THE FIRST MASS SITE REVISITED

Author(s): Peter Schreurs

Source: Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society , September 1981, Vol. 9, No. 3
(September 1981), pp. 192-216
Published by: University of San Carlos Publications

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/29791729

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philippine Quarterly of
Culture and Society

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society
9(1981): 192-216

THE FIRST MASS SITE REVISITED

Peter Schreurs, MSC

Magallanes, Agusan del Norte

The author undertakes to throw some additional light on the celebrated controversy about
the place where the first Holy Mass was said in the Philippines. After presenting once more the
documentary evidence ? already discussed at length by Miguel A. Bemad, S.J. in Kinaadman
III (1981:1-46) ? the author offers a convincing answer to the further question of how the
controversy could have arisen in the first place.

The purpose of the following pages is not to start afresh the search for the First
Mass site. Others have done this before me. However, their search has led to a well
known controversy, a ''monumental'' controversy we might well say. In 1872 a
monument was erected at Magallanes (the old Butuan), commemorating the landing of
Magellan and the ' 'First Mass in this place on April 8 (sic) 1521_"In 1953 another
monument was placed on the island of Limasawa, obviously contesting the former. The
Butuan monument was the culmination of a 250 year-old tradition based on writings
going as far back as 1663 (Colin) and reasserted again and again up to the turn of the
century. The one at Limasawa owed its erection to modern historical methodology
using original primary sources, some of which had not been generally available
previously.
My intention is to take up the controversy at the point where it stands now. Since
aside from Limasawa and Butuan there is no serious contestant for another First Mass
site, the story has become an either-or issue. This seems to allow for a rather simple
procedure: if it can be proven that one contestant is "out," the other is ipso facto
"in. " I repeat: in the present status of the question, but to be honest from the begin?
ning: my final conclusion is that Butuan is ' 'out"; ergo, Limasawa is "in. "
This conclusion has not come easy to me. In the first place, because I am not a
historian with libraries and consultants ready to hand. But on a different level, I came to
my conclusion the hard way. I happen to be the parish priest of the place where 250
years of historical writings had previously located the First Mass in the Philippines. In
other words: I had a dream, which I was loath to let go of.
At present, the controversy is over and done with, for the Limasawa protagonists
at least. Still, I don't grant them their victory as easily as they claim it at times, even
recently in the Cavite symposium on the First Mass issue (February 1980).
These pages would probably never have been written if it had not been for the
kindness and understanding of a real historian, Fr. John N. Schumacher, SJ of the
Loyola House of Studies, Ateneo University, Manila. When I had just started to delve
into the First Mass story, he graciously gave me a copy of his own (unpublished) manu

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 193

Fig. 1: This (slightly stylized) drawing of the Butuan Monument is copied from an
original picture, taken in 1921 on the occasion of the 4th centennial celebra?
tions of Magellan's landing. The picture itself is unsuitable for reproduction.
The drawing is by Protacio Alingasa, Tungao, Butuan City. Redrawn for this
issue by Henrito Rata of the University of San Carlos.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This content downloaded from
110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 195

script "The First Mass in the Philippines. "1 From his pages I got access to the perti?
nent passages of authors who have located that Mass at Butuan, sources which I had
somehow missed till then. (Father Schumacher, by the way, takes his stand with the
Limasawa site.) From that moment on I became sufficiently interested in the contro?
versy to find my way to other sources and finally to reach the conclusions stated on
these pages.
Where dealing with arguments still favoring the Butuan tradition, I refer to the
"Official Position Paper of the Butuan Historical Commission" (1977)2 and to some
private opinions voiced regularly or written by some involved local individuals here at
Butuan.
Sometime last year, when I wrote down the first version of my findings, I sub?
mitted a copy to Father Miguel A. Bemad, SJ of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro
City. And then, one of those "funny things happening on the way to_" occurred:
Father Bemad had his own manuscript ready about the same topic, treating nearly the
same points, albeit ' 'from a different angle,'' to quote him. It has since been published
in the journal ''Kinaadman'' (vol. Ill, 1981). 3 Ever since, my own write-up led a
rather dubious existence, which may, however, have been a blessing in disguise,
because it has given me a chance to find additional informations which I did not possess
last year.

HISTORICAL SOURCES RELEVANT TO THE FIRST MASS

Both sides of the controversy agree, as they have stated time and again, that in the
matter of historical research (like in jurisprudence) primary credence should be given to
' 'eyewitness-reports'' of the event in question. Which means here:

Pigafetta, the official chronicler of Magellan's expedition

Albo 's logbook

The ' 'Roteiro'' (official route-guide) prepared by an unknown Genoese pilot, who was
with Magellan.

After these, to those sources which got their information either directly from the
survivors of the expedition and/or from documents obtained from them:

De Brito, who captured the ship "Trinidad," crew and documents, in Portuguese
Moluccan waters.

Written upon request of Director Esteban de Ocampo of the National Historical Institute, 1978.
2
Submitted to a Workshop about the First Mass in Manila, 1977.

' 'Kinaadman'Journal of the Southern Philippines. Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 196 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

Peter d'Anghieri Martyr and Maximilianus Transylvanus, who interviewed the sur?
vivors shortly after the latter's return to Europe.

Together they constitute what we may call the primary bibliographical evidence. Some
of them contain in addition primary cartographical evidence.
The supportive role of cartographical evidence has perhaps not been sufficiently
recognized by some writers. Some do not use it at all, others in a limited way, again
others incorrectly.
Secondary evidence is taken from all those writers and cartographers who worked
with "hearsay-evidence" afterwards, or who interpreted primary sources (what they
possessed of them) in their own way. Secondary evidence has its own probative value
under certain conditions, e.g., when no primary informants are available or when the
latter lack in clarity about essential details required by the case under discussion.
Primary as well as secondary sources should be able to withstand the probing of
accepted historical methodology.
Quite early in my own search I was confronted by the necessity to pay more atten?
tion to the cartographical evidence, both primary and secondary. It happened when I
discovered that the Butuan/Limasawa controversy existed de facto long before the turn
of the last century, viz., in 1575, in cartographical form!
The main argument of the Butuan Historical Commission is that the ' 'Mazaua'' of
Pigafetta is identical with the "Masao" (Butuan) of today. In 1523, when the only
surviving ship of Magellan's expedition had returned to Europe, Garcia de Torreno
prepared the first known sketch of the southern Philippines, probably a copy of the one
made by Pigafetta himself. At first sight, it looks more like the blots of a Rorschach test
than a piece of cartography. Then, in 1545 Alonso de Santa Cruz made another
attempt at sketching the southern islands from information available to him. 5
A comparison with two more complete maps made in 1575 in the Netherlands by
Ortelius and Mercator,6 puts us smack in the middle of the controversy:
Torreno/Pigafetta and De la Cruz located "Mazzana" or "Macagna" somewhere
away from Butuan, away from the mainland of Mindanao, while Ortelius and Mercator
plunk their ' 'Messana" down near Butuan, on Mindanao soil. One gets the impression
that the Butuan tradition may in part owe its origin to this early cartographic confusion,

4See Blair and Robertson, vol. 33, p. 102 ff.

5See Carlos Qjiirino. "Philippine Cartography." Second revised edition (N. Israel, Amsterdam),
1969. The map of De la Cruz is on page 28. Torreno/Pigafetta's sketch can also be found in this
source, page 18.

6Qpiirino, op. cit., p. 22, although the map shown (1580) is not the edition referred to in my text.
See also page 69 under ' 'Limasawa.'' However, Quirino's reference to the ' 'chieftain of Butuan'' is not
correct.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 197

which caused the shifting of Pigafetta's First Mass site from Mazaua, Mazzana,
Macagna to Masao (Butuan) or "Messana." But whereas Torreno/Pigafetta are
primary sources; (and based upon what Quirino pp. 29, 30, 31 writes about De la
Cruz, I would also rank the latter similarly), Ortelius and Mercator are secondary
informants as far as the present controversy is concerned.
One is tempted also to search for some enlightenment in the famous globe of
Schoener. According to Quirino (op. cit., p. 26), there have been four editions of this
globe ? in 1515, 1520, 1523, and 1533. The one edited in 1515 was seen by
Magellan before his departure. The third was printed in 1523, shortly after the return
of the remnants of the expedition, like the sketch of Torreno. The route taken by
Magellan (as understood by Schoener) is traced on it. Although very enigmatically (if
one reads it the way one does a modem map), it seems to indicate that Magellan sailed
between "Selano" (Leyte) and "Buthuam" ? "Cagan" (Caraga?).

SOME EVALUATION OF THE BACKGROUND OF PRIMARY SOURCES

Previously, we ranked the primary sources partly as accounts of "eyewitnesses, "

partly as those of "interviewers" or "interpreters" of information provided by the
former. Even when relying on primary sources mentioning the localities Limasawa and
Butuan (Masao), we should remain aware of our tendency to read bibliographical as
well as cartographical evidence automatically with our own modem informations and
maps in mind. It is extremely important not to forget that we, now, are in a privileged
position when compared with the first-time visitors or the reporters who interviewed
them afterwards. Information-wise, the first expedition entered this region from
faraway as if in a watery vacuum, their minds a tabula rasa. Many geographical
references were noted down with a bearing on other locations elsewhere, which at
times had not been properly charted themselves. Pigafetta may be a good chronicler,
but he would have made a poor pilot and a not much better cosmographer! Right at the
start of the voyage, while still in home-waters, he commits already a curious
geographical blunder when stating that the distance from San Lucar de Barrameda (port
of departure) to Cape San Vicente is 10 leagues. The actual distance is more than 100
miles!7 Months later, after much uncertainty, they were struggling, often creeping
along never-yet-seen, faraway and exotic places, scurvy-ridden, men dying, ships lost
? by sinking or loss of contact, burned for lack of crew or captured by the Portuguese.
Their Admiral had been killed at Mactan and many of their companions had suffered a
similar fate. Finally, out of a fleet of five ships and 270 men, 22 survivors in one leaky
ship limped back into the harbor of San Lucar, their minds boggled and memories

7
See "First Voyage Around the World, " Filipiniana Book Guild edition, Man
and footnote.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
198 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

Fig. 3: Three of the Pigafetta/Torreno sketches. Note that north and south are in?
verted. Leyte is depicted as consisting of two islands. "Mazzana" is away
from Butuan and "Cippit" is not "near" Butuan. In the original the islands
appear as black blots. The above reproductions are taken from the article about
the first Mass by Fr. Miguel A. Bernad, SJ in "Kinaadman", vol. Ill, pp.
21 -22 (Xavier University, 1981).

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE

Fig. 4: Magellan 's Route from the Pacific Ocean to Cebu.

(Frpm ' 'Kinaadman,'' vol. III, 1981.)

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
200 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

haunted by what they had seen, suffered, perpetrated perhaps, and enjoyed or
deplored. As Pigafetta was to express it: "Frankly, I believe that never will such a
voyage be made again. " Would it be farfetched to believe that many feats stood still
clearly out in their minds, but that locations (as we know them now) were often rather
floating around in their consciousness? The early sketches or maps (even some of those
made after subsequent expeditions) show this very clearly. See, e.g., Quad's
"Regnum Chinae" (1600) and Dudley's "Dell Arcano del Mare" (1646) (Quirino
1969: 22, 42) aside from the mentioned Pigafetta/Torreno/Santa Cruz sketches.
The question seems justified: how much reliable information were Peter Martyr and
Transylvanus really able to get out of the survivors in 1522-1523? Or for that matter,
the nasty Portuguese De Brito, out of the crew of the "Trinidad, " which he would
rather have gotten rid of as soon as possible?
Let's put Peter Martyr and Transylvanus to a test. The first makes Magellan first
go to Borneo and next to Mindanao (Vindanaho). Writes Schumacher 1978, p. 27:

... he had not seen the systematic accounts of Pigafetta. . . from the jumbled recollections
of seamen (he) tried hastily to reconstruct the story and get it into print. . . the Butuan and
Caraga of Pigafetta (are) located by Martyr near Borneo. ... In other words: he obtained a
number of isolated and jumbled facts, but having no concept of the part of the world he was
writing about, he confused them even to the point of reversing them.

Nevertheless, Transylvanus states: "Martyr is more careful with the accuracy of

his statements than with the elegance of his style! " He himself, so he says "took
much care in obtaining an account of the facts from the commanding officer of the
flotilla (he should have said: the single surviving ship) and from the sailors who have
returned with him. " ("First Voyage Around the World" ? Filipiniana Book Guild
[hereafter FBG] edition, 1969, which also gives Transylvanus' "De Moluccis In
sulis,"p. 111.)
Nevertheless, probably after a scoop like that of Martyr, he makes Magellan pay a
short visit to Limasawa (Mazaua) and then rush to Cebu... for the First Mass. In the
same year when his "De Moluccis Insulis" appeared (in Augsburg), Schoener's third
edition of his Globe appeared (in Nuremberg)... and indeed, he traces Magellan's
route like Transylvanus does. No wonder for one who has read his "Letter" to the
Canon of the church at Bamberg! If one places Schoener's 1523 Globe next to the
informations provided by Peter Martyr and Transylvanus, it seems clear that:
1) Schoener's Globe is a garbled version of the Pigafetta/Torreno sketches; 2) it is
based on a garbled version of Martyr's text; and 3) in his ' 'undertimes'' Schoener part?
ly translates into Latin what was in Italian in the Pigafetta/Torreno sketches and
borrows the Latin informations from Transylvanus.
Making globes and maps, writing about discoveries of hitherto unknown territories,
could mean big money in that age of mercantile imperialism, in which Spain and
Portugal played such a big role, Christian missionary intentions notwithstanding. At
any rate: Pigafetta says that Magellan's expedition left Spain on September 20, 1519,

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 201

while Schoener (in his Letter) informs the Canon of Bamberg that "they set sail on
August 10th, 1519. " (See FBG, vol. XIV, pp. 105-107.)
Such critical remarks have, of course, no direct bearing on the controversy around
the First Mass site. They are made because in the discussions that have ensued between
the Butuan and the Limasawa protagonists, argumentation is often based on the
nomenclature of a place, distances from one place to another or the time taken by ships
sailing the distance, on longitudes and latitudes mentioned in primary sources, on the
alleged non-existence of Masao (Butuan) before the last war (alleged, very wrongly,
by Prof. Samuel K. Tan in the documents of the Cavite Symposium about the First
Mass last year), on the comparison of the latitudes of Pigafetta's Mazaua and Butuan
(which Butuan, the one of 1521, of 1622, of 1640, of the mid 1800s or the present
one ? started in 1876??). In all this one must not forget that the discussion is about
a few minutes of a degree! The territories of the two datus present at Pigafetta's
Mazaua (as identified by various writers) have been shifted left and right time and
again. Certain writers have given Magellan's slave and interpreter (Enrique) an identity
with such ease that it makes one whince at times.
With all due respect for primary sources, we must read them critically and not force
their information into the straight-jacket of our modem maps, knowledge, or nomen?
clature, just because it would suit our purpose. Since the matter of the latitudes is
brought into the question so often by protagonists on both sides, let me draw attention
to the following: only belatedly did Magellan become aware of what nowadays is called
the "compass-variation,'' i.e., the effect of earth-magnetism on the travel of the
needle, greater in some places, less in others. It is not surprising then that even during
the Legazpi expedition, 44 years later, there were squabbles among the pilots as to the
exact location of certain places they had reached. When pilot Jaymes Fortun sketched
certain places in the Strait of Surigao, he stated that he did so "como Dios nuestro
Senor lo dio a entender? "
The Butuan Historical Commission (Position Paper 1977) was, of course, well
aware that to prove their tradition they needed the primary sources as badly as the
Limasawa camp. There obviously was no way out of the necessity to prove that the
"Mazaua" of Pigafetta is identical with Masao-Butuan. In the end, their argumenta?
tion boils down to the "sameness" of the two. Unfortunately, with all the imperfec?
tions of the bibliographical and cartographical primary sources, they are extremely clear
on one thing: the 1 'otherness'' of the two places in 1521.

PIGAFETTA AT THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS "MAZAUA"

I am using Pigafetta's text of the FBG edition (1969) and will limit myself to
quoting those portions that are directly relevant to the controversy that has arisen from
them. Since that controversy is about the location of Mazaua relative to Butuan, special
attention will be given to the ' 'Were's'' and ' 'there 's'' spoken to Pigafetta or clearly
implied by him. If that Mass was "here" it cannot have been "there," according to
the either-or situation mentioned in the beginning.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
202 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

The italicized portions are verbatim quotations; small type is used for my own link?
ages and filling-in (not comments); some of the latter is also quoted:

After sailing from Humonhon on Thursday Morning, March 28, as we had seen a fire on an
island the night before, we anchored near it. Some natives came near the ships but did not
come aboard. Some presents were thrown at them and they left to call their king. The latter
came, ordered some of his men to go aboard, but he himself stayed at a distance; after thank?
ing the captain for the presents, he left.

In the afternoon they anchored near the dwellings of the king. 8 Communication was possible
via a slave of Magellan, a Malay, called Enrique. 9

Next day, Holy Friday, the captain general sent his interpreter ashore to look for food. He
returned with the king and some men who this time came aboard the ship. Upon leaving, he
took Pigafetta and one companion ashore. During a grand reception in the king's house, his
son, the prince was introduced to the Spaniards. The king's brother, who was king of another
island, came along next morning when they returned to the ships. Pigafetta was informed
about large gold-deposits in the island of that king whom I led to our ships. His island was
called Butuan and Calagan. When those kings wished to see one another they both went to
hunt in that island where we were.

The name of the first king is Raia Colambu and the second Raia Siaui.

On Easter Sunday, March 31, a Mass was celebrated and a Cross erected on top of a hill.
Later, the interpreter asked the king why there was so little to eat there. The latter replied that
he did not live in that place except when he went hunting and to see his brother_On asking
them which port was the best to get food they were answered that there were three, namely:
Ceylon, Zubu and Calagan, but that Zubu was the largest and the one with most trade.

That island 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 25 leguas
from the Acquada (Humonhon) and is called Mazaua.

WHAT ARE THE LOCATIONS OF PIGAFETTA'S "MAZAUA"

and "BUTUAN"?

Was the "Butuan" mentioned by its own king Siaui to Pigafetta at the site of the

g
Blair and Robertson use the plural "dwellings" while the original Italian (Venetian) has the
singular "la habitati?e, " which could be understood as referring to the whole island. Defenders of th
Butuan tradition have on occasion objected that the Limasawa shore-waters do not allow ships to com
' 'near dwellings.'' However, ' 'near" could still refer to a distance of, say, half a mile.
9
Pigafetta's statements about Enrique are slightly confusing: on the one hand he sa
people" understood him; shortly afterwards he states that "the king understood him, b
regions the kings speak more languages than the other people. *'

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 203

First Mass, or was it somewhere else? It is remarkable how often in writings about the
First Mass the identities and territories of the two kings have been mixed up (even by
Limasawa-protagonists). What the primary sources state quite clearly are the following
points:

I. There were two kings present at Mazaua, both obviously just visiting a place
which was not their regular residence.
II. Those kings were brothers, named:
1. Colambu, who "did not live in that place except when he went hunting and
to see his brother.'' He ' 'lived in another island where all his family were.''
That island is not mentioned by name: perhaps Leyte?
2. Siaui, "the king of another island, which was called Butuan and Calagan"
and was rich in gold.
3. Colambu points to three different islands "where more food could be
found": Ceylon ( = Leyte); Zubu ( - Cebu); and Calagan ( = Caraga, on
Mindanao). Siaui points to his real residence as being Butuan, Calagan.
It would seem that it all adds up to two conclusions: at that moment

1) they were not at Butuan

2) they were also not at Leyte, Cebu, or Mindanao
It is strange that nevertheless in the Position Paper of the Butuan Historical Com?
mission it is repeatedly and emphatically stated: "Pigafetta invariably mentioned
Mazaua in relation to Butuan," from which they infer that it has to be sought in
Butuan. But Pigafetta's statements show quite conclusively that Mazaua and Butuan
were not in the same location in 1521. One was ' 'here,'' the other "there.' '
As for nomenclature: Of course, Pigafetta (Mazaua), Albo (Masava), Transylva
nus (Massana), De Brito (Mazaba) and the Roteiro (Macangcor) do not say "Lima
sawa. " In the mentioned Position Paper of the Butuan Historical Commission (no
pagination), under Ch. II; E, reference is made to some correspondence between Prof.
Teodoro A. Agoncillo and Atty. Emmanuel R. Balanon of Butuan City (March 21,
1966).

One renowned scholar of history in the person of Prof. Teodoro A. Agoncillo, Chairman,
Department of History, University of the Philippines, and a member of the Philippine Historic?
al Institute, commenting upon the question of whether the First Mass was held at Limasawa or
at Butuan, and in effect dismissing Butuan's claim to that distinct honor, poses these hypo?
thetical questions: Why should the Spaniards call Masao Masava? That is, why should one
syllable be added to Masao?" We shall borrow his learned argument by posing a similar
question: Why should the Spaniards remove one syllable ? the syllable Li ? from Mazaua if
they actually meant Limasawa ?

One of the gripes of the Butuan Historical Commission against Blair and Robertson
[hereafter: B & R] is the alleged capriciousness of the latter when attaching the prefix Li
to the name of Mazaua.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

It should be noted that in the course of its written history Pigafetta's Mazaua has
been spelled in perhaps ten different ways. And what I might call the "lazy lip
syndrome'' of the Bisayas has undoubtedly influenced the conversations at Limasawa a
little, back in 1521!
As for the prefix Li: it had been juggled around long before B & R. Colin (1663)
wrote Dimasaua. Juan Francisco de San Antonio (1738) "... la isla de D/masaua o
L/masaua, que el Padre Fray Gaspar de San Agustin llama Mazaua..." However, (see
Schumacher o.e., p. 10) Fray Gaspar had clearly written Limasaua (Limasaba in
another edition).
If the Butuan Historical Commission is willing to accept the"Macangcor'' of the
Roteiro as identical with "Mazaua," they could do the same for Mazaua and
Limasawa, which calls for less linguistic calisthenics.
I have mentioned two primary sketches of the southern Philippines (supra, p. 9).
They are illustrative of two things: 1) They are a visual proof of what I called
"boggled minds, haunted memories and vague consciousness" from which the makers
had to obtain their details; 2) Still, they clearly locate "Mazzana"/"Macagna" away
from Butuan, rather clumsily where Limasawa actually is.
One Butuan writer (not in the Position Paper) places Torreno/Pigafetta's sketch of
1523 next to the map of the Ortelius (1575) and then reasons: "See, the latter map
solves the problem: Messana is identical with our Butuan. " However, it is not sound
procedure to abandon a primary source for a secondary one to bolster a claim that is
under discussion.

"MASAVA", FORTY-FOUR YEARS AFTER MAGELLAN

It may be interesting to leave Pigafetta for the moment and listen to the reports of
another expedition, 44 years later ? the voyage of Legazpi with the famous Andres de
Urdaneta on board. Of course, these reports are not quite in the same class of primary
sources for our First Mass topic. But they are very much so for an intimately related
matter: the location of Pigafetta's Mazaua ? Legazpi was looking for it ? and its
nautical distance from Butuan. The adventure is very well described in Mairin Mitchel's
book Friar Andres de Urdaneta. 10
11
The author uses a.o. the Documentos Ineditos de Ultramar as source material.

Legazpi's voyage sailed in the tracks of Magellan's. Sailing from Guam to Samar and Leyte
the Spaniards experienced fierce resistance from the natives who prevented them from landing

10 Friar Andres de Urdaneta, OSA, Macdonald and Evans. London 1964, pp. 122-123.

11Coleccion de Documentos Ineditos, Madrid, 1886. Reprinted by the National H

Commission, Manila, 1969.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 205

But finally, one island-chief and three of his companions decided to join them on board the
flagship. Camotuan, as his name was, told Legazpi of the easiest route to other islands, but
when on March 9 the ships reached Masava (italics supplied) he refused to accompany Urda
neta ashore, fearing that the natives would think that he had brought the Spanish ships there.
When Urdaneta and his companions landed, all they saw was one Indio descending from a
creeper to a poor cabin in a rock-cleft. To warn others of the arrival of strangers, he set fire to
his cabin, climbed to the top of the rock again, cut the creeper and fled, crying out bitterly as
he turned to look at his ruined home.

The Spaniards' next attempted call was at Camiguin... but they met the same reception as at
Masava.

Then the ships made for Butuan (italics supplied) but contrary currents drove them northwards,
to Bohol.

Mitchel writes here about what is related in Document 27 (1565), pp. 274-275
of the mentioned Documentos Ineditos.
All the details show that ' 'Masava'' and "Butuan'' were very distinct places, with
a lot of seawater between them, and that Masava was located where we know Lima
sawa to be now.
Since it belongs to the same expedition, I may draw attention to a footnote appear?
ing in the Documentos Ineditos, Tomo II, p. 352, (February 15, 1565). After refer?
ring to the Derrotero of the pilots Jaymes Fortun and Diego Martin, the editor says in
that footnote:

... here a sketch appears, showing the geographical names of Butuan on the south coast of
the Strait represented, and those of Calaya, Mazagua and Palmares in the north.

In other words: Butuan was not the same as Mazagua. As for the present Masao of
Butuan: it is not, as some would suggest, a 20th century settlement. It is mentioned a
few times in the ' 'Cartas'' of the Jesuit Fathers who visited the place in the last quarter
of the previous century. At a time when they were founding new settlements all over
Agusan, one of the latter, named Tortosa (the present Buenavista) in 1881, is referred
to on several occasions as "near Masao.'' It is included in a contemporary map ntade
by one of the Jesuit missionaries of those days. When had it come into existence? In
1521, or perhaps even before? Or was the name ''given'' or "inherited'' after 1521?
When did "Port of Masao" become a nautical reference for Butuan? Before or after
writers had located the First Mass at Butuan (say, Colin 1663) ? As far as I know from
references available to me, in none of the earliest sources about the First Mass story
(not even those favoring Butuan) can one find Mazaua, i.e., Butuan, or Butuan, i.e.,
Mazaua. Butuan's own datu in 1521 does not use the epithet "Mazaua" when
referring to his territory: he uses "Calaghan" (Caraga), which for a few centuries
stood for east and north-eastern Mindanao.
Nevertheless, I would not have much difficulty accepting the possibility that, since
the rulers of Limasawa and of Butuan in 1521 were brothers, that relationship could

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

also have been reflected in the names of their territories in 1521 and even before. I
shall return to this question further on.

PIGAFETTA'S VISIT TO MINDANAO: QUIPIT

When the remnants of Magellan's expedition crept away via Bohol, after the
Mactan disaster, the two remaining ships "Victoria" and "Trinidad" (the
"Concepcion'' had been burned near Bohol) landed at Mindanao near Quipit12 on the
west coast. Pigafetta relates:

That part of the island belongs to the same land as Butuan and Calaghan, and lies towards
Bohol and is bounded by Mazaua.

The translation is taken from the FBG, which in tum uses B & R's text (vol. 33).
It might seem possible to read this text in such a way that it would favor a Mazaua
more or less near Butuan and consequently support the Butuan tradition ? as was done
by Prof. Celedonio Resurreccion of the University of the East. Frankly, the text has
caused me trouble too for quite some time, until I remembered that sketch of 1523
again. Reading the above text today, we tend to assume that the translation is correct
and then interpret it in terms of a modern map. But Pigafetta had his own map at hand
when writing about Quipit. The locations mentioned refer to this map. Obviously, it
illustrates his boggled geographic memory, but it clearly shows that Butuan (Masao) is
not Pigafetta's Mazaua. It also shows that "Quipit" is not a "town near Butuan"
(Nasipit?) as stated in a footnote in the above mentioned edition of Pigafetta (p. 54).
With the mentioned map at hand I dare (nay, have to) translate the passage slightly
differently from the B & R translation quoted above. Pigafetta's Italian reads:

' 'Questa parta de la Ysola e una medesma terra con Butuan et Calaghan et passa sopra Bohol et
confina co Mazaua.

Referring to the illustration given by Pigafetta/Torreno, I translate (not unfaithful

to the text):

12
Quipit: See Blair and Robertson, vol. 33, p. 349 (note 390): "The Roteiro calls the port of
Quipit (which is located on the northeastern coast of Mindanao) Capyam or Quype_Quipit becomes
Gibith in Transylvanus, Chipico in Peter Martyr, and Quepindo in Barros.'' (Stanley, p. 14.)
Blair and Robertson are mistaken locating the place on the "northeastern" coast; it should be
"northwestern." This is probably one reason why certain authors have interpreted it as meaning the
town of Nasipit, near Butuan; the whole context, description * of the region, latitude (Pigafetta: 8
degrees, Albo: 8 1/2 degrees) seems to contradict this.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 207

This part of the island lies on the same [piece of] land as Butuan and Calaghan; Bohol lies
above and Mazaua is near it. 1 3

Mazaua is not on the mainland of Mindanao. Albo, in his Quipit context says: "this
island (Mindanao) extends quite generally east and west." Indeed, that is what it
amounts to. After Quipit, Pigafetta defines Mindanao three more times as "the same
land where Butuan and Calaghan are. '' No Mazaua.

HISTORICAL SOURCES OF THE BUTUAN TRADITION

I deem it a matter of fairness to make it clear that the Butuan tradition did not start
with the present Butuan Historical Commission. The latter only set itself up as its
defender after historians had started locating the First Mass at Limasawa, a discovery
that had been rubbed in a few times in a hardly gentlemanlike manner by Manila
writers, notably Jayme de Veyra on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of
Magellan's landing. The Butuan tradition is also not an aftermath of the Monument
that had been erected here at Magallanes in 1872. In fact that monument was merely
the translation into stone of what historical books had been saying since 1663. In 1953
the (then) Historical Commission in Manila rebuffed the claim of Butuan in a rather
"curious way of argumentation" by pointing to the date "April 8, 1521 " and then
reasoning: since that date is wrong, the claim of Butuan is spurious. (See Dionisio Sy:
Butuan through the Ages. CebuCity, 1970, p. 14.)
It has to be admitted: the Butuan tradition appears to be in very old and respectable
company. From Schumacher's manuscript I lift the following names:

1663: Francisco Colin, SJ

1667: Francisco Combes, SJ
1696: Gaspar de San Agustin, OSA
1738: Juan Francisco de San Antonio, OFM
1751: JuanDelgado, SJ
1800: Joaquin Martinez de Zuniga, OSA

SOME EVALUATION OF THE SECONDARY SOURCES

The list, even if perhaps incomplete, is impressive. Still, one will notice quite some

This translation is not entirely satisfactory either. It makes Bohol the subject of the phrase et passa
sopra Bohol. A German translation seems to do less violence to the text in its reading: ". . .it (Chipit)
extends beyond Bohol and to the neighborhood of Massaua'' ? Die Insel erstreckt sich ueber Bohol
hinaus bis gegen Massao. (Antonio Pigafetta. Die Erste Reise um die Erde. Herausg. und uebers. von
Robert Gr?n. T?bingen: Horst Erdmann Verlag. 1968.) ? Ed.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 208 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

lack of unanimity among the authors. One text speaks about a Mass and a Cross at
Butuan; another mentions only a Cross (as Albo had done) and (perhaps) a Mass some?
where (else?); and yet another one, clearly a word for word copy of the former, throws
in a Mass at his own initiative. From where did these writers obtain their informations?
After all, they did not simply invent stories of their own. In looking for answers to
these questions, we should be aware that with regard to the First Mass event and its
location not much reliable information was generally available at the time of Colin and
Combes. Pigafetta's report reached the general public only in the 19th century. But, of
course, Colin and Combes are not exactly '' general public.'' Both certainly did not base
themselves on Transylvanus or Oviedo since the latter had located the First Mass at
Cebu. And what other written information existed, aside from Pigafetta? As
Schumacher says (1978:27): "Colin certainly knew about Pigafetta, but perhaps he
did not bother to check his facts_'' Here is Colin 's statement, taken from Schumacher
(ibid.: 27 ? translation mine):

On Easter Sunday, in the land of Butuan, the First Mass ever celebrated in this region was
offered and the first Cross erected.

So far, this could indeed be due to a failure to check Pigafetta. But next, Colin
says:

(it was) officially taken in possession in the name of the Emperor and the Crown of Castilla_

This is not in Pigafetta, but sounds like the kind of language found in Legazpi's
reports. Colin continues:

The one who took the most liking to our men was the da tu of Dimasaua, a relative of the datu
of Butuan and of the king of Cebu.

That, again, is Pigafetta... and please note: Dimasaua! Colin had earlier mentioned
"the river of Butuan, worthy of renown, because it was one of the earliest (places)
where its first discoverer, the famous Hemando Magallanes, had taken rest and
recovery? " There is no mention of any river in Pigafetta, but the * 'rio de Butuan" is
prominently mentioned a few times in Legazpi's reports.
Turning now to Combes, I feel that he should not be used to bolster the Butuan
tradition. With the same efforts needed to interpret him in favor of Butuan, he could be
made a proponent for a First Mass at Limasawa. I am not saying this because he gives
to Magellan the Christian name "Alonso"... this could just be a slip of the pen!
Schumacher gives Combes at least the benefit of the doubt. As he says:

His book deserves to be quoted at some length, because it gives evidence as to how subsequent
accounts may have developed in dependence upon and/or misunderstanding of him.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 209

In Schumacher (page 24) follows then the Spanish text of the account by Combes,
taken from the Pastells-Retana edition, Col. 77. Here is the text as I translate it:

The first time when the Royal Standards of the Faith were seen flying over this island was
when Admiral Alonso (sic) de Magallanes discovered it in this Archipelago. During that first
time and difficult voyage he had entered the Strait of Surigao, which is formed by that island
and the island of Leyte, and anchored at Limasaua which is at the mouth of that Strait. It was
the first time that such strange people and ships had appeared there, but the barbarians made
friendship with them and regaled them with good food.

During the time when they were resting and well supplied at Limasaua, they heard about the
river of Butuan. Since its datu was more powerful, his fame enticed our men to try what could
turn out a success or a failure. The fact that the place was near roused their curiosity. On the
one hand there was the allegation of the barbarian, and simultaneously the necessity for revi
talization for our men for survival. The simplicity shown by the people soon engendered great
hopes for the good of the men. Magallanes only let them adore a Cross which he had planted
on a hill as a sign of their confederation in future times and as a pledge for a more propitious
occasion to effect it. The solemnity of the Cross-raising and the deep piety shown by the
Spaniards on that festive occasion ? and because of their example also by the Indios ?
resulted in feelings of deep respect for the Cross.

Since at Butuan (sic) they did not find anchoring facilities needed for the ships, they returned to
Limasaua to deliberate more on what route to take. The king of Limasawa told them about the
three most populous tribes in the provinces of the Pintados: those of Caraga, of Samar and of
Cebu. The nearness of Cebu, the anchoring facilities of its port, and the better political system
of its government, ? it was more monarchical ? contributed to the wish of all to sail in that
direction. Guided by people of Limasaua they passed between Bool (sic) and Leyte, skirted the
Camotes Islands and entered Cebu via the narrows of Mandaue on April 7, 1521. They had
left Limasaua on the first day of that month.

In his evaluation, Schumacher continues:

There are several possible interpretations of this passage of Combes. First of all,it is clear that
Limasawa had been the first landing of Magellan, prior to any in Butuan. With regard to the
visit of Magellan to Butuan, unmentioned by the primary eyewitnesses, Pigafetta and Albo,
Combes could simply be mistaken, since we do not know his source of information. (Thus,
with regard to Colin, Pastells would later simply suppose that the mistake had arisen from the
mention of the ruler of Butuan being present at Magellan's visit to Limasawa.) Secondly,
supposing that he is correct about a visit there it should be observed that Combes does not
clearly say that Magellan actually landed at Butuan, but rather has two expressions which could
even lead one to think that he did not: (1) he says that the hopes raised by the ruler of Butuan
in Limasawa led the Spanish expedition ' 'a la experiencia, o al desengano" without specifying
what that "desengano" might have been; (2) he says that they did not find adequate
anchorage ("comodidad") for his ships at Butuan, and hence returned to Limasawa. This
might well be the ' 'desengano,'' that he went there, hopes raised by the stories of the Butuan
ruler, and finding himself unable to anchor his fleet there safely, immediately returned to
Limasawa. Thirdly, even if one were to suppose that Magellan did land at Butuan and take on
supplies, it is by no means clear from Combes that the Cross was actually erected there, nor is
Mass even mentioned. Rather, after saying how their hopes were aroused by the encourage

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

ment given in Limasawa by the ruler of Butuan, he simply proceeds to narrate the story of the
planting of the Cross. He does not say that the Cross was planted in Butuan, though it would
surely be possible to interpret him that way. It is not, however, necessary to do so, for in the
whole passage he makes no attempt at a strictly chronological order of narration. He could
simply be saying that after the suggestion was made to go to Butuan, but while still at
Limasawa, Magellan solemnly planted the Cross there before departing. One could even allow
that the Cross was planted on Limasawa at the second visit, before finally leaving that island
for good. It is true that no single one of these explanations imposes itself, but neither can
anyone be clearly excluded.

Moreover, though all other accounts connect the celebration of the First Mass with the planting
of the Cross, Combes actually makes no mention of the Mass at all. We may legitimately
suppose, nonetheless, that it did take place at the same time as the planting of the Cross,
whether that be at Butuan or Limasawa. However, a number of alternatives present
themselves. If one grants that Magellan made a brief visit to Butuan, it is quite possible that,
as the text literally says "Contentose Magallanes con hazerles adorar la cruz, dexarla
enarbolada en un montecillo...,'' and then returned to Limasawa, where subsequently the
First Mass was held on Easter Sunday. Or one can maintain, as we have suggested above, that
Combes is not that much concerned (or perhaps even knowledgeable) about the exact
chronological order, and that the planting of the Cross and the Mass both took place in
Limasawa, because Magellan did not land at Butuan, or did so only briefly. Thirdly, whether
we place the Cross at Butuan or on Limasawa, and no matter what date we may assign to it, if
we are to accept the clear dating that Combes gives for the final departure from Limasawa, it
seems one must put the Mass on Limasawa. For he says explicitly that the date of the final
departure from Limasawa was April 1st. From all other sources, it is certain that the First Mass
was held on Easter Sunday, 31 March 1521; in fact it was because it was Easter that they
determined to have Mass. If the Mass had been held in Butuan, it seems impossible that
Magellan could have left Butuan, made the return trip to Limasawa to consult with the ruler
there, and arrange to have him accompany the Spanish expedition, while still leaving
Limasawa on April 1st. Hence, to use Combes, one must either reject the whole idea of a visit
to Butuan from Limasawa, or accept that though he visited Butuan, the most he did (if he
landed at all) was to erect a Cross there, and that the First Mass was held in Limasawa, with or
without the erection of the Cross there, on Easter Sunday. After this he set out for Cebu.

Considerable attention has been given to Combes' account here, not only because his is one of
the fullest of the Spanish Philippine accounts prior to the twentieth century, but also because
he is the probable source from which so many later writers would draw, directly or indirectly,
whether they understood him correctly or not. The fact that his narrative is ambiguous meant
that once a particular interpretation had been given to it ? namely, that the First Mass took
place in Butuan ? that interpretation was likely to prevail right down to the end of the
nineteenth century, when we pass from simple chronicle to the use of modern scientific
historical method.

Attention might be drawn to the fact that Combes does not speak about an actual
"confederaci?n" or "Torna [de] posesion" in the name of Spain. He mentions that
the Cross was a sign of confederation in future times and a pledge for a more propitious
occasion to effect it. This came about 44 years later with the expedition of Legazpi.
In the use of terminology the secondary writers (who were writing in the
Philippines) could at times be using ' 'Legazpi terminology'9 as already suggested. It is,

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 211

of course, also possible that they were writing from ex post facto information, like
when Colin (who was in Mindanao) ' 'adds'' the ' 'rio de Butuan" to his account.
Still, with regard to Combes (who knew Mindanao very well) it is noteworthy that
in Ch. X of his ' 'Historia de Mindanao,'' where he relates the history of Dapitan, he
has Datu Pagbuaya make a pact of friendship with Magellan. This pact was actually
made during the Legazpi expedition! 14 The "lack of good anchoring facilities"
mentioned by Combes might cause some raised eyebrows among those who know
Butuan (Port of Masao) and compare the size of Magellan's ships with our interisland
vessels! As for that rapid shuttle-trip from Limasawa to Butuan and back: Combes'
confrere, Father Pedro Murillo Velarde dutifully (and beautifully) traces it in his famous
Map of the Philippines, 67 years later. But he also manages to trace Magellan's
approach-route to the Philippines wrongly. Combes had not mentioned that part of
Magellan's voyage; perhaps Velarde had the expeditions of Loaysa, Saavedra or
Villalobos in mind?
Gaspar de San Agustin too lets Magellan first go to Limasawa for rest and
recovery, and from there to Butuan, where on Easter Sunday a Mass is held and a Cross
erected. It looks as if San Agustin is here not so much "interpreting" Combes, as
Schumacher would suggest, but correcting him. He seems to have discovered the
impossibility of Magellan's departure for Cebu on April 1 as reported by Combes and
omits the date of departure. This in spite of the fact that for the rest he copies Combes
nearly verbatim. He only straightens out the ambiguous portions of Combes by going
back to Colin with regard to the combined event of Mass and Cross at Butuan.
San Agustin again uses the words: "Torna posesi?n de la tierra por la Corona de
Castilla en nombre de Carlos V... " faithfully taken from Colin.
Delgado and Zuniga follow him in placing both the Mass and the Cross at Butuan.
Zuniga again has the phrase '' toma posesi?n de la tiera en nombre de la Corona de
Castilla.''
In the preceding, it has been hinted at a few times: reading Pigafetta and
comparing him with secondary sources, one gets the impression that terms like "toma
posesi?n" and "confederacion," etc., do not fit in Magellan's activities prior to
Cebu. And even in Cebu, it looks as if the ceremony was only a more solemn form of
the "pacto de sangre" towards friendship and mutual trust. Even when the king of
Cebu, in an ebullient (sarcastic?) mood offered "the land" to Magellan, it was only
his answer to a request to permit burying the Spanish dead in Cebu soil (see Pigafetta,
FBG, p. 37). It is only a few days later, at Mactan, when Magellan threateningly
speaks of ' 'obeying the King of Spain, recognizing the Christian King as their sovereign
and paying tribute...," when something happened that is only too well known in
Philippine history!

14
See Blair and Robertson, vol. 40, p. 116 and footnote.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
212 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

Aside from that, there was the lingering fear among the Spaniards that they might
be on the wrong side of the demarcation line, in Portuguese territory. This fear still
existed in 1565; Urdaneta had told the King of Spain to be ready with some "pious"
explanations for the presence of the Spaniards in the region. And the natives, so the
King instructed the leaders of the expedition of Legazpi, should be told that the
Spaniards had arrived only by accident... on the way to somewhere else... driven by
wind or current... or in need of food and water. 15
Assuming the possibility that some secondary authors wrote from an arsenal of
garbled information about various expeditions, we might also understand the origin of
fables like the following, not dealing with the First Mass itself but certainly with the
island of Mazaua:

In 1582 (81 years before Colin), Loarca wrote about "the small island of Masagua about
which Fray Andres de Urdaneta related so many wonders? " (See B & R, vol 5, p.
51.) This sounds strange when we hear Urdaneta himself relating that he and his
companions found a nearly totally deserted island where one pathetic Indio shouted to
them to stay away from the place.

In 1609, (54 years before Colin) an otherwise reputable writer, Morga, wrote in his
' 'Sucesos":

' 'Legazpi had named all those islands Filipinas, in honor of his Majesty_''

In fact, this had been done not by Legazpi in 1565 but by Ruy Lopez Villalobos, in
1542 (see Morga, in B & R, Vol. 15, p. 47). A few pages afterwards Morga credits
Legazpi with the founding of Vigan (Villa Fernandina)... a feat to be attributed to
Legazpi's grandson Salcedo. (Morga, in B & R, vol. 15, p. 51.)

In 1648 (27 years before Colin) Diego de Aduarte, OP mentions "a friendly welcome
given to Legazpi at Limasawa by da tu Bancao" (See B & R, vol. 38, p. 92.)

In 1912 Fr. Burniol SJ, lets Bancao receive Magellan at Mazaua. Aduarte, as well as
Burniol were wrong.

In 1686 (23 years after Colin) Dampier wrote: "The chiefest Island in this range is
Luconia which lies on the North of them all. At this Island Magellan died on the
Voyage that he was making round the World? He fell in with these Philippine
Islands, and anchored at Luconia; where he warr'd with the native Indians, to bring
them in Obedience to his Master the King of Spain, and was by them kill'd with a
Poysoned Arrow. " (B & R, vol. 38, p. 268.)

1 5See Documentos Ineditos de Ultramar, Tomo I, p. 102 and: Document V in The Christianization
of the Philippines (Historical Conservation Society) 1965.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 213

At those times, such garbled information might have been pardonable, but what
about a modern informant like A.J. Brown, Secretary of the Board for Foreign Missions
of the Presbyterian Church, in his' The New Era in the Philippines'' (1903)?

After a short stop at Jomonjolo Malhon, Magellan proceeded to Butuan, on the island of
Mindanao, where he found a timid but kindly and hospitable people, and where he raised the
Spanish flag and named the region San Lazaro Islands. (No Catholic First Mass for him.)

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUTUAN FIRST MASS TRADITION (1663-1981)

For about 250 years the secondary informants enjoyed the quiet, unchallenged
possession of the conviction that the First Mass had taken place at Butuan. Such a con?
viction could exist all the more because the First Mass, now so controversial an issue,
involving two monuments, was not really of worldshaking importance when it
happened. As was shown, few of the secondary sources of the Butuan tradition are truly
independent sources; most of them borrowed from each other. What else could they
do? And so, in the gentle slipstream of 250 years of occasional writing, slowly a kind
of general consensus developed, undisturbed, undisputed, quiet. It is true that in 250
years of First Mass references there grew up an understandable pride of the later-born
sons of Madre Espana remembering how "Mother Spain," in her vigorous younger
days, succeeded in making "los Reales Estandartes de la Fe tremolar en esta isla"
(Combes). "En esta isla,'' but it might as well have been in Aparri or Jolo. It was the
event that counted, not the site. But in that same slipstream there gradually developed
a different story for the people living in the place said to have been the site of the First
Mass. They derived a pride all their own from it. To any sensitive human being it
means something to have been born on a spot hallowed by a glorious event. And what
predominantly counted for them was not so much the fact that "here" the Philippines
had been discovered by Spain, but that they had discovered not only Spain but also the
other side of the Reales Estandartes: el de la Fe.
They believe (and I believe) that here we are in the realm of grace, in spite of the
old blundering presence of humans who made history but, while doing so, were
themselves being written into it.
It was a nice feeling for the Butuanons to be basking in the afterglow of great
historical and religious events. That feeling (with considerable Spanish help) was
translated into a stone monument in 1872. In 1876 the town where it had so recently
been erected was transferred because of continuous floods, erosion and generally
unfavorable living conditions. The town had, in any event, been shifted a few times
before in the course of its long history.
But again, after the "old Butuan" (al orilla del rio) had been abandoned,
memories of its old glory lingered on in the name given to the settlement struggling to
be borne and stay alive at the mouth of the Butuan, Baug and Banza rivers: Magallanes.
The scholarly treatises about the subject had no use for the peculiar local aspect of
the Butuan First Mass tradition: Manila will never fully understand the "tenacity" of

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

the Butuan Historical Commission ? how in some 250 years of a peculiar human
condition the First Mass story had become flesh and blood and heart, here.

AN ATTEMPT TO SEARCH FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE CONFUSION

It would seem that we owe such a Butuan an explanation. But most writers, with
the exception of Schumacher, stopped their research the moment they had found what
they considered convincing evidence to bolster their First Mass site: Limasawa or
Masao (Butuan). But a haunting question remains: where, why and how did the
confusion come into existence? The two localities are not exactly black holes in the
universe and perhaps not even in written history.
Initially, my own hunch was that perhaps Limasawa had only basked in the light of
history for a fleeting moment. And indeed, between Magellan and Legazpi and
thereafter it had not much to contribute to history anymore except a tale of misery.
Legazpi relates in 1565:

This Macagua, although small, was once a thickly populated island. The Castillians who
anchored there were wont to be kindly received. Now, the island is greatly changed from
former days, being quite depopulated, for it contains less than 20 Indians; and those few who
are left, are so hostile to Castillians that they did not even wish to hear us. (B & R, vol. 2, p.
205.)

In 1582, Loarca relates:

... island of Macagua... it has about 60 inhabitants... the people are poor and wretched,
possessing nothing but salt and fish. (B & R, vol. 5, p. 52.)

In 1592 it is reported in a list of Encomiendas as being ' 'pacified. " (B & R, vol. 8, p.
132.)
Meanwhile, Butuan got into the mainstream of history and stayed there. Already in
pre-Spanish times it had a history of its own: Legazpi's expedition came to reconnoiter
it; before 1600 it was a flourishing mission-station of the Jesuits (Chirino 1604,
writes a few pages about ' 'The good conduct of the Christians at Butuan''); in 1622 it
became mission territory of the Recoletos. And, of course: there was a "Masao" in its
territory! Did this slowly turn into Pigafetta's Mazaua?
The question that still remains to be answered is this: Who, or what started that
shifting tradition: ' 'First Mass was at Mazaua, which is Masao, which is at Butuan? ''
Looking again at the maps of Ortelius and Mercator, who placed a "Messana"
near Butuan (1575), one might conclude that shifting of the locality had already taken
place between 1523 (Torreno/Pigafetta's sketch) and 1575. Consulting the map of
Alonso de Santo Cruz (1545) we might narrow that span down to between 1545 and
1575.
Schumacher, in his own search for the origin of the Butuan tradition, refers to a few

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIRST MASS SITE 215

authors preceding Colin. (After all, Colin must have had a source or interpreted a
combination of sources.) Among those authors are Oviedo and Herrera. The first died
in 1557, the same year his historical writings were published. He had personally
known Sebastian del Cano (Elcano) and, according to Schumacher, had interviewed
him about Magellan's expedition. As already stated, he also interviewed Transylvanus,
who locates the First Mass at Cebu. He (Oviedo) uses the name ' 'Messana,'' in 1557
(although, judging from the context still locating it at Limasawa). In itself, the name
"Messana" could just be one of the numerous spelling variations of "Limasawa."
However, as it happens, 18 years later, in 1575, this variant is also used by Ortelius
and Mercator, who gave it a location on Mindanao soil, not far from Butuan. Who, or
what guided them to do so?

MAZAUA DESTRUYDA
Por Eso Se Estava En Butuan Entre Sus Parientes (1563)

The pathetic moment when Limasawa had signed off has already been related in
the quotation from Mairin Mitchell (pp. 14-15). That was taken from Document 27
(1565), Tomo I of the Documentos Ineditos de Ultramar. Document 33 (1565),
Tomo I, page 405, reads:

Next day we went to Mazagua... and found the whole island destroyed. Two years before, 8
big paraos from the Moluccas had arrived there: feigning that they were Spaniards they
destroyed the island, because they knew that these Indios were well befriended with the
Spaniards; that's why they had come here. (Translation mine.)

Tomo II, Document 43 (1565), pp. 303-304:

(A detachment of Legazpi's expedition had eventually come to Butuan (Botuma) and

... while the small boat ' 'San Juan" was staying there ... they saw one Indio who said that
he was the son of the da tu of Masagua. He was going around wearing a mourning dress and
said that strangers, that means the Portuguese, had destroyed his homeland; that's why he
was staying here, among his relatives. (Translation mine.)

In 1521 Magellan had met two datus at Mazaua, both just visiting there. Siaui,
datu of Butuan, was one of them. As the foregoing documents state, in 1565, another
expedition came to Butuan, and chronicler Esteban de Rodriguez met the son of
Mazaua's datu here at Butuan, not just paying a social visit, but having escaped from
his destroyed homeland, perhaps together with a group of his people from Mazaua, and
now living here "among his relatives.'' They had lived here since 1563.
The main weakness of the Position Paper of the Butuan Historical Commission
seems to be the attempt to date the Butuan tradition back to Pigafetta. To me it is not
possible to bring the First Mass to Butuan this way. However, we could perhaps bring
Mazaua to Butuan, in 1563. About one thing we should be clear: the Butuan tradition

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY

did not start here at Butuan, not among people living here. It started elsewhere, behind
writing tables and none of the writers sitting there had picked up a story that was '' the
talk of the town" here on these river-banks. In none of the on-the-spot reports about
the early Butuan is the First Mass ever mentioned. Chirino and Luis de Jesus would
have loved to mention it!
Again: how did the "Butuan is Masao, which is the place of the First Mass"
combination come into existence?
Somehow the Mazaua of Pigafetta with its First Mass seems to have been slipped
into the Butuan story by writers faraway. Something has been displaced between
Pigafetta and, say, Colin.
In fact, it was not just ' 'something "? It was a displaced person.
Previously I suggested the possibility that, since the two datus present at
Pigafetta's Mazaua were brothers (one living at Butuan), such relationship might also
have been reflected in the names of their territories. At any rate, if such had not been
the case originally, it might very well have become the case in 1563 when the son of
Mazaua's ruler (the "Prince" mentioned by Pigafetta?) evacuated to the territory of
his uncle at Butuan.
Could this have been the historical beginning of a Masao next to Butuan? And
since the old Mazaua had been linked with the story of the First Mass, it is not too
farfetched to think that writers started mentioning Butuan as the site of the First Mass
while actually (albeit unwittingly) moving the Mazaua of 1563 back to 1521. This
may also answer the question why Ortelius and Mercator in 1575 placed their
' 'Messana" near Butuan. It is important to notice that all secondary sources placing the
First Mass at Butuan are all post-1565 authors. Colin wrote a century afterwards.
Let us come back to the second writer, predating Colin, writing about the First
Mass: Herrera, the Cronista Mayor of the Royal Court of Spain, who, according to
Schumacher used official documents for his writing. And Herrera says:

Magellan discovered many islands, and sailing between them, they went ashore at a little one,
called Mazagua, near a small village?

(Note: This is nearly verbatim in De Brito)

Then follows the hospitable reception which, as described by Herrera, appears 80

years later in San Agustin.
But the most important information given by Herrera is that on Easter Day, 1521,
a Mass was celebrated there and a Cross erected on a promontory. In other words:
basing his information on official primary sources available to him, not (mis)guided by
the aftermath of the 1563 happenings, and before the maps of Ortelius and Mercator
were put together, he 1) clearly places "Mazagua" at a little island i.e., Limasawa;
2) clearly places the First Mass and Cross there.

This content downloaded from

110.54.160.72 on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:04:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms