Talk:Enrique of Malacca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

/summaryThis is a summary for use in translations and to initiate the articles in other languages.Please do not expand but feel free to include essential facts only.--Jondel 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] First Circumnavigator

Martin Torodash, in his own words, states in response to his name on this article that he was "NOT THE FIRST PERSON WHO STATED THAT HENRIQUE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO CIRCUMNAVIGATE THE WORLD." I have at Martin Torodash's request deleted statements to the contrary which had been posted originally by Vincente De Jesus. I hope that in the pursuit of factual neutrality this misinformation will not be reproduced and propagated, as it borders on libel. Those wishing to dispute this could theoretically seek out Dr. Torodash to challenge this deletion, but I am not at liberty to assert what if any modes of communication he will acknowledge.

In my humble opinion, this is getting into silly technicalities. Even if Henry, Magellan or someone else managed to be present in all 360 degrees of longitude at some point during their lifetime, that does not constitute "circumnavigation of the world," and it denigrates the achievement to say otherwise. The first people to accomplish this, that we know of, were Elcano and his 18 men. Drake and his 62 men were the second to do so. To truly circumnavigate, you get in a ship, go all the way around the world, and live to tell about it. You don't go halfway, and then go the other half of the way years later. This business with Henry The Black smacks of political correctness of the worst kind. Just MHO...-- Jsc1973 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"You don't go halfway, and then go the other half of the way years later."
And why not? How long is the explorer permitted to pause in any particular port, before Jsc1973 deems his expedition "not a true circumnavigation"? Three days? One week? Whatever time period Jsc1973 chooses will be arbitrary.
If I travel from New York to Chicago, get a job there, raise children and grandchildren, then travel to San Francisco, I have indeed traveled from New York to San Francisco. GPS Pilot 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to re-read where I said it was my opinion. I attempted no change in the article based on it, just expressed my opinion for the purpose of discussion. (I have never changed a controversial issue without a consensus, and don't plan to start here.) The act of sailing halfway around the world and the act of sailing all the way in a single voyage are hugely different things. The former was probably being done by the Sumerians 4,500 years ago, and at the very latest it was being done by the Chinese hundreds of years before Magellan. The latter was never done until 1522, and then it was 60 more years before it was done again. Enrique and Magellan sailed halfway around the world twice in different directions. The King of Spain obviously understood the magnitude of what Elcano had done, considering he awarded him a coat of arms in honor of it. Traveling from New York to San Francisco isn't any achievement, and isn't germane to this discussion at all. Jsc1973 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

[edit] Definition of Term "Circumnavigation"

If we go by this definition, you'll be left standing alone in the debate. Most scholars, navigation historian, writers have allowed for a less circumscribed definition--Torodash, Morison, Joyner, Bergreen, Zweig, Quirino, McKew Parr, etc. well, just about everybody. You might call them or their definition silly, but all you've really achieved is to narrowly define the word as to allow only your stand to survive. Still, even the most liberal definition of "circumnavigation" won't validate the claim Magellan did it or Enrique. Magellan's claim rests on the unsupported assertion of 17th c. historian Argensola that Magellan was in the 1511 Abreu expedition to the Moluccas. Official records, accessed by contemporary historians, name Simão Afonso Bisagudo not Magellan as captain of the third ship. If Magellan had gone on this trip--and he didn't--his furthest east in 1511, as Morison described the phenomenon, at Banda on longitude 130°E was overlapped by six degrees in 1521 at Mactan which is on longitude 124°E. In the case of Enrique, his claim is based on false logic, fallacious interpretation of Pigafetta's text and total disregard of primary testimonies that Enrique did not speak Cebuano (Maximilian Transylvanus), that his language was Malay, the lingua franca of the region (de Mafra), and that he was Malaccan (Magellan) or Sumatran (Pigafetta).

So without changing the rules of the game, i.e., redefining "circumnavigation, and resorting to ad hominem you still end up with Sebastian Delcano and his 18 mates. You win fair and square. Vicente C. de Jesus 01:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the comment above, I was just expressing an opinion, not attempting to change anything in the article without a consensus. If I'd be alone in the debate that's fine with me. In my view, Elcano and his men pulled off an amazing feat unmatched in history to that point in time and should be credited accordingly. Going half of the way and then the other half a decade later isn't the same as making a 16th century ship sail 35,000 or so miles and living to tell about it. If Elcano "wins" even using the loosest definition possible, then great. Jsc1973 03:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

[edit] Libelous?

There's something inelegant, if undemocratic, to calm discussion that degenerates into threats of legal sanction when the tools of refutation--reasoned argument, logic, citations, sources, evidence, etc.--are there. Dr. Torodash states in "Magellan Historiography" (Hispanic American Historical Review, May 1971), "If scholars want to take credit from Magellan on a technicality, they should confer the honor of premier circumnavigator upon Henrique de Malaca, Magellan's slave, who certainly was the first man to take a 360 degree trip." He cites no source, offers no argument, and leaves the issue there. In the absence of any accreditation one is led to think it is an original thought. All the others who wrote on this issue, as far as I can gather, came after Torodash: Samuel Eliot Morison, 1974; Carlos Quirino, 1980; Tim Joyner, 1992; William Manchester, 1992; Laurence Bergreen, 2003; John Keay, 2005. Those running this great enterprise, Wikipedia, should set the example of scholarly discourse and not be quick to raise the specter of legal reprisal. We are reasonable men, and reasonable men use calm reason and reasoned argument. Whoever wrote the above has not done what every scholar ought to do which is to ascertain the veracity of any one's assertion. In any case Dr. Torodash is perfectly free to now tell us from whom he got the idea and what compelled him to hide that authority's identity. Because if he indeed got it from somebody, his failure to name his source makes him vulnerable to the charge of appropriation. (User:Vicente C. de Jesus 06:01, 6 September 2006)

[edit] Reference

The article is based on the following e-mail account from Mr. Nestor Enriquez:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nestor Enriquez" <phix7@yahoo.com>
To: "John Martinez" <martinez@dempa.co.jp>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: Enrique the circumnavigator is Malaysian.


> Long long time ago I have been writing that Enrique
> was Malay and I stil do. The same as we say "Rizal is
> the Pride of the Malay Race" and Enrique is one too.
> 
> You are right that Enrique had problem commnicating in
> Samar and Cebu. On the second island called Mazzaua
> there was an instant commnunication with the 8 men on
> a boat approaching the water.
> 
> The ships headed toward a nearby land called Mazzava
> Island (where this island is a controversy for the NHS
> but to continue) a small boat of eight men approached
> them. Discouraged from the language barrier that he
> confronted at Homonhon, Enrique did not think they
> would understand him. To his surprise, his greeting in
> Malay dialect was returned.  Reluctant to enter, the
> small boat stayed by the ship. Enrique was amazed at
> the fact that he could communicate with the people as
> they surrounded him, chattering, because he didn't
> quite realize why he could understand him. He had made
> it all the way around the world, back to Malay
> homeland that he left 12 years earlier, making him the
> first man to do so. Enrique's conversation with the
> Mazzava (?) people definitively confirmed that the
> earth was round, not by what he was saying, but by the
> language with which he spoke. Magellan knew that he
> was close to reaching his goal, since he was once
> again amongst the Malay speakers.
> 
>  
> 
> Another romantic version..
> 
>  
> 
> ..Now came the wonder. The Islanders surrounded
> Enrique chattering and shouting, and the Malay slave
> was dumbfounded, for the understood much of what they
> were saying. He understood much of what they saying.
> He understood their questions. It was a good many
> years since he was snatched from his home, a good many
> years since he had last heard a word of his native
> speech. What amazing moment, one of the remarkable in
> the history of mankind! For the first time since our
> planet begun to spin upon its axis and to circle in
> its orbit, a living man, himself circling that planet,
> had got back to his homeland. No matter that he was
> underling, a slave, for his significance lies in his
> fate and not his personality. He is known to us by his
> slave-name Enrique; but we know, likewise, that he was
> torn from his home upon the island of Sumatra, was
> brought by Magellan in Malacca, was taken by his
> master to India, to Africa, and to Lisbon; traveled
> thence to Brazil and to Patagonia; and first of all
> the population of the world, traversing the oceans,
> circling the globe, he returned to the region where
> men spoke a familiar tongue. Having made acquaintance
> on the way with hundred of people and tribes and
> races, each of which had different way of
> communicating thought, he had got back to his folk,
> whom he could understand and could understand him. 
> 
> 
> 
> It was in Cebu where Enrique had problem
> communicating. Some would say that the native King
> just didn't  want to communicate with him directly
> because he was just a slave and would rather speak to
> his master. I rather think that Enrique even if he was
> indeed from the area definitely was not from Cuba
> because he needed another interpreter.
> 
>  
> 
> Again after the whole episode, drama and dialogue in
> Cebu including the alleged Enrique's betrayal I
> believe that Enrique stayed in Cebu naturalized for
> the rest of his life. He is a man (not the eunuch
> Chinese admiral ;-) who now probably was the first one
> to go around the world.  This will make the issue of
> that Enrique as the first circumnavigator mute) and
> some of us might have descended from him. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- John Martinez <martinez@dempa.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > (From a fellow filipino.)
> > 
> > Fair is fair,
> > 
> > According to this
> >
> [http://magazine.virtualmalaysia.com/sepoct03/view.cfm?article=enrique&page=
> > 2 (Pigafetta's account  search Sumatra)] he couldn't
> > speak with the common
> > natives but with the Royalty and traders which is a
> > feature of a lingua
> > franca(Malay), he couldn't speak Cebuano nor
> > communicate with people from
> > Samar. In Malaysian literature, he has the
> > appellation Panglima Awang.
> > 
> > John Martinez
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> Nestor Palugod Enriquez
> http://www.filipinohome.com
> Coming to America
> 
> Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery.
> Today is a gift,and that's why we call it the present.

[edit] Direct evidences Enrique is not from Cebu

The notion Enrique spoke Cebuano and is therefore from Cebu is based on several fallacies:

1. There is not one shred of evidence he ever spoke Cebuano. No primary or secondary source says he did; 2. More to the point, eyewitnesses expressly--unequivocably--state he spoke Malay and that Enrique was born in a Malay-speaking place. In Magellan's Last Will and Testament, which was conserved at the Casa de Contratacion and published by Martín Fernández de Navarette and was translated by F.H.H. Guillemard, the Portuguese mariner stated his slave was a native of Malacca. Antonio Pigafetta, on the other hand, wrote, "Then a slave of his, who was of Zamatra, formerly called Traprobana, spoke to those men [natives of the island-port of Mazaua] at a distance, and they heard him speak..." Now what language would a native of Zamatra (Sumatra) use? This question is clearly and unequivocably answered by a statement of Ginés de Mafra, the only seaman in the Magellan fleet to return to that island-port. De Mafra wrote, "[Magallanes] mandó a un hombre que se llamaba Heredia que era escribano de la nao, que fuese en tierra con un indio que llevaban que decian que era lengua por que sabia hablar Malaya, que es lengua que todas aquellas prtes es muy comun." ("[Magellan] sent a man named Heredia, who was the ship's clerk, ashore with an Indian they had taken, so they said, because he was known to speak Malay, the language common to those parts.")(Chapter XI, page 198, Libro que trata del descubrimiento y principio del Estrecho que se llama de Magallanes por Ginés de Mafra. Translation by Raymond John Howgego); 3. There is one argument Carlos Quirino asserted that Enrique may have belonged to the group of some 500 persons who came from the Philippine archipelago. This group were specifically identified by Tome Pires as being "Lucões" which most historians agree meant "coming from Luzon." Here is what Quirino wrote in his Philippines Free Press article, "He [Enrique] must have come from one of the islands then known as the Luzones, about 12 days by sail northeast of Borneo." Now if Enrique belonged to this group he could not have spoken Cebuano. The people of Luzon speak many languages--Tagalog, Kapampangan, Bicolano, Ilocano, Ibanag, etc.--but not Cebuano; 4. In the secondhand account by Maximilianus Transylvanus, he clearly wrote Enrique did not speak Cebuano. It was a trader from Siam (Thailand) who did the translation work, he spoke to the king of Cebu, Humabon, and Humabon spoke in Cebuano, then the Siamese would translate this into Malay to Enrique who then translated this to Portuguese for the understanding of Magellan. Quirino invents a remark supposedly written by Pigafetta, "Should you refuse, warned Enrique in Sugbuanon, you will be taught how sharp are the Spanish lances." Nowhere in Pigafetta's text is this found.

The cavalier, if not irrational, disregard of these primary and direct evidences is beyond understanding. In fact Quirino's inventiveness knew no bounds. Again in his Free Press article, he came up with a complete fabrication. "Enrique," wrote Quirino of an imagined incident at Cebu, "immediately recognized his father, one of the datu around the rajah. He held his hands together to his forehead, the customary salutation of a Malay to his elder; the father smiled as he recognized his son whom he had given up for dead. His mother was one of the attendants of the Ranee, and beside her was a young and pretty maiden whom he realized was once his teenage sweetheart." The sheer irrationality of such an invention qualifies the entire Enrique de Carcar story as, to use a term of Samuel Eliot Morison, "crackpot history."--Vic (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enrique

Please incorporate the following text, cut from Enrique (now a redirect)

Magellan's slave, Enrique, is thought to be from there, but actually Malacca. Magellan bought Enrique 10 years earlier in Malacca, and he followed Magellan to Africa and to Europe. He could have come from the Philippine archipelago, having been captured as a child by Muslim raiders and sold in the slave mart. Whether he was originally from here or from another country, he may hold the distinction of being the first circumnavigator of the globe.

[edit] History writing is weighing between two equally compelling testimonies

Speculation, opinion, surmise, guessing like the above entry is all right if we're dealing with non-existent facts. Then one can let loose one's imagination; and that should properly be in novel writing. There are two eyewitnesses who gave specific places where Enrique came from, Magellan said Malacca, Pigafetta said Sumatra. There's the secondhand testimony by Maximilian Transylvanus, that the slave is Moluccan, which has much lesser evidentiary value and should automatically be excluded. The historian's task is to resolve the contradiction between Magellan and Pigafetta and argue why one is more credible than the other. The higher probability is Pigafetta is right. My argument is he had the ethnographer's gift to see people as they are and to understand their ways, the investigative reporter's knack for probing questions, and an uncommon ability for asking very personal questions. As a lexicographer, Pigafetta could precisely ascertain from where Enrique was more than Magellan who had less expertise in this very human science. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Enrique addresses some natives in a Malay dialect successfully. They are hospitably received at Limasawa Island (S of Leyte Island), and Enrique negotiates for more food with Rajah Calambu. The Rajah becomes blood brother to Magellan, with whom he feels a kinship. The armada regroups, relieved at the death of the demanding Captain General. Barbosa and Serrano are elected co-commanders. Enrique declares his freedom, and upon meeting resistance, he flees and begins to plot with Humabon. A feast for the leaders is planned by Humabon though actually a trap, and on arrival the Europeans are attacked (May 1, 1521).


[edit] Enrique is not from Cebu, Rajah Calambu is not King of Mazaua

The notion Enrique is from Cebu, that Rajah Calambu/Colambu is king of Mazaua (not Limasawa, an isle mistaken for Mazaua...it possesses not one property out of 32 that I have inventoried of Mazaua) is a product of imprecision, and a shaky uncertain grasp of basic sources. Philippine historian Carlos Quirino, who first made the claim Enrique is Cebuano, misread, misunderstood and distorted what Antonio Pigafetta wrote. Here is the incident in Mazaua--not Cebu--that Quirino misread, as written by Pigafetta: "Two hours or so later, we saw approaching two long boats, which they call Ballanghai, full of men, and in the larger was their king...the said slave [Enrique] spoke to that king [Raia Siaiu], who understood him well. For, in that country, the kings know more languages than the common people do." From this, Quirino made the ff. conclusions, all fallacious: 1) Enrique spoke Cebuano, therefore he was from Cebu; 2) Malay cannot be understood in the Philippines today, which is true enough, therefore it was not understood in 1521. Quirino forgot the incident happened in Mazaua where Butuanon not Cebuano is spoken, both languages belonging to the Bisayan family. He also forgot he wasn't speaking of today's reality. He totally disregarded Pigafetta's explicit statement before this that Enrique "was of Zamatra, formerly called Traprobana." (Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex, Magellan's Voyage tr. by R.A. Skelton. New Haven, 1969)--122.2.146.219 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quirino, father of Enrique notion, had not read de Mafra

Quirino had not read the little known account by Ginés de Mafra, the only crewmember of Magellan's fleet to return to Mazaua, as pilot of galeota San Cristobal in late Feb. 1543, staying there 4-6 months. In his account, which is liberally cited and quoted by Laurence Bergreen as much as Pigafetta almost, de Mafra states, "[Magellan] sent a man named Heredia...ashore with an Indian [Enrique] they had taken, so they said, because he was known to speak Malay, the language common to those parts." That Malay was the trade lingua franca in much of Southeast Asia is an established linguistic fact. (Page 198, Libro que trata del descubrimiento principio del estrecho que se llama del Magallanes. Madrid, 1920). --122.2.157.76 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No citation, no authority, no source

Quirino also states, in a 1980 paper read before an academic community at the University of the Philippines, the premier institution of learning in that country, "Enrique freely talked with all its [Cebu's] inhabitants." He cites no authority, indeed all his writings and speeches are outstanding for citing no source, crediting no historian nor linguistic authority, offering no reasoned argument or proof. In the Philippines at the time Quirino spoke those words he had already acquired a formidable reputation as prolific writer and historian and one might say, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king." Quirino spoke before a crowd where no one was a Magellan scholar or exploration historian. Still, any thinking person should know one cannot blithely speak of an historical incident without citation, without reference to an authority, without any source whatsoever.

Quirino's ex cathedra statement that Enrique spoke Cebuano is belied by Maximilianus Transylvanus (Transilvanus, Transylvanianus), also Maximilianus of Transylvania and Maximilian (Maximiliaen) von Sevenborgen (c. 1490 – c. 1538), who wrote an account of Magellan's voyage from interviews with survivors. Maximilian wrote, "Magellan had a slave, born in the Moluccas, whom he had bought in Malacca some time back; this man was a perfect master of the Spanish language, and, with the assistance of one of the islanders of Subuth as interpreter, who knew the language of the Moluccas, our men managed all their communications." (Page 200, in Lord Stanley of Alderley's book, First Voyage of the World by Magellan. London, 1874).

It must be emphasized again that the incident Quirino talks about is not Cebu where the fleet anchored starting April 7, 1521. The incident was in Mazaua, the island-port of the Armada de Molucca and the date for this specific event occurred on March 28, 1521. Butuanon is the language of Mazaua, not Cebuano. Both languages belong to the Bisaya family of languages.

Magellan's Last Will describes Enrique as "my captured slave Enrique, mulatto, native of the city of Malacca." (P.321, F.H.H. Guillemard, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan. New York, 1890). --122.2.146.219 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quirino edited Pigafetta, Maximilianus accounts

One must wonder how Quirino could have come to the conclusion Enrique was from Cebu and that he spoke Cebuano. The Filipino historian was editor of an English edition of the Pigafetta account based on James Alexander Robertson's translation. Quirino's work also contains the English translation of Maximilianus' De Moluccis. Quirino's edition (The First Voyage Around the World reprinted by Filipiniana Book Guild. Manila, 1969) was published with the express approval of the estate of James Alexander Robertson.

Thus, it can't be said Quirino had no full knowledge of Pigafetta's testimony Enrique was from Sumatra and Maximilianus unambiguous assertion Magellan's slave did not speak Cebuano. Was he so beguiled by his own fantastic insight he totally suspended his better judgment and surmounted the rules of logic that clearly enjoins one from correcting or arguing with an eyewitness testimony, supplanting yesterday's truth with today's reality? Quirino even confuses the location of the episode. The site was Mazaua, not Cebu. The language in Mazaua is not Cebuano, it is Butuanon the only language--together with the Butuanon derivative, Tausug--that contains the word "masawa."

Tausug was the language of a group of Butuanons in the 16th century who left Butuan because its leader, younger brother of datu or king Silongan, had a falling out with the king. This unnamed sibling left with an entourage, some of whom stayed behind at Basilan, Zamboanga del Sur, and the rest proceeded to Sulu. This group of Butuanons are known today as the Tausugs.

Present-day historians have introduced ambiguity in the story of the Tausugs because of their reconstruction of the above episodes. They describe the exodus in this manner: "The Tausugs left Butuan for Sulu, where they became the ruling family, speaking their language, Tausug." This is akin to saying, "The Americans left Europe and established themselves in North America speaking the American language."

Thus, if one assumes the logic of Quirino's brainstorm to be valid, Enrique was in fact Mazauan because he spoke Butuanon. Thus, the first circumnavigator is a Mazauan, none other than Enrique de Mazaua! QED.--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction as history and blatant fabrications by Quirino

Those who've taken up the torch of Quirino argue in this manner: Enrique was captured by pirates in Carcar, Cebu (pure fiction), taken to Jolo then to Malacca (pure imagination or invention), bought by Magellan in Malacca (untrue, Magellan said Enrique was "captured") because he spoke a different language and talked about his hometown which was not Malacca, not the Moluccas, therefore must be Cebu (based on solid air). Accdg. to a scion of Quirino, invoking his conversations with his historian father, Quirino contends that de Mafra, Pigafetta, Albo, the Genoese Pilot, the entire crew--everyone who has written about Enrique and knew him--conspired to hide Enrique's real identity so that Magellan alone can claim to having circumnavigated the globe.

Indeed, Quirino claims Magellan lied about Enrique's birthplace. "Magellan obviously wanted to keep secret the real birthplace of Enrique as east of Borneo." Why? Quirino gives a great supposition: "The idea of claiming that region, composed of a group of islands, must have entered the mind of Magellan."

The entire Enrique de Cebu hypothesis consists of what is called the fallacy of the hypostatized proof. David Hackett Fischer (Historians' Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, page 56) defines this fallacy as a "form of error [which] commonly occurs when a historian reifies a historiographical interpretation and substitutes it for the actual historical event." Quirino's is worse because he fabricates, invents and imagines fictitious facts in support of his interpretation.

[edit] Fact & evidence out, imagination in: Torodash, Quirino, Manchester, Bergreen

Quirino and those who follow in his wake totally disregard eyewitness testimonies holding up figments of their imagination as ultimate proof.Vicente C. de Jesus 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Other powerful minds have taken up the torch of Quirino without acknowledging his paternity to the wild brainstorm. William Manchester (A World Lit Only By Fire, Little Brown and Company. 1992) seems thoroughly confused about the identity of Enrique. On page 246, he refers to him as "[Magellan's] Malayan slave Enrique." Then on page 268 Manchester writes, "Born in the Visayans, Enrique had been sold into slavery in Sumatra and sent to Malacca, where Magellan had acquired him." Manchester cites no source, no authority, no one. He thoroughly forgets Carlos Quirino. He completely disregards Ferdinand Magellan himself who wrote in his Last Will and Testament that Enrique was a native of Malacca and that he was "captured" not bought! Manchester's data are all fabrications, assertions based on nothing but imagined facts. In the section "Acknowledgments and Sources" nowhere will you find the name of Carlos Quirino. But one sees the name of Stefan Zweig whose account of the Mazaua incident is resembled by Manchester's description of it. Here is Zweig:

"At Mazzava, a tiny islet of the Philippine group, so small that only with a lens can one find it on the map, Magellan had one of the most remarkable experiences of his life....As soon as, under press of sail, the three large foreign ships drew near the shore of Mazzava, the inhabitants, inquisitive and friendly, flocked to the strand. Before Magellan landed, he sent his slave Enrique ashore as emissary, rightly supposing that the indigenes would have more confidence in a brown-skinned man of their own kidney than the bearded whites, strangely clad and fully armed.

"Now came the wonder. The islanders surrounded Enrique chattering and shouting, and the Malay slave was dumbfounded, for he understood much of what they were saying. He understood their questions. It was a good many years since he had been snatched from his home, a good many years since he had last heard a word of his native speech. What an amazing moment, one of the most remarkable in the history of mankind. For the first time since our planet began to spin upon its axis and to circle in its orbit, a living man, himself circling that planet, had got back to his homeland. No matter that he was an underling, a slave, for his significance lies in his fate and not in his personality. He is known to us only by his slave-name of Enrique; but we know, likewise, that he was torn from his home upon the island of Sumatra, was bought by Magellan in Malacca, was taken by his master to India, to Africa, and to Lisbon; travelled thence to Brazil and to Patagonia, and, first of all the populations of the world, traversing oceans, circling the globe, returned to the region where men spoke the familiar tongue. Having made acquaintance on the way with hundreds and thousands of peoples and tribes and races, each of which had a different way of communicating thought, he had got back to his own folk, whom he could understand and who could understand him.

"Magellan knew, therefore, that he had reached his goal, had completed his task. He was back among the speakers of Malay, among those whom, twelve years before, he had quitted on his westward course when he sailed from Malacca whither he would be able to bring back this slave of his. Whether that would happen to-morrow or considerably later, and whether not himself but another was destined to reach the Isles of Promise, seemed indifferent, for, substantially, the deed was done in the moment when it had been irrefutably established that he who persisted in his course around the globe, whether westward following the sun or eastward against the sun, must get back to the place from which he started. What sages had suspected for thousands of years, what learned men had dreamed, was now certain, thanks to the persistent courage of this one man. The earth was round, for a man had rounded it." (Magellan, Pioneer of the Pacific, Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul.Great Britain, 1938. Pages 225-27).

Zweig is a more careful historian than either Quirino and Manchester. He faithfully reconstructs the Mazaua incident, even up to the exact name of the island-port which is spelled "Mazzava" which is how the name is spelled, with a double z and v, in the text and map of the three extant French codices of Antonio Pigafetta's relation of Magellan's voyage. The name is spelled with one z in the sole surviving manuscript in Italian now famously called the Ambrosiana codex. (The v in Mazzava has the value of w which is absent in the alphabet of Romance languages.) The name as variously spelled in the four extant codices: Mazzavua in Ms f. 5650, Mazzava in the map and text of Ms. f. 24224, Mazaua in the text and Mazzana in the map of the sole Italian codex, the Ambrosiana. In other firsthand accounts of Magellan's voyage, the name of the port is spelled in many ways, owing mostly to the fact that these are all reconstructions by copyists and how the handwriting is read by particular authorities: Maçagua, Maçaguaba in Ginés de Mafra; Maçaguoa, Maçagnoa, Maçangor, and Maquamguoa in The Genoese Pilot; Maçava in Martinho de Aiamonte; and Mazaba in Francisco Albo.

The fact that Zweig identifies Enrique as Sumatran signifies he opted for Pigafetta's claim rather than Magellan's testimony, which Zweig quotes verbatim on page 140, that Enrique was "a native of the city of Malacca." Zweig asserts Enrique had linguistically circumnavigated the globe because the natives of Mazaua spoke the Malayan language which is not supported by Pigafetta's account. What Pigafetta clearly states is that it was raia Siaiu, the king of Mazaua, who knew and spoke Malayan and was therefore able to talk to Enrique.

Quirino quotes Zweig's Mazaua reconstruction above. But he suppresses the phrase "he was torn from his home upon the island of Sumatra" which negates Quirino's claim. In any case, Quirino repudiates his source, Zweig, and his main source, surely, Pigafetta, and another, Maximilianus Transylvanus. We are left with an incredible state of affairs: a man (Carlos Quirino) who is four centuries removed from the event, reading accounts of that event from eyewitnesses, and on his own authority repudiates these eyewitnesses. Unbelievable!--122.2.146.219 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bergreen and his claim Cebuano is a dialect of Malayan

In the case of Bergreen (Over the Edge of the World, Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe. New York, 2003) here are his assertions. "Magellan's slave, Enrique," Bergreen writes on page 242, "addressed them [people of Mazaua] in a Malay dialect..." By indirection, Bergreen is saying Enrique spoke Cebuano. Cebuano is not a Malay dialect but a language of equal standing with Malay.

Both Malay and Cebuano belong to the Austronesian group of languages which, prior to European entry into lands beyond the Atlantic, was "the most widely spread language in the world from the island of Madagascar, off the east coast of Africa, all the way to tiny, isolated Easter Island (Rapa Nui), and extending into Taiwan, Vietnam, Northern Australia, New Zealand and most of the Melanesian and Polynesian Islands." (See http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/8908/firemount/austroframes.html) The complete family tree, according to the Ethnologue of Summer Institute of Linguistics, of the Malay spoken in Sumatra: Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Western Malayo-Polynesian, Sundic, Malayic, Malayan, Local Malay. There are at least 27 dialects of the Malayan language spoken in various parts of Sumatra. These are Riau (Riouw-Lingga, Johor), Jakarta, Sambas, Deli, Melayu Pasar (Bazaar Malay, Pasir), Borneo (Sintang), Kota-Waringin, Sukadana, Makakau, Makassarese, Manadonese (Menadonese), Labu (Lebu, Labu Basap), Papuan Malay (Irianese), Ritok (Siantan, Pontianak), Balikpapan, Sampit, Bakumpai, West Borneo Coast Malay, Belide, Lengkayap, Aji, Daya, Mulak, Bangka, Belitung, Larantuka (Ende Malay), Peranakan, Basa Kupang (Kupang.(See http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=MLI)

The precise lineage of Cebuano on the other hand is Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Meso Philippine, Central Philippine, Bisayan, Cebuan, Cebuano. (See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=ceb)

In Mazaua--the location of the incident being discussed by Quirino, Manchester, Bergreen--the language spoken is Butuanon. The family tree of Butuanon is Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Meso Philippine, Central Philippine, Bisayan, South, Butuan-Tausug, Butuanon. Cebuano and Butuanon belong to the fifth sub-group, Bisayan, of the Austronesian family tree. While Malay, Cebuano, and Butuanon all belong up to the second sub-grouping, Malayo-Polynesian.--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Malay, Indonesian Malay are 80% cognate

The SIL Ethnologue states Trade Malay has over 80% cognates with Indonesian Malay. Stated another way, 20% separate Sumatran Malay and Malaccan Malay. This significant difference between the two raises the issue: Did Pigafetta, with his exceptional lexicographic acuity, detect the nuances of the two languages so that he was able to pinpoint Enrique's precise place of birth. And having detected Enrique's native language, did not Pigafetta remark on this as to elicit from Magellan's slave information of his true origin?

This aperçu offers a way of resolving the question of which between Magellan's testimony Enrique is from Malacca and Pigafetta's Sumatran origin of Enrique is closer to the truth. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Mikkalai 07:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) As an Indonesian Javanese, I should add about Enrique the Black, That he is preferably from Sumatera, Java, West Borneo (Kalimantan) or Semenanjung Malaka. The first three islands are nowdays Indonesia, and the last are nowdays Malaysia. Malaka or Melaka is a name of area consisting of those islands, performed in Kingdoms with capitals mostly in nowdays Indonesia. Malaysian seafarers don't dare to go eastward, for there is the bugis and the makasar who would take them for breakfast. But the Sumateranese and Javanese have a save passage to go eastward for they are consider the relative of the east, in which Indonesian language are commonly spoken by people in the area. So, I should concluded although Enrique is from Malaka, he is not from Malaysia, but preferably from Sumatera or Java.

[edit] History is based on sources, evidence, facts not opinions

There is a common thread that binds Quirino, Manchester, Bergreen, Torodash. Their assertions that Enrique was from Cebu, that he spoke Cebuano, and that he was the first circumnavigator are all opinions. They cite no authority. Their assertions do not refer to any source. Their claims are not supported by any evidence.

Indeed, juxtaposed against scientific knowledge of linguistics experts, their (Quirino, Manchester, Bergreen) references to the language issue are not just inaccurate but completely false.

In fairness to Torodash, he has no discussion or argument based on linguistics or anything whatsoever that will support one way or another his claim for Enrique being the first to round the world. This is surely ironic because one of Torodash's more elegant and indeed compelling insights is his remark that "footnotes...serve the necessary purpose of providing credentials for facts" which speaks to the issue of proof and fact. His ex cathedra statement ("...they [scholars] should confer the honor of premier circumnavigator upon Henrique de Malaca, Magellan's slave, who certainly was the first man to take a 360 degree trip." See page 322, "Magellan Historiography" in Hispanic American Historical Review, LI (May, 1971), 313-335) unfortunately fails to rise beyond the level of an unsupported assertion.

It's probably proper to remind ourselves of what Alfredo Pinheiro Marques said about history, that it "is not based on imagination. It is made with sources. History is based on evidence, not on opinions." (From "New Light on the Problem of Cabrillo's Origin" in: The Portuguese and the Pacific. California, 1995, p. 18). This is self-evident, but as shown in the works of Bergreen, Quirino, Manchester, Torodash and many jottings in this Wikipedia discussion on Enrique which are all opinions--this truism is easily lost on those engaged in the craft of history. Instead of evidence, facts, and sources, opinions and false assertions are employed as substitutes.

In the case of one historian, Lytton Strachey, he is supposed to have said "he would have made Pompey win the battle of Pharsalia if the turn of the sentence have required it. (David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought: New York, 1970, p. 87). I am tempted to think we detect this same Procrustean apparatus among those authors I cited, bending "facts" to suit an imagined incident.

I also detect a moral dimension to the Enrique de Cebu brainstorm. Failure to cite one's source can lead to mad capers. Quirino failed to cite his source, Stefan Zweig, who expressly state Enrique was from Sumatra. Did Quirino deliberately suppress his source so he could be credited as original thinker of a heretofore undiscovered historical fact? In the case of Manchester and Bergreen, who both came after Quirino, who both do not credit Quirino for their Enrique de Cebu insight, one wonders what caused them to hide Quirino's authorship? Did they really come upon the Enrique de Cebu notion independently of Quirino?

Quirino announced to the world his discovery sometime in the '70s; he kept his advocacy through several articles, speeches and a book. He even went out of his way to persuade Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison who didn't bite. States Morison: "My historian friends in the Philippines, however, point out that Sumatra could not have been his original home, since the language there was completely different from that of the Visayas; a native Sumatran could not possibly have made himself understood in Limasawa or Cebu. They make the plausible suggestion that Enrique came originally from the Visayas, had been captured young by slave raiders from Sumatra, and then taken to the Malacca slave mart. Or, he might have belonged to the Philippine colony at Malacca."(See The European Discovery of America, The Southern Voyages 1492-1616. New York, 1974, page 435) We know Morison's "friends" was none other than Quirino himself because in his paper read before the University of the Philippines ("Pigafetta: The First Italian in the Philippines" in: Italians in the Philippines, Manila: 1980, page 11) Quirino states, "I broached this matter to Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison during his visit to Manila several years ago in preparation for his biography of Magellan, but he refused to consider the matter, for then it would not be Ferdinand Magellan who was the first to go around the world, nor Sebastian Elcano the Spaniard, but a humble Filipino named Enrique." Manchester wrote his piece in 1993. Bergreen, 2003. Both Manchester and Bergreen cite Morison's book in their bibliographies. If Manchester and Bergreen never got to find out Morison's "historian friends in the Philippines" referred to Quirino, who was the only historian to claim Enrique was from Cebu, both knew from Morison this notion was emanating from some bright minds in the Philippines.

As a matter of fact Bergreen in his "Notes on Sources" refers to precisely the above page 435 in Morison. But he distorts Morison, claiming, "As his candidate for the first person to complete a circumnavigation, Morison (p. 435) nominates Magellan's slave Enrique. Morison argues that Magellan's voyage brought Enrique back to his point of origin." What did Morison really say?

In any case, my point is that had Quirino cited Zweig as his original source the world would have probably been spared this wild historical misadventure. Zweig himself does not cite his authorities; he does credit the sources for his illustrations one of which, one map out of two on page 192, is from the edition of the Italian Ambrosiana edition by Carlo Amoretti. (Amoretti is source of an ill-considered remark, which has bedevilled the geographical world, that the isle named Limasaua in Jacques N. Bellin's map of the Philippines is the island-port Mazaua in Pigafetta's account. This assertion has equated an island that has no anchorage, Limasawa of today, with Magellan's island-port, Mazaua, which had an excellent anchorage. See [[1]] for the most extensive discussion on the Internet or anywhere on Amoretti) At the same time, had Zweig precisely cite his source--as modern historians now must--the world would have been spared this historical blight. Zweig's authority, Antonio Pigafetta, expressly identifies Enrique as Sumatran. After saying the above quote, Morison diplomatically grants the possibility and concludes, "If originally from the Philippines, he was the first person to circle the world and return to his starting point." But elsewhere, Morison gives full support to the notion Magellan was the first circumnavigator. "The fact that Magellan sailed with Abreu," Morison declares on page 317, "as far east as Ambon and Banda justifies us in naming him as the first person of any race to circumnavigate the globe. For Ambon is on longitude 128° E of Greenwich, and Banda is two degrees further east; whilst Mactan in the Philippines, where Magellan met his death, is on longitude 124° E. Thus his furthest west in 1521 overlapped his furthest east in 1511 by four to six degrees of longitude."

As pointed out elsewhere the idea Magellan reached the Moluccas (at Ambon and Banda) was an assertion of Argensola that is not supported by facts and evidence. Official records of the Portuguese named, aside from Antonio d'Abreu and Francisco Serrão, Simão Affonso Bisagudo as the other captain, not Magellan.(F.H.H. Guillemard, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan and the First Circumnavigation of the Globe. New York, 1890, p. 67). And, even if Magellan was in the d'Abreu expedition, it would not be in Cebu where Magellan would have achieved his fame as first circumnavigator, but in Mazaua island which is at longitude 125° E. Magellan at Mazaua would have overlapped Ambon by 3 degrees, Banda by 5 degrees if he had been with the d'Abreu squadron. If! --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proof that he is from Cebu

Enrique(Henry) helped Pigafetta write a Italiand Malay dictionary. However, if you examine the Malay words, they are unmistakeable old Cebuano that is recognizable even today. I am researching this and may links later.--Jondel 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but the above statement is factually incorrect. Whoever wrote this is ignorant of the fact Pigafetta wrote a Butuanon-Cebuano (Bisaya) vocabulary of 145 words and a 450-word Malayan vocabulary. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] More tidbits

  • One other female slave was caught with Henry and broght to Europe.

The above statement has no proof or evidentiary support. The best we know about this Malaccan woman was that she was brought together with Enrique by Magellan to be shown to king of Spain. This incident is described in the book of Bishop Bartolome de las Casas in Historia de las Indias, lib. iii, chap. ci (1927 ed., III, 145-46). There is no source that tells us how, when, where this woman was taken and who had procured her. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)) --122.2.159.127 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serrão may have reached Mindanao, not Magellan

  • Magellan and some Portuguesse may have reached as far as Mindanao in 1511.--Jondel 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This never happened, there is no account of Magellan reaching even the Moluccas. The notion Magellan reached the Moluccas is one of the enduring myths of the Age of Discovery that owes its persistence to inattention to facts. We can trace this idea exactly to Fr. Bartolome Leonardo de Argensola in Conquista de las islas Molucas, Madrid, 1609. Argensola asserts Magellan was one of three captains of the Antonio d'Abreu expedition to the Spice Islands sometime in December 1511 almost right after Malacca fell to the Portuguese. Argensola writing almost 100 years after the event cites no source or authority for his assertion. He could have gotten the idea from earlier writers, e.g., Peter Martyr and Gian Battista Ramusio, who both assert the same thing, without citing any evidence. But Argensola did not acknowledge their authority.

No contemporary historian, writing about the incident mentions Magellan being part of the d'Abreu reconnaissance mission. João de Barros, Fernao Lopes de Castanheda, Gaspar Correa, Damiao de Gois, Antonio Galvao, who all had access to official Portuguese documents do not mention Magellan being captain of the third galleon. More to the point, De Gois and Correa, citing official sources, state the third vessel was captained by Simao Afonso Bisagudo (Chronica de D. Manoel, 3ra parte, cap. XXV, fol. 51), as cited by F.H.H. Guillemard, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan and the First Circumnavigation of the Globe, 1480-1521, page 67.

It was Francisco Serrão and nine other Portuguese who, accdg. to Antonio Galvao in Tratados dos varios e diversos caminhos..., had accidentally reached Mindanao, exactly where it is not indicated but we can make some logical deductions based on documentary evidence. At Lucipara Island (coordinates S 5° 30' 0, E 127° 33' 0) Serrão's boat was lost. In the eventuality a boat with men from Sulu appeared and stopped at the island. Serrão and his men surrounded the surprised Suluans who, seeing the futility of resistance, offered to bring the Portuguese marauders to Sulu. From there Serrão, getting word of invitation to visit the King of Ternate, proceeded to that island. There is corroborative evidence in the firsthand account of the Genoese Pilot who relates when Magellan's fleet reached Homonhon a boat with natives from Suluan Island, eastern Samar, greeted Magellan and told Magellan they had already seen men like them. The Suluans come from Sulu which is the furthest tip of Mindanao. If this is correct, Serrão and company had been the first Europeans to reach the Philippine archipelago. The Genoese Pilot states it was at once declared the Suluans were mistaken and that the persons they were referring to were Chinese. This is patently false because the Suluans were trading with the Chinese, as far as the record of the Chinese goes, as early as the 10th century or earlier since the trade is described as already established not recently formed. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Death of Magellan

I don't understand the final sentence of this section. If everyone who attended the feast was killed (except for Juan Serrano), who was it who left Serrano on the beach and recorded his words? And wasn't Serrano presumably killed shortly thereafter.

The evidence is there were survivors among those who attended the banquet and were objects of the planned massacre. For one thing, no one had a precise count of who died. Those who wrote about the incident were not in the banquet, so could not have seen who were actually killed. Also, Sebastian de Puerta, survivor of the Laoisa expedition, 1523-1535, was rescued 18 months after by the Saavedra expedition, 1527-1529 revealed he had information attesting to survivors of the Cebu massacre. De Puerta, in Feb. 1528, related that he was made a slave and was brought to Cebu where he learned 8 of Magellan's men had survived the massacre and were sold to Chinese merchants in exchange for iron and copper. As late as 1544, Garcia de Escalante Alvarado of the Villalobos expedition, was told by natives of Leyte that there were still Spanish men of Magellan's fleet living in Cebu. Alvarado dismissed the story as wild imagination. Beyond these hearsay testimony, which may be based on facts and deserves careful consideration, there is no recorded, reliable information as to the identities of the survivors. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Henry the Black? This name is an invention based on superficial knowledge

Also, what happened to Henry the Black after this incident? --Chris 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, this term Henry the Black is highly objectionable. No serious scholar of Magellan historiography has called him by this name. It is the invention of a non-scholar whose surface knowledge seems to have supplanted the accumulated wisdom of all the cognescenti. After the Cebu massacre nothing more is heard of him. This however has not stopped non-historians from fabricating stories of his post-massacre life.Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

No records of Henry. A friend of mine, Enriquez claims descendancy. El Cano was the person who historically recieved the title of firs circumnavigator. Antonio Pigafetta fled with him and a few other sailors. There is a list of sailors who returned at the Magellan page.--Jondel 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nestor Palugod Enriquez is a friend of mine. He comes from Cavite. That he descended from Enrique is a metaphorical statement based on an imaginary phenomenon. It is no different from my claiming kinship with Magellan and whoever else on this planet based on the idea we all descended from Adam and Eve and so are blood relations. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Henry the Black a recent racist classification out of tune with scholarly literature on Enrique

If one reviews works by Magellan scholars and navigation historians as well as all the primary and secondary and thirdhand accounts, the term "Henry the Black" is not found. I think this description is a newfangled invention by someone who surely is not in any of the above categories.

It is best we followed this tradition as it is in harmony with the latest scientific knowledge which tells us that regardless of one's skin's color every individual human being is 99.9% identical in DNA with everyone else. The racial classification of "black" and "white" originated from Europeans whose skin color were white. Whether this classification was meant to maliciously denigrate or slander "blacks" is debatable although a good case can be made. It is not significant in our discussion. My only interest is that we at Wikipedia align our language with all the previous minds who're probably greater than ours who never referred to Enrique as black. What after all is the main purpose of introducing this racial/racist term to the body of work that is already well established? --122.2.159.127 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cebu hypothesis is belied by Maximilian Transylvanus

I am working on a neutral point of view and integrating the new info. My POV is that Henry is from Cebu. The arguments are placed below. --Jondel 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll get a lot of imaginary information and you'll probably ignore a host of established facts, from eyewitnesses, that will invalidate your hypothesis. Maximilian Transylvanus makes it very clear Enrique could not speak Cebuano. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "Henry the Black"? Let's stop this nonsense!

One of the more startling discoveries for me on the Net is to find Henrich/Enrique de Malacca subsumed under the title "Henry the Black." This is the rubric under which we find Enrique in Wikipedia.

What perplexes me is that one doesn't find that cognomen in serious Magellan historiography and Renaissance navigation history. None of the scholars as far as I can tell call him "Henry the Black": R.A. Skelton, Martin Torodash, Leonce Peillard, Samuel Eliot Morison, J.T. Medina, Antonio de Herrera, Martin J. Noone, Tim Joyner, Andrea da Mosto, Jean Denuce, Carlo Amoretti, Baron (Henry Edward John) Stanley of Alderley, James Alexander Robertson, Martin Fernandez de Navarette, Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez, Charles E. Nowell, Francis H.H. Guillemard. Even the popularizers--William Manchester, Carlos Quirino, Stefan Zweig, Charles McKew Parr, Laurence Bergreen--have not referred to Enrique as "Henry the Black."

In fact, he was not black at all. Enrique was, as Magellan described him, a mulatto ("my captured slave Enrique, mulatto, native of the city of Malacca." Any serious scholar of this topic should refuse calling him Henry the Black. And I beg the people running Wikipedia to stop this nonsense. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)).

Many persons with brown and even light brown skin consider themselves to be "black." 24.55.107.138 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Many?? Like who? I'm Filipino and I've never heard anyone with my color consider himself "black"... Jbvillarante 06:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry is from Cebu arguments/Evidence

  • Spoke fluently to the Cebuanos
  • The 'Malay' dictionary contains ancient Cebuano. Many sites have published the words. The dictionary was compiled before Pigafetta and co. arrived in the Philippines.--Jondel 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Henry the Black is from Cebu or Philippines; I have been in Ternate and surrounding isles, most of the people there can speak or understand Philippino language although they are Indonesian descendents. Quote: Ternate is the final destination of Magellan looking for clove trees. I agree that he is a seafarer, because he knows the longitudes of the many isles in that area, therefore, I predict he is from Malaya or Indonesia nowdays. [August R-Indonesian]

He is from Sabah.

Enrique was came from west Sabah/borneo, so that he can speak malay and bisaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.68.142 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


--the word MASAWA

Hello to those who are maintaining this page. There is a line that I wanted to comment about. I'm Filipino and I'm from Jolo, Sulu (We are called Tausug)and we also use the word "Masawa" meaning "bright", "clear" (as in clear skies, clear water or clear vision)or "brilliant". "Masawa" is not an exclusively Butuanon word. Just wanted to share the information.

[edit] Tausug is derived from Butuanon

There is an explanation why Tausug has the Butuanon word "masawa." Tausug is derived from Butuanon. I admit I may have overstated my point by excluding Tausog. That language is historiographically explained by the relocation by a brother of the Butuan Chieftain together with his entourage to Basilan and to Sulu. This Butuanon became ruler of Sulu, as recounted in the chronicle of Fr. Francisco Combes, 1667. Muslim history expert Cesar Abdul Majul corroborated this story juxtaposing it against the Sulu tarsila. A. Kemp Pallesen provides the lexicostatistical support and traced Tausog's roots from Butuanon.Vicente C. de Jesus 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC))--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"On the second island, which was then called Mazzaua, a word which means "light" and is found only in one Philippine language, Butuanon, there was instant communication with Raia Siaiu".

144.100.197.50 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Maurice Ycaza

--Cebuanon and the Malay Language

I also think that it would be difficult to use linguistics to identify Enrique's nationality because most of the dialects of the Philippines are derived from the Malay language.

I believe that Malay is an older language than Cebuano. Their heritage and culture is more ancient than the Philippines. At least that is what current historical evidence shows.

Which is older is not a relevant issue. The question is what language did he use. Ginés de Mafra explicitly said Enrique spoke Malay. That constitutes direct evidence. If he were Cebuano and Pigafetta or de Mafra or Francisco Albo and all the other eyewitnesses vouched that he did speak Cebuano, then that would be fact variously and severally reiterated. No one said he spoke Cebuano. Maximilian said he did not speak Cebuano. It has nothing to do with which language is older or younger. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

144.100.197.50 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Maurice Ycaza

Pigafetta through Enrique's help created a 'Malay-Italian' dictionary the words were unmistakably ancient Cebuano. This is still not enough to identify Enrique's nationality?--Jondel 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is circumstantial evidence at best and not factual at all. The Butuanon-Cebuano vocabulary is what the above writer is referring to. The Malay vocabulary is in fact called by Pigafetta "words of those heathen peoples of Molucca." The vocabulary consists of 450 words and is found only in the Ambrosiana codex, the sole surviving Italian manuscript. It's not in the three surviving French codices, the Nancy-Libri-Beinecke-Yale, f. 5650, and the f. 24224. I am not aware there is another vocabulary of Malay words that are unmistakeably Cebuano. Direct evidence consists in the explicit statement of Magellan that Enrique is a native of Malacca. At the same time Pigafetta gives another eyewitness testimony that Henrich is from Sumatra. Who is right between Magellan and Pigafetta is an issue which requires reasoned argument. I gave mine above. Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC))--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

Because of...

  • Extensive PoV, advocacy
  • Unencyclopedic treatment and form
  • Many spelling and grammar mistakes
  • Length
  • Spanish language used (copy-pasted?) in bibliography section

I completely agree. This has to be the WORST article I've read here, in that it is about a topic of possible interest (rather than not even counting as an article, such as corporate self-promotion spam pages), yet it has clearly taken the role of this talk page to the article itself. Please, people... either play fair or just keep it all to yourself and stew silently at your terminal. Fitzhugh 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


  • OK, I've inexpertly attempted to clean it up, by removing almost everything. I have not touched the bibliography. Please add to it and correct my mistakes, and remember not to squabble out in front there. Douglas Bagnall

[edit] Neutral point of view

To avoid the tone of advocacy, I have heavily reworded some of the claims in the first part of this article.

Hunting down the proper references for each claim may take some time, also, we need some help on cleaning up the bibliography and providing useful LIVE links, I have noticed that almost exact list of bibliography has also been posted elsewhere, [2].

—Seth Nimbosa (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Objective point of view

There is a perfectly certain way to resolve the issue of whether Enrique is from Cebu or from anywhere in the Philippine archipelago, e.g., Mazaua in Mindanao.

First, there is absolutely no primary or secondary or even thirdhand account that states Enrique is from Cebu, Mazaua, or anywhere from the Philippines.

Second, there is absolutely no primary or secondary or even thirdhand account that states Enrique spoke Cebuano anywhere in the Philippine archipelago, or Butuanon in Mazaua.

All those who have written on Enrique's coming from the Philippines--Carlos Quirino, William Manchester, John Keay, Laurence Bergreen--absolutely have not cited any primary, secondary, or thirdhand account. They, on their own authority, say he comes from Cebu based on a complete misreading of Pigafetta. Nowhere does Pigafetta say Enrique is from Cebu, nowhere does he say Enrique spoke Cebuano in Mazaua or in Cebu. Pigafetta explicitly, unambiguously, precisely state Enrique is from Sumatra. And if you are from Sumatra you speak Malay which, so states Pigafetta, was understood by the king of Mazaua (Raia Siaiu) because, states Pigafetta clearly, kings in those places spoke many languages.

This brainstorm of Quirino--which Bergreen, Manchester, etc. took hook, line, and sinker--is based on absolutely nothing more than Quirino's wild imagination. 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Vicente C. de Jesus

The phrase,

'..Causing Enrique to plot massacre of Mactan' is clearly erroneous;

More spaniards were killed at another island after Magellan died at Mactan,

Pigafetta simply made an assumption that Enrique plotted it, he wasn't even there and the fate of Enrique was not known until now, he could had also died. Therefore all these are conjectures, not facts.

[edit] Was Enrique co-plotter of May 1 massacre

The answer to this question goes into the heart of historical proof.

"The very best evidence," states David Hackett Fischer, "of course, is the event itself, and then the authentic remains of the event, and then direct observations..." Direct observation, the very best kind of evidence we have in this issue, is just another name for eyewitness testimony. It comprises the canon of evidence called the rule of immediacy. Simply stated the rule of immediacy means the best relevant evidence is one that is "most nearly immediate to the event itself."

Many contemporary and authoritative historians have written on the morning incident in Cebu. After Magellan’s death on 27 April 1521 in Mactan, members of the Armada de Molucca were invited by Raia Humabon to dine with him ostensibly so he could give the promised jewels for the king of Spain. Of some 30 who accepted Humabon's invitation (Pigafetta said only 24) 27 are listed in the official record of the Casa de Contratacion de las Indias as having died which is the same figure of Ginés de Mafra.

Historians who wrote on the incident are:

1. Maximilianus Transylvanus, the first to write an account of Magellan's expedition;

2. Peter Martyr, Secretary of the Council of the Indies in 1518 and had unparalleled access to official records, who interviewed together with his protege Maximilian the 18 first circumnavigators upon their arrival in Seville in 1522;

3. João de Barros, treasurer and factor (1525-1567) of the Casa da India e da Guinea of Portugal, who had access to confiscated papers of flagship Trinidad of Magellan's fleet;

4. Antonio de Herrera, official chronicler of the Spanish royal court in 1596 who had access to official and first-hand records of the Magellan voyage, both Portuguese and Spanish;

5. Sebastian Elcano, who was captain of Victoria, the only ship in the fleet that made it back to Spain and circumnavigated the globe;

6. The Anonymous Portuguese, suspected to be Vasquito Gallego, apprentice seaman when the fleet sailed from Spain, who wrote what is now referred to as the Leiden Narrative;

7. Antonio Pigafetta, the diarist from Vicenza in Lombardy, who wrote the most comprehensive narrative of the entire expedition;

8. Francisco Lopez de Gomara, Histoire generale des Indes occidentales et terres neuves qui jusques a present ont este descouvertes (Paris: 1587), the least reliable of all;

9. Martín Fernandez de Navarette, 19th century historian who accessed and published the most comprehensive amount of first-hand information on Magellan's voyage.

10. The Genoese Pilot, an eyewitness who wrote an account more famously referred to by James Alexander Robertson as "The Roteiro."

Here are their various reconstruction of the Cebu massacre:

1. Enrique did not plot. Barros, de Herrera, The Anonymous Portuguese, Navarette (citing de Herrera) all say Enrique was innocent. They assert Cilapulapu and other chiefs who fought Magellan banded together and told Raia Humabon they will kill him and decimate Cebu if he did not help in killing the Spaniards and capturing their ships.

2. Enrique was already dead at Mactan therefore could not have plotted the massacre. The Genoese Pilot said Enrique died with Magellan at Mactan.

3. Jealousy. Peter Martyr said the motivation for the massacre was the jealousy of the Cebuano men on account of the fact the native women were openly cavorting with the Europeans in incidents of debauchery.

4. Enrique was co-conspirator. Pigafetta, Transylvanus and Gomara all blamed the Malayan slave as having conspired with Humabon. Elcano, in a notatized testimony sworn before Alcalde Leguizamo on Oct. 1522, relates the incident essentially as Pigafetta et al describe it

Whose testimony should we believe? Why? --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

That portrait is just a modern artist rendering based on fantasy. It really does not belong here.--CrazyGlu 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a joke

That's all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.55.176 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said the above has abdicated his opportunity to make the article more knowledgeable and even scholarly. The wise attitude to take is to be challenged to make things right. It is so easy to criticize. What's called for is constructive effort that will benefit the world of the intellect. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enrique, the meaning of his name

As someone has wrongly noted, Enrique doesn't mean "brave." It means "ruler of the household." Let me cite a more authoritative source, [3]. Pigafetta spells the name "Henrich" which is similar to the Portuguese orthography, "Henrique," which is probably what was in the slave's baptismal certificate, which has not survived. The name is Germanic. To quote the source: "Germanic name Heimiric which meant 'home ruler', composed of the elements heim 'home' and ric 'power, ruler'. This name was introduced into Britain by the Normans. It was borne by eight kings of England including the infamous Henry VIII, as well as four kings of France and seven kings of Germany. Other famous bearers include arctic naval explorer Henry Hudson, novelist Henry James, and automobile manufacturer Henry Ford."--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)