NHCP Position on 1521 Easter Sunday Mass (Mojares Panel Report 2020) PDF

 THE FINAL REPORT OF THE MOJARES PANEL ON THE BUTUAN-LIMASAWA CONTROVERSY ON THE LOCATION OF THE 1521 FIRST EASTER SUNDAY MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES CONTENTS PART I Page Intro...

 THE FINAL REPORT OF THE MOJARES PANEL ON THE BUTUAN-LIMASAWA CONTROVERSY ON THE LOCATION OF THE 1521 FIRST EASTER SUNDAY MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES CONTENTS PART I Page Introduction 3 I. The Mojares Panel 5 II. Historical Background of the Controversy 6 a) The Butuan Tradition 7 b) The Limasawa Tradition 10 III. Government Action 11 a) The Butuan Forum Group Discussion 12 b) The Cebu Meeting 13 c) The Hontiveros Article 14 d) The Tacloban Meeting 14 e) The Manila Meeting 16 PART II - LIMITS AND METHODS I. Parameters of the Current Review 17 II. Sources Used 18 III. Site Inspections 20 IV. Navigational Information 21 V. On Other Evidence 22 PART III – ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A. On the Butuan Presentation 22 a.1 The Malvar Presentation 23 a.2 The Atega and Hontiveros Article 23 a.3.On the Accuracy of the Pigafetta Codices and Translations 23 a.4 On Longitude 45 B. Determining Limasawa 52 b.1 Similarities of the Coordinates 54 b.2 Retracing the Magellan Voyage 57 C. Regarding Other Evidences 64 c.1. Location 64 c.2. Other Issues 68 D. On the Limasawa Presentation 70 PART IV – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Submission of Report 71 PART V - APPENDICES Appendix 1 - A List of the Government-Commissioned Panels Formed to Investigate the First Easter Sunday Mass Controversy 75 PART VI - PHOTOGRAPHS 76 2 A. Introduction On May 8, 2018, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order 551 that began the preparations for the coming 500th year anniversary (Quincentennial) of the Christianization of the Philippines. The celebration was to start in 2019 and end in 2022. The Executive Order included, among its provisions, the following: WHEREAS, various entities have been proposing to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) the conduct of certain activities for the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in the Philippines, the celebration of the First Mass in the Philippines (italics supplied), the circumnavigation of the globe by Ferdinand Magellan-Juan Sebastian Elcano for 1519 to 1522, the victory of Lapu-Lapu in the Battle of Mactan, and the events associated, thereto;2 It is in this context that the National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) through its Executive Director, NHCP Chair Dr. Rene R. Escalante, reopened the case of a 1 Executive Order No. 55 “Constituting A Steering Committee for The Commemoration of The Quincentennnial of The Arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in The Philippines, The Victory of Lapu-Lapu in The Battle of Mactan, and other Historic Events that Happened from 1519 to 1522” signed May 8, 2018. Amended by Executive Order No. 103, s. 2019. 2 Executive Order 55, 2. 3 controversy in Philippine history---the location of the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines.3 This long-standing issue of the exact location of the Easter Sunday Mass that Fr. Pedro Valderama, chaplain of the expedition, celebrated on 31 March 1521 was discussed and resolved by the National Historical Institute (forerunner of the NHCP) through various fora before a panel of experts in 1980, 1995, and 2008.4 All of these panels concluded that the site of the mass was on Limasawa Island in Southern Leyte. However, some groups (mostly proponents of the Butuan theory) claimed that they were not given ample time to present their position papers before the three panels. Others (both the Butuan and Limasawa proponents) have also indicated that since the last time this issue was discussed, new documents and interpretations have surfaced and need to be included in the narrative of the controversy. 3 Instead of calling the event “First Mass,” the NQC has adopted the use of the term “Easter Sunday Mass” (31 March 1521) to differentiate it from the mass in Bolinao, Pangasinan allegedly celebrated by the Italian-Franciscan friar Odoric of Pordenone sometime in 1324. More so, it will also eliminate the undocumented masses that Fr. Valderama probably celebrated when they were at sea in the area of Samar. The NQC finds the Easter Day Mass more historically significant because it was documented by Pigafetta, happened on Philippine soil and local residents participated in the event. 4 These committees are: the Live-In Workshop on the Site of the First Mass of the Philippines (February 22-25, 1980); the Gancayco Committee headed by former Supreme Court Justice Emilio Gancayco (1995); and the Legarda Committee headed by historian and writer Dr. Benito J. Legarda (2008) (See Appendix 1 for a complete list of the previous panel members and workshop participants on the First Easter Mass controversy) 4  In the interest of fairness and to further enrich the historical literature about this controversial event, Dr. Escalante decided to reopen the case and give everyone the opportunity to present their previous and latest findings. As stated in the memorandum on the creation of a new panel: Notwithstanding the possibilities that reopening this controversy may open old wounds or even create new ones, the NHCP and the NQC want everyone to be somber, respectful, and professional. Moreover, all must follow the basic rule of doing historiographical studies, i.e., every assertion must be supported by credible, authentic, and verifiable primary sources. Second, everyone should be guided by the fact that no one has a monopoly on truth and all must be given equal opportunity to articulate his position on this issue. Lastly, we should be prepared to accept the possibility that the NQC may not be able to settle this issue conclusively because of the unavailability and ambiguity of the sources.5 I. The Mojares Panel To help the NQC settle this controversy, a panel of respectable scholars was constituted that will evaluate the position paper/s of the Butuan and Limasawa proponents. The members of the panel are the following: Chairperson Dr. Resil B. Mojares Panel’s Historian National Artist for Literature Professor Emeritus, University of San Carlos, Cebu City 5 Memorandum on the Guidelines for the Deliberation of the Mojares Panel on the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass Celebration, 12 December 2018, 3. 5 Members Dr. Danilo M. Gerona Panel’s Historian Acting Director, Partido Studies Center Partido State University, Goa, Camarines Sur Dr. Francis M. Navarro Panel’s Historian-Paleographer Assistant Professor, Ateneo de Manila University Dr. Carlos Madrid Álvarez-Piñer Panel’s Historian Spanish Pacific Historian Director of Research of the Micronesia Area Research Center Fr. Antonio Francisco B. De Castro, S.J. Panel’s CBCP Representative Guest Professor, Ateneo de Manila University Dr. Jose Victor Z. Torres Panel’s Secretary General Panel’s Historian and FGD Moderator Full Professor, De La Salle University-Manila The selection of the panelists was carefully done to make sure that all disciplines and expertise are represented. None of the panel members came from Butuan, Leyte or Samar, so they can decide based on the merits of the position papers and not on regional or territorial interests. The NQC also invited the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to monitor and participate actively in this exercise because the event under consideration is identified with the Roman Catholic Church. II. Historical Background of the Controversy The controversy of the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines in 1521 began in the last years of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century when historical research by scholars of that period – both foreign and local – shifted from 6 the traditionally recognized site of Butuan in Agusan del Norte to Limasawa Island in Leyte. The following is a short history of this controversy. a) The Butuan Tradition In 1872, a monument commemorating the First Mass in the Philippines was erected near the mouth of the Agusan River in what is today the municipality of Magallanes. As Jesuit historian, Miguel Bernad, SJ wrote: … that monument is a testimonial to the tradition that remained vigorous until the end of the 19th century, mainly that Magellan and his expedition landed at Butuan and celebrated there the first Mass ever offered in the Philippines.6 The Butuan tradition can be traced to the 17th century when the earliest mention of the location of the First Easter Sunday Mass in Butuan was made in two missionary chronicles: Francisco Colin, S.J.’s Labor evangelica (1663) and Francisco Combes, S.J.’s Historia de Mindanao y Jolo (1667). These two works, Bernad pointed out, “exercise a strong influence over subsequent writers” so that, by the 19th century, The Butuan tradition was taken for granted, and we find it mentioned in writer after writer, each copying from the previous and, being in turn, copied by those who came after.7 6 Miguel A. Bernad, S.J. “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence” in Tradition and Discontinuity. Essays on Philippine History and Culture (Manila: NBS, 1982), 124. 7 Bernad, 127. 7  In 1981, William Henry Scott traced what he believed to be Colin’s source for his information (or misinformation). This was a summarized version of Pigafetta’s Viaggo atorno il mondo published in Gian Battista Ramusio’s three-volume work, Delle navigationi et viaggi (1550).8 Scott, in fact, pointed out: That Father Colin used this text is indicated by the fact that his account is a summary of its pertinent passages; indeed, Father Bernad’s own summary of Colin’s summary might serve just as well as a summary of pages 393-396 of Vol. I of the 1554 second edition of Ramusio.9 In 1800, Carlo Amoretti, the prefect and conservator of the Ambrosiana Library in Milan, Italy published a transcription of the Pigafetta account from a manuscript found in the library10. The Amoretti work would become the standard source on the Magellan 8 How this summary came into publication is colorful in itself. Pigafetta gave a copy of his book to the Regent Mother Louisa of Emperor Francis, who had it translated into French by philosopher Jacques Antoine Fabre. According to Ramusio, Fabre “made only a summary, leaving out the things that were too detailed, which was printed in French with too many errors” (Translation by Scott in his article “When Then The Butuan Tradition?” cited in Bernad, 262). The Pigafetta account is found in folios 380-397 of the Ramusio 1550 edition. Another edition was published in 1554. 9 Scott in Bernad, 263. 10 Carlo Amoretti. Primo Viaggio Intorno Globo Terracqueo Ossia Ragguaglio Della Navigazione Alle Indie Orientali Per La Via D'Occidente Fatta Dal Cavaliere Antonio Pigafetta (Milan: Giuseppe Galiazi, 1800) 8 Expedition for almost a century. Translations were later made from this transcription. The popular English translation was by Lord Stanley of Alderley entitled The First Voyage Round the World by Magellan (1874) under the auspices of The Hakluyt Society.11 Robertson later said that the Amoretti transcription was in a “wofully (sic) mutilated form, as Amoretti has edited the manuscript almost beyond recognition in some places, with the result that Pigafetta’s words are twisted into new meanings.”12 The controversy over the site began in 1894 after the publication of a new edition of the Ambrosiana manuscript transcribed by Italian archivist Andrea Da Mosto entitled Il primo viaggio intorno al globo di Antonio Pigafetta E Le Sue Regole Sull'arte Del Navigare. (1894).13 But this time, it was a full transcription that included parts that were missing or edited out by Amoretti.14 It was in this year that new questions arose on the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass site. b) The Limasawa Tradition 11 Lord Stanley of Alderley. The First Voyage Round the World by Magellan. (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1874). 12 James A. Robertson. Magellan’s Voyage Around the World by Antonio Pigafetta. (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1906), 13-14. 13 Andrea Da Mosto. Il primo viaggio intorno al globo di Antonio Pigafetta E le sue regole sull'arte del navigare. (Roma: Auspice Il Ministero Della Pubblica Istruzione, 1894) 14 As would be later shown in this report, Carlo Amoretti had, in fact, already noted that the First Easter Mass was on Limasawa Island. However, because of the unreliability of his transcription, this fact became lost to historical scholars. 9  The shift to the Limasawa tradition happened following the publication of the Da Mosto transcription and the examination of the log of Victoria’s pilot, Francisco Albo. The log appeared for the first time in the collection of documents published by Martin Fernandez de Navarette in 183715. Upon study of these two sources, two Philippine scholars---Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Fr. Pablo Pastells, SJ---concluded that it was a historical error that Butuan was deemed the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass. A reading of the Da Mosto work showed a telling footnote that stated his conclusion following a study of the Albo logbook, the Transylvanus work16 and another published roteiro (rutter) of one of the expedition’s crewmembers who became known in historical circles as “the unidentified Genoese pilot”: (3) Il Roteiro (loc. cit. p. 278, r. 4) la chiama «Macangor » e le dà la latitudine di 9°. Aggiunge che dista venti leghe dall'isola Hummunù. Albo (loc. cit. IV, 22o) la mette a 9° 4o di latitudine nord e la chiama « Mazava ». Il Transylvano (loc. cit. IV, 268) dice che vi approdarono, spinti da un fortunale, che aveva loro impedito d'approdare a Selana, e le dà il nome di «Masana ». Quest'isola corrisponde molto probabilmente all'odierna Limasana.17 15 Diario ó derrotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cajbo de San Agustín en, el Brasil, hasta el regreso a España de la nao Victoria, escrito por Francisco Albo” in Martin Fernandez de Navarette, Colección de los Viages y Descubrimientos Que Hicieron Por Mar Los Españoles Desde Fines Del Siglo XV. Tomo IV (Madrid: La Imprenta Nacional, 1837), 209-248. 16 Maximilianus Transylvanus. De Molucci Insulis (1523) 17 Da Mosto, footnote 3. 74. 10  Pardo de Tavera first published the findings in an article in El Comercio in 1895. In 1921, in celebration of the Quadricentennial of the arrival of the Magellan Expedition in the Philippines, he wrote the program for the Limasawa Exhibit in 1921 establishing the First Mass in Limasawa.18 This transfer of the location from Butuan to Limasawa was affirmed during the celebration. This was followed by early 20th century scholars like Jaime de Veyra and influenced historians to establish the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass on Limasawa Island. But the change of the site was not taken lightly, especially by Butuan residents and pro-Butuan scholars. The contention lasted for over three decades as these proponents wrote to the local and national government (including the President) petitioning for these authorities to issue a decision that would transfer the First Easter Sunday Mass site back to Butuan.19 III. Government Action The first official government action taken on this controversy was done through the National Historical Institute (NHI) in 1980 and was followed by the formation of two more panels in 1995 and 2008. As mentioned earlier, the officially constituted bodies, upon review of the evidence, decided that the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass was on Limasawa Island. 18 Trinidad Pardo de Tavera. “Quien es Limasawa” in Souvenir Programme for the Limasawa Exhibit: Leyte, January-February, 1921 (Manila: La Pilarica, 1921). 19 See the letters and government memorandums dating back to the 1950s in the files at the NHCP office. 11  In 2018, with the continued clamor by Butuan proponents to present their position papers and the decision by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) to settle the controversy before the Quincentennial Celebration of the Christianization of the Philippines, plans were laid out by the National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) and the NHCP that led to the creation of what came to be called the “Mojares Panel” in order to review anew the issue of the location of the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines. The following activities were done by the NHCP and the Mojares Panel following this decision: a) The Butuan Focus Group Discussion (FGD) A focus group discussion (FGD) was done solely for the Butuan proponents of the First Easter Mass. As mentioned in the Guidelines for the Paper Presentors, the objective of the FGD was to “collate position papers which present the same or similar arguments and cite the same sources, reducing the number of position papers to be considered by the panel of experts to at most three.” In the last week of September 2018, the NHCP issued a Call for Papers for the proponents of the Butuan claim. Two Butuan proponents responded---Gabriel Atega and Dr. Potenciano Malvar---and they provided their papers before the submission deadline. The FGD was held on November 9, 2018 at the Balanghai Hotel and Convention Center in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. Facilitating the discussion were NHCP personnel led by Ms. Cielito Reyno (Supervising History Researcher) and Mr. Ian Alfonso (NHCP Senior History Researcher and NQC Secretariat Head). Also in attendance were Department of Budget and 12 Management (DBM) Usec. Agnes Joyce Bailen (representing the NQC) and Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Secretary-General Fr. Marvin Mejia. Other local historians and observers also participated in the discussion. The two papers presented were: 1. “First Easter Day Sunday Mass Celebration at the Island of Baug, Magallanes, Agusan del Norte (Spanish Period Butuan)” by Gabriel Atega 2. “Pigafetta’s 9°2/3N, ‘Hidden Facts’” by Dr. Potenciano Malvar Two one-hour open fora were held after each presentation during which the evidence presented by the two proponents was clarified and commented on. It was during the second open forum that Atega and Malvar agreed to thresh out the differences in their papers and consolidate their data into one paper to be presented to the NQC. The paper was to be prepared with the help of historian and De La Salle University professor Michael Charleston “Xiao” Chua.20 b) The Cebu Meeting The Cebu forum was the first meeting of the Mojares Panel. This was held at the Harolds Hotel, Gorordo Street, Cebu City on 12-13 December 2018. During this two-day meeting, the Mojares Panel evaluated the previous reports of the NHI Workshop on the First Mass (1980), the Gancayco Panel (1995), and Legarda Panel (2008). Also, with the formal convening of the panel, Gabriel Atega and Dr. 20 Unfortunately, in the course of efforts to consolidate the two papers, disagreements arose on the facts to be presented to the NQC. With permission from Dr. Malvar, Mr. Chua decided to submit the two reports separately, along with a summary of their differences and similarities. 13 Potenciano Malvar formally presented their position papers on the Butuan claim. This was followed by a preliminary assessment by the panel of the evidences presented by the two proponents and the preparation by the panel and the NHCP for the meeting to be held in Tacloban, Leyte for the Limasawa proponents. c) The Hontiveros Article On January 19, 2019, an article by Butuan proponent Gregorio Jose Hontiveros entitled “A Fire on the Island: Reasserting the Pro-Masao Position”21 published in 2017 was endorsed to the NHCP by Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro---who was then acting as Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Butuan---for consideration as part of the pro-Butuan evidence for the Mojares Panel. Hontiveros was unavailable when the FGD was convened in Butuan City in 2018, as he was out of the country at that time. The article was passed on to the Mojares Panel on February 6 by the NQC. After deliberations, the panel members decided to accept Hontiveros’ paper as part of the presentation of evidence. d) The Tacloban Meeting The second meeting of the Mojares Panel was held at the Luxury Suites Hotel, Tacloban City, Leyte on 25-26 April 2019. The members of the panel present were: Dr. Resil Mojares (Chair) Dr. Francis Navarro (Member) Dr. Carlos Madrid (Member) Fr. Tony de Castro (Member) Dr. Jose Victor Torres (Secretary General) 21 Gregorio Jose P. Hontiveros. “A Fire on the Island: Reasserting the Pro-Masao Position” Tambara 34: 2 (2017), 51-88. 14  Panel member Dr. Danilo Gerona was unable to join the meeting because he had to attend to official matters in his institution. The representatives of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) were: Bishop Nereo Odchimar Fr. Amado Tumbali, SJ Fr. Ted Torralba Members of the NQC Secretariat from NHCP were also present. The panel met in Leyte to listen to the presentation of Limasawa proponent Dr. Rolando Borrinaga entitled “Limasawa was Phonetically Called Masawa until 1602 and the Western Mazaua Site of the Easter Sunday Mass in 1521”. In his paper, Borrinaga not only reiterated that Limasawa Island was the place of the first Easter Sunday Mass; he also proposed that another site, Barangay Triana, on the western side of the island, be recognized as the place where the First Easter Sunday Mass was celebrated, and not Barangay Magallanes on the eastern side where the existing shrine of the First Mass is located. He also identified a nearby hill named Saub Point overlooking Saub Bay as the place where a cross was planted by Magellan’s men and Pigafetta reportedly saw the “three islands” which may be part of Camiguin, Bohol, and Surigao. The panel then proceeded to prepare for the evaluation of both papers of the Butuan and Limasawa proponents and the drafting of an initial report of the findings. The panel agreed to meet for the final evaluation on July 23 in Manila. On April 26, members of the panel went to Limasawa Island to conduct an ocular inspection of the First Easter Mass site in Barangay Magallanes. They then proceeded 15 to Barangay Triana where they visited the site proposed by Borrinaga and climbed Saub Point to the area that was theorized to be the point where the cross may have been erected. It is worth noting that both sites in Limasawa actually had a view of the three islands reportedly seen by Pigafetta. e) The Manila Meeting The Mojares Panel met on July 23 and 24, 2019 at the National Quincentennial Committee office at the NHCP building along T.M. Kalaw St. in Manila. Present at the meeting were: Dr. Resil Mojares (Chair) Dr. Francis Navarro (Member) Dr. Carlos Madrid (Member) Fr. Tony de Castro (Member) Dr. Danilo Gerona (Member) Dr. Jose Victor Torres (Secretary General) Representatives of the CBCP at the meeting were: Fr. Emil Quilatan, OAR Fr. Ted Torralba Fr. Amado Tumbali, SJ Fr. Antolin Uy, SVD Fr. Albert Flores Also present were representatives of the NHCP and the NQC Dr. Rene Escalante, NHCP Chair and NQC Executive Director Alvin Alcid, Chief, RPHD Cielito Reyno Ian Christopher Alfonso – Head, NQC Secretariat Gerwill Cruz Ayesha Sayseng Josef Alec Geradila In the course of the two-day meeting, the Mojares Panel agreed on the parameters for the evaluation of the issue and the issuance of a formal report on the panel’s recommendation to the NHCP (see below). 16 PART II - LIMITS AND METHODS I. Parameters of the Current Review In defining the limits and scope of the current review, the panel decided on the following parameters 1) It was decided that since the three previous groups or panels formed to study the Butuan-Limasawa controversy had concluded that the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass was Limasawa Island in Leyte, the burden of proof to change the site is on the Butuan proponents. The focus of the panel will be on the new evidence presented for the current review, or evidence that in the panel’s judgment had not been adequately addressed by the previous panels or reviews. 2) The panel agreed that only the papers of Gabriel Atega, Potenciano Malvar, and Gregorio Hontiveros would be evaluated for the Butuan side. The Atega and Malvar papers were presented in the FGD in Butuan on 9 November 2018 and the Mojares Panel meeting in Cebu City on 12-13 December 2018. The Hontiveros article was endorsed by Archbishop Antonio Ledesma as a contribution for evaluation by the panel. On the other hand, Rolando Borrinaga’s paper, presented for the Limasawa side in Tacloban, was accepted for consideration by the panel. As of July 23, the panel decided it would no longer accept further presentation of evidence by the Butuan and Limasawa proponents. 17  3) The panel will review the decisions of the previous panels only in so far as these relate to new evidence presented by the Butuan and Limasawa proponents as well as new data independently collected by members of the panel in aid of the work of evaluation. 4) The panel members agreed that only the evidence as to the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass would be evaluated. Other evidence presented may or may not be considered depending on its weight on the decision regarding the site. Based on the presentations made before the panel, there were four specific sites considered as the scene of the 1521 Easter Mass and the associated event of the planting of the cross by Magellan and his men: (1) the municipality of Magallanes on Baug Island in Agusan del Norte and (2) Pinamanculan in Butuan City, and (3) Barangay Magallanes and (4) Barangay Triana, both in Limasawa. II. Sources Used Present-day technology used in the Internet and the digitization of rare books and archival documents proved advantageous for the panel members, for it provided access to needed sources. It also made immediate communication possible with foreign institutions where the Pigafetta manuscripts are kept. These repositories have digitized and uploaded their collections on their websites thus making it possible for the panel to collect needed sources on the Magellan expedition. 18  For the purpose of the panel’s work, the four known original Pigafetta manuscripts were obtained by the NHCP in digitized format through coordination and in agreement with their respective repositories: a) The Ambrosiana Codex - Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, Italy b) The Yale-Beinecke Codex - Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. c) Manuscript 5650 - Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris d) Manuscript 24224 - Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris In addition, the NHCP obtained a digitized copy of the original Robertson transcription of the Ambrosiana manuscript listed as Ayer Collection MS 1391 v. 23 of the Robertson Papers. The panel also downloaded a digitized copy of the 1894 published transcription of the Pigafetta manuscript by Italian archivist Andrea Da Mosto, who was the first to transcribe a complete version of the Ambrosiana manuscript.22 It was from these manuscripts that new translations were commissioned by the panel to be done by translators from the Ateneo de Manila and the University of the Philippines Department of Languages. One of the translators was panel member Dr. Francis Navarro who translated some of the sources from Spanish to English. 22 A digital copy of the Robertson transcription was obtained by the NHCP from the James A. Robertson Papers at the Edward E. Ayer Collection in the Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois. The same collection also has a copy of the Da Mostao book, but it could not be located by the librarian while the research for this resolution was taking place. The panel finally located a copy online at the website, Internet Archive (archive.org). 19  The translations that were made were limited to the period before and after the event of the First Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines. These translations were then compared to the ones that were used by both the Butuan and Limasawa proponents specifically the Robertson (Ambrosiana) and Skelton (Yale-Beinecke) editions of Pigafetta. Aside from the abovementioned sources, the panel members and the NHCP consulted the various published translated editions of the Pigafetta account and translations of the sources related to the Magellan Expedition like those of Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, and the “Genoese Pilot”. At least 28 books in different languages, most of them in digital format, were obtained for the examination by the panel. III. Site Inspections The NHCP and the Mojares Panel members also inspected the sites where the proponents said the First Mass took place. These places were: 1. Baug, Magallanes in Agusan del Norte, the site of the 1872 First Mass Monument in Butuan. The site was visited by the NHCP during the second day of the Focus Group Discussion in Butuan City on November 10, 2019. 2. Limasawa Island in Leyte where the First Mass of 1521 was celebrated, according to the decision of official government panels formed by the National Historical Institute and the NHCP in 1980, 1995, and 2008. Two locations were inspected by Mojares panel members on April 26, 2019. 20  a) Barangay Magallanes on the eastern side of the island where the present First Easter Sunday Mass Shrine is located. b) Barangay Triana on the western side which was proposed by Limasawa proponent Dr. Rolando Borrinaga, as the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass and the cross. 3. Mount Minga-aso near Butuan City where Magellan and his men erected a cross, according to Butuan proponent Potenciano Malvar. The site was visited on July 12, 2019 by panel member Dr. Carlos Madrid, accompanied by Gerwill Cruz of the NHCP as well as Malvar and some of his assistants. IV. Navigational Information A principal issue brought up by Butuan proponent Gabriel Atega was the matter of coordinates that Pigafetta recorded in his account. Comparing and collating these coordinates with latitude and longitude measurements and related navigation issues from various sources, Atega contends that these definitely point to Butuan as the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass. For the navigational issues, the panel requested through Dr. Madrid the assistance of naval engineer and historian Ignacio Fernandez Vial, founder of the Fundacion Nao Victoria in Spain. It was Vial who designed and built a replica of one of Magellan’s ship Victoria, which retraced Magellan’s voyage from 2004 to 2006, thus providing extensive data on the route of the Magellan expedition. 21  Madrid also procured a copy of Vial’s unpublished manuscript detailing the route of the Victoria. Chapter 8 of the manuscript entitled “Filipinas-Brunei-Filipinas” was translated for the use of the panel. The panel also consulted present-day articles on the Magellan expedition although they are only partly related to the issue at hand: 1. Scott M. Fitzpatrick and Richard Callaghan. Magellan's crossing of the Pacific: Using computer simulations to examine oceanographic effects on one of the world's greatest voyages. The Journal of Pacific History. 43:2 (Sep., 2008), 145-165. 2. Ana-Cornelia Badea, Gheorghe Badea, Doina Vasilca, and Camelia Georgiana Semen. The first voyage around the world - An old story told using a new application.” Papers of the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM, 2016, 503-510. IV. On Other Evidence The panel members considered other evidence presented by the proponents on such matters as narrative details, land formations, and archaeological characteristics, in so far as they have direct bearing on the questions raised in the current review. PART III - ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The findings and conclusions of the Mojares Panel on the various papers and evidences presented are as follows: A) On the Butuan Presentation 22  a.1. The Malvar Presentation The evidence presented by Malvar in his paper that Pigafetta’s latitude measurement of 9°3/4’ was part of a plan to conceal the actual location of the First Easter Sunday Mass to protect the route to the Moluccas is based on conjectures from ideas derived from secondary sources including a fictional account of the Magellan Expedition.23 The panel contends that if there was such a plan or intent to conceal the route of the expedition, the part of the route that should have been hidden would be the coordinates to the passage through the Strait of Magellan at the tip of South America and not that of the Philippines. It was this passage to the West that was one of the primary objectives of the expedition as it was the way to get to the Spice Islands through a western route beyond Portuguese territory. Malvar’s thesis was, therefore, not accepted by the panel. a.2. The Atega Presentation and Hontiveros Article The Atega paper and the Hontiveros article were evaluated based on the quality of their research and use of primary sources. The panel appraised their evidence and arguments comparing them with existing information as well as new data obtained by the panel. The following are the findings on the two presentations: a.3. On The Accuracy of the Pigafetta Codices and Translations 23 John Regan. A Singular Captain: Magellan’s Astounding Voyage (self-published, 2016). This is listed as a fictional account of the Magellan voyage by the author. 23  Both Atega and Hontiveros contend that the Yale-Beinecke codex is the most accurate of the Pigafetta journals. Atega has raised this point time and again in his arguments and has even concluded that Robertson’s translation of Pigafetta was based on the transcription that was made by Carlo Amoretti of the Ambrosian Codex and published in 1800. According to Atega, this was where the Limasawa controversy began. It is already known that the Amoretti version was heavily-edited and full of inaccuracies and it is on this basis that Atega contends that the French Pigafetta text, now called the Yale-Beinecke codex, is the “accurate one” in showing the nautical coordinates of the Magellan expedition. An examination of the bibliographical sources in Atega’s paper shows, however, that this allegation on the Robertson translation was made without consulting the bibliographical history written by Robertson on the Pigafetta manuscripts, in which he asserts:24 Pigafetta, an Italian of noble family and an ardent admirer of Magalhaes, kept a journal during the voyage, from which evidently this relation is compiled. This is called the Ambrosian Manuscript, from its place of conservation in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan Italy. It is the oldest of the four manuscripts… and dates back from either shortly before or shortly after 1525… It was discovered among the papers of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana by Dr. Carlo Amoretti, prefect or conservator of that library, and first made known to the 24 Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, eds. The Philippine Islands 1493-1898. (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1903-1909), 53:144. 24  world in his Primo viaggio (Milan, 1800) although in a wofully (sic) mutilated form, as Amoretti has edited the manuscript almost beyond recognition in some places, with the result that Pigafetta’s words are twisted into new meanings. Robertson was, in fact, reiterating a statement that he made in the introduction to his own translation of the Pigafetta manuscript: At the dawn of the nineteenth century, Dr. Carlo Amoretti, prefect of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, at Milan, Italy, recognizing to a slight degree the value of the original manuscript which he discovered among the treasures entrusted to his care, published the relation in both Italian and French, but committed the sin of editing the precious document, almost beyond recognition in places.25 In the same history, Robertson mentioned the publication of the first complete text of the manuscript in 1894: The text of the Italian manuscript, edited by Andrea da Mosto (part v, vol. iii, of Raccolta di documenti e studi, published by the Italian government in Rome, 1894 - in honor of the fourth centenary of the discovery of America) has proved, all things considered, the most useful edition of Pigafetta's relation hitherto given to the public. Its usefulness is limited, however, as it is 25 James A. Robertson. Magellan’s Voyage Around the World by Antonio Pigafetta. (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1906), I: 13-14. 25  available to only Italian readers. Mosto's transcript, although in general tolerably faithful, contains a few errors and some serious blemishes from the standpoint of historical accuracy, such as the spelling out of all abbreviations, the rendering of the frequently occurring Spanish abbreviation "q" (for "que") by the Italian "che," and the arbitrary insertion of punctuation not in the original.26 The panel asked: If Robertson knew that the original manuscript existed and that the Amoretti edition was badly translated, why would he use the latter? Based on an examination of his original notes, Robertson translated directly from the Ambrosiana codex since he did know where it was. Moreover, in spite of the fact that a published edition had already been in circulation in 1894 by Andrea Da Mosto for the IV Centenary Celebration of the Discovery of the Americas, Robertson decided to translate from the original copy and included a transcription of the Italian text in his work. A reading of his bibliographic history also shows that he knew of the Yale-Beinecke codex. Robertson apparently saw the codex with its owner before it was obtained by Yale University. It was then known as the “Nancy Manuscript”: The bibliography is as complete as possible at the present time; in its preparation, the editor has had the advantage of personal assistance from librarians of many great libraries, public and private, both in Europe and America, where rare Pigafetta manuscripts or books are conserved. He would call especial attention to the fact that more complete and definite details are 26 Robertson, 14. 26  presented of the four existing manuscripts than has yet appeared anywhere, especially of the Nancy Manuscript.27 In his listing of the “Bibliography of Pigafetta Manuscripts and Printed Books”, Robertson describes the French manuscripts that can be found in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris and one in the private collection known as the Nancy Manuscript. The description as stated by Robertson, was written by the owner of the collection: Nancy Manuscript. The Nancy Manuscript was first mentioned in 1841, by Thomassy who found it in the library of Mons. Beaupre, judge of the court of first instance at Nancy, France; and who described it and gave various passages from it… The catalogue of the Libri sale (July, 1862, p. 92, no. 456) says "this MS. belonged to the secretary of the Cardinal of Lorraine, and… was in the convent of St. Leopold at Nancy. There is every reason to suppose that this is the manuscript copy of the relation of his voyage which Pigafetta had addressed to the Duke of Lorraine, as Vespucci (at the beginning of the same century) addressed his letters on America to another Duke of Lorraine." From the library of Mons. Beaupre, the manuscript passed into the possession of 27 Robertson even mentioned the name of the previous owner of the Nancy manuscript: To Mr. T. FitzRoy Fenwick, Thirlestaine House, Cheltenham, England, for definite information concerning the Nancy MS. of Pigafetta's relation which was owned by his grandfather, Sir Thomas Phillipps (Robertson, 16-17). 27 the Paris bookseller Potier, by whom it was sold in 1855 into the Solar collection. At the demise of Mons. Felix Solar in 1861, it came into the possession of a London bookseller, who paid 1,650 francs for it. The Venetian canon Pietro Marasca tried to acquire the manuscript for the library of his city, first at Nancy, and then at Paris, but in vain, and after it was taken to London lost all trace of it. It appears next at London in the Libri sale (July, 1862), where it was bid in by Sir Thomas Phillipps of Cheltenham, England, for £135; and is still in possession of his heirs, its pressmark being "MS. Phillipps, 16405." It has been partially described by Thomassy… and by the Solar and Libri catalogues, which sources Harrisse and Mosto follow; but we are indebted for the most complete description of this document yet furnished to the courtesy of Mr. T. FitzRoy Fenwick, grandson of Sir Thomas Phillipps (who died in 1872), and are thus able to present facts that have hitherto escaped attention. The description that follows is mainly that of Mr. T. FitzRoy Fenwick, although we have at times availed ourselves of the other sources: Small folio, finely bound in red morocco, tooled and gilt (Divin binding). Written on fine white vellum in a beautiful French hand of the sixteenth century, and the volume as a whole is in an excellent state of preservation. There are 99 leaves with writing, 11x7 1/2 in. In addition, at the beginning are one paper flyleaf and two blank vellum leaves, and at the end two blank vellum leaves and one paper flyleaf. On the verso of leaf I is written in an ordinary eighteenth century hand, "S*' Leopoldi Nanceani an. 1720" [St. 28  Leopold's, Nancy, 1720"]. Beneath this is a coat-of-arms, and the inscription (in sixteenth century hand): "Viro clarissimo eruditissimo et integerrimo Christophoro Gastynaso Illustrissimi Cardanalis a Lotharingia ex consiliis secretioribus Senatori et libellorum supplicum magistro dignissimo" [i.e., "To the most noble learned, and virtuous man, Christophorus Gastynaeus, member of the most secret council, and counselor of the most illustrious Cardinal of Lorraine, and the most worthy master of petitions."] This is followed by another coat-of-arms or bookplate with the inscription "Joannes Cognetius eidem Principi Pharmacis et Cubiculis hunc librum D. D."28 If one reads the description and look at the pictures of the Yale-Beinecke facsimile edition which Atega included in his self-published book on page 28-29, it is clearly the same codex.29 Why is it important to mention this detail? For one thing, Robertson tried to trace the provenance of the manuscript and came to the conclusion that it was so far the best and most complete of the French manuscripts as compared to the other two found in the Bibliotheque Nationale. But, he also added that it may have been translated directly from the Ambrosian MS. 28 Robertson, 262-264. 29 See Gabriel B. Atega. Where Is Mazzawa? (Expanded Edition). (Davao City: Gabriel A. Atega, 2012). The panel members agreed that it was unnecessary to trace the history of how the manuscript copy became a part of the library of Yale University. 29  A complete collation of the Nancy MS. might prove it to be the oldest of the French MSS., though its resemblance in chirography to MS. 24224 (if true) is against such a hypothesis. It is by far the best and most complete of the French MSS., for it contains all the vocabularies (although we cannot state at present whether they are exactly as in the Ambrosian MS.), and so far as can be stated from our slight collation is not abridged as is MS. 5650. From the slight collation that we have been able to make of it with the Ambrosian MS., and the description so kindly furnished us, it appears that it (or an earlier copy) was translated directly from the Ambrosian MS., or from another copy of the relation reading as the latter.30 As to the language used by Pigafetta in writing the journal, Robertson wrote that “The evidence is in favor of the Italian, and therefore the Ambrosian is the oldest or a copy of the oldest manuscript.”31 To sum up, Atega’s allegation that the Robertson translation is from Amoretti is erroneous. But his claim that the Nancy-Yale-Beinecke codex is an “accurate” work may be correct if we are to follow Robertson’s explanation that the codex was a translation of the Ambrosian manuscript. This assertion will be further confirmed in the comparison of the translations of the Pigafetta versions. 30 Robertson, 262-264. 31 Robertson, 264. Robertson’s arguments in reaching this conclusion are too long to be printed in this report. It is best to be read on pp. 264-272 in Volume 2 of Robertson’s translation. 30  Hontiveros, on the other hand, quoted R.A. Skelton in his article describing the “accuracy” of the Yale-Beinecke codex: Is there any basis for accepting these other primary sources, and would these have a positive consequence to our search for historical truth? Take the case of the original Pigafetta chronicles: A good number of Magellan and Renaissance navigation scholars see the Yale codex as exhibiting a far superior narrative. The eminent Renaissance navigation scholar and Pigafetta translator, R.A. Skelton, would describe the Yale codex in the following terms: “Certainly the most magnificent of the four manuscripts in respect to its writing, its illumination, and its maps.”32 Hontiveros, however, took the Skelton quotation out of context. Skelton was not discussing the text or the accuracy of the contents of Yale-Beinecke codex. He was speaking of the artifact, Pigafetta’s presentation copy of his manuscript to its recipient in his search for a sponsor to publish his work. The full quote from Skelton’s book below includes his description of the Ambrosiana codex and also refers to the two French draft manuscripts. The underlined portions are by the panel: The Italian manuscript in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, may be described as workmanlike rather than elegant. Written on paper in a neat humanistic hand, unilluminated, and illustrated by twenty-three map sketches, it is nevertheless the only remaining representative to the textual tradition deriving from Pigafetta’s original draft and thus supplies a useful datum for 32 Hontiveros, 53 31  interpretation or emendation of the French versions…. The third and most complete French manuscript is the Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex, here translated, which is certainly the most magnificent of the four manuscripts in respect of its writing, its illumination, and its maps…. that they are all early, that is, executed within a few years after Pigafetta’s original draft, has not been seriously disputed. Collation of the texts suggest that each of the three manuscripts derives from a common source in a (lost) French text translated from the Italian, with some editorial manipulation. In the great majority of cases where these two manuscripts (the French drafts) disagree, however, the reading of the Beinecke-Yale is supported by that of the Ambrosiana manuscript and this may be supposed to reproduce more faithfully Pigafetta’s own text. Both Robertson and Skelton agree that the Yale-Beinecke codex has more details than the Ambrosiana codex. But the two translators also agree that both codices supported each other with regard to a study of the text and its contents. In line with its findings of the Pigafetta texts and to settle the arguments on accuracy of the translations, the panel presents here comparisons of the Robertson and Skelton translations. In addition, the panel hired the assistance of European language translation scholars to make its own translation based on the original Ambrosiana and the Yale-Beinecke codices. The translations are limited to the portion of the events of the First Easter Sunday Mass as described by Pigafetta and are shown here for comparative purposes: 32  Robertson Translation from the Skelton Translation from the Ambrosiana Codex Yale-Beinecke Codex Pieces of gold, of the size of walnuts and CHAPTER XIX eggs are found by sifting the earth in the Of the king Raia Calambu, brother of the island of that king who came to our ships. first king called Raia Siaiu. Of his All the dishes of that king are of gold and accoutrements, and of his country. The also some portion of his house, as we mass of Easter Day and other ceremonies. were told by that king himself. According to Of the two aforesaid kings. Of a cross set their customs he was very grandly decked up by their consent. Interrogation between out [molto in ordine] and the finest looking one of the kings and the captain. The said man that we saw among those people. His king's offer to the captain. That king hair was exceedingly black, and hung to wished to guide the captain. What he did. his shoulders. He had a covering of silk on On the island of that king who came to the his head, and wore two large golden ship are mines of gold, which is found by earrings fastened in his ears. He wore a digging from the earth large pieces as cotton cloth all embroidered with silk, large as walnuts and eggs. And all the which covered him from the waist to the vessels he uses are likewise [of gold], as knees. At his side hung a dagger, the haft are also some parts of his house, which of which was somewhat long and all of was well fitted in the fashion of the gold, and its scabbard of carved wood. He country. And he was the most handsome had three spots of gold on every tooth, and person whom we saw among those his teeth appeared as if bound with gold. peoples. He had very black hair to his He was perfumed with storax and benzoin. shoulders, with a silk cloth on his head, He was tawny and painted [i.e. tattooed] and two large gold rings hanging from his all over. That island of his was called ears. He wore a cotton cloth, embroidered Butuan and Calagan. When those kings with silk, which covered him from his waist wished to see one another, they both went to his knees. At his side he had a dagger to hunt in that island where we were. The with a long handle, and all of gold, the name of the first king is Raia Colambu, sheath of which was of carved wood. 33 and the second Raia Siaui. Withal he wore on his person perfumes of storax and benzoin He was tawny and Early on the morning of Sunday, the last of painted all over. His island is called Butuan March, and Easter-day, the captain- and Calaghan. And when the two kings general sent the priest with some men to wish to visit each other, they go hunting on prepare the place where mass was to be the island where we were. Of these kings, said; together with the interpreter to tell the the aforesaid painted one is named Raia king that we were not going to land in Calambu, and the other Raia Siaiu. order to dine with him, but to say mass. Therefore, the king sent us two swine that On Sunday the last day of March, and he had had killed. When the hour for Easter Day, the captain early in the mass arrived, we landed with about fifty morning sent the chaplain ashore to men, without our body armor, but carrying celebrate mass. And the interpreter went our other arms, and dressed in our best with him to tell the king that we were not clothes. Before we reached the shore with landing to dine with him, but only to hear our boats, six pieces were discharged as a mass. Hearing this the king sent two dead sign of peace. We landed; the two kings pigs. And when the hour for saying mass embraced the captain-general, and placed came, the captain with fifty men went him between them. We went in marching ashore, not in armour, but only with order to the place consecrated, which was swords, and dressed as honourably as it not far from the shore. Before the was possible for each man to do. And, commencement of mass, the captain before we reached shore with the boats, sprinkled the entire bodies of the two kings our ships fired six shots as a sign of with musk water. The mass was offered peace. When we landed, the two kings up. The kings went forward to kiss the were there, and they received our captain cross as we did, but they did not offer the kindly, and put him in the centre between sacrifice. When the body of our Lord was the two of them. Then we went to the elevated, they remained on their knees place prepared for saying mass, which and worshiped Him with clasped hands. was not far from the shore. And before The ships fired all their artillery at once mass began the captain threw much rose when the body of Christ was elevated, the muscat water over those two kings. Then 34 signal having been given from the shore when it came to the offering of the mass, with muskets. After the conclusion of those two kings went to kiss the cross as mass, some of our men took communion. we did, but they did not offer anything. And The captain-general arranged a fencing at the elevation of the body of our Lord tournament, at which the kings were they knelt as we did and worshipped our greatly pleased. Then he had a cross Lord with clasped hands. And the ships carried in and the nails and a crown, to fired all their artillery at the elevation of our which immediate reverence was made. He Lord's body. After mass was said, each did told the kings through the interpreter that the work of a good Christian, receiving our they were the standards given to him by Lord. the emperor his sovereign, so that wherever he might go he might set up Then the captain ordered swordplay by his those his tokens. [He said] that he wished men, in which the kings took great to set it up in that place for their benefit, for pleasure. This done, he had a cross whenever any of our ships came, they brought, with the nails and the crown, to would know that we had been there by that which those kings did reverence. And the cross, and would do nothing to displease captain caused them to be told that these them or harm their property [property: things which he showed laces where he doublet in original MS.]. If any of their men should go and travel. And he told them were captured, they would be set free that he wished to set them up in their immediately on that sign being shown. It country for their benefit, so that if any was necessary to set that cross on the ships of Spain came afterward to those summit of the highest mountain, so that on islands, they seeing the said cross would seeing it every morning, they might adore know that we had been there. And by this it; and if they did that, neither thunder, token they would do them no harm, and if lightning, nor storms would harm them in they took any of their men, being the least.33 immediately shown this sign, they would let them go. Moreover, the captain told them that it was necessary that the cross 33 Robertson, 117-121 35  be set up at the top of the highest mountain in their country, so that every day, seeing the said cross, they might worship it, and that, if they did this, not thunder, lightning, nor tempest could harm them.34 A comparison of the two early English translations shows marked differences in syntax and details. The panel recognized the fact that the Ambrosian Codex was a manuscript that was “workmanlike rather than elegant” as Skelton pointed out and may have been directly derived from the original Pigafetta journal while the Yale-Beinecke was a presentation copy to a sponsor. Thus, one suspects that Pigafetta may have reworked some of his text to attract possible sponsors and, later explorers who may use his account for further voyages to the islands of the West.35 The comparison of the English translations with those made by the translators of the Mojares Panel follows: 34 Skelton, 69-71 35 One example is the change in the original text of “pieces of gold” in the Ambrosiana Codex to “mines of gold” in the Yale-Beinecke, which can make the reader assume that the islands explored by the Magellan Expedition were rich in gold. The method of finding gold was also changed from “sifting” (which means panning) to “digging” (suggesting lodes below the earth) thus, giving the impression of a rich land. This change is also seen in a recent translation of the Ambrosian codex. See Theodore J. Cachey, Jr., ed. The First Voyage Around the World: An Account of Magellan’s Expedition [by] Antonio Pigafetta (New York: Marsilio Publishers, 1995), par. 61. 36  Mojares Panel Translation Robertson Translation Pieces of gold, of the size of walnuts and In the island of this king who came to our eggs are found by sifting the earth in the ships one can find pieces of gold, of the island of that king who came to our ships. size of walnuts and eggs, abundantly All the dishes of that king are of gold and covering the land. All this king’s jars are also some portion of his house, as we made of gold as well as a portion of his were told by that king himself. According house, the king said so himself. to their customs he was very grandly According to their customs, he was very decked out [molto in ordine] and the neat and was the finest-looking man we finest looking man that we saw among laid eyes upon among these people. He those people. His hair was exceedingly had pitch black hair that reached his black, and hung to his shoulders. He had shoulders with a silken cloth atop his a covering of silk on his head, and wore head and two large golden earrings two large golden earrings fastened in his fastened on him. He wore a clothing ears. He wore a cotton cloth all made of cotton wool all embroidered with embroidered with silk, which covered him silk which covered him from the waist to from the waist to the knees. At his side the knees. At his side hung a dagger hung a dagger, the haft of which was which handle was somewhat long, all somewhat long and all of gold, and its made of gold, and which sheath was scabbard of carved wood. He had three made of carved wood. Each of his teeth spots of gold on every tooth, and his had golden spots which seemed to be teeth appeared as if bound with gold. He fastened with gold. He was perfumed was perfumed with storax and benzoin. with storax and benzoin. He was dark He was tawny and painted [i.e. tattooed] olive-skinned and tattooed all over. His all over. That island of his was called island is called Butuan and Calagan. Butuan and Calagan. When those kings When these kings desire to see each wished to see one another, they both other, they go on a hunt in this island went to hunt in that island where we where we were. The first king is named 37 Raia Colambu while the second one is were. The name of the first king is Raia called Raia Siaui. Colambu, and the second Raia Siaui. Early morning on Easter Sunday, the last Early on the morning of Sunday, the last day of March, the captain general sent of March, and Easter-day, the captain- the priest with some men to set the place general sent the priest with some men to up for saying mass, together with the prepare the place where mass was to be interpreter to inform the king that we said; together with the interpreter to tell were not heading ashore to dine with the king that we were not going to land in him, but to hold mass. The king thereby order to dine with him, but to say mass. sent us two slain swine. When the hour Therefore, the king sent us two swine for mass arrived, about fifty of our men that he had had killed. When the hour for went ashore without our body armors but mass arrived, we landed with about fifty carrying our other arms and dressed as men, without our body armor, but best as we could. Before we reached the carrying our other arms, and dressed in shore aboard our boats, six cannon our best clothes. Before we reached the shells were discharged as a sign of shore with our boats, six pieces were peace. When we landed, both kings discharged as a sign of peace. We embraced the captain general and landed; the two kings embraced the placed him between the two of them. We captain-general, and placed him between went in marching order to the them. We went in marching order to the consecrated place, not far away from the place consecrated, which was not far shore. Before mass began, the captain from the shore. Before the sprayed musk water all over the bodies commencement of mass, the captain of the two kings. The mass was offered sprinkled the entire bodies of the two up. The kings went to kiss the cross as kings with musk water. The mass was we had done, but they did not do the offered up. The kings went forward to offering. When the body of Our Lord was kiss the cross as we did, but they did not elevated, they remained on their knees offer the sacrifice. When the body of our and worshipped Him with clasped hands. Lord was elevated, they remained on The ships fired all the artillery at once their knees and worshiped Him with 38 when the body of Christ was raised up, clasped hands. The ships fired all their with muskets having given signal from artillery at once when the body of Christ the shore. When mass ended, some of was elevated, the signal having been our men took communion. The captain given from the shore with muskets. After general had a fencing tournament the conclusion of mass, some of our men arranged for which the kings were greatly took communion. The captain-general pleased. He then had a cross with nails arranged a fencing tournament, at which and a crown brought in to which they the kings were greatly pleased. Then he made immediate reverence. Through the had a cross carried in and the nails and a interpreter, the captain general said that crown, to which immediate reverence this was the banner given to him by his was made. He told the kings through the lord the emperor, so that wherever he interpreter that they were the standards may go, thereupon he might place this as given to him by the emperor his a symbolic token. He told the kings that sovereign, so that wherever he might go he wished to place it there for their he might set up those his tokens. [He benefit, so that if any of our ships came, said] that he wished to set it up in that they would know that we had been in this place for their benefit, for whenever any place and would do nothing to harm of our ships came, they would know that them nor their possessions. And if any of we had been there by that cross, and their men were to be taken away, they would do nothing to displease them or would immediately be released as soon harm their property [property: doublet in as they show them this token. He further original MS.]. If any of their men were said that it was worthwhile to place the captured, they would be set free cross on the summit of their highest immediately on that sign being shown. It mountain so that they might worship it, was necessary to set that cross on the laying sight upon it every morning, and summit of the highest mountain, so that by doing so, neither thunder nor on seeing it every morning, they might lightnings will not the least harm them adore it; and if they did that, neither amid a storm. thunder, lightning, nor storms would harm them in the least. 39  Note that except for some differences in the syntax of the English translations, the content of the Mojares Panel translation and that of the Robertson translation are almost the same. In her note in translating the Ambrosian Codex, Jillian Melchor explained her method: Antonio Pigafetta wrote his account of the expedition led by Ferdinand Magellan in a “bizarre Italo-Venetian language with Spanish words mixed in”.36 Moreover, the account was written before the publication of Pietro Bembo’s Prose della volgar lingua (1525), a prescriptive text which helped shape what is now deemed as “standard Italian”. Pigafetta’s language is thus complex for various reasons. The manuscript was written in a form that pre- dates a standardized Italian language and its author drew vocabulary from different languages, including sixteenth-century Spanish and the Venetian vernacular. For this reason, the translator referred to several dictionaries to come up with an adequate translation of certain lexical ambiguities. I used the transcription of the Ambrosiana codex that appears in Blair and Robertson as source text for this translation and subsequently counter- checked it with the digitized Ambrosiana codex. Throughout the translation process, I referred to Robertson’s English translation of the Ambrosiana manuscript and the English translation of Robert Yu from the French 36 Magnaghi, Alberto. “PIGAFETTA, Antonio in "Enciclopedia Italiana".” In "Enciclopedia Italiana", www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/antonio-pigafetta_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29 40  manuscript Beinecke MS 531 to settle and/or discuss certain ambiguities. My translation is accompanied by footnotes to draw attention to some of these ambiguities, as well as to explain certain words which I opted to retain in the source language for lack of a precise equivalent in English. The words cited by Pigafetta in the indigenous language are italicized and follow the orthography of the transcription. Place names also follow the spelling that appear in the manuscript to reflect orthographic inconsistencies on the part of Pigafetta. Lastly, the translation starts from the part in the account where Magellan's crew sighted Zamal and ends with their brief sojourn in a port located between the islands of Saranghani and Candighar.37 Mojares Panel Translation Skelton Translation CHAPTER XIX CHAPTER XIX Of the king Raia Calambu, brother of the Of the king Raia Calambu, brother of the first king Raia Siaiu. Of his clothes and first king called Raia Siaiu. Of his his country. Easter mass and other accoutrements, and of his country. The ceremonies. Of the said two kings. Of a mass of Easter Day and other cross planted with their consent. ceremonies. Of the two aforesaid kings. Interrogation between one of the kings Of a cross set up by their consent. and the captain. Offer of the said king to Interrogation between one of the kings the captain. Said king wished to bring the and the captain. The said king's offer to captain to his destination. What the king the captain. That king wished to guide the actually did. captain. What he did. On the island of this king who came to On the island of that king who came to 37 Translation note by Jillian Loise Melchor in Mojares Panel Translation of the Ambrosiana Codex. 41 our ship, there were mines of gold which the ship are mines of gold, which is found they find by rummaging through the by digging from the earth large pieces as ground; and they were in pieces as big as large as walnuts and eggs. And all the nuts or eggs. All the containers he used vessels he uses are likewise [of gold], as as well as some parts of his house were are also some parts of his house, which made of it, which was customary in the was well fitted in the fashion of the country. country. And he was the most handsome person whom we saw among those He was the most handsome man that we peoples. He had very black hair to his saw among these peoples. He had very shoulders, with a silk cloth on his head, black hair, long that it reached his and two large gold rings hanging from his shoulders, with a silk cloth on his head ears. He wore a cotton cloth, and two large gold earrings on his ears. embroidered with silk, which covered him He wore a cloth of cotton with some silk from his waist to his knees. At his side he embroidery on it, which covered him from had a dagger with a long handle, and all his waist to his knees. On his side, he of gold, the sheath of which was of had a dagger with a long shaft made of carved wood. Withal he wore on his gold; the sheath of which was made of person perfumes of storax and benzoin carved wood. He also wore scents of He was tawny and painted all over. His storax and benzoin. He was tan and his island is called Butuan and Calaghan. body painted all over. His island was And when the two kings wish to visit each called Butuan and Calaghan. When these other, they go hunting on the island two kings wanted to visit each other, they where we were. Of these kings, the went hunting on this island where we aforesaid painted one is named Raia were. Of these kings, the name of the Calambu, and the other Raia Siaiu. painted king was Raia Calambu while the other one was Raia Siaiu. On Sunday the last day of March, and Easter Day, the captain early in the On Easter Sunday, the last day of March, morning sent the chaplain ashore to the captain sent the chaplain early celebrate mass. And the interpreter went morning on the shore to celebrate mass. with him to tell the king that we were not 42 The slave interpreter went with him to tell landing to dine with him, but only to hear the king that they were not coming on mass. Hearing this the king sent two land to have dinner with him, but only to dead pigs. And when the hour for saying hear mass. Upon hearing it, the king sent mass came, the captain with fifty men two dead pigs. As the time for mass went ashore, not in armour, but only with came, the captain together with fifty of his swords, and dressed as honourably as it men went ashore, without firearms but was possible for each man to do. And, only with their swords, dressed up in the before we reached shore with the boats, best possible way they could. Before our ships fired six shots as a sign of arriving on land, our ships fired six peace. When we landed, the two kings cannon shots as a sign of peace. Upon were there, and they received our captain our descent ashore, the two kings were kindly, and put him in the centre between there, amicably receiving our captain, the two of them. Then we went to the and placed him between themselves. We place prepared for saying mass, which then went to the place that was prepared was not far from the shore. And before to hear mass, which was not far from the mass began the captain threw much rose shore. Before the mass started, the muscat water over those two kings. Then captain threw some musk rose water on when it came to the offering of the mass, the two kings. When the offertory of the those two kings went to kiss the cross as mass came, the two kings went to kiss we did, but they did not offer anything. the cross like we did; but they offered And at the elevation of the body of our nothing. At the elevation of the body of Lord they knelt as we did and worshipped our Lord, they were kneeling like us and our Lord with clasped hands. And the adoring our Lord with hands clasped. The ships fired all their artillery at the ships fired all the artillery at the elevation elevation of our Lord's body. After mass of the body of our Lord. After the mass was said, each did the work of a good has been said, each one did what a good Christian, receiving our Lord. Christian would do, that is, to receive the Lord. Afterwards, the captain had some Then the captain ordered swordplay by of his people engage in swordplay, in his men, in which the kings took great which the two kings took great pleasure. pleasure. This done, he had a cross 43 The captain then had a cross brought in, brought, with the nails and the crown, to with nails and the crown, to which the which those kings did reverence. And the kings showed reverence. The captain told captain caused them to be told that these them that the things he showed them things which he showed laces where he were signs of the emperor his master and should go and travel. And he told them lord, who tasked and commanded him to that he wished to set them up in their place it in all the places he will go to and country for their benefit, so that if any pass by. He told them that he wanted to ships of Spain came afterward to those place it in their country for their own islands, they seeing the said cross would good, so that if any more ships from know that we had been there. And by this Spain would come to the islands, they token they would do them no harm, and if would know we had been there, and as they took any of their men, being such they will not cause any harm. If they immediately shown this sign, they would took any of the kings’ people, by showing let them go. Moreover, the captain told them the sign, they will let the people go. them that it was necessary that the cross Apart from that, the captain told them that be set up at the top of the highest they had to put the cross on the summit mountain in their country, so that every of the highest mountain in their country, day, seeing the said cross, they might so that by seeing it daily, they may adore worship it, and that, if they did this, not it; and that if they did so, no thunder, thunder, lightning, nor tempest could lightning or tempest will destroy them.38 harm them. A comparison of the English translations made by Skelton and the Mojares Panel showed some marked differences in syntax but very small differences in content. Following an examination of the known Pigafetta codices and their translations, the panel made the following conclusion: 38 Translation by Robert John Yu. 44  The statements made by Butuan proponents about accuracy and precedence of the Pigafetta codices and their English translations are mostly baseless. Although an examination of the original texts of the Ambrosiana and Yale-Beinecke codices showed slight differences in content and syntax, one should consider the context in which the sources were written. Skelton mentioned that the Ambrosian codex is “workmanlike rather than elegant” while the Yale-Beinecke is “the most magnificent… in respect of its writing, its illumination, and its maps.” The former, as Skelton said, was apparently the only remaining representative to the textual tradition deriving from Pigafetta’s original draft” while the latter was a presentation copy to impress a possible sponsor to publish the account. But considering that both Robertson and Skelton agree that both codices complement each other, it is not decisive, except on a few specific details, to consider what is accurate or not with the facts contained in both manuscripts. a.4. On Longtitude The Atega paper emphasizes the determination of longitude to pinpoint the location (in this case, Butuan) of the First Easter Sunday Mass. Citing primary sources and contending that the coordinates cited in the Pigafetta, Albo, and the unknown Genoese pilot logs were relatively “accurate,” Atega traced the route taken by the expedition fleet and concluded that 9¾ degrees latitude combined with his reading of longitude coordinates in other sources does in fact lead to Butuan as the site of the First Easter Sunday Mass. 45  Although Atega’s research is commendable, the panel reiterates that longitudinal measurements during the Age of Exploration are imprecise and unreliable because these navigational coordinates are estimates and are not scientifically precise. This is because the chronometer – the instrument invented by John Harrison to measure longitude accurately – was only invented in the 1760s. Before that, primitive instruments and guesswork were used to determine longitude. This point was raised and discussed by Legarda Panel member Pedro Picornell, in his report for the Legarda Panel: Navigators in the early 16th Century had no accurate way of determining longitude and this would have to wait until late in the 18 th Century with the development of the marine chronometer.39 Although a history of longitude will be too long to discuss here, research work by the panel confirms Picornell’s statement: Science writer Dava Sobel wrote in her book, Longitude (1995): The measurement of longitude meridians… is tempered by time. To learn one’s longitude at sea, one needs to know what it is aboard ship and also at the time at the home port or another place of known longitude – at that very same moment. The two clock times enable the navigator to convert the hour difference into a geographical separation. Since the Earth takes twenty-four hours to complete one full revolution of three hundred sixty degrees, one hour 39 Pedro Picornell. “Where was the First Mass on Philippine Soil Celebrated?” Report for the Legarda Panel, January 13, 2009, 7. 46 marks one twenty-fourth of a spin, or fifteen degrees. And so each hour’s time difference between the ship and the starting point marks a process of fifteen degrees of longitude to the east or west. Everyday at sea, when the navigator resets his ship’s clock to local noon when the sun reaches its highest point in the sky, and then consults the home-port clock, every hour’s discrepancy between them translates into fifteen degrees of longitude. She then pointed out the problem of measuring longitude: These same fifteen degrees of longitude also correspond to a distance traveled. At the equator, where the girth of the Earth is greatest, fifteen degrees stretch fully one thousand miles. North or south of that line, however, the mileage value of degree decreases. One degree of longitude equals four minutes of time the world over, but in terms of distance, one degree shrinks from sixty-eight miles at the Equator to virtually nothing at the poles. Precise knowledge of the hour in two different places at once… was utterly unattainable up to and including the era of pendulum clocks. On the deck of a rolling ship, each clock would slow down or speed up, or stop running altogether…. For a lack of a practical method of determining longitude, every great captain in the Age of Exploration became lost at sea despite the best available charts 47  and compasses. From Vasco da Gama to Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, from Ferdinand Magellan to Sir Francis Drake – they all got where they were going willy-nilly, by forces attributed to good luck or the grace of God.40 In his work on the discovery of longitude, Derek Howse also wrote that determining longitude was not possible “because at that time, it could not be done at sea.”41 This does not dismiss the fact there were attempts to measure longitude by the early navigators. But, again, these methods and resulting coordinates are, at best, estimates. In 1314, it was proposed by a German mathematician, Johann Werner of Nuremberg, to use the lunar-distance method in determining navigational measurements using an instrument known as the cross-staff and an almanac and charts with estimates of the distance between the moon and fixed stars. But Howse, pointed out the problem with this method: In practice, neither the instruments nor the tables were at that time accurate enough to give a useful result. Furthermore, Werner omitted to take in account lunar parallax – the fact that the Moon appears in a different position 40 Dava Sobel. Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time (London: Fourth Estate, 1995), 4-6. Also see Simon Winchester. The Perfectionist: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World (New York: Harper Perennial, 2018), 29-36. 41 Derek Howse. Greenwich Time and the Discovery of Longitude (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 161 48  according to the observer’s position on Earth – something which is absolutely fundamental if accuracy is desired.42 As early as the 15th century, new attempts of navigation were being conceptualized by Portuguese explorers. One of these was the use of astronomy “to supplement the time-honored methods of compass, lead line, and informal estimates of ship’s speed.” 43 This method was apparently mentioned by Pigafetta in his Treatise of Navigation.44 But, as Howse explained, this new method was effective for a latitude reading as ships traveled from a north-south direction. But it was the east-west direction that proved to be a problem. The first astronomical measurements of longitude were done in the late 14th century to the early 16th century but this was possible only if done on land. There was also a need for the appropriate instruments of the time like the cross staff and almanacs to determine such navigational measurements. A check into the lists of the navigational instruments of the expedition showed that Magellan had no such instruments on board his ships.45 42 Howse, 8. 43 Howse, 4. 44 Antonio Pigafetta. “Treatise of Navigation” in Lord Stanley of Alderley (trans.). The First Voyage Round the World by Magellan. (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1874), 167-171. 45 “Extracto de la la habilitación que tuvo y viage que hizo la Armada del Emperador Carlos V, de que era Capitán general Fernando Magallanes, compuesta de las cinco naos nombradas Trinidad, S. Antonio, Concepción, Victoria y Santiago” in Martin Fernandez de Navarette. Colección de los Viages y Descubrimientos,Que Hicieron Por Mar Los Españoles Tomo IV. (Madrid: Imprenta Nacional, 1837), 8. 49  Naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison also discussed the difficulties of determining both latitude and longitude saying much of it was estimates because of the lack of navigational instruments. Furthermore, he pointed out that even after instruments were invented, it took some time before they were actually used by the ships they were made for. For instance, the chronometer, which first enabled a navigator to get accurate longitude, was invented in 1750, but the royal French navy in 1833, with 250 ships, had only 44 chronometers. To assume that once an instrument is invented or a rutter or nautical almanac published, every offshore shipmaster is familiar with them, is a complete fallacy.46 Morison summarized in his discussion on navigational methods with these words: In general, the navigational methods in effect around 1500 lasted, with many refinements but no essential changes, until 1920-1930. Then radio beams, timers, echo-finders, and the like were first installed on warship and big steamships, replacing the navigator’s dependence on his own efforts with shipboard instruments.47 So, how did Magellan navigate his expedition? 46 Samuel Eliot Morison. The European Discovery of America, the Southern Voyages. (AD 1492-1616), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 141. 47 Morison, 142. 50  Magellan’s navigational method is described by Pigafetta in his account as “carteava et navigava”48. Skelton mistranslated this as “made sea charts”49 while Robertson translates it as “understand sea charts”50 to which Morison agreed, noting that: The first word does not mean “make charts” but “navigated by the charts” (i.e. dead reckoning), navigava means using celestial navigation.51 As for the length of the legua by which the expedition pilots measured their distance, Morison cited Navarette on the various measurement of the legua during Magellan’s time: The legua used by Spaniards and Portuguese in Magellan’s day equaled 3 3/7 nautical miles, “or 17.5 to the degree” which almost works out as almost 3.5 nautical miles.52 The panel reiterates the fact presented by the Legarda Panel that a determination of the accuracy of longitude during Magellan’s time was not possible and, at best, the navigational measurements made by Pigafetta, Albo, and “the Genoese pilot” are estimates. These have to be studied carefully in order to determine how these 48 Robertson, 176. 49 Skelton, 94. 50 Robertson, 177. 51 Morison, 437. 52 Morrison, 433. He also cites Robertson for a discussion of the number of leagues the ship made through the measurement of its speed using the catena. See Robertson, 245 endnote 172. 51 measurements led to the conclusion that the First Easter Sunday Mass was on Limasawa Island. B. Determining Limasawa Before going into the arguments on the Limasawa presentation, the panel went over the evidence presented by the Butuan proponents. One of their main points of argument for locating the First Easter Sunday Mass in Butuan was the use of the Yale- Beinecke manuscript as the more reliable guide to navigational coordinates and transcriptions. However, the panel, upon examination of the R.A. Skelton translation of the Yale- Beinecke codex, noted the footnote “Mazzaua” on page 74: That island is in the latitude of nine and two thirds degrees towards the Arctic Pole, and in the longitude of one hundred and sixty-two from the line of demarcation. And from the other island, where we found the springs of fresh water, it is twenty-five leagues distant. And that island is called Mazzaua53 In the footnote marked with a cross, Skelton wrote the following entry: “Limasawa.”54 See the photograph of the page below: 53 Skelton, 74. 54 Skelton, 74. 52 Photograph No. 1, Pigafetta Translation by B.R. Skelton, p. 74 53  The Skelton footnote undercuts the Butuan proponents’ argument since the very source they are using to prove their arguments (Butuan) endorses the point they are arguing against (Limasawa). However, in order to provide further clarity on the case of Limasawa, the panel investigated the sources used. The following are the findings and conclusions of the panel: b) Similarities of the Coordinates The Atega presentation argued that the origin of the Limasawa controversy was Robertson’s use of the Amoretti transcription. This argument is based on a confusion clarified earlier in this report. However, the panel would also points out that, in spite of the problem mentioned by Robertson with the Amoretti transcription, there is consistency with regard to the navigational coordinates mentioned in the two main Pigafetta codices (the Ambrosiana and the Yale-Beinecke) and that subsequent transcribers and translators of both codices concluded that the island indicated by the coordinates (and, therefore, the site of the First Easter Mass) was Limasawa Island. Based on the note found in the published Amoretti transcription, his conclusion was derived from an examination of the coordinates as they appeared on the 1752 Philippine map made by Jacques Nicolas Bellin (Carte Des Philippines Dressee sur la Carte Espagnole du R.P. Murillo de Velarde. 1752)55. See the text of the Amoretti version (apparently edited but with no change of the coordinates) below: 55 Bellin, however, did not include the Magellan Expedition route as originally shown in the Murillo Velarde map. He merely showed the areas of the Visayas and Northern Mindanao for 54  Photograph No. 2, Mazawa location according to the Amoretti book. And the subsequent footnote: Alderley, in his translation of the Amoretti book, retained the same text and footnote, reinforcing the contention that the island in question was Limasawa.56 The Da Mosta transcription of the Ambrosiana codex also included the same Photograph No. 3, Note on Photograph No. 2 from the Amoretti Book. Alderney, in his translation of the Amoretti book, retained the same text and footnote, reinforcing the contention that the island in question was Limasawa. 56 The Da Mosto transcription of the Ambrosiana codex also included the same coordinates but now included the text that was edited out by Amoretti. Photograph No. 4, Changes in the Da Mosto Transcription. As translated by Robertson: the cartographer’s use. This observation is based on existing digital copies of the map on the Internet. See photo in Photograph Section 56 See Alderley, 83. 55  It lies in a latitude of nine and two thirds degrees toward the Arctic Pole, and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua. The corresponding footnote is an analysis by Da Mosto comparing the various sources (the Roteiro of the “Genoese Pilot”; Albo’s journal; Transylvanus’s work, and Pigafetta’s) containing texts and coordinates that, although different, approximate each other with small margins of differences. His conclusion was that the island that corresponds to the coordinates was Limasawa Island: Photograph No. 5, Da Mosto’s conclusion of Mazaua. The Yale-Beinecke is no different with regard to the coordinates as we can see in the photograph of the manuscript page: Photograph No.6, Yale-Beinecke Coordinates on Mazaua. 56  See the Skelton translation of the text above and the subsequent foonote mentioning the said coordinates as that of Limasawa. In effect, in spite of the Butuan proponents’ claim that the “error” in replacing Butuan with Limasawa was derived from Robertson, the identification of Limasawa as the island in question was already made as early as the beginning of the 19 th century. The panel concludes that, in spite of the various transcriptions and translations of the Pigafetta codices, the navigational coordinates (even though they are estimates) refer to the island of Limasawa. b.2. Retracing the Magellan Voyage An important contribution to studies on the Magellan voyage are the modern attempts to reenact the voyage as well as the use of modern technology to trace its route. In 1971, the naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison retraced the Magellan route in a two-month journey under sail and in the air (using a low-flying aircraft), guided by such sources as the Francisco Albo log and other documents from the Archivo General de Indias in Seville. With him in the expedition was Mauricio Obregon, a Colombian historian with much experience in similar ventures (together with the Magellan voyage, he retraced thir