Historical Shift of Opinion: Butuan to Limasawa (PDF)

II. The Shift in Opinion How then did the shift in opinion --- from Butuan to Limasawa --- come about? How was the Butuan tradition --- so well entrenched for three centuries ---finally dislodged? Some recent defenders of the Butuan tradition have blamed the shift of opinion on two Americans, namel...

II. The Shift in Opinion How then did the shift in opinion --- from Butuan to Limasawa --- come about? How was the Butuan tradition --- so well entrenched for three centuries ---finally dislodged? Some recent defenders of the Butuan tradition have blamed the shift of opinion on two Americans, namely Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, whose 55-volume collection of documents on the Philippine Islands was published in Cleveland from 1903 to 1909. But the "blame" (if blame it is) does not rest alone upon Blair and Robertson. They indeed contributed enormously to the shift in opinion but the man initially responsible for the shift seems to have been a Spanish Jesuit scholar. Father Pablo Pastells S.J. A word about career of this remarkable man may not be out of place before we proceed. Pablo Pastells was born in 1846 in Figueras, in the province of Gerona, Spain. At 15 he entered Condliar Seminary in Barcelona which at the time was directed by the Jesuits, and eventually, at the age of 20, he entered the Jesuit novitiate in Spain and later did further studies in France. He was ordained a priest in 1871, and five years later came to the Philippines (1875), where, after a brief stay in Manila, he was assigned as a missionary to Mindanao. He served on the Pacific coast (Bislig, Caraga, Cateel) and took part in an expedition in 1884 that explored the Agusan River to its sources. In 1887 he was transferred to the northern coast of Mindanao, with headquarters at Jasaan in Misamis Oriental. The following year he was recalled to Manila and was appointed Superior of the entire Jesuit Mission in the Philippines, a post which he occupied for six years (1888-1893). It was after he left the Philippines and returned to Barcelona that he did his most notable work as a scholar. He collected an enormous amount of documents from the Archivo de Indias in Seville and from other sources. He also had at his disposal the magnificent Philippine library of the Tabacalera (Compañia Gereal de Tabacos de Filipinas) in Barcelona. Pastell's published works included (a) his three-volume dition of Colin (Madrid 1903); (b) his three-volume History of the Jesuit Missions in the Philippines in the 19th Century (Barcelona 1916-17); and (c) his History of the Jesuits in Paraguay (Madrid 1912). He had earlier collaborated with Retana in the latter's edition of Combes (Madrid 1897). The shift in opinion from Butuan to Limasawa was due to a rediscovery and a more attentive study of two primary sources on the subject: namely, Pigafetta's account and Albo's log. What the effect of that study was may be seen in the change in Pastell's thinking. Pastells had collaborated with Retana in a new edition of Combes. Retana (as we have seen) had accepted the Butuan tradition in his edition of Martinez de Zuñiga in 1893. In their joint edition of Combes of 1897, neither Retana nor Pastells showed any sign of change of opinion. They accepted the Butuan tradition as if they were not aware of any contrary opinion. Meanwhile, however, Pastells was preparing his own edition of Francisco Colin's Labor evangelica, which was eventually published in three volumes in Madrid in 1903. While preparing that edition, Pastells had occasion to restudy both Pigafetta and Albo, and it was then that he realized that the three-century Butuan tradition had been erroneous. Colin, of course (as we have seen earlier) had contributed materially to the strengthening of that tradition by stating that the first Mass had been celebrated aat Butuan. To that statement Pastells appended a footnote: Magellan did not go to Butuan. Rather, from the island of Limasawa he proceeded directly to Cebu. In that island he had dealings with Rajah Siagu, chieftain of Butuan; and this would explain the author's [i.e. Colin's] error. See the "Voyage" of Pigafetta and the diary of Albo, both of whom were eyewitnesses. We have spoken of the "rediscovery" of Pigafetta's account and of Albo's log. The word "rediscovery" is not unwarranted. Although these works had been published earlier and were available in the great libraries, they were not well known to many people at the time. Or those who knew of these works may not have studied them with the attention that they deserved. This may explain how such a well-read scholar and bibliographers like Retana did not seem to take them into consideration when preparing his editions of Martinez de Zuñiga and of Combes. How little known Pigafetta's work was may be illustrated from the experience of Rizal. Rizal apparently had not known of Pigafetta's work until he came across the Italian text in the British Museum. To "Plaridel" (Marcelo H. del Pilar) who was in Spain, Rizal wrote from London on 4 February 1889. See to it that someone there should learn Italian, because I have here some manuscripts in Italian that deal with the first coming of the Spaniards to the Philippines. They were written by one of Magellan's companions. As I have no time to translate them myself, being busy about many things, it would be good if one of our countrymen should translate the work into Tagalog or Spanish, so that the situation of our people in 1520 may become known. Italian is easy to learn. By the Ahn method it can be learned in one month. I am now learning Dutch. It seems dear from that passage that Rizal had not previously known of Pigafetta's work and that he took it for granted that the other Filipinos in Spain knew nothing of it. A fact such as this makes us realize what a great service to the Philippine scholars was made by James A. Robertson when he reproduced the Italian text of Pigafetta's account, together with an English translation. Robertson's work came out in a limited three-volume edition published in Cleveland in 1906. But it was given wider circulation when it was incorporated into the larger series, comprising volumes 33 and 34 of Blair and Robertson's The Philippine Islands. Pastells' footnote on Colin, therefore, and the inclusion of the Pigafetta account in the Blair and Robertson series must be considered the main reasons for the shift in scholarly opinions regarding the site of the first Mass. Among the Philippine scholars of the early 20th century who rejected the Butuan tradition in favor of Limasawa were Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Jayme de Veyra. The Limasawa opinion has been generally accepted since then, although there is still today a small but vigorous group determined to push the Butuan claim. III. The Evidence for Limasawa We now come to the evidence in favor of Limasawa. The evidence may be outlines as follows: 1. The evidence of Albo's Log-Book 2. The evidence of Pigafetta a. Pigafetta'd testimony regarding the route; b. The evidence of Pigafetta's map; c. The two native kings; d. The seven days at "Mazaua"; e. An argument from omission. 3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta. 4. Confirmatory evidence from Legazpi expedition. 1. The Evidence of Albo's Log-Book Francisco Albo joined the Magellan expedition as a pilot ("contramaaestre") in Magellan's flagship "Trinidad". He was one of the eighteen survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the "Victoria" after having circumnavigated the world. Albo began keeping his owri diary --- merely only a log-book - on the voyage out, while they were sailing southward in the Atlantic along the coast of South America, off Brazil. His account of their entry into Philippine waters (or, as it was then called, the archipelago of San Lazaro) may be reduced to the following points: a. 'On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from the Ladrones, they saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it. They found later that its name was Yunagan. b. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island name Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniard's approach. The island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude. c. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of "Gada" where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around the island was free from shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta's testimony, this seems to be the "Acquada" or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.) d. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani which was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani calls it, "Ceylon" was the island of Leyte. or, as Pigafetta e. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small island called "Mazava". That island is also at a latitude of (and two-thirds degrees North. f. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they were told there was much gold. "They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils." g. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed to the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands. h. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of which was called "Matan" and the other "Subu". i. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local king. j. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but had to go 9as they did) in a round-about way. Such is Albo's testimony. The island that he calls Gada seems to be the acquada of Pigafetta, namely the island of Homonhon where they took in supplies of water and wood. The large island of Seilani which they coasted is the island of Leyte. Coasting southwards along the eastern coast of that island, then turning southwest they came upon a small island named, Mazava, which lies at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North. That fits the location of the small island of Limasawa, south of Leyte. The island's southern tip is at 90 54' Ν. It is to be noted that Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest. This also fits the southern end of Limasawa. It does not fit the coast of  Butuan from which no islands could be seen to the south or the southwest, but only towards the north. 2. The Evidence from Pigafetta The most complete account of the Magellan expedition is that by Antonio Pigafetta entitled Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Like Albo, he was a member of the expedition and was therefore an eyewitness of the principal events which he describes, including the first Mass in what is now known as the Philippine Archipelago, but which Magellan called the Islands of Saint Lazarus. Of Pigafetta's work there are two excellent English translations, one by Robertson (from the Italian) and another by Skelton (from the French). The pertinent section in Pigafetta's account is that part in which he narrates the events from the 16th of March 1521 when they first sighted the islands of the Philippine Group, up to the 7th of April when the expedition landed at Cebu. That was a period of approximately three weeks. In examining the evidence from Pigafetta, we shall consider five points: (a) Pigafetta's testimony as regards the route taken by the expedition from the Pacific Ocean to Cebu; (b) The evidence of Pigafetta's map; (c) The presence of two native kings; (d) The events of the seven days at the island of "Mazava"; and (e) An argument from omission. (a) Pigafetta's Testimony Regarding the Route The route taken by Magellan expedition may be constructed if we follow Pigafetta's account day by day. Here is a summary of his account. 1. Saturday, 16 March 1521. Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land" named "Zamal" which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands. 2. Sunday, March 17. "The following day" after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on "another island which was uninhabited" and which lay "to the right" of above-mentioned island of "Zamal." (To the "right" here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The name of this island was "Humumu" (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude. 3. On the same day (Sunday, 17 March) Magellan named the entire archipelago the "Islands of Saint Lazarus," the reason being that it was the Sunday7 in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. 4. Monday, 18 March. --- In the afternoon of their second day on this island, they saw a boat coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in "four days." 5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the island and called it the "Watering Place of Good Omen" (Acquada de di buoni segnialli). 6. Friday, 22 March. --- At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they brought food supplies. 7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, 17 March, to the Monday of the following week, 25 March. 8. Monday, 25 March. --- In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (23 March) was the feast day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore "Our Lady's Day." On this day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape from death as a grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast day. 9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was "toward the west southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo" is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls "Ceilon" and Albo calls "Seilani": namely the island of Leyte. "Hiunganghan" (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but it is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e. "Ceylon). On the other hand, Hobuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte's southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing "toward the west southwest 10. Thursday, 28 March. In the morning of Holy Thursday, 28 March, they anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen light or a bonfire. That island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Article Pole [i.e. North] and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from Acquada, and is called Mazaua." 11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island. What they did during those seven days, we shall discuss in a separate section below, entitled "Seven Days at Mazaua.” 12. Thursday, 4 April. --- They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five 'islands": namely: "Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan." Pigafetta bought that Ceylon and Baibai were separate islands. Actually they were parts of the same island of Leyte. "Canighan" (Canigao in our maps) is an island off the southwestern tip of Leyte. They sailed from Mazaua west by northwest into the Canigao Channel, with Bohol Island to port and Leyte and Canigao Islands to starboard. Then they sailed northwards along the Leyte coast, past Baibai to "Gatighan." The identity of Gatighan is not certain. But we are told that it was thwenty leagues from Mazaua and fifteen leagues from "Subu" (Cebu). 13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. (Pigafetta calls them "Polo, Ticobon, and Pozon.") Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai --- a thing that excited the admiration of the king Mazaua. 14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed [southwestward] towards "Zubu". 15. Sunday, 7 April. At noon on Sunday, the 7th of April, they entered the harbor of "Zubu" (Cebu). It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from the Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu. That is the route of the Magellan expedition as described by Pigafetta. It coincides substantially and in most details with the route as described in Albo's log. In that route, the southernmost point reached before getting to Cebu was Mazaua, situated at nine and two-thirds degrees North latitude. The question may now be asked: Could this "Mazaua" have been Butuan? Or more precisely, could it have been the "Masao" beach in the Agusan River delta, near Butuan? To answer that let us look at Pigafetta's map, and consider confirmatory evidence regarding the two kings. (b) The evidence of Pigafetta's Map Both the Ambrosian and the Nancy codices of Pigafetta's narrative are illustrated with maps, or more precisely, diagrams or sketches. Pigafetta was no cartographer and his maps had probably no value as navigational charts. But they are extremely useful in helping to identify the islands which he mentions in the narrative, and they help to establish the relative positions (and even the relative sizes) of those islands. One such map (Blair and Robertson, Vol. 33) shows the Irge island of Samar (in the map it is spelt Zzamal), and the smaller islands of Suluan, Abarien, Hiunangan, and "Humunu" (Homonhon), which is also described as "Aguada ly boni segnaly. A second map (BR 33) is really a double map. One map shows the island of Mindanao or Maguindanao (the map spells it Mamgdanao). It shows on the northern shore a deep indentation which is recognizably Panguil Bay. To the west of that is "Cippit." To the extreme east, bordering on the Pacific, are Butuan, Calagan, and Benasan (spelt in the map Butuan, Calagam, Benasam.) the other map shows the southern tip of Zamboanga, the island of Basilan, and the Sulu archipelago. A third map (BR 33) us the one most pertinent to our present investigation, because it shows the island of Mazaua (the map speels it Mazzana) in relation to the "islands" of "ceilon" and "Baibai" (i.e. Leyte) and to those of Bohol, Gatighan and three islands of the Camotes Group (in the map called Polon, Pozon, and Ticobon) We have reproduced these maps on these pages. Note that they are all drawn facing South, i.e. with the south at the top of the page, probably because Pigafetta first encountered some of these islands while they were sailing southwards from Samar. From a comparison of theses maps, the following inferences seem justified: 1.​ Mazaua (Mazzana in the map) is a small island which lies off the southwestern tip of the larger island of Ceilon (Southern Leyte), and is to the east of the island of Bohol. It lies near the passage between Bohol and the western coast of "Ceilon" (Leyte). 2.​ The island of Mazaua in Pigafetta's map, therefore lies in a position roughly equivalent to the actual position of the island of Limasawa. 3.​ In no way can Mazaua be identified with Butuan, which is situated in another and much larger island (which we now call Mindanao), the same island in which "Calagan", "Cippit", and "Mamgdanao" are also located. (c) The Two King There is confirmatory evidence in the presence of two native "kings" or rajahs at Mazaua during the Magellan visit. One was the "king" of Mazaua --- who later guided the Magellan expedition to Cebu. The other was a relative ("one of his brothers" as Pigafetta says), namely the king or rajah of Butuan. Of this latter individual, Pigafetta says tha he was "the finest looking man" that he had seen in those parts. (We shall have more to say about him later.) At the moment, the relevant fact is that he was a visitor to Mazaua. His territory was Butuan, which was in another island: That island of his was called Butuan and Calagan. When those kings wished to see another, they both went to hunt in that island where we were. The "island where we were" was Mazaua could not have been Butuan. (d) Seven Days at Mazaua In that island of "Mazaua" --- which according to both Pigafetta and Albo was situated at latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North --- the Magellan expedition stayed a week. "We remainedthere seven days," says Pigafetta. What did they do dueing those seven days? Was it possible (as some writers have suggested) that the expedition left Mazaua, went south to Butuan, offered Mass there, and then returned to Mazaua before proceeding to Cebu?  The answer must be sought in Pigafetta's day-by-day account of those seven days. Here is the summary of his account: 1.​ Thursday, 28 March. --- In the morning they anchored near an island where they had seen a light the night before. A small boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellan's invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish ship, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was affected. In the afternoon of that day, the Spanish 'ships weighed anchor and came sloser to shore, anchoring near the native king's village. This Thursday, 28 March, was Thursday in Holy Week: i.e. Holy Thursday. 2.​ Friday, 29 March. "Next day, Holy Friday, "Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or eight men, and this time went up Magellan's ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan's expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta. 3.​ Saturday, 30 March. --- Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their hosts and returned to the ships. 4.​ Sunday, 31 March. --- "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day," Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan. 5.​ Sunday, 31 March. On that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies of food ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings replied that the pilots would be available "any time. "But later that evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest in. he asked Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.  6.​ Monday, 1 April. --- Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout of the night before. 7.​ Tuesday, 2 April, and Wednesday, 3 April. --- Work on the harvest during the "next two days". i.e. Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April. 8.​ Thursday, 4 April. --- They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. "We remained there seven days," says Pigafetta. Every day is accounted for. The Mass on Easter Sunday celebrated on that island of Mazaua, and not in Butuan or elsewhere. (e) An Argument from Omission If "Mazaua" were Butuan, or in the vicinity of Butuan, there is a curios omission in Pigafetta's account which would be difficult to explain. Butuan is a riverine settlement. It is situated on the Agusan River. The beach called Masao is in the delta of that river. If the Magellan expedition were at that delta, and if the Mass were celebrated there, why is there no mention of the river? Later on, after Magellan's death and after the Cebu debacle, the survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao and it seems, actually went to Butuan. Pigafetta describes quite vividly a trip up river to see the queen. But that was after Magellan's death. Forty years later, members of Legaspi's expedition visited Butuan, and the river anchorage forms a very important part of their account. The fact that there is no mention of the river is a significant fact in Pigafetta's account of their seven-day stay at "Mazaua." We must therefore take him literally: Mazaua was an island surrounded by sea, not a river delta. 3. Summary of the Evidence of Albo anf Pigafetta Taking the evidence of Albo's log-book together with that form Pigafetta's account, we may take the following points as established: a.​ Magellan's expedition entered Philippine waters south of the island of Samar and dropped anchor at Homonhon where they stayed a week. Then they sailed westward towards Leyte and then southwards parallel to the eastern coast of that island and that of the adjoining island of Panaon. Rounding the southern tip of the latter, they anchored off the eastern shore of a small island called Mazaua. There they stayed a week, during which on Easter Sunday they celebrated Mass and planted the cross on the summit of the highest hill. b.​ The island of Mazaua lies at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North. Its position (south of Leyte) and its latitude correspond to the position and latitude of the island of Limasawa, whose southern tip lies at 9 degrees and 54 minutes North.  c.​ From Mazaua the expedition sailed northwestwards through the Canigao channel between Bohol and Leyte, then northerwards parallel to the eastern coast of this latter island, then they sailed westward to the Camotes Group and from there southwestwards to Cebu. d.​ At no point in that itinerary did the Magellan expedition go to Butuan or any other point on the Mindanao coast. The survivors of the expedition did go to Mindanao later, but after Magellan's death. 4. The Legaspi Expedition There is confirmatory evidence from the documents of the Legazpi expedition, which sailed into Philippine waters in 1565, forty-four years after Magellan. One of the places that Legazpi and his pilots quired about "Mazaua" from Camotuan and his companions, natives of the village of Cabalian at the southeastern end of the island of Leyte. Guided by these natives, the Legazpi ships rounded the island of "Panae" (Panaon), which was separated from Leyte by a narrow strait, and anchored off "Mazaua" --- but they found the inhabitants to be hostile, apparently as a result of Portuguese depredations that had occurred in the four-decade interval between the Legazpi and the Magellan expeditions. From Mazaua they went to Camiguing (which was "visible" from Mazaua), and from there they intended to go to Buruan on the island of "Vindanao" but were driven instead by contrary winds to Bohol. It was only later that a small contigent of Spaniards, in a small vessel, managed to go to Butuan. The point seems clear: As pilots of the Legazpi expedition understood it, Mazaua was an island near Leyte and Panaon; Butuan was on the island of Mindanao. The two were entirely different places and in no wise identical. IV. The Geography of "Mazaua" The question may be asked: If "Mazaua" is the little island of Limasawa, why did Magellan go there? Why go to an insignificant little island; why not instead to the larger islands? The answer must be sought in geography. He was coasting southward down the eastern coast of Leyte (Albo's, "Seilan"; Pigafetta's "Ceylon") with Hibuson Island on his left. This took him down to the southern tip of what looks like a part of Leyte but is really a separate island, the island of Panaon. When his ships rounded the tip of Panaon, the wind was blowing westward from the Pacific. It was late March: in March and April in this part of the Philippines, the cast wind is strong. It is what the people of Limasawa call the "Dumagsa", the east wind. Sailing with the wind, Magellan's vessels would find themselves going west or southwest, toward the island of Limasawa. Having seen a light on the island one night, they decided the following day to anchor off it. A visit to Limasawa will convince the traveller that here indeed is the place circumstantially described by Pigafetta. The island is shaped 'like a tadpole, running north to south. The northern portion is almost all hills, with the slopes dropping steeply to the sea, leaving only narrow coastal strip. But the southern portion of the island is almost all level land with a few hills. It has a good harbor, protected on the west by Panaon Island and on the east by Limasawa. The fields in this portion of the island are fertile. It is easy to understand why an expedition should wish to stay a week anchored off this fertile island where the natives were friendly and there was enough food, water and wood. Here the Mass could be said with solemnity. Here, on one of the hills, the cross could be planted which everyone could see from the plain. And from the top of that hill could be seen the islands to the south, to the west and to the east. It is unfortunate that in the controversy that has arisen between the supporters of Butuan and those of Limasawa, this question of geography has been given little notice. If the island of Limasawa is the "Mazaua" of Pigafetta and the "Masava" of Albo, why then is it now called Limasawa? Were Pigafetta and Albo wrong? Or were the historians and map-makers wrong from the 17th century onward? We do not have the answer to that question. Except to state that in the southern part of Leyte, the island is still referred to by the fisherfolk as "Masaoa", not Limasawa. V. Why then the Butuan Tradition? How then did the strong three-century tradition in favor of Butuan arise? Here we are in the realm of conjecture, but a number of reasons could be adduced to account for the tradition. First, it must be remembered that the tradition is based on secondhand information. One author repeats (and often distorts) what previous authors have written, and is in turn copied (and distorted) by subsequent authors. In such a chain, one author making a mistake could easily start a tradition that could last three centuries. A second reason is suggested by Pastells. Magellan and his men got to know the rajah of Butuan at Masaua. According to Pigafetta, that rajah was at Masaua only on a visit. But it is easy to see how the fact that Magellan had known the rajah of Butuan could be misunderstood by later historians as meaning that he had known him at Butuan. There is a third reason. It must be remembered that the Butuan tradition, while erroneous as to the site of the first Mass, is not entirely without validity. Magellan's expedition, after Magellan's death, visited several places in Mindanao, very probably including Butuan. (The riverine community described by Pigafetta in a later section of his account could have been Butuan.) Certainly, forty years later, members of Legazpi's expedition visited Butuan. The people of the district would remember these visits by the bearded white-skinhead men from Europe in their big ships, and a tradition could have grown among the people that" the first Spaniards came here." The Spanish missionaries coming to Butuan would pick up this tradition and come to the conclusion that Magellan's expedition had visited Butuan. They would not have been entirely wrong in that conclusion, as survivors of Magellan's expedition may actually have visited Butuan but after Magellan's death at Mactan. From the tradition that "Magellan visited Butuan, "it is easy for incautious historians to conclude that "therefore the first Mass must have been celebrated at Butuan." On the other hand, the Butuan tradition may not have started in Butuan but in Europe. In that supposition, two questions might be asked: Who started it, and how was it started? The answer to the first question (who?) is not clear, the answer to the second (how?) is clear enough. To illustrate how easily a second hand source could be mistaken in a matter like the site of the first Mass, all we have to do is to examine the evidence of the earliest and most important of the second-hand sources, namely Maximilian of Transylvania, commonly known as Transylvanus. His letter, De Moluccis Insulis was the first published account of Magellan expedition. It was first printed at Cologne in January 1523, only two years after Magellan's discovery of the Philippine Islands. Maximilian got his data from the survivors who had returned on the "Victoria." His account is therefore important, but it is a second-hand account. Here is what he says: Our men having taken in water in Acaca, sailed towards Selani; here a storm took them, so that they could not bring the ships to that island, but were driven to another island called Massaua, where lives a king of three islands, after that they arrived at Subuth. This is an excellent and large island, and having made a treaty with its chieftain, they landed immediately to perform divine service, according to the manner of the Christians, for it was the feast of the resurrection of Him who was our salvation... Maximilian locates the first Mass on Easter Sunday, 1521, at Cebu, which he spells Subuth. He is clearly wrong: but if he could make a mistake who had eyewitnesses of the event for his source, how much easier was it for later writers to err, who had to depend on second- or third- or fourth-hand testimony for their data? One thing is clear: whoever started the tradition that the first Mass was celebrated at Butuan, it was certainly neither Pigafetta nor Albo, nor Maximilian of Transylvania