Editing Openai/69541e93-963c-8006-8646-ec89267bdcc0 (section)

==== While the core content remains the same, there are a few substantial differences in what is included or left out in the three versions: ====
'' Verrazzano’s Marginal Notes: The Morgan manuscript contains marginal annotations by Verrazzano, often naming newly discovered places (e.g. ''“Annunciata” for a cape, ''“Francesca” for the new land, ''“Lorenna” for part of the coast, etc.). In the NHC translation, these are inserted into the text in brackets to ensure no information is lost. Ramusio’s version, on the other hand, likely integrated some of these names into the narrative (for example, saying “we named that land Francesca, after our King Francis” as part of the text) or possibly omitted others. Historical evidence suggests Ramusio did include the major names – Angoulême, Santa Margarita, and the island Louise (Aloysia) – since these were known from his publication and used by cartographers. However, certain minor names or detailed notes might have been dropped. For instance, Verrazzano notes the latitude “43⅔° N” in the Codex when off Maine; Ramusio may have rounded this or left it out. Generally, any essential marginal note (especially place-names honoring the King’s family) appears in all versions, whereas very technical or corrective notes (like a crossed-out phrase) are only preserved in the scholarly edition.
* The “Cosmographical” Reflection: Perhaps the biggest omission is that Ramusio’s 1553 publication '''left out the final three pages''' of the letter – Verrazzano’s extended philosophical discussion about the New World’s relation to Asia and the ancients’ theoriesupload.wikimedia.org<ref>{{cite web|title=upload.wikimedia.org|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/The_life_and_voyages_of_Verrazzano_.._%28IA_lifevoyagesofver00gree%29.pdf#:~:text=Magliabecchian%2C%20that%20it%20is%20impossible,by%20Ramusio%2C%20though%20it%20would|publisher=upload.wikimedia.org|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. In the manuscript (and NHC translation), this passage (summarized in the narrative overview) is quite significant: Verrazzano ponders the findings in light of classical geography, cites Aristotle, and muses on the size of the new continent. According to 19th-century research, “the cosmographical description forms the last three pages of the letter. It was doubtless intentionally omitted by Ramusio”upload.wikimedia.org<ref>{{cite web|title=upload.wikimedia.org|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/The_life_and_voyages_of_Verrazzano_.._%28IA_lifevoyagesofver00gree%29.pdf#:~:text=Magliabecchian%2C%20that%20it%20is%20impossible,by%20Ramusio%2C%20though%20it%20would|publisher=upload.wikimedia.org|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. We can only speculate why Ramusio chose to omit it – possibly to keep the letter focused on travel narrative rather than theory, or because he thought it redundant or contentious. The result is that Ramusio’s published version ends with Verrazzano’s decision to return to France and a brief mention of the voyage’s success, rather than delving into ruminations about another world. The Morgan and NHC versions include the full reflection, ending with Verrazzano’s hopeful statement about completing cosmography with the King’s support and the spread of the Gospel. This means readers of Ramusio’s collection got a slightly truncated letter, missing Verrazzano’s personal voice on the broader meaning of his discoveries. The omission does not affect the voyage events but it does remove the letter’s “big-picture” conclusion, altering the emphasis. (Ramusio ends on discovery; the manuscript ends on discovery and analysis.)
* Address and Postscript: The Morgan manuscript letter was never actually sent to the King; it served as a copy shared among Verrazzano’s Italian patrons. Accordingly, the Codex ends with a postscript: instructions that the letter be forwarded via Florentine merchants in Lyons to banker Bonaccorso di Gino Rucellaien.wikipedia.org<ref>{{cite web|title=en.wikipedia.org|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A8llere_Codex#:~:text=of%20a%20manuscript%20letter%20sent,47%20of%20New%20York|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>en.wikipedia.org<ref>{{cite web|title=en.wikipedia.org|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A8llere_Codex#:~:text=Verrazzano%27s%20journey%20in%20a%20far,made%20the%20voyage%20at%20all|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. In fact, the very last lines read: “To Leonardo Tedaldi or to Thomaso Sartini, merchants in Lyons, to be forwarded to Bonacorso Ruscellai.”. The NHC translation includes these lines, revealing the letter’s transmission. Ramusio’s version likely omitted this forwarding note, since it was irrelevant to a published anthology. Ramusio presents it as a direct report to the King (and by extension, to Europe), so he probably concluded with Verrazzano’s signature and date, not the private addresses. Thus, the manuscript version gives insight into the letter’s circulation (confirming Verrazzano shared it with financiers and friends), while Ramusio’s focuses on content.
* Editing of Language: As mentioned, Ramusio made many small edits for clarity or correctness. He corrected obvious copying mistakes and standardized terminology. For example, in a known copy, Verrazzano’s line about the Narragansett complexion was mistranscribed as “very white” when context shows he meant “tawny” or “bronze”upload.wikimedia.org<ref>{{cite web|title=upload.wikimedia.org|url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/The_life_and_voyages_of_Verrazzano_.._%28IA_lifevoyagesofver00gree%29.pdf#:~:text=published%20by%20Ramusio%2C%20we%20were,the%20whole%20exhibits%20a%20strange|publisher=upload.wikimedia.org|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. Ramusio would have fixed such errors (indeed, his printed text has them as bronze/tawny, matching the rest of the description). Another subtle edit: where Verrazzano’s draft might mix up east/west in one phrase (one note says the Codex originally had “east” where it meant “west”), Ramusio’s version presents a coherent direction. These edits don’t change narrative facts but do improve accuracy. In the table below, for instance, the closing lines show a conceptual omission (Ramusio’s ending versus the manuscript’s extended ending), while other sections show largely parallel content with only minor wording differences.
* No “spin” or Later Additions: Importantly, none of the versions adds fictitious material; in other words, Ramusio did not embellish Verrazzano’s story, nor did the translators later sanitize it (beyond wording). Earlier in history, some scholars doubted Verrazzano’s voyage (before the manuscript was found) because the Ramusio account seemed almost too idyllic (peaceful natives, bountiful lands). But the Codex’s discovery confirmed the text. For example, the kidnapping of the boy – a less flattering episode – is indeed in the original and is also in Ramusio’s text (he did not censor it). All versions acknowledge that Verrazzano’s men tried to abduct a native woman and child – hardly something invented to create a “New World paradise.” In fact, the letter’s credibility is reinforced by such incidents and the mix of positive and negative encounters. The differences between versions, therefore, stem from transmission and editing, not from intentional distortion.

The following table presents side-by-side excerpts or summaries from each version for several key sections, illustrating these similarities and differences.