Talk:First mass in the Philippines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
A fact from First mass in the Philippines appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 November 2007. |
 |
Shouldn't this be title like First mass in the Philippines? This isn't the only First Mass you know. --seav 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- That was I was thinking also. This probably not the first mass in Philippines in general and refering to painting by Francisco and Fernando Amorsolo, they named their masterpieces with First mass in the Philippines. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to modify this article a bit-changing the title and fixing the intro part. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly review if you have time. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to modify this article a bit-changing the title and fixing the intro part. --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Was the Easter mass of March 31, 1521 in Limasawa? Or Mazaua?
All the five eyewitness accounts of Magellan's voyage--by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, and Martín de Ayamonte--that contain references to a port named Mazaua, do not mention any island named Limasawa. There is no Philippine language that has that word.
In fact, the placename "Limasawa" is an invention of Fr. Francisco Combés, S.J. Combés published in 1667 a book on evangelization of Mindanao. In his story he narrates the sojourn of Ferdinand Magellan's fleet in Philippine waters. He states the fleet went to Butuan where a cross was planted on March 31, 1521. He mentions no mass held on that day.
In fact his Limasawa is not the Mazaua of Magellan. It is the isle Gatighan which is found at 10 degrees North latitude. In the story and map of Antonio Pigafetta, it is the waystation where the Armada de Molucca hove to late in the afternoon of April 4, 1521 where they caught one bat which they ate. Gatighan, like Limasawa, did not afford any anchorage.
It will be recalled Fr. Combés had no knowledge of Mazaua that was correct and factual. He in fact dismissed the account of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas who said the island-port was named Mazaua. Instead Combés opted for the garbled story by Giovanni Battista Ramusio who said the port was Butuan. Combés also dismissed the name given four years earlier by Fr. Francisco Colín, S.J., for the same island. Colín's name for Pigafetta's Gatighan was "Dimasawa," an invented word, which was to signify it is not the Mazaua of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas where an Easter mass was held. Colín and Combés both adopted the story--garbled and awfully mistaken--of Giovanni Battista Ramusio that the island-port where a mass was held was Butuan.
If Limasawa and Dimasawa are misnomers for Pigafetta's Gatighan, who then said that Limasawa and Mazaua are one and the same?
The man who said Combés's Limasawa is Magellan's Mazaua was Carlo Amoretti who had not only not read Combés but had not read a single primary account of Magellan's voyage except the Italian manuscript of Antonio Pigafetta. He certainly did not read Ginés de Mafra's account which is the most authoritative on Mazaua. Ginés de Mafra was the only crewmember of the fleet who was able to return to Mazaua, in 1543, and stayed there for about six (6) months. He was part of the expedition under Ruy Lopez de Villalobos. His testimony about the port is precise. In any case, Carlo Amoretti said in his edition of the Italian Pigafetta which he published in 1800 that Limasawa may be the island named Limasawa in the map of Jacques N. Bellin and that both are found in latitude 9 degrees and 40 minutes as located by Pigafetta. What he did not know was that Limasawa is in 9 deg. 56 minutes North, and there are three readings for Mazaua: Pigafetta's, Albo's 9 degrees and 20 minutes North, and The Genoese Pilot's 9 degrees North.
What is most telling is the fact that Limasawa, as stated by the Coast Pilot, has no anchorage. Mazaua had an excellent harbor. Philippine historians and historiographers who have entered the discussion on Mazaua are not navigation historians and therefore this technicality has not registered on them.
It is lamentable that those who're engaged in this controversy do not take the pains to trace the word "Limasawa" to its very beginning, 1667 when it was first invented by Combés who knew nothing about Mazaua, and what he knew of it was absolutely wrong. And they should indeed trace the idea Limasaw=Mazaua to Carlo Amoretti who was ignorant of what Combés's Limasawa was. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The account of Ginés de Mafra
The manuscript of Ginés de Mafra was entrusted to a shipmate in the Ruy Lopez de Villalobos expedition sometime in 1546. This was edited by an unknown hand which manuscript surfaced only in the 20th century. De Mafra's account saw print in 1920. Here are the two chapters that pertain to Mazaua. This English translation of the Spanish text is by Ray Howgego, author of the massive work, Encyclopedia of Exploration:
Chapter XI, which deals with what transpired after Magellan's departure from the Ladrones islands.
Magellan left those islands to which they had given the name of Ladrones, and sailing westwards arrived after ten days at a small but uninhabited island of pleasant aspect, lying at latitude twelve degrees north, and it was named Aguada, because they took water and firewood from it. And after another day he left this island, and sailing on his way arrived at another island three or four leagues in circumference. This island has a good harbor4 on its western side, and is inhabited. He anchored the fleet in that port, then the natives came out to welcome the fleet. On seeing the natives, Magellan saw that in such a small land there was gold, because the people were wearing it. He told his men that they were now in the land he had desired, and sent a man named Heredia, who was the ship's clerk, ashore with an Indian9 they had taken, so they said, because he was known to speak Malay, the language common to those parts. But then the interpreter was of no use for the purpose for which he had been brought along and despite his good intention and in the face of the warm welcome by the place and its people, he became drunk on the wine which they gave him. On another day, which was the Friday of the cross [Good Friday], the chief of that island came to the ship and convinced Magellan and everybody else and made peace with them according to the custom of the land which is to draw blood from the chests of both men, to toss it into a glass so that the blood unites, to mix it with wine, then for both to drink a half. Although this appears to be a ceremony for long-lasting friendship, some do not keep to it, while there are others who keep to it to the last. With this new peace [he] so much desired, the chief of that island gave the fleet as much rice and pigs as he could afford. This same chief we saw in the year fifteen forty-three by those of us in the fleet of General Ruy López de Villalobos, and he still remembered Magellan and displayed to us some of the things he [Magellan] had given him.
Chapter XII, which concerns how Magellan arrived with his fleet on the island of Cubu and how he was received and of the Christians that he made there.
Because of the gift Magellan had given to the chief of this island which is called Macagua, he gained so much affection in return that he was to be accompanied to another very large island called Cubu, where the chief was his relative, and which had rich provisions and was very prosperous and thickly populated. Magellan was much pleased by this information and arranged for the fleet to depart that day for Cubu. From the chief of Macagua, Magellan learned that a province called Butuan, on the island of Mindanao, which is somewhere fifteen leagues to the north of Macagua, possessed a large quantity of gold and that people came there from other regions solely to buy gold and other merchandise. Soon he brought the fleet close to the island of Cubu, for that route is not very long and is entirely between islands. Here the chief of Macaguaba (sicéé) left Magellan as he wanted to get ahead in a boat of small oars so that the ships’ arrival should not perturb the natives of Cubu, but as the ships had a favourable wind they arrived there much ahead of the boat. Upon sight of the ships the natives of Cubu armed themselves and with cutlasses and arrows came down to the harbour to block the exits. They gave the appearance of not having previously seen in those lands ships so large, nor of that type, as manifested by the awe that this people showed for the ships, and although in China there are bigger ships than ours, and in the Luzones it could be that until then they had not navigated those seas, because the people of Cubu had prepared to defend their port, the chief of Macagua arrived and said such words to the chief of Cubu that appeased his concern over our arrival and to welcome our fleet in their land: here the ships anchored in a good harbour which lies to the east and has a very pleasant beach with a beautiful grove of coconuts at the fringes. Here our men cheered up a lot. The people in this land gave our men much pleasure and the chief of this…
English translation by Ray Howgego —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fr. Francisco Combés and his Limasaua
The word "Limasaua" first came into being in the book of Jesuit chronicler Fr. Francisco Combés, Historia de las Islas de Mindanao, Iolo, y sus adyacentes...Madrid: Herederos de Pablo de Val, 1667.
The occasion for inventing the word pertains to an incident in the voyage of Armada de Molucca, the fleet under Captain-General Ferdinand Magellan, in Philippine waters when the fleet was anchored at the island-port named Mazaua. At the time Combés wrote his 3-paragraph story of Magellan's sojourn at Surigao Strait he had no access to authentic sources, none of the eyewitness accounts with references to Mazaua had been published. All these were published much more than a century latter, the last one by Martín de Ayamonte saw print only 266 years after. Here are the dates of publication of the eyewitness accounts: Antonio Pigafetta,1800; The Genoese Pilot, 1826; Francisco Albo, 1837; Ginés de Mafra, 1920; Martín de Ayamonte,1933. This fact would impact on the version by Combés of an incident the real story of which he did not know. The repercussions of his distorted story reverberates to this day in the 21st century four centuries after Combés had written his thin story.
Indeed, his invented word, "Limasaua", is viewed ironically diametrically opposite of what he had intended it to mean. It's only now that his true meaning is being given critical analysis. Because of Combés's limited and distorted view of the episode--which is hardly understood by historians and historiographers at work on this incident--his invention is seen as pointing to Mazaua, the real port, which in fact Combés's "Limasaua" sought to negate.
"Limasaua" is not found in any of the primary or secondary accounts of the circumnavigation voyage of Ferdinand Magellan. It is not found in the languages of the area encompassed by the story of Magellan's sojourn in Philippine waters, e.g., Cebuano, Waray Waray, Butuanon, Tausug, Surigaonon, Manobo, etc. For that matter, none of the over 100 languages of the Philippines has that word. It's a pure invention.
The word is a combination of the prefix "Li" which has no linguistic origen in any Philippine language and "mazawa" which could only have come from the Spanish chronicler Antonio de Herrera, one of three sources of Combés. His two other sources were Giovanni Battista Ramusio and Fr. Francisco Colín, S.J., whose name for the same southern Leyte isle pointed to by Combés was "Dimasaua," another neologism or invention. "Dimasaua" is made up of the Bisaya prefix "di" meaning "not" and "masawa" the placename given by Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas for the island-port where Magellan's fleet anchored from March 28 to April 4, 1521. "Dimasaua" expressly signifies the island it points to is not where an Easter mass was held by Magellan, his men, and the Mazawans.
The reason Combés did not adopt Colín's "Dimasaua" is because his story does not contain any reference to an Easter mass happening on March 31, 1521. So his name does not negate a non-existing mass.
Both Combés and Colín wrote that Magellan's fleet anchored at Butuan, adopting the story of the Renaissance travel writer Giovanni Battista Ramusio. Ramusio's work was a hopelessly garbled Italian translation of the eyewitness account of Magellan's voyage based on the text of the Colines edition. The Colines edition is a French translation by Jacopo Fabri, in reality Jacques Lefevre. This was printed at Paris anonymously for Simon de Colines with the title Le voyage et navigation faict par les Espaignolz es Isles de Mollucques, and is believed to have seen print sometime between 1526 and 1536. The Italian translation of the Colines was published anonymously in 1536 probably in Venice? and by N. Zoppini? Its title was Il viaggio fatto da gli Spagniuoli a torno a'l mondo.
This translation came out anonymously as "Viaggio attorno il mondo scritto per M. Antonio Pigafetta...tradotto di lingua francese nella Italiana" in the 1550 edition of Primo Volume delle Navigationi et Viaggi...Venetia, gli heredi di Luc' Antonio Giunti, 1550. It appeared again anonymously in the 1554 edition of Vol. I. Only in the 1563 edition was the authorship by Gian Battista Ramusio asserted and printed. Volume I was further republished in 1588, 1606 and 1613. Volume I was translated into French in 1556 and published in two volumes at Lyons.
There are clearly differences in the editions of Volume I. Colín's version follows an edition that is represented by the English translation by Richard Eden. On the other hand, Combés' follows an edition represented by the English translation by Samuel Purchas. Eden's talks of an Easter mass, Purchas' does not mention any.
Here is the English translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J. of Combés' story of Magellan's sojourn:
"The first time that the royal standards of the Faith were seen to fly in this island [of Mindanao] was when the Archipelago was first discovered by the Admiral Alonso de Magallanes. He followed a new and difficult route [across the Pacific], entering by the Strait of Siargao, formed by that island and that of Leyte, and landing at the island of Limasaua which is at the entrance of that Strait. Amazed by the novelty and strangeness of the [Spanish] nation and the ships, the barbarians of that island welcomed them and gave them good refreshments.
"While at Limasaua, enjoying rest and good treatment, they heard of the River of Butuan, whose chieftain was more powerful. His reputation attracted our men thither to see for themselves or be disillusioned, their curiosity sharpened by the fact that the place was nearby. The barbarian [chief] lived up to our men's expectations, providing them with the food they needed...Magellan contented himself with having them do reverence to the cross which is erected upon a hillock as a sign to future generations of their alliance...The solemnity with which the cross was erected and the deep piety shown by the Spaniards, and by the natives following the example of the Spaniards, engendered great respect for the cross.
"Not finding in Butuan the facilities required by the ships, they returned to Limasaua to seek further advice in planning their future route. The Prince of Limasaua told them of the three most powerful nations among the Pintados [Visayans], namely those of Caraga, Samar, and Zebu. The nearness of Zebu, the facilities of its port, and the more developed social structure (being more monarchical) aroused everyone's desire to go thither. Thus, guided by the chief of Limasaua, passing between Bool and Leyte and close to the Camotes Islands, they entered the harbor of Cebu by the Mandawe entrance on the 7th of April 1521, having departed from Limasaua on the first day of that month."''
Translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J., "Butuan or Limasawa?" in: Kinaadman, Vol. III, 1981, pages 4-5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Antonio de Herrera's Mazaua
One of the three sources of Fr. Combés was Antonio de Herrera who wrote Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas y tierrafirme del mar oceano, t. VI. Madrid: 1601. De Herrera identified Andrés de San Martín as one of his authorities for his story of Magellan's circumnavigation.
Andrés de San Martín was chief pilot-astrologer of the Armada de Molucca, one of the finest mariners of the Renaissance period, who twice during the Magellan voyage was able to determine the longitudes of two places, a feat unequaled for two hundred years. His Treatise and other papers were entrusted to Ginés de Mafra at Cebu sometime before May 1, 1521 the day a number of the fleet crewmembers including San Martín was massacred by Rajah Humabon and his subjects.
These papers were confiscated from de Mafra, a prisoner of the Portuguese, upon his arrival in Lisbon in July 1526. These papers were combed by Portuguese historians of that time and transferred to Madrid sometime during the unification of Spain and Portugal from 1580-1640.
Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas was cronista mayor or official chronicler of the Spanish royal court in 1596. Herrera extensively used the papers of San Martin and his story of the Mazaua incident was the only faithful chronicle up until 1800. De Herrera is the source of the word "masawa" for Combés "Limasaua" and for Fr. Francisco Colín's "Dimasaua." De Herrera's chirography of "Mazagua" contains "gu" which is the Hispanicized equivalent of w, a letter absent in the alphabet of Romance languages. Herrera's "Mazaua" is the only source of that word from published materials in the entire period beginning from the 16th century until 1890 when the biography of Magellan by F.H.H. Guillemard saw print; the word "Mazzava" appears on page 229 where the value of "v" is w. All the other printed documents either had "Messana" or "Massana" as the name of the island-port. Even as late as 1894, Andrea da Mosto's faithful transcription into modern Italian of the Ambrosiana codex, which established the text of Pigafetta and on which James Alexander Robertson based his classic English translation, the name of the Armada's anchorage was still "Mazana," which is a throwback to the name given by Maximilianus Transylvanus.
Here is de Herrera's reconstruction of the Mazaua incident:
"We discovered many other islands, from which we got many supplies, and an Indian Magellan brought aboard who knew the language [Malay]; navigating through these islands, there appeared a small isle called Mazagua near a small village.
"Their King [Raia Siaiu in Antonio Pigafetta's account] sent a boat with 10 men, to find out what we sailed in there for and what we were looking for and because he knew the language, Magellan [through the Malay slave, Enrique] answered:
" 'We are subjects of the King of Spain who desires peace with you. And to buy merchandise to bring and if you have food, tell us which and we will pay for those.'
"Their King replied: 'We don't have very much for our own people, but we will share what we have with you.'
"The boats brought 4 pigs, 3 goats and some rice; and because that day was the celebration of the Feast of Resurrection, Magellan ordered all to attend and hear mass, and a large cross was placed atop a high hill, and because other boats brought it there, it was evident there were Christians in that isle.
"Magellan asked the King if there was some place where they could dock. He said: "About 20 leagues away lies a big island where the King, who is my kin, would give you what you need." And because the guides were with him, here offered to go himself. The King went aboard with some Indians. Arriving at the island of Cebu (as it was called), from a village came more than 2000 men armed with lances and arrows, and from the beach looked with awe at the ships they had never seen before. The King of Mazagua landed." [Translation of pages 22-23 of Herrera's "Third Decade" by Roger C. Birosel] --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Samuel Purchas translation of one edition of Ramusio
Travel and navigation historian Samuel Purchas translated into English a version of Giovanni Battista Ramusio's Italian retranslation of Antonio Pigafetta. Purchas' work is the authority for the story by Fr. Francisco Combes, S.J. of Ferdinand Magellan's sojourn in Philippine waters. Purchas' work differs significantly from that of the original edition of Ramusio's work: it does not talk of a mass being held anywhere in the Philippines on March 31, 1521. Here is the portion that pertains to an anchorage in Butuan:
"The eight and twentieth day of March they [Magellan's fleet] came to the Iland of Buthuan, where they were honourably entertayned of the King and the Prince his sonne, who gave them much Gold and Spices. The Captaine [Magellan] gave the King a Vesture of red Cloth, and another of yellow, made after the Turkish fashion, and also a red Cap: and gave likewise to other that came with him, certaine Knyves, Glasses, and Beades of Crystall. After that the Captaine had shewed the King the secrets of his ship, and such Merchandize as hee had therein, hee caused a piece of Ordenance suddenly to be shot off, whereat the King was greatly amazed, untill the Captaine comforted him. Then the Captaine commanded one of his men to be armed from the head to the foot, and caused three other to strike him with their Swords: whereat the King marvelled greatly, and said to the Interpretor (who was a slave borne in Malacca) that one of those armed men was able to encounter with a hundred of his men. But he marvelled much more, when the Captaine told him by the Interpretor, how he found the Strait by the Compas and Loadstone, and how many dayes they were without sight of nay Land...When the King saw Antonie Pigafetta write the names of many things, and afterward rehearsed them againe, he marvelled yet more, making signes, that such men descended from Heaven. The King brought them first to his Pallace, where he entertayned them honorably, and gave them many gifts, as did also the Prince in his Pallace, being in another Iland named Caleghan.
"As they sifted a certaine Myne of Earth in the Kings Iland, they found pieces of Gold some as bigge as Nuts, and other as bigge as Egges. All the Kings Vessels...
"The Captaine or Generall caused a Crosse to be brought forth, with Nayles, and a Crowne of Thornes, giving commandement to all his men to give reverence thereunto, and signifying to the Kin gs, by the Interpreter, that that Banner was given him by the Emperour, his Lord and Master, with the comandement to leave the same in all places where hee came, to the great commoditie and profit of all such as would reverently receive it, as an assured token of friendship: and that hee would therefore leave it there, as well to accomplish his Lords commandement, as also, that if at any time any ships of Christians should chance to come that way, they might, by seeing that Crosse, perceive that our men had beene well entertayned there, and would therefore not onely abstayne from doing them any hurt or displeasure, but also helpe to ayde them against their enemies: And that therefore it should be requisite to erect that Crosse upon the top of the highest Mountaine that might be seene from the Sea on every side; also to pray unto it reverently: and that in so doing, they should not be hurt with Thunder, Lightning, and Tempests. When the Kings heard these words, they gave the Captaine great thankes, promising gladly to observe and fulfill all such things as he required. Then the Captaine demanded, whether they were Mores or Gentiles? They answered, that they had none other kind of Religion, but that lifting up their hands joyned together, and their faces toward Heaven, they called upon their God Abba. Which answere liked the Captaine very well, because the Gentiles are sooner perswaded to our Faith then the Mores.''
"Departing from hence, they came to the Ilands of Zeilon, Zubut, Messana, and Calaghan, by the conduct of certaine Pilots of the said Kings. Of these, Zubut is the best, and hath the Trade of best Traffique. In the Iland of Messana they found Dogges, Cats, Hogges, Hennes, Goates, Ryse, Gynger, Cocus, Myll, Panicke, Barly, Figges, Oranges, Waxe, and Gold, in great quantitie. This Iland is above the Equinoctiall toward our Pole nine degrees, and two third parts, and a hundred threescore and two degrees from the place from whence they departed. They remayned in this Iland for the space of eight dayes, and then directed their Voyage toward the Northwest, and passed between these five ilands, Zeilon, Bohol..." From: Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgimes, Containing a History of the World in Sea Voyages and Lande Travells by Englishmen and others By Samuel Purchas, B.D., Volume II. Glasgow,1625.--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Giovanni Battista Ramusio account as translated by Richard Eden
In 1536 a book came out anonymously, probably published by Zoppini? in Venice? There is no certainty as to who the publisher was and where it was printed. This was a retranslation back to Italian of a French translation supposedly by Jacopo Fabri from an original Italian text of Antonio Pigafetta's account of the Magellan voyage.
This same Italian translation came out again anonymously in Vol. I of a compilation of travel accounts titled Delle navigationi e viaggi...Venice: Pp. 380-98. In the 1554 edition of Vol. I, the account again appears anonymously. Only in the 1563 edition does the name of Giovanni Battista Ramusio appear as author.
This edition was translated into English by Richard Eden, a graduate of Cambridge University, who published his compedium of travel stories in 1555 under the title The Decades of the Newe Worlde or West India...Wrytten by Peter Martyr...and translated into Englysshe by Rycharde Eden. London, G. Power. Ramusio's work came under the title "A briefe declaration of the vyage or nauigation made abowte the worlde. Gathered owt of a large booke written hereof by Master Antoine Pygafetta..."
The spelling is quaint English of the Elizabethan era.
"The XXVII daye of Marche, they came to the Ilande of Buthuan where they were honorably interteyned of the Kynge and the Prince his soonne who gave them muche golde and Spice. The capitayne gave the kynge a vesture of red clothe and another of yelowe made after the Turkysshe fashyon, and also a red cappe....
"The laste day of Marche neare unto Easter, the capitaine caused his preeste to say masse, and sente to the kynge by the interpretoure, that his commynge a lande at that tyme was not to dyne with hyme, but only to heare masse. The Capitayne came alande with fyftie of his men in theyr best apparel with owte weapons or harnesse, and all the resydue well warmed. Before the boates came to lande, he caused fire pieces of ordinaunce to be shotte of in token of peace, and so came aland, where the two kinges embraced hym, and accompanyd hym to the place appoynted for masse to be sayde not farre frome the seasyde. Sumwhat before the beginnynge of masse, the Capitayne sprinkeled the kynges with damaske water. When the preeste was at mid masse at the offertorie, the kings profered them sclues to go to kysse the crosse with the capytayne, but offered nothynge. At the tyme of sacringe when the preeste lifted uppe the bodie of Christ, and the Christians kneeled downe and helde uppe their handes joyned together, the kinges dyd the like also with greate reverence. In the same tyme, whyle certeyne of the Christians were at the communion, a handegunne was shotte of to signifie unto theym that were in the shyppes, to discharge all thyre ordinaunce. When masse was fynysshed, the Capitaine caused certeyne of his men to put on theyr harness and to make a combat with theyr naked boddies, wherat the kynges tooke great pleasure. This doone, the Capitaine caused a crosse to be brought forth, with nayles and a crowne of thornes, gyvynge commandement to all his men to gyve reverence therunto, and signifyinge to the kynges by the interpretour that that banner was..."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk • contribs) 03:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC) --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fr. Francisco Colín's "Dimasaua"
Fr. Francisco Colín, S.J., wrote an epitome of Ferdinand Magellan's voyage in Philippine waters four years before Fr. Francisco Combés, S.J. Colín was a meticulous historian who showed reverential respect for his sources whom he acknowledges unlike Combés who assigns to his reader the task of finding out where he got his ideas. Colín names Giovanni Battista Ramusio work as his source of Antonio Pigafetta, not knowing the garbling of the Mazaua episode where Ramusio replaces Mazaua with Butuan. He also mentions Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas as source. From de Herrera he got the word "masaua"--spelled "Mazagua" by Herrera, his gu being the equivalent of w which is absent in the Spanish alphabet--as well as the name "Las Velas" (the Sails) which is the name for Guam. De Herrera is also the source of the information that the chiefs of Cebu, Butuan, and Mazaua are blood kins which fact is also contained in the account of Ginés de Mafra. De Herrera's source for this information was Andrés de San Martín whose papers and navigational notes were in the possession of de Mafra for five years. These papers were confiscated by the Portuguese and deposited in a Lisbon archive where these were accessed by contemporary historians like João de Barros, Gaspar Corrêa, Damião de Góis, and others. These papers were later transferred to Madrid during the union of the two Iberian kingdoms, 1580-1640.
Colín faced a dilemma whose solution created a geographical conundrum that has yet to run its course. In Ramusio's story the port where an Easter mass of March 31, 1521 was celebrated at "Butuan." In de Herrera the port was "Mazaua" and this is where the Easter mass was held.
Colín adopted the Ramusio version of the episode assuming it was the eyewitness report of Pigafetta. He therefore rejected de Herrera's version. This rejection is signified by the coined word--a pure invention--"Dimasaua" which means "not the Mazaua that de Herrera asserts to be where the 'First mass in the Philippines' was held." Colín's "Dimasaua" points to an tiny island west of the island of Panaon in southern Leyte. In the 1734 map of Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, S.J., which the French Encyclopedist-cartographer Jacques N. Bellin copied, this isle is named "Limasaua," Combés's name for the isle. In the map of Antonio Pigafetta (in all four extant codices, namely, the Italian Ambrosiana, the French Beinecke-Yale codex, French Manuscript 5650, and French Manuscript 24224) there is such an isle sandwiched between Bohol and Panaon. Pigafetta's name for the isle is "Gatighan."
Colín's solution is adopted by Combés but not totally. Combés rejects the prefix "di" which he changes to "li," an enigmatic prefix that has no antecedent in a Philippine language nor Spanish or Italian or French. He rejected the dismissive connotation of "di" because his story does not contain any reference to an Easter mass. This is the supreme irony of the popular belief Combés "Limasawa" is where an Easter mass was held in March 31, 1521.
Colín had no access to any eyewitness report. These were published much later than 1664: Antonio Pigafetta,1800; The Genoese Pilot, 1826; Francisco Albo, 1837; Ginés de Mafra, 1920; Martín de Ayamonte,1933.
Here is the pertinent portion of Colín's story on the Mazaua incident from the English translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J.:
"At the end of three months and twelve days during which they traversed 4,000 leagues, having crossed the Equator a second time, they climbed up to 15 degrees North latitude where they came upon two islands which they named Las Velas [the Sails]. At 12 degrees North they came upon the Ladrones Islands. A few days later they saw the island of Ibabao [Samar] in this Archipelago. But the first island they touched was Humunu, a small uninhabited island near Guiuan Point...To that and other islets they gave the name of Buenas Señas [Good Omens] but to the entire Archipelago they gave the name San Lazaro, being the Saturday of Saint Lazarus' Sunday in Lent of the year 1521.
"On Easter Day, in the Territory of Butuan, the first Mass ever offered in these parts was celebrated and a cross planted. Magellan then took possession of the Islands in the name of the Emperor and of the Crown of Castile.
"The man who gave the most signal service to our men was the Chief of Dimasaua [sic] a relative of the chief of Butuan and that of Zebu, whither he led the armada, which entered that harbor at noon on the 7th of April, the Octave of Easter."
Source: Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence." In: Kinaadman, Vol. III,. 1981, p. 2-3.--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First mass in the Philippines and Limasawa, Southern Leyte contradict one another
I've placed {{Contradict-other}} tags on this article and on Limasawa, as the two articles seem to contradict one another on the location of the first mass. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Original research, factual accuracy, and more sources tags
I've the article for these three issues. The article reads like it was written by someone arguing the case for the location of the first mass, with their conclusion being that it was not on the island of Limasawa. The sentence in the introduction:
- "at a location today universally—and mistakenly—believed to be Limasawa,"
...seems to indicate this issue; if the Limasawa is "universally" believed to the site, then that's what should be reported here, regardless of its intrinsic factual accuracy. Wikipedia isn't an academic journal, it's a an encyclopedia. Likewise, the first two sections read more like a historical thesis than an encyclopedia article, with little bearing on the ostensible subject of this article. --Xiaphias (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was settled by the ruling agency that Limasawa should be considered as the venue of the first mass and even erected cross there to commemorate this highly important event. The editor is kinda still arguing about it. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your reservations and other issues you raised. It's important for you to trace the very beginning of the word "Limasaua" which dates only to 1667 when the word first appeared in print. It is found in the book by Fr. Francisco Combés, S.J., who had not read a single primary account. He did read the secondhand account by Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas who wrote the mass was held at Mazaua (he spells it Mazagua). Combés disregarded or dismissed Herrera's account of the incident at Mazaua. More to the point, he does not talk of any mass anywhere. Limasaua and a mass are foreign to one another. I have the full text of Combés's 3-paragraph narration of the March-April 1521 episode. Those who write about Limasaua being the site of the "first mass" view this episode from an either-or proposition, "Where is the site of the first mass, Limasawa or Butuan?" This is not just a fallacious way of framing the issue of the identity of Mazaua--asking the reader to choose between two options both of which are false, Limasaua has virtually no anchorage, while Butuan is not an island--which is an isle with a good, or even excellent, anchorage. As a logical construct, the question is no different from asking, "Where is New York, in England or Timbuktu?" Or, to make it more plain, "Who is Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or George Bush?" Mazaua was an isle that is described precisely by Ginés de Mafra, the only seaman during all of the 16th century to visit it twice, in 1521 with Magellan and in 1543 with the Villalobos expedition. And he stayed from 4 to 6 months, so his description of the isle is the most authoritative. For Wikipedia to repeat a blatant mistake--that Limasawa is Mazaua--is to ignore direct evidence that negates this notion. My Wikipedia article on de Mafra gives his specific testimony that invalidates the idea Limasaua is the perfect, total, exact equal of Mazaua. Aside from the fact Mazaua has a good anchorage and Limasawa has none, de Mafra states Mazaua is located south of Butuan of 1521 some 45 nautical miles below it. In that article I provide the reference point used by de Mafra which is today's Surigao at Bilaa Pt. Forty-five nautical miles below that would be at 9° N latitude, The Genoese Pilot's latitude for Mazaua. Limasaua is at 9° 56' N. At this latitude there is no isle the naked eye can see. But a group of geologists, archaeologists and a geomorphologist has discovered an isle here. The only reason we have not declared this as Magellan's port is we have not done any extensive archaeological digging yet for lack of funds. But artefacts found here definitely prove it was inhabited prior to the European visits. We found a metal pestle here that is of European provenience. An Italian nuclear scientist, Dr. Vasco Caini, has raised the possibility this could have been the one brought by Magellan. The object has not been dated. The notion Limasaua is Mazaua was first asserted by Carlo Amoretti. Amoretti had not read Combés whose Limasaua is in fact a negation of Mazaua and a dismissal of the idea a mass was held anywhere in the Philippines on March 31, 1521. Amoretti, except for one extant manuscript of Pigafetta, the Ambrosiana, had not read Ginés de Mafra, Francisco Albo, the Genoese Pilot, and Martín de Ayamonte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er, yeah...this really just supports the "original research" assertion. You might be entirely correct in your theory, Vincente; but Wikipedia isn't the appropriate vehicle for its disbursement.--Xiaphias (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was asking for direct verifiable reliable citations. Where are those sources? --Efe (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is not a perpetrator of hoaxes
For thousands of years, it was "universally" believed the earth was flat. If Wikipedia was already there at the point Magellan had proven the world is round, but people still believed it was flat, what will Wikipedia write? That the world was flat, because maybe 99.9999% of the world's people "knew" it was flat?
The excerpts above by Colíin, Combes, and their sources, namely, Giovanni Battista Ramusio, Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, Samuel Purchas, Richard Eden should tell you Limasawa cannot be Mazaua. The author of Limasawa had not read a single authentic eyewitness account, these are by Antonio Pigafetta, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, Ginés de Mafra, and Martín de Ayamonte. He not only did not know Mazaua, when he read the true story of this episode by Antonio de Herrera, he rejected Herrera. Instead he read and adopted the garbled, corrupted, botched version of Pigafetta by Ramusio.
Those who will attempt to edit this ought to be experts in navigation history or at least have a respectable amount of knowledge of it and who have read Pigafetta, de Mafra, Albo, Ayamonte, etc. Otherwise, you will be substituting your ignorance for true knowledge of those who have read the canons of Magellan historiography. Does ignorance have a higher premium at Wikipedia?
How could people who know nothing about Magellan historiography have the competence to edit anything that pertains to that aspect of human knowledge?
For a start, please go to http://www.xeniaeditrice.it/mazaua.pdf to have some background knowledge of Mazaua. And please read the Ginés de Mafra account which contains mathematically measurable description of Mazaua. He says Mazaua had a circumference of 3-4 leguas or 9-12 nautical miles. You can convert circumference to area using a known mathematical formula which Wikipedia has. This makes the area of Mazaua from 2300 up to 3930 hectares. What is the area of Limasawa? A maximum of 698 hectares. Mafra says Mazaua was south of 1521 Butuan, some 45 nautical miles below. Where is Limasawa? Above today's Butuan, above 16th century Butuan. He said Mazaua had a good anchorage for sailing ships (please note we are not talking of mechanized ships). Limasawa has no good anchorage for present-day motorized boats and all the more sailing ships.
Please read the account by the inventor of the word Limasawa, Fr. Francisco Combés. If you find any reference there of a mass anywhere on the planet, I'll keep my mouth shut. Now if you don't find any, please think hard about writing of "established" (which is another word for "long held belief") beliefs on the "First mass in the Philippines." Belief is not proof!--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ruling of NHI turned an honest error of Amoretti to a hoax
Please read the Philippines' National Historical Institute "decision" which is published in full at the Discussion page of the article on Ginés de Mafra. Read it well. Here is what NHI did: 1) It dismisses the Ginés de Mafra account as fake, therefore his testimony is no longer part of the discussion; 2) After dismissing de Mafra and many other arguments with proof (you can see these in my article at the website of Italian nuclear scientist Dr. Vasco Caini at http://www.xeniaeditrice.it/) NHI returned to the old discussion where it appears I am trying to say the Easter mass was held at Butuan. How could have I argued for Butuan when I in fact traced this error to Giovanni Battista Ramusio. And how could I argue for Butuan when it is crystal clear that the isle was Mazaua as described by de Mafra.
Let me explain this casuistry. Suppose we are arguing the proposition, Where is New York, in Africa or Malaysia? At the beginning I argue it was in Malaysia. Then I read in Wikipedia that New York is in the U.S. and not Africa or Malaysia. I cite as my source Wikipedia which explicitly says New York City is in the U.S.A. Suppose NHI dismisses Wikipedia as untrustworthy, irresponsible, a perpetrator of hoaxes, a protector of falsehoods. After dismissing Wikipedia, it again goes back to my old argument that New York is in Malaysia. Since Malaysia is clearly not where New York is, therefore, it stands to reason that it is in Africa. In the case of de Mafra, NHI simply dismisses it as fake. It gives no explanation, no reason. It simply arbitrarily dismisses it! And with full knowledge it is authentic and that no navigation historian who knows Magellan historiography has ever raised doubts as to its authenticity. At least in our discussion, it dismisses Wikipedia for its untrustworthiness, irresponsibleness, its fidelity to falsehood. Now, gentlemen, is New York in Africa?
Limasawa was never Mazaua. It became Mazaua when Carlo Amoretti wrote that it may be because it is in 9° 40' North. Wikipedia editor Mark Anthony Efe is from southern Leyte where Limasawa is. (Nothing personal Mr. Efe, but I have a good grasp of all the Magellan scholars and navigation historians who have worked on the Mazaua issue, I don't think I have read your name, nor Xiapas). The isle is not in Pigafetta's latitude 9° 40' North, it is in 9° 56' North; its northernmost point is at almost 10° N which is the latitude for another lost Magellan isle, Gatighan. Amoretti had not read any of the primary sources except the Ambrosiana, he had not read any of the secondary sources either. What happened is that every succeeding historian after Amoretti simply repeated his dictum. If you have not read Ginés de Mafra there is no way you can locate Mazaua.
By the way, the entire English translation of Amoretti by John Pinkerton can be accessed at Google books. You can see the two footnotes of Amoretti saying "Limassava" may be "Messana." You can download the entire book for free!
Now, can you understand the fallacious nature of NHI's decision? --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is Wikipedia a perpetrator of hoaxes
Now that I have explained the nature of Limasaua, the product of ignorance which led to Amoretti's equally ignorant assertion which ended as a hoax perpetrated by the National Historical Institute, will Wikipedia insist on perpetrating this hoax?
I hope the editors will think hard about the moral responsibility facing them. Will you insist on pushing a lie, a falsehood, a hoax?
In my article, I only say the real isle is Mazaua which is what is written by the primary and secondary sources. Are you now going to insist that it is not Mazaua but Limasawa? --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, this dispute is spread out over the talk pages of several articles. It would be a good idea to consolidate the discussion in one place, but fat chance. whether the discussion is consolidated or fragmented, it would be a good idea if participants in the discussions would realize,understand, and accept that WP is not in the business of deciding which of the several varied accounts are true — WP is in the business of reporting all of the varied accounts and attributing those accounts to their various supporting sources. Should some conclusion emerge outside of WP about which accounts are likely right and which are likely wrong, WP is in the business of reporting the emergence ofsuch a conclusion. Please, people, readWP:V. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia a perpetrator of hoaxes.[citation needed] --Efe (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It should be clear by now that between the thirdhand account of Combés, that says the port of March-April 1521 was Butuan, and the eyewitness relations--by Pigafetta, Albo, de Mafra, The Genoese Pilot, Ayamonte--and even the secondhand account works by Maximilianus, de Brito, and Herrera, that say the anchorage was Mazaua, this is a no brainer. How can a thirdhand account be superior to the firsthand? It's incredible if WP will insist Combés is much better than Pigafetta, Albo, de Mafra, etc. This is simply unthinkable! --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite of article
If no one beats me to it, I'll be rewriting this article in a day or two to reflect academic consensus. Vincente, if your theory is tenable, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal — Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-publication. It isn't our business to determine truth; we simply analyze the efforts of others in this pursuit. --Xiaphias (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] If WP is not for truth, is it for falsehood?
What Xiaphias is trying to say--and I don't think Wikipedia is not interested in truth, otherwise it will be seen as being not interested in anything--is WP cannot be for any partisan side in any conflict. In which case, there can be no conflict if you write what the eyewitnesses wrote. How did they describe Mazaua? What did Antonio Pigafetta say? What did de Mafra? Albo? The Genoese Pilot? Martin de Ayamonte?
Then you're on safe ground by just telling the truth without siding with anyone. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- After monitoring these discussions, I think it would be fair now for me to speak. Try a balanced, neutral presentation of the information (as in respect for the placings of both Masao and Limasawa). As much as Wikipedia can't be a vehicle for the propagation of alternative truths (statement being because the NHI would think of a landing in Masao as being false), it can be a vehicle for a presentation of both sides of the story. If you can balance out the information from the NHI (for Limasawa) and the information presented (for Masao/Butuan City), a comparison of both sides of the story can be ironed out from the information. It doesn't have to be that the information can be discarded, but rather, it can be kept in such a manner as that the decision to name Limasawa as the site of the first Mass as being controversial (I think there are newspaper articles on the issue). --Sky Harbor 04:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps you should stop inferring what I'm "trying to say," and look instead at what I've actually said: Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Just because your original research revealed the absolute truth (rectifying the lies and deceit of historians) doesn't exempt it from this policy or justify its inclusion. But I agree with Sky Harbor: if you can find newspaper articles or other sources that support the notion, it may be noted within the article that some controversy exists. --Xiaphias (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's a history textbook, The Philippines: A Unique Nation, that supports the notion of a landing in Masao than in Limasawa. Discussion took place in the Philippine notice board. --Sky Harbor 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps you should stop inferring what I'm "trying to say," and look instead at what I've actually said: Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Just because your original research revealed the absolute truth (rectifying the lies and deceit of historians) doesn't exempt it from this policy or justify its inclusion. But I agree with Sky Harbor: if you can find newspaper articles or other sources that support the notion, it may be noted within the article that some controversy exists. --Xiaphias (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Masao is not an island
The isle at issue is named Mazaua. It was a land mass surrounded by sea water. Masao is a spit. It was a mangrove area, not an island.
The idea Masao was Mazaua actually stemmed from the erroneous notion the port, Mazaua, was Butuan. Some bright Butuanon historian fabricated a Philipiine Gazeteer entry describing Masao as being surrounded by water, Butuan Bay and Masao River. The entry was a product of dishonesty, and even then it is patently false because Masao River is not sea water.
Please bear this in mind: Mazaua was an island. An island is a land mass that is surrounded by sea water. Pls go to the Wikipedia definition of island or isle at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also please reread the rules of Wikipedia. It is not couched in absolutes. Truth must ever be the end goal of any article, especially when the other choice is falsehood. Sky Harbor is quite right, and I was in fact trying to tread the line of just presenting first what the eyewitnesses described.
I would hope the editors of Wikipedia who probably have not had any exposure to Magellan historiography, i.e., haven't read any of the eyewitness reports, should at least first read the story of Limasawa by Fr. Francisco Combés, S.J., who is the author of the Limasawa story. There are few absolutes you can say in this controversy, but there is one ABSOLUTE thing one can say: There is no reference to any mass anywhere in the Philippines in that story. Another ABSOLUTE: Combés nowhere says that Limasawa is the port, Mazaua, where Magellan's fleet anchored on March 28-April 4, 1521. Another absolute: Combés had NOT read a single eyewitness account therefore it's impossible he would have known Mazaua. Another ABSOLUTE: Combés rejected the story of Mazaua by Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, he opted for the erroneous story of Ramusio that the port was Butuan. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
