxvi; Ortiguera, in Medina, 1934, pp. 314-315, also
Carvajal, pp. 5-6 and Ortiguera, pp. 179-180 of Medina; See also: Cieza de
Leon, 1918, pp. 64-65 ancd Garcilaso, 1859, p. 10.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

280

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

of the horses, went along the banks, the whole body coming
together at night for safety's sake. Thus they journeyed
for nearly fifty days, having fairly good luck in the matter
of finding food, and passing through moderately well peopled
country, albeit of very difficult going because of innumerable
swamps and thick woods. After that, however, they came
into a deserted region where they were like to starve, having eaten many of their dogs and horses and having to depend
on such roots and fruits as they could find.1;3
THE DEPARTURE OF FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA-AND

AFTER

Under these hideous circumstances Gonzalo Pizarro took

desperate measures which seemed to him wise and good. He
tells us, in his already cited letter to the king, from Tomebamba, September 3, 1542, that the Indian guides whom they
had with them gave news of plentiful food at a point one
day's journey up a river which flowed into the river where
they were (the Coca) ; that, in view of all this, Orellana offered,
if given the brigantine and sixty men and some canoes, to
go in quest of the food and to return with it to the camp
which, in the meantime, would be traveling slowly in the
same direction so that the reunion would take place within
ten or twelve days; that he, Pizarro, trusted in the good faith
of his lieutenant Orellana, and gave him the brigantine, canoes, and sixty men, the understanding between them being
that Orellana was to look for food and rejoin the camp at
twelve days' time at most, and that, on no account-whatever,
was he to go below the junction of the two rivers.14
Orellana and his followers, using the brigantine and the
lS Medina, 1894, pp. lxxvi-Lxxxi; Carvajal, p. 6; Ortiguera, p. 179; G. Pizarro,
p. 89-in Medina.
14All this is straightforwardly set forth in Gonzalo Pizarro 's letter to the
king from Tomebamba, September 3, 1542. See Medina, 1894, pp. lxxviii-lxxx
and 89-90; also: Garcilaso, 1859, where, a.t pp. 11-12, fifty men were taken by
Orellana, not sixty; Cieza de Le6n, 1918, pp. 64-66, where he says that seventy
men were taken. The real number taken by Orellana was fifty-seven Spaniards
and two Negroes, according to Medina, 1894, pp. elvii-clxxvii.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

281

canoes, set forth from the main camp and started down the
Coca River on December 26, 1541, nearly a year after the
departure of the expedition from Quito.15 We have seen Gonzalo's version of the instructions which he gave to Orellana
and of the understanding between them. This matter is very
differently stated, however, by Friar Gaspar de Carvajal. He
tells us that Captain Orellana, perceiving the difficulty of the
situation, went to the governor (Pizarro) and told him that
he was determined to go downstream, leaving his few possessions in the camp, and to seek for food which, if found, he
would bring back for the good of all; that, Orellana went on
to say that, if he did not come back, Pizarro was to take no
more account of him and that, in the meantime, Pizarro was
to go back a little to a place where there was food and there
wait for Orellana for three or four days or whatever time
seemed best, and that, if he did not come back, Pizarro was to
take no more account of him. Pizarro bade him to do what
he deemed best and so Captain Orellana took with him fiftyseven men, the barco (a term which would seem to imply a
smaller boat than a brigantine), and some canoes taken from
the Indians, and so he went downstream, proposing to return
if food were found.16
Onle thing that strikes us as very strange in this version
is the manner in which Orellana appears to give orders to hlis
superior. It is important to observe, also, that even here the
understanding was that food should be sought and brought
back to the camp if it were found. But there is also the implication that Orellana might not come back if food were
not found, in which case Pizarro was to go his way and take
no more account of Orellana.
The date here given appears in the version
loMedina, 1894, pp. lxxxi-lxxxii.
of Carvajal 's Belaci6n already cited as being in Fernfandez de Oviedo, but with
the manifest error of saying "1542'' instead of 1541. No da.te is given for the
departure in the version of Carvajal printed by Medina, but New Year's Day,
1542 is mentioned on page 9 as occurring not long after the separation. See
note on pp. 58-59, of Medina, 1934, and ibid., p. 172.
"ICarvajal, in Medina, pp. 6-7; in Medina, 1934, p. 170.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

282

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

Medina provides us with data which help us to see what

took place after the separation. Orellana's party went dowvnstream with the barquete (still smaller than a barco, supposedly) and something over fifty men, and the currents
swept them onward 200 leagues. At that poYnt Captain
Orellana decided that the great currents made it impossible
to return to Governor Pizarro and so, with great difficulty,
a brigantine (a second one) was built although they had no
shipwright, and in it they went down river and eventually
reached the Island of Margarita.17
One of the witnesses to the Segovia questionnaire, Gines
Hern'anidez, drew up another questionnaire at Zamora de los
Alcaides (near Tumbez, in northernmost Peru) on February
14,1564. From that document we gather that Gonzalo Pizarro
sent Orellana, Hernandez, and others in the brigantine and
canoes downstream to look for food. Thus they went 1,500
leagues (!!!!) downstream to the Mar del Norte, finding great
kingdoms and populations; and they built a second brigantine
on the way to save themselves from the Indians and from
the fury of the river which was so great that they could not
go upstream.18
Replies were made to this questionnaire by three men who
had remained with Governor Pizarro. Their names were
Diego Gomez, Alvaro de Sepu1lveda, and Diego de Herrera.
The first two stated that Orellana and his men went off in
the Brigantine and canoes to look for food and that, when
they did not come back, Pizarro and his followers, after wait17 This material is derived from a questionnaire
drawn up at the town of
Espiritu Santo on the Island of Margarita (near Cubagua.) on October 24, 1542.
The questionnaire was the work of Cristobal de Segovia, one of the companions
of Orellana, and it was answered by Captain Orellana, Cristobal de Aguilar, Juan
de Elena, Hernan Gonzalez, Benito de Aguilar, Gines Hernandez, Crist6bal
Enriquez, and Blas de Medina, all of whom had made the trip and all of whom
replied under oath. See Medina, 1894, pp. 111-133, where the questionnaire and
replies are printed; and 1934, pp. 266-282.
13The Hernandez questionna.ire will be found in Medina, 1894, pp. 134-143,
the important (for us) question being No. 11, on p. 138. See M.edina, 1934,
pp. 282-289.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

283

ing some forty days, had to turn back to civilization which

they reached only after months of terrible trials. Herrera
mentions the brigantine and canoes, but he says nothing of Pizarro 's forty days of waiting.19
We may now turn to data provided by an Informacion de
meritos y servicios presented by a companion of Orellana,
named Pedro Dominguez Miradero, to Licentiate Fernando
de Santillan, president of the Audiencia of Quito, at Quito on
September 26, 1564. He tells us that he accompanied Orellana
and some fifty men in a barco and twenty-two canoes dowiistream during four months and so came to the Mar del Norte.
He says naught about seeking food and avers that the object
of the trip was discovery.20 It should be noted that Dominguez
was afterward a foe of Gonzalo Pizarro and took part in the
battle of Xaquixaguana, on the royalist side, in 1548.21 It
is natural enough, therefore, that he should say nothing favorable to Gonzalo Pizarro.
It is now well to pause and to summarize the chief points
revealed in the evidence thus far submitted. From the angle
of Gonzalo Pizarro we perceive the following facts:
1. That the first brigantine was built, under terrible difficulties,
by the whole expeditionunder the active leadershipof Pizarro and of
Orellana;so that, in a moralsense, it belongedto the whole expedition.
2. That the primarypurposeof the brigantinewas to aid progress
in general and that the secondary purpose was to afford a means,of
getting the entire expedition to the Atlantic Ocean in case of needthis being GonzaloPizarro's own idea in the first place.
3. That, for the good of the whole expedition,Pizarrolet Orellana
and his men take the brigantine and canoes in order to seek for food
for all, the understandingbeing that they were not to be absent more
than 12 days and that they were not to go below the junction of the
two rivers of which they had heard.
19These replies are in Mediiia, 1894, pp. 143-145. See Medina, 1934, pp.
289-291.
20 Medina, 1894, pp. 147-152;
1934, pp. 291-298.
21
Medina, 1894, pp. clxii-elxiv and 153-154; 1934, pp. 113-114.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

284

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

From the angle of Orellana we have the following points:

4. Friar Gaspar de Carvajal would have us believe that Orellana
announcedhis intention of going downstreamin quest,of food, with
the idea of returning to camp if he found it; but that Orellanatold
his superior, Pizarro, to wait for him only three or four days and to
take no further account of him if he did not come back in that time
or soon after. Orellana and his men then went off in the barco and
canoes.
5. Segovia tells us that Pizarro sent off Orellana and his men in
the barquete and canoes in quest of food and that, as they could
not get back upstrea.mon accountof the currents,they built a second
brigantine in which and in a third brigantine, constructedlater, they
went down to the Atlantic.
6. GinesHernandez,a companionof Orellana,stated, in 1564, that
he had accompaniedOrellanain the brigantine in quest of food, and
that as the currents prevented their getting back up stream, they
built a second brigantine in which they went down to the Atlantic.
Threemen who had stayed with Pizarroassertedin supportof this that
Orellanahad gone off?in the brigantine and that Pizarro and his followers had waited a long time for them, eventually struggling back
to Quito.
7. Pedro DominguezMiradero,a companionof Orellanaand later
a foe of GonzaloPizarro, stated, in 1564, that Orellanaand something
over fifty men went down river in a barcoand twenty-twocanoes and
could not go upstreambecauseof the currents.
We are now in a position to examine a final set of testimonies, beginning with a more extended scrutiny of wlhat
cited-has to say in his unToribio de Ortiguera-already
del
Rio Maraiion". As it is adpublished book, "Jornada
dressed to Philip III. it must have been finished sometime
after 1598, albeit it may have been begun much earlier. Ortiguera describes the first brigantine as being "watertight and
sturdy, but not very large", and he goes on to describe how
Pizarro intended to use it as a general aid to progress. He
then tells how Pizarro sent off Orellana and fifty-four men
to seek for food. Next, he relates how Orellana and his men,

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

285

in the brigantine, journeyed downstream for nine days, covering 200 leagues. At that time they found comparatively civilized Indians who treated them well and gave them plenty to
eat, this being at a place called Aparia. There they remained
three months, waiting to see if Pizarro would join them. At
the end of that time they made up their minds to go down the
river to the ocean, although people who were there present
(including Dominguez Miradero) told Ortiguera that they
could easily have gone upstream in the brigantine. In the
meanwhile, Pizarro and his men were having a terrible time
and had to eat herbs stewed in horse-blood using their helmets to cook in, and finally getting back to Quito.22
Let us now add a few more items to our collection of points.
We may now note the following:
8. Orellanawas sent by Pizarro to look for food, using the brigantine and some canoes,with orders to come back to the camp.
9. Orellana, instead of doing this, found at nine days' journey
and 200 leagues down river, a well supplied Indian village whose inhabitants were friendly, and there he waited for three months for
Pizarro-who could not possibly be expected to go in quest of him.
10. Although the question of returning to Pizarro was discussed,
it was decidedto go down to the ocean.
11. The return to Pizarro could have been made, accordingto both
Ortigueraand Fernandez de Oviedo who had both spoken to participants in the affair.
12. Pizarro and his men, after fruitless waiting, had to struggle
back to Quito amid hideoushardships.
22See Ortiguera, on pp. 178-181 and 186-187 of Medina, 1894. As Ortiguera
wrote so long after the events his opinion as to the feasibility of returning to
Pizarro 's camp might be questionable were it not backed up empha.tically by
Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo who, like Ortiguera, spoke to men (including
Orellana himself) who had taken part in the journey, this being done by him at
Santo Domingo in 1542. Medina, 1894, p. cxx, quotes a passage from Ferndandez
de Oviedo (probably from his early letter to Cardinal Bembo, already cited)
in which that author -says: ". . . but others, say that they could have gone back
See
to where Gonzalo Pizarro was left if they had wished, andl this I believe."
important note about Ortiguera in Medlina, 1934, pp. 310-311, where his work is
dated 1581.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

286

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

We may now examine intelligently a series of evidences,

provided by Medina, which sshow exactly what took place at
Aparia, in January, 1542.
The series opens with a declaration by Orellana himself
in which he states that he is replying to charges brought
against him by Gonzalo Pizarro. Orellana's document is undated, but it bears a providencia by the Council of the Indies
which says: "Que se junta esta peticion con los testimonios y
se vea. En Valladolid, 6a7 de Junio de 1543 afios.
Orellana accuses Pizarro of rigging testimony against him.
This accusation might carry some weight were it not that
Pizarro was most emphatically not in any dominant position
after he came back to Quito. Vaca de Castro had replaced
him and was ruling all Peru for the king. His fallen estate
is made very clear by the two documents emanating from him
at this time one of which is knowni still to be, extant.24
Orellana makes a number of very vulnerable excuses for
himself which may be summed up thus:
A. The testimony which he (Orellarna)brings, both from clergymen and laymen,could not;have been influencedby him. (Reply: This
is nonsense; he could well have influenced the testimony, and he
probablydid so.)
B. GonzaloPizarro gave him the ship and the men and that, if
he had intenidedto escape, he would not have left his servants and
negroes in the camp. (Reply: True, the troops and the ship were
23
Orellana 's document, and various others 'drawn up during the voyage
of Orellana " were presented to the Council of the Indies on 7 June, 1543.
They appear in Medina, 1894, pp. 95-105; Medinia, 1934, pp. 252-262.
24
Gonzalo wrote to Vaca de Castro, probably in August, 1542, offering his
services. Vaca 's reply gently declining them, is in the Huntington Library at
San Marino, C'alifornia. It is dated at Huamanga, September 11, 1542. (See:
Means, 1932, p. 103, note 13.) The extant Pizarro document is the letter to the
king, already cited, from Tomebaniba, September 3, 1542. It is printed in Medina,
1894, pp. 85-94, the original being in the Archivo de las Indias, at Seville. It
should be noted that Fernandez de Oviedo speaks of some letters sent to Spain
by (or on behalf of) Gonzalo Pizarro, which letters are dated at Popayan, August
13, 1542. (See: Fernandez de Oviedo, 1851-1855, IV. 385-386.)

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

287

given to him, but for a special purpose which he did not carry out;
he may have abandonedhis property on purpose.)
C. He, Orellana, had no motive for escaping through unknown
and dangerouscountry. (Reply: Aga-innonsense. He had plenty of
motive-the wish to do great things on his own account,among them
getting down to the ocean, which had been Pizarro's idea to begin
with.)
D. That they could not get back to Pizarro. (Reply: But they
could have got back, as Fernandez de Oviedo and Ortiguera indicate,

and as Carvajalunconsciouslyreveals-see below.)

E. That the currents carried them downstream. (Reply: Fiddlesticks! They could at least have remained at the point where they
first discoveredthat it would be difficult to go back and from there
sent word back to Pizarro by the Indians.)
In short, Orellana's defense of himself amounts to nothing
whatever. Before passing on to the documents drawn up
during the voyage which were presented along with Orellana 's
statement, we must remember that Gonzalo Pizarro was left
on December 26, 1541.
The first of these documents is an appointment of Francisco de Isasaga to be scrivener to Orellana's party. It is
dated at Aparia, January 4, 1542.
The second document is also dated at Aparia on January
4, 1542, and is a formal act of possession signed by Teniente
General Francisco de Orellana, by Friar Gaspar de Carvajal
and other witnesses (including Cristobal de Segovia) and by
Isasaga as scrivener. In the name of the king and of Governor
Pizarro, Aparia, Irimara, and other villages and chieftaincies
are taken possession of.
The third document, dated at Aparia, January 4, 1542,
and signed by all the Spaniards present, is a requerimiento
to Orellana in which he is besought not to lead them back upstream, but to go with them downstream, and promising disobedience if he refuses. The next day, January 5, 1542, Orellana formally accepted this proposition, but on three conditions: First, that they go eventually to some Christian land

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

from which, as a base, they would seek for Governor Pizarro;

Second, that they wait at Aparia for two or three months to
see if the governor did not come to them; Third, that a new
and larger brigantine be built so that, if the governor did not
come, they could go downstream in it in his name.
Here one would like to ask three questions: Did niot
Orellana know perfectly well that the nearest "Christian
land " downstream was Brazil ? (Of course he knew it). Why
had Orellana and his men any reason to suppose that Governor
Pizarro would look for them? How did they fancy that he
was going to do it, they having his boat with them?
Tlhese last two questions can best be answered by showing
what Friar Gaspar de Carvajal says of events at this time.
First of all, let us remember that Friar Gaspar states that
Orellana and fifty-seven men were to go off in the barco and
canoes in quest of food and that, if they did not come back in
three or four days, Pizarro was to take no more account of
them. This knocks on the head the argument that Pizarro
could be expected to look for them, and it also indicates, very
strongly, that, even thus early, Orellana was plotting an escape.
Friar Gaspar relates next that on December 28, 1541, the
barco ran on a snag and was like to sinlik,but that they beached
it and put in a new plank. Then, for three days more, the
currents swept them on at a rate of twenty to twenty-five
leagues a day, going through wilderness. Thus, as early as
December 31, 1541, they began to doubt if they could get back
and to plan to save their own skins by going downstream.
Friar Gaspar says: ". . . even if we had wished to go back
upstream (the implication being that they did not so wish),
we could not have done it because of the great currents, and
to go by land was impossible." Why, then, did they think
that Pizarro could go to them by land? Why did they not
wait for him where they were on December 31, instead of
going on?

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

289

Friar Gaspar dates their arrival at Aparia as January 8,

1542. He then describes the building of the second and larger
brigantine. He then asserts that Orellana offered to give 1,000
castellanos if six men would volunteer to go back to Pizarro
with letters and a report of what was going on, but that only
three men volunteered so that the idea was given up. Then,
instead of waiting two or three months, they started downstream on Candlemas Day, February 2, 1542.25
Friar Gaspar de Carvajal makes it all too clear that
Orellana built the second and larger brigantine on purpose
to reach the sea in it, and that only the feeblest gesture toward taking account of Pizarro and his men was made. The
astute reader -will have observed that there is a discrepancy
of three or four days between the dates given by Friar Gaspar
and those of the documents which he himself, with others,
signed at Aparia. Does this mean that the friar's memory is
faulty? Or does it mean that the documents were fabricated
afterward, and for purposes of deception?
A fourth document in this series was a second requerimiento dated March 1, 1542, and signed by all the Spaniards,
being witnessed by Carvajal and Friar Gonzalo de Vera, and
attested by the scrivener, Isasaga. This requerimiento is even
more abjectly cowardly than the first, being more cynical as
regards Pizarro. It also states that Orellana had resigned
his post as lieutenant general but that he had been required by
liis men to resume his leadership of them.
This document, it must be admitted, puts Orellana in a
somewhat better light thlan that in which he has stood hitherto.
It seems to show that he was confronted with an en mnasse rebellion against his wish to go back to Pizarro. That favorable
light would be brighter, however, were it not that, on January 5, 1542, at Aparia, Orellana had already bidden his followers to bring to him all property belonging to persons who
had remained with Pizarro.26 It is not said what he meant
25 Carvajal, in Medina, 1894, pp. 6-17.

- Medina, 1894, pp. 101-102.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

to do with that property, but it makes it seem that he was

planning an escape and did not wish to add thievery to
treachery.
lIet us now recapitulate this last stretch of evidence by
adding to our collection of points, as follows:
13. Orellana,before the Council of the Indies, at Valladolid, on
June 7, 1543, finding himself accusedby GonzaloPizarro of betrayal,
made a fivefold defense of himself which is highly unconvincing.
14. Orellana, at Aparia, on January 4, 1542, appointed Isasaga
to be scrivener in his Majesty's name so that formal acts could be
drawn up by him. Unless Orellana were already planning mischief,
it is most strange that a leader in terrible peril should indulge in
such a lawyerish move as this.
15. Orellana, on January 4, and again on January 9, 1542, was
active in taking formal possession for his Majesty of various villages
and chieftaincies. This activity, carried on with some reference to
Pizarro, does not indicate any great degree of worry and fear on
Orellana's part; but it does suggest that he was seeking to curry favor
with the king and with Pizarro on his own behalf.
16. Orellana, on January 4, 1542 (a busy day at Aparia), was
required by his men, including Friar Gaspar de Carvajal, to desist
from rejoining Pizarro upstream, the men promising disobedience
if he insisted.
17. Orellana, when he acecepted this requirement on January 5,
1542, made three stipulations, already noted. One meant nothing
(that about the Christian land) ; the second (about waiting two or
three months) was not kept; the third (about building the new ship)
was carried out by going downstream in the third boat.
18. Friar Gaspar de Carvajal-supposed by Medina to be Orellana 's chief exonerator-unconsciously makes it clear that, in all
likelihood, Orellana was planning an escape even at the moment of
his leaving Pizarro.
19. Friar Gaspar shows that, as early as December 31, 1541, the
men were wanting to get away downstream because, even if they had
wished to do so-which they did not-they could not go upstream.
20. Friar Gaspar shows that Orellana caused the new and larger
brigantine to be built at Aparia, in January, 1542, for the express

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

291

purpose of getting down to the sea in it, and that he made only a
feeble and fruitless attempt to communicatewith GovernorPizarro,
which attempt was followed, on February 2, 1542, by the treasonable
escape.
21. From the second reqmerimienito-that of March 1, 1542-it
appears that the entire expedition of Orellana insisted on being led
downstreamin the new brigantine. They insisted on this course in
the face of Orellana's own wish to try to rejoin Pizarro, which wish
was probablyunreal. Moreover,they insisted, in view of his having
resigned his post, that he resumeit and continueto lead them. Which,
obviouslyenough,was exactly what he wanted them to do.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Now, in the holy name of historical justice, let us try to

ascertain just what measure of blame can be fairly imputed
to Captain Francisco de Orellana.
The late Don Jose Toribio Medina, who was one of the very
greatest historical investigators ever produced in the Americas, devoted a section of his book to the eloquent defense of
Orellana.27 To some of his arguments we have replied, by implication, above. It is well to note here, however, that he
dates the arrival at Aparia, January 3, 1542. Referring to
the Aparia documents of January 4 and 5, he asks whether
Orellana was acting in good faith, or whether he was performing an unworthy farce. His chief argument in favor of Orellana's good faith is that it was customary among the Spaniards of the sixteenth century in America to carry scriveners
about with them before whom all sorts of legal acts could be
drawn up on all occasions.28
With all due respect for the memory of a very great historian, it may be suggested that he overlooks here certain
important facts: If Governor Pizarro had deemed it right
that Orellana and his contingent should have a scrivener with
them, he would have seen to the matter himself. Not having
a scrivener with him, Orellana confected one for himself,
27Medina, 1894, pp. lxxxi-cxxxix.

I Medina, 1894, pp.. exii-cxiii.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

292

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

namely, Is'asaga. That bit of strategy, and the documents

which came of it, look to me like unmitigated rascality on
Orellana's part, his purpose being to arm himself with papers
which would be useful to him when he should be at last face
to face-as he well knew that he would be, sooner or laterwith powerful persons profoundly suspicious of Thismotives
and acts. The scrivener-making is all the more a subject for
suspicion because the improvised scrivener 's job included
the drawing of acts of possession, which had nothing whatever to do with the task which Orellana was supposed to be
carrying out.
Medina takes up the testimony of Fernandez de Oviedo
of whom talked with members of
and of Ortiguera-both
Orellana's party-to the effect that a return to Governor
Pizarro could have been made. He casts it aside on the ground
that Ortiguera's informers did not support it. But here we
should note an important fact: In his early letter to Cardinal
Bembo, already cited, Ferntandez de Oviedo sides emphatically
with Pizarro, being much less strongly in his favor in his
book, which was written later. As for Ortiguera's informers, it should be remembered that they were all implicated in
Orellana's doings. Moreover, by the time that they signed
various documents, already mentioned, in the 1560s, Gonzalo
Pizarro had long since died a traitor's death for his rebellion
against the crown in 1544-1548. As the purpose of the documents mentioned was to extract benefits from the crown for
three former followers of Orellana, why should anything be
allowed to appear in them that might outrage authority by
seeming to put poor Pizarro in a favorable light?
On the other hand, it seems to me altogether likely that,
in his conversations with these men, Ortiguera had from them
exactly the testimony which he reports. In talking with an
historical investigator such as he was they could have no
motive for telling anything but the truth; besides, not all of
them said that a return could have been made. Therefore,

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

293

taking Fernandez de Oviedo's earlier attitude in the matter

and conjoining it with what Otiguera says, we may safely believe that some of the men thought that a return could have
been made.
One more point which Senior Medina advances in favor
of the general nobility of Orellana's character must now be
refuted. He asserts that neither the Council of the Indies
nor Hernando Pizarro, then a prisoner in Spain, had a word
to say in defense of Gonzalo Pizarro or in reproach to
Orellana. Medina who, after all, was human, has not well
interpreted the evidence. The council was in a fair way to
win the huge territories of Nueva Andalucia through Orellana's acts past and future; Gonzalo Pizarro was, two years
after his escape from the woods, in full rebellion against the
crown. Why, then, should the council take account of him?
As for Hernando Pizarro's silence, it is explained alike by
his own disgrace and by his knowing nothing whatever about
the matter. Pedro Pizarro, on the other hand, as we have
seen, knew about the affair and took his cousin's part very
decidedly.
In view of the twenty-one points which have been deduced
from the evidence, it is my studied belief, in spite of my sorrow at having to differ with the rightly revered Medina, that
Orellana plotted to abandon Governor Pizarro at the time
of leaving him, or at least very soon after, and that he sought
to strengthen his morally weak position by fabricating documents at Aparia and afterward by getting his men to choose
him as leader after he had gone through the motions of resigning. This opinion is borne out by Orellana's whole career
afterward, when in Spain, at which time he was preparing
to conquer the vast realm of Nueva Andalucia for the crown
and without reference to poor Gonzalo. He was punished by
a painful death in 1546 while seeking to enter the realm
which, so dishonorably, he had found.29 The late Don Marcos
Jimenez de la Espada-no less great an historian than Medina
`9

Medina, 1894, pp. eecx-eexxi; 1934, pp. 93, note, and 352.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

-held a low opinion of Orellana, and in this opinion I must

concur in view of the facts here shown forth.30 At the very
best he was a soft, weak-willed man of whom Friar Pablo de
Torres, the king's confidential man in the expedition to Nueva
Andalucia, wrote, in November, 1544: "The Adelantado
[Orellana] is so good that he believes everything anyone tells
him and acts on it, and he is so sweet that at times he is of
little use. '31

As for Friar Gaspar de Carvajal, it may be said that, although in general he was a good priest and a merciful man,
he was the sort of person who goes all to pieces in the deep
woods, and he was probably in a state of complete moral and
nervous breakdown after leaving Pizarro's camp. Otherwise,
one cannot explain him. No doubt they were all in a similar
state of mind and soul, and no great wonder. But Orellana,
as leader, ought not to have been so soft and so selfish. Traitor
he has often been called, and traitor he was.32
PHILIP

AINSWORTH

MEANS.

Jimne'nezde la Espada 's opinion is quoted by Medina on pp. cxxvii-cxx.

Note at p. cxxxv of Medina, 1894.
3 Works quoted in this study are as follows:
Alexander, Hartley Burr: Latin American Mythology. Boston, 1920.
Cabello de Balboa, Father Miguel: (Writing 1576-1586). Miscelanea Antartica.
MS. in the New York Public Library.
Cieza de Leon, Pedro: (Flourished 1532-1550).
The Travels of Pedro de Cieza
de Leon. (Being Part I, of the Chronicle of Peru.) Translated and edited
by Clements R. Markham. London (Hakluyt Society), 1864.
The War of Chupas. (Part IV, Book II, of the Chronicle of Peru.)
Translated and edited by Sir Clements R. Markham. L.ondon (Hakluyt
Society), 1918.
Cuineo-Vidal, Ro6mulo: Vida del Conquistador del Perui Don Francisco Pizarro.
Barcelolna, 1925.
Fernindez de Oviedo y Valdez, Gonzalo: Historia general y natural de las; Indias,
Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Oceano. Edited by Jose Amador de los Rios.
Madrid (4 vols.), 1851-1855.
Fritz, Father Samuel: Journal of the Travels and Labours of Father Samuel
Fritz in the River of the Amazons between 1686 and 1723. Translated and
edited by Rev. Dr. George Edmundson. London (Hakluyt Society), 1922.
Garcilaso de la Vega, el Inca: The Expedition of Gonzalo Pizarro to the Land of
Cinnamon, A.D. 1539-42. Translated and edited by Clements R. Markham,
3

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GONZALO PIZARRO AND FRANCISCO DE ORELLANA

295

from Pt. II, Bk. III, of the Royal Commentaries. In Expeditions into the
Valley of the Amazons, pp. 3-20. London (Hakluyt Society), 1859.
Gonztlez Suarez, Archbishop Federico: Historia general de la Repfiblica del
Ecuador. (7 volumes and Atlas.)
Quito, 1890-1903.
Herrera y Tordesillas, Antonio de: Historia, general de los hechos de los castellanos
en las. islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Oceano. (4 vols.) Madrid, 1601-1615.
(Part of Dec. VI, Bk. IX of the above).
Translated and edited by
Clements R. Markham. In Expeditions into the Valley of' the Amazons,
pp. 23-40. London (Hakluyt Society), 1859.
Jim6enez de la Espada, Marcos: La traicion de un tuerto. In Ilustracion Espanola,
August 22 and 30, 1894.
NOTE: I know this work only through Medina's citation of it.
Lopez de Gomara, Francisco: Primera y segunda parte de la Historia general de
las Indias. Antwerp, 1554.
Markham, Clemeents R.: Introduction to the Expeditions into the Valley of the
Amazons. London (Hakluyt Society), 1859.
Means, Philip Ainsworth: Fall of the Inca Empire and the Spanish Rule in Peru:
1530-1780. New York, 1932.
Medina, Jose Toribio: Descubrimiento del Rio de! las. Amazonas seguin la Relaci6n
hasta ahora inedita de Fr. Gaspar de Carvajal con otros documentos referentes a Francisco de Orellana. Seville, 1894.
NOTE: This work was brought out at the expense of the Duke of T 'Serclaes de
Tilly, owner of the manuscript which Medina used as a text for his edition of
C'arvajal. The edition was of only 200 copies, of which I have used No. 171, belonging to the Harvard College Library. Once more I wish to thank Mr. Cooke,
of Bishopstown, Ireland, for makinjg me acquainted with this valuable collection
of source materials.
The Discovery of the Amazon. Translated by Bertram T. Lee and edited
by H. C. Heaton. New York (American Geographical Society), 1934.
Melendez, Father Juan: Tesoros verdaderos de la.s Yndias. (3 vols.) Rome, 16811682.
Montesinos, Father Fernando: Memorias antiguas Historiales del Peru. Translated
and edited by Philip Ainsworth Means, with an Introduction by Sir Clements
R. Markham. London (Hakluyt Society), 1920.
Pizarro, Pedro: Relation of the Discovery and Conquest of the Kingdoms of Peru.
Translated and annotated by Philip Ainsworth Means. (2 vols.) New York
(Cortes Society), 1921.
Pizarro y Orellana, Fernando: Varones ilustres del Nuevo Mundo. Madrid, 1639.
Prescott, William Hickling: History of the Conquest of Peru. (2 vols.) New
York, 1847.
Raleigh, Sir Walter: The Discoverie of the large and bewtiful Empire of Guiana.
Edited, with Introduction, by V. T. Harlow. London (The Argonaut Press),
1928.
Rodriguez, Father Manuel: El Marafion y Amazonas. Madrid, 1684.
Tessmann, Giinter: Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg, 1930.
Zhrate, Augustin de: Historia del descubrimiento y conquista del Peru. Antwerp,
1555.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:32:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions