Download mazaua.pdf and more Exercises French Philology in PDF only on Docsity!
Pacific Maritime History
Mazaua: Magellanùs Lost Harbor
By Vicente C. de Jesús
A Lee Shore Stands For 1521 Safe Haven Thanks To Errors Of Translation,Transcription, Copying, Bad Logic, Superficial Research And An Awful Maneuver By A Philippine Government Historical Agency That Altered The Nature Of An Honest Mistake Into A Hoax
T
he chance landfall at Mazaua was a fleeting episode in the 1,081-day circumnaviga- tion of the world. (There is some confusion on exact date of arrival of the nao Victo- ria at San Lucar, Spain. One school of thought puts the date on September 6, 1522. (Joyner 235, Morison 462, Bergreen 390). Another has it on September 8, 1522. (Cachey xl, Boor- stin 266, Guillemard 294, Parr 370).) The little isle (Fig. 1) was the second landfall in Philippine waters of Magellan’s fleet. The best available evidence points to Fernão de Magalhãis as having a direct hand in naming the isle. The place-name Massawa was familiar to the Portuguese explorer. Massawa was one of two ports of entry in the Red Sea where since classical antiquity Asian luxury
Paper presented at the seminar on Pacific Maritime History at the Marine Science Institute, University of the Philip-pines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines on Wednesday, 13 Oct. 2004. It’s an updated version of the paper read before The Society for the History of Discoveries at the U.S. Library of Congress on 13 Oct. 2000.
Fig. 1. Mazaua map (detail) in the four extant manuscripts of Antonio Pigafetta and two renditions of Ambrosiana map by James Alexander Robertson and Miguel Bernad. South-north orientation was the convention at the time of Pigafetta. Key details (the cove facing village and the cross atop mountain west of isle) are not shown in the two maps at bottom.
Ambrosiana manuscript (^) Manuscript 24224
Manuscript 5650 Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex
Miguel Bernad’s Ambrosiana map (^) Robertson’s Ambrosiana map
Two events define the meaning of Mazaua for most Filipinos, the Easter Sunday mass and the planting of a large cross atop the tallest hill. The Philippines is an isolated rock of Christianity in a huge ocean lashed by the powerful waves of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu and other beliefs. Of its 84 million people 83% are Catholics, 9% Protestants. Mazaua, there- fore, is an icon to a deeply religious people, an event of overarching importance. This aspect of a signal event in world geography and Renaissance navigation has unfortunately served to distort the way the event is viewed.
The cross is almost exclusively seen here as a religious event. Viewed against the tra- dition of discovery during the Renaissance, the Spanish practice of planting the cross was to meant to signify possession of the territory, to which the French also adhered. (Seed 2) The cross was an auspicious symbol since the legitimacy of the power to own and colonize terri- tories was contingent on evangelizing the natives found there. The Portuguese, who put up stone pillars, followed the Roman tradition of putting up stone markers. (Seed 2)
Landfall Controversy Like a more famous landfall in the Atlantic a generation before Magellan’s there is a parallel debate in the Pacific Ocean side as to where Mazaua is although there is an official version that is almost universally believed except for a few holdouts. There is a major differ- ence between the Columbus first landfall controversy and the Mazaua. As far as I know, no one asks, Where was the first mass held in America? In the Philippines the only question asked is, Where was the site of the first mass, Butúan or Limasawa?
This question—as the framework against which the identity of Mazaua is being sought to be ascertained—has led to a historiographical and geographical disaster in which a lee shore—where anchoring is almost certainly impossible—represents Magellan’s safe haven. My paper will discuss the making of the Mazaua conundrum, how Magellan’s safe haven became a lee shore, and why an agency of government has willfully proclaimed what is fraudulent, and lastly I will locate where Mazaua is today.
Five Eyewitness Accounts Of nine firsthand relations of the voyage around the world, five contain references to the Mazaua episode. These accounts are represented by extant manuscripts, all mere copies of originals now lost. Every account, except the one by Ginés de Mafra and Martinho de Aiamonte, the last to surface, is represented by several copies. The accounts do not fully agree with each other—at the superficial level—and copies of a particular account are not exact duplicates; and the sequence of their publication dates have greatly influenced the blurred reconstruction of the event. These accounts are by:
A. Antonio Pigafetta —there are some 30 editions in 7 languages of the three co- dices out of four of what is universally accepted as the most complete account. (Brand 365)
- Ambrosiana codex (in Italian)—the first transcription was done by the discoverer of this manuscript, the Augustinian Encyclopedist Carlo Amoretti, 1800. His work is seen by scholars as defective because of liberties taken with Pigafetta’s text (Stanley lv). “The value of Amoretti’s find was severely undermined, however, by the fact that the text he pub- lished represented a rewriting or translation of Pigafetta’s 16th-century Italian. The editor also bowdlerized the text in an effort to ‘exposit with the necessary decency the account of some strange customs written by him [Pigafetta] in frank terms which would offend the delicacy and modesty of the reader of good taste’.” (Cachey lii) But it is the most critical in the making of Magellan’s port into Limasawa, (Fig. 2) the isle believed to be Mazaua. The work done by Andrea da Mosto for the Raccolta Colombiana ( p.V, vol. III, 1894) is the supe- rior transcription that finally established the text of the Italian manuscript. Mosto’s work was the basis for the authoritative 1906 English translation by James Alexander Robertson (Torodash 325, Joyner 345, Cachey lii) to which almost exclusively Philippine historiogra- phers owe their view of the episode. The Ambrosiana is written in 16th century chirogra- phy, certain indecipherable words have caused confusion, e.g., the king of Mazaua has been variously read as Siago, Siain, Siani, Siaui, and Siaiu. Its convoluted syntax has resulted in
that king getting interchanged with the king of Butúan, which error has been rectified by the latest editions by Pozzi and Cachey. Pigafetta’s relation has been hailed as “nearly defini- tive—and is almost universally accepted as such—as any historical document about the ac- tual events of the voyage” (Torodash 323). This fact has been wrongly translated as being also definitive in terms of the correctness of his latitude reading for Mazaua.
- Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecki-Yale codex (in French)—very likely represents the true gift manuscript that Pigafetta presented to his intended benefactor, Lord Philippe de Villiers l’Isle Adam, Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes. A facsimile edition with an accompanying volume of R.A. Skelton’s English translation ( Magellan’sVoyage: A Narrative Ac- count of the First Circumnavigation, 2 vols., New Haven,Yale UP, 1969 ) was published quite late in the day when the above errors had become too deeply ingrained in the mind and would require Herculean efforts to correct. The Yale ms. has been ignored by analysts (Bernad does not go beyond citing its title, publisher, and date of publication) which is a pity as it probably represents the settled thoughts of Pigafetta. The National Historical Insti- tute, deliberately ignored this codex and three key testimonies not found in the Ambro- sian—the west cross, the Mazauan village facing a cove, the presence of gold mines— which, if admitted into the discussion, would by themselves compel a rewriting of the his- tory of Mazaua;
- Ms. fr. 5650 (in French)—one of two French manuscripts conserved at Biblio- theque Nationale at Paris, considered my many scholars as the older and longer of the two. Transcribed and collated with the three other codices by the Belgian scholar Jean Denucé and published in 1911, and by Léonce Peillard in 1956. This like the Yale ms. has not figured in the analyses by Philippine historiographers. A good portion of Ms. fr. 5650 was translated into English by Lord Stanley of Alderley in 1874, “from page 35 until the end of the first sentence on page 94 is from Ms. 5650” (Torodash 325) including the Mazaua episode;
d. Ms. fr. 24224 (in French)—the only unpublished codex. It is heavily abridged, many details of navigation, ethnography and geography have been removed (Skelton 24); it
Fig. 3. Map of “Cap. de Gatighan” with Mazaua at top right hand corner. Orientation is south-north against today’s north-south convention. Mazaua’s location is southeast of Bohol. Note isle sandwiched between Ceilon (Panaón) and Bohol. In today’s map this isle is identified as Limasawa. By wrongly classifying Ceilon as Leyte historians have misappreciated the tracks drawn by Pigafetta and Albo. R.A. Skelton, Donald F. Lach, and Theodore J. Cachey have correctly identified it as Panaón. This map is taken from the Mario Pozzi edition of the Ambrosiana.
Fig. 5. Mazaua (upper right hand corner) in French MS. 24224, one of two extant manuscripts in the possession of Bib- liotheque Nationale and the only one unpublished still. Note houses on “stilts” facing cove and cross west of Mazaua indicating location where Magellan’s fleet anchored. None of these features are seen in Robertson’s and Bernad’s maps. The map shown here has not been published on the Net or in print.
Fig 6. Map of Cap. de Gatighan with Mazaua at top right hand corner. This black and white facsimile map in Antonio Pigafetta’s Ms. 5650 on page 112 of Jean Denucé’s editionRelation du premier voyage autour du monde par Magellan 1519-1522 corroborates map found in the Nancy-Yale codex where a cross is shown west of Mazaua. (Pigafetta's maps are oriented south-north) This cross substantiates Ginés de Mafra’s testimony the fleet anchored in a west port. Denucé book is in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., call no. G161 R31 xxiv. The map also appears, enlarged and inverted, on page 51 ofThe Philippines: Pigafetta’s Story of Their Discovery By Magellan by Rodrigue Lévesque, an English translation of the composite texts of Pigafetta’s Mss 5650 and 24224, two extant French manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Lévesque states the actual map is in four colors probably much like the Ambrosian. The Nancy-Yale map is in full color much as Ms. 24224. The Denucés map's dimensions are: height, 51"; width, 4"1mm.
- A fourth copy, supposedly bearing two signatures, Hernando and Francisco de Araujo, was being touted by a bookseller, but has not otherwise received critical study.
D. Ginés de Mafra —written by the only seaman to return to Mazaua, (CDIU 54) published in Spain only in 1920. It is the second to the last primary account to surface. It has been accessed by Western navigation historians and Magellan scholars but is almost un- known in the Philippines. An unfortunate remark by a Magellan historiographer (Torodash
- has waylaid Philippine historiographers into ignoring this most critical account in so far as solving the Mazaua problem is concerned. Schumacher, who read Torodash, does not even mention it in his brief review of eyewitness accounts. Torodash, quoting a noted geog- rapher (Brand 366) declares, “A caveat may be in order about this account: one authority maintained that it cannot be based on more than Mafra’s memory of what he might have read in a Tratado begun by Andrés de San Martín.” There is no way to prove the validity of this claim because the Tratado no longer exists and is known only from fragmentary refer- ences to it. The charge gives more weight to an imagined work than to what is existent and real.
This charge, whether true or not, ironically serves to raise the value of Mafra’s work since it possibly reflects the shared observations of two masterful pilots. In the case of San Martín, he was a genius in determining longitude with some accuracy, an ability unsur- passed for 200 years. (Joyner 178). Mafra’s testimony would revolutionize the geographic reconstruction of the Mazaua episode and directly lead to the discovery of a lost isle fused with mainland Mindanao that has the hallmarks of Mazaua. The National Historical Insti- tute, with full knowledge of expert acceptance of its authenticity and in fact after admitting it as evidence on 17 December 1996, dismissed Mafra in March 1998 giving neither expla- nation nor reason.
Two Philippine historiographers, William H. Scott and Martin J. Noone, had ac- cessed Mafra much earlier. It’s certain the two had translated the book into English inde-
pendently of each other. Both failed to grasp Mafra’s testimony on Mazaua and the revolu- tionary geographical view he depicts of the 16th century Surigao-Leyte zone.
I have been batting for recognition of Mafra’s true worth. Since 1999 I have vigor- ously advanced this cause through my membership in Discovery Exploration elist forum, an Internet group composed of many world renowned navigation, geography, cartography his- torians including Dr. Torodash himself. (Exchanges at this forum were archived at the de- funct www.escribe.com. You can Google to access it.) I believe this work has paid off. In October 2003, Bergreen came out with his book which cites Mafra almost as much as Pi- gafetta and Albo. In Rivers of Gold:The Rise of the Spanish Empire, from Columbus to Magellan , the well-respected, multi-awarded author Professor Hugh Thomas (Lord Thomas of Swynner- ton) mystifyingly goes out of his way to especially single out Mafra among the handful of names in Magellan’s fleet that he mentions.
The Ultimate Truth? Mazaua is universally believed to be Limasawa, an isle in Leyte in latitude 9 0 56’ N and longitude 125 0 5’ E. Every literature on the circumnavigation makes the ritualistic foot- note that Mazaua is present-day Limasawa. Recent writings tend to skip this ritual alto- gether, and Mazaua is not mentioned even once in Bergreen’s book.
A notable exception is French maritime historian Léonce Peillard who pays no obei- sance to this literary tradition. In fact he locates Mazaua in the Genoese Pilot’s 9 0 N (Pigafetta d 314) declaring outright the isle is in Mindanao (Pigafetta d 317). These bold as- sertions seem calculated to directly address key points in the Mazaua controversy, which has otherwise been a parochial issue unknown outside the Philippines. If Peillard’s departure from orthodoxy results from an awareness of the issue, he gives no indication, but he is the only navigation historian to hold such a maverick view. Even so Peillard gives no explana- tion of his operation in arriving at his conclusion that Mazaua is in Mindanao. For our pur- poses, therefore, his opinion while worthy of note is not all that helpful.
comer when he sailed into Philippines shores of 1521, he could not have anticipated up front which island had adequate anchorage for ships. There is logic in assuming that he an- chored his fleet in whatever island he touched at, and that island happened to be Limasawa (Mazaua) ‘ as (because) we had seen a fire (on it) the night before’. So, it was actually the light from a fire that Magellan saw, not the better anchorage which he could not have anticipated anyway, that attracted Magellan to Limasawa.” (NHI 20) This statement reveals an appalling ignorance of navigation. Soundings—knowing the nature of the ground below, its depths, the character of the sea-floor—is to navigation as grammar is to language, arithmetic is to mathematics, breathing is to living. It’s so fundamental it assumed. “The oldest navigating instrument of which we have definite evidence is the familiar lead and line, which remains the safeguard of sailors to this day.” (Taylor 35) As a great helmsman put it, “Probably the most dangerous phase of navigation occurs when the vessel is ‘on soundings.’ Since man first began navigating the waters, the possibility of grounding his vessel has been a major con- cern, and frequent soundings have been the most highly valued safeguard against that ex- perience. Undoubtedly used long before the Christian era, the lead line is perhaps the old- est instrument of navigation.” (Bowditch 14) An older “soundings” instrument was a long rod or pole.
- East Limasawa where supposedly Magellan’s fleet anchored is a lee shore. The 1993 Sail- ing Directions state: “The predominant winds are the Northeast monsoon, which prevails from October to March or April, and the Southwest monsoon, which prevails from June to September.” (Defense 197) Dumagsa is the local name for the Northeast monsoon. The phe- nomenon is alluded to in De Moluccis where a storm drives the fleet “to another island called Massana.” (Maximilian 121) This incident refers to the time the fleet left Homonhon and was coasting along the eastern side of Leyte. The lee shore, also known as the dangerous side, is improbable as the anchorage since a violent movement of the wind will dash the ships to Limasawa’s rocky shore and there is no escape from shipwreck. (Fig. 7) “Every sailor has
Lee Shore
Fig. 7. In his account of Magellan’s voyage, Ginés de Mafra said the fleet anchored west of Mazaua. This is corroborated by Pigafetta’s map in all 3 French codices. There is a technical reason why the port was west not east as asserted by the Limasawa hypothesis. It has to do with a basic rule of navigation in the Age of Sail. Renaissance ships, powered by wind, worked along the limits of nature. One unchanging “law” is that up to the 30th parallel south or north of the equator pre- vailing winds blow east to west. ( See above illustration ) These are the easterlies, the trade winds. In March and April this is further aggravated by the powerful northeast monsoon calledDumagsa by the Limasawans. The side exposed to Dumagsa is called the lee shore. It is impossible to anchor on a lee shore. Had the fleet stayed on a lee shore these will have been driven towards shore by theDumagsa and will have no way to escape shipwreck. In Maximilian Transylvanus’De Moluccis, a storm is mentioned that forced Magellan to leave Leyte towards Mazaua. This is theDumagsa. It is impossible to anchor on a lee shore.
A non-navigation historian does not appreciate the gravity of this rule. “Shipwreck” to him is just a word. To the seafarer it is the end of the world, of his dreams of wealth, of his life even. No reason is more compelling to ensure seafarers obey this cardinal rule. The idea Magellan’s fleet anchored east is navigationally untenable and has no historiographical sup- port. One writer says it is an “established” point (Bernad 28) but offers no evidence nor reasoned argument. No eyewit- ness talks of east. The NHI simply insists on its own authority that Magellan’s port was east.
East shore of Limasawa Easterlies/Dumagsa
The NHI panel declared, “Given the reality that Magellan was a first-timer/new comer when he sailed into Philippine shores of 1521, he could not have anticipated up fron which island had adequate anchorage for ships. There is logic in assuming that he anchored his fleet in whatever island he touched at, and that island happened to be Limasawa (Mazaua) ‘ as (because) we had seen a fire (on it) the night before’. So, it was actually the light from a fire that Magellan saw, not the better anchorage which he could not have anticipated anyway, that at- tracted Magellan to Limasawa.” (NHI 20) This statement reveals an appalling ignorance of navigation. Soundings—knowing the nature of the ground below, its depths, the character of the sea—is to navigation as grammar is to language, arithmetic is to mathematics, breathing is to living. It’s so fundamental, it’s simply assumed to be automatic to a seaman. “The oldest navigating instrument of which we have definite evidence is the familiar lead and line, which remains the safeguard of sailors to this day.” (Taylor 35) As a great helmsman put it, “Probably the most dangerous phase of navigation occurs when the vessel is ’on sounding.’ Since man first began navigating the waters, the possibility of grounding his vessel has been a major concern, and frequent soundings have been the most highly valued safeguard against that experience. Undoubtedly used long before the Christian era, the lead line is perhaps the oldest instrument of navigation.” (Bowditch 14) An older “soundings” instrument was a long rod or pole.
- East Limasawa where supposedly Magellan’s fleet anchored is a lee shore. The 1933 Sailing Directions state: “The predominant winds are the Northeast monsoon, which prevails from October to March or April, and the Southwest monsoon, which prevails from June to September.” (Defense 197) Dumagsa is the local name for the Northeast monsoon. The phenomenon is alluded to in De Moluccis where a storm drives the fleet “to another is- land called Massana.” (Maximilian 121) This incident refers to the time the fleet left Homon- hon and was coasting along the eastern side of Leyte. The lee shore, also known as the dan- gerous side, is improbable as the anchorage since a violent movement of the wind will dash the ships to Limasawa’s rocky shore and there is no escape from shipwreck. (Fig. 7) Well,
20
*Pigafetta states his scale of 4 n.m. to 1 legua in his book Regole sul l’arte del navigare o trattato della sfera (Treatise of Navigation). Primary sources: AntonioPigafetta (3 codices out of 4); Francisco Albo (Madrid and Paris manuscripts); Genoese Pilot (Lisbon and Paris mss.); Ginés de Mafra; Martinho de Aiamonte;. Secondary: Francisco Colín, S.J., Francisco Combés, S.J., Antonio de Brito and Antonio de Herrera. Updated Sept. 2003
R e s e a r c h , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,^ Table of Correspondence w r i t i n g , d e s i g n , l a y o u t b y V i c e n t e C. d e J e s ú s Property/ Feature M a z z a u a L i m a s a w a
1. Name Mazzaua Pigafetta, Albo, Genoese Pilot, Ginés de Mafra^ Dimasaua Colín, 1663; Murillo, 1734 Limasaua Combés, 1667^ ;^ Murillo, 1734
b
(Except copyist errors, diff.^ 2. Other names spelling, same pronuncia-tion)
Mazzavua, Mazaua, MazanaMaçaguoa, Maçagnoa, Maçangor, Pigafetta MaquamguoaMaçaguaba Mafra Genoese Pilot (^) Maçava^ Maçagua,Aiamonte 1752 Dimasaua (^) Limasaba^ Colín, 1663; San Antonio, 1744; Murillo, San Agustin; Simasaua Redondo b
3. Raia’s name Siaiu Pigafetta Yale Ms.^ Siaui, Sian, Siani, Siagu Ambrosian^ Mankao Oral Tradition^ b 4. No. of wife/ves LisabetaYsabeau Pigafetta/Ambrosian Ms. Pigafetta Nancy Ms. 5: Triana, Maangay, Udjaja, Banday,Kapudjing Oral Tradition b 5. Butúan raia Kolambu Pigafetta^ Oral tradition has nothing on this^ b 6. Kinship with Siaiu Kolambu is brother of Siaiu Pigafetta^ Oral tradition has nothing on this^ b 8. Ties w/ Cebu king Blood kin of Siaiu & Kolambu Mafra & Herrera^ Oral tradition is silent on this^ b 7. Circumference/Area 3-4 leguas/9-12 nm Mafra^ (2213 to 3930 has.) 2.0313 nm 2 or 698 has NAMRIA^ b 9. Location of islet 1. Below 1521 Butúan, 45-60 nm away2. Below Bohol and Panaón Pigafetta map^ Mafra 2. In between Bohol and Panaón1. Above 1521 & today’s Butúan b 10. Latitude 9900 40’N (^) N Genoese Pilot/Antonio de Brito Pigafetta^ ; 9^0 20’N Albo^ ;^90 56’ N^ b 11. Location of port West Mafra & Pigafetta^ East Enshrined in R.A. 273, affirmed by NHI^ b 12. Kind of anchorage Weather shore^ Lee shore: exposed to NE monsoon^ b 13. Quality of port Good^ Mafra^ Too deep, east Limasawa impossible^ b 14. Shape Circular like ray^ Pigafetta^ suggests alluvial fan^ Short, elongated like cut worm^ b 15. Language (^) Butúanon out of 80 Philippine tonguesHas “masawa,” a word found only in Waray in 1521, today Cebuano &Bolhanon, all have no “masawa” b 16. Direction of isle “Extends N by E and S by W”^ Albo^ Opposite, north-south^ b 17. Gold Plenty Pigafetta & Mafra^ No tales, what little is imported^ b 18. Gold mines Plenty^ Pigafetta MSS 5650 & Nancy^ No tales, no remnants^ b 19. Rice hectarage Considerable^ Pigafetta^ No record, soil too sandy for rice^ b 20. Wild game Plenty as to allow regular hunt Pigafetta^ Little space, biota, H^2 O argue vs wild game^ b 21. Track from Panaón West southwest Pigafetta & Albo^ West then northeast by east^ b 22. Route to Panaón Northwest (maestrale) Pigafetta^ NW & N tracks to Panaón from Limasawa^ b 23. Distance:Humunu-Mazzaua 25 leguas (100 n.m.) Pigafetta (^) * 20 leguas (80 n.m.) b 24. Distance:Mazzaua-Zzubu 35 leguas (140 n.m.) Pigafetta (^) 32 leguas (131 n.m.) b 25. Distance:Mazzaua-Gatighan/10 (^0) N 20 leguas (80 n.m.) Pigafetta (^) 1 legua (4 n.m.) b 26. Kind of houses On stilts (tall posts)^ Pigafetta^ Squat to ward off monsoon/typhoons^ b 27. Location of cross Atop west hill^ Pigafetta map/All 3 French Mss^ East of only one (1) mountain^ b 29. WSW isles w/ gold Three^ Albo^ No isle WSW of Limasawa^ b 30. Slope of mountain Gentle. Magellan’s limp precluded climbing steepincline; front of hill "cultivated fields” Pigafetta Very steep > 45%, no farmlandsin front of east Limasawa (^) b 31. Balanghai (wooden boats)^ Many^ Pigafetta^ None found so far^ b 32. Easter mass Held morning of 31 March 1521^ Pigafetta^ In Butúan not in Dimasauain Limasaua nor ButúanColín^ ; no mass, notCombés^ b
Correspond?Yes No
28. Location of village West facing a cove Pigafetta map in 3 French codices^ East
