Talk:Enrique of Malacca

Summary
/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)

Comprehensive Review of Enrique de Circumnavigator Notion
Magellan's slave has acquired fame because of the notion he was first to round the globe.

One hypothesis is he was Cebuano so when the fleet reached Cebu he ahead of anyone on earth became the first man to circumnavigate. The other hypothesis is he was Malay, either from Malacca or Sumatra or even the Moluccas, and after May 1, 1521 he somehow was able to hop unto a sailing ship—an event recorded by no man but absolutely imaginable--and reached his hometown at a date unspecified by even the most inventive mind ahead of Victoria, the nao of Magellan’s Armada that made it to Seville on Sept. 6, 1522. The slave’s name is "Henrich" in Antonio Pigafetta's account (Page 89, R.A. Skelton English edition of the French Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex, click http://books.google.com/books?id=RB4usvtAZrEC&pg=RA1-PT1&dq=Magellan%27s+Voyage+by+R.A.+Skelton&ei=V-utSa7-IZeOkAStnO2XBQ#PPA89,M1). It's "Henrich" as well in the extant Italian manuscript, called Ambrosiana, and found in the English translation of James Alexander Robertson, Page 183, click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Henrich;rgn=full%20text;idno=afk2830.0001.033;didno=AFK2830.0001.033;view=image;seq=189;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset.

He is "Henry" in the English translation by Lord Stanley of Alderley of the French extant MS 5650, click http://dlxs.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Duarte+Barbosa&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=189.

He is "Henrique" on Page 66 of Martin Fernandez de Navarette's Colección de los viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los españoles desde, fines del siglo XV, con varios documentos inéditos concernientes á la historia de la marina castellana y de los establecimientos españoles en Indias, Tomo IV, click http://www.archive.org/details/coleccibonviages04navarich.

"Henrique" is most likely his baptismal name; it's how the Portuguese spells it. He was baptized when his master, Fernao de Magalhaes, was still a Portuguese subject and thus would have followed Portuguese ways.

'''Malaccan? Sumatran? Moluccan? What was his language?'''

Pigafetta states explicitly Henrich was Sumatran. The episode where Henrich was identified to be from Sumatra, that he spoke his native tongue, Malay, and was understood was at Mazaua, see Ambrosiana codex, edition of Theodore J. Cachey, Page 34, http://books.google.com/books?id=Mcgy9Xn2KkEC&pg=PA129&dq=Magellan+by+F.H.H.+Guillemard&lr=&ei=Fx2qSd6OEYGElQT_pOmUBA#PPA34,M1. This is on Page 113 of Blair & Robertson, Vol. 33, at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.033&q1=Mazaua&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=119. This is corroborated in Stanley’s English translation of the extant French MS 5650 at http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Taprobana&node=sea061%3A5&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=162.

Magellan, in his Last Will and Testament signed on August 24, 1519 at Seville, states Enrique was a native of Malacca. The Will's English translation by F.H.H. Guillemard is in the book, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan and the First Circumnavigation of the Globe 1480-1521. London: 1890, Pages 317-326. (Click http://www.archive.org/details/lifeofferdinandm90guil) Reference to Enrique is at the 4th paragraph on Page 321: “And by this my present will and testament, I declare and ordain as free and quit of every obligation of captivity, subjection, and slavery, my captured slave Enrique, mulatto, native of the city of Malacca, of the age of twenty-six years more or less, that from the day of my death thenceforward ....” Guillemard’s text was reprinted in Tim Joyner’s Magellan, International Marine: 1992, Pages 299-302.

Captured or bought? The idea he was bought comes from Maximilianus Transylvanus’ secondhand account of the voyage. It's in Stanley's, Page 200. The English translation was done by Mr. James Baynes of the Printed Book Department of the British Museum, click http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Lord+Stanley+of+Alderley&node=sea061%3A1.3&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=288

Most accounts by historians several centuries removed from the event talk of Enrique having been bought. It's easy enough to resolve whether Magellan was wrong and Maximilianus was right. Magellan knew Enrique first hand, was with him from 1511 until April 27, 1521. Maximilianus neither met nor knew the slave, personally. He only heard of him from stories of the survivors of the voyage.

Was Henrich Cebuano?

Carlos Quirino in a speech at the University of the Philippines on July 16, 1980 claimed Enrique could not have been understood if he spoke Malay at Mazaua. In fact Quirino fails to mention Mazaua, to avoid having to explain how he came to the notion Cebuano was spoken at this isle where Butuanon rather than Cebuano is spoken. This is because Malay, Quirino argues, is not understood in the Philippines today. Thus, Enrique must have spoken Cebuano. Therefore he was born at Cebu: Therefore, when he reached Cebu, he had circumnavigated the globe.

There are several flaws here. Malay was spoken widely in Southeast Asia. In Language and Language-in-education Planning in the Pacific Basin by Robert B. Kaplan, Richard B. Baldauf, Ricard B. Baldauf Jr., the authors who are linguistics experts—Quirino has no credential in the field—state “Malay was lingua franca of the region for perhaps a thousand years…”,  click http://books.google.com/books?id=FgCa3Rt19MQC&pg=PA83&dq=Malay+as+SEA+lingua+franca&ei=VGGnSbSuHZnClATrmrmPBA.

Carlo Amoretti, discoverer of the first true Italian Pigafetta account, states in a footnote on the Mazaua incident, “From the Philippines to Malacca the Malay tongue is universally spoken. It is therefore by no means astonishing an inhabitant of Sumatra should be understood in the Philippine Islands.” See John Pinkerton’s English tr., Page 328, http://books.google.com/books?id=KVG-d40WYesC&pg=PA288&dq=John+Pinkerton+on+Pigafetta%27s+Voyage+Round+the+World&ei=-mWnScHqNJLOlQTUkKSnBA#PPA328,M1

Ginés de Mafra was explicit in saying the slave-interpreter (he doesn’t give a name) was pressed into service "because he was known to speak Malay, the language common to those parts." For both Spanish text and English translation of de Mafra, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gin%C3%A9s_de_Mafra#Chapter_XI.2C_which_deals_with_what_transpired_after_Magellan.27s_departure_from_the_Ladrones_islands.

Quirino assumes the language used in Mazaua is Cebuano. This is wrong. The language of Mazaua is most likely Butuanon. The proof of this is it is among over a dozen languages and dialects within the band of latitudes from 12 deg. North down to 8 deg. North that has the word "masawa" from which the isle got its name. "Masawa" means brilliant light; the word’s significance may be seen in the context of Pigafetta's words, "On Thursday morning, March 28, as we had seen a fire on an island the night before, we anchored near it." Click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.033&q1=Ceilon&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=119.

Thus, going by the logic of Quirino, since Enrique spoke the language of Mazaua, Butuanon, he had rounded the world on reaching the isle. Not one of those who took up the cause of Quirino ever detected this flaw in his logic. But those closest to Henrich are explicit, he was a Malay either from Sumatra or Malacca. We can dismiss Maximilianus’ claim Enrique was Moluccan as hearsay.

Again, let me emphasize a basic point: Quirino was not a linguistics expert and had not studied the linguistics of the Southeast Asia region. His Enrique de Carcar notion is based on linguistics.

The fallacy of the hypostatized proof

It's almost unthinkable that a historian whose knowledge of the past is derived from accounts of an event by eyewitnesses and secondhand sources can find contrary evidence from outside the body of established primary and secondary sources. It's not just unthinkable, but impossible.

Quirino was editor of a 1968 edition of the Pigafetta English of Robertson and the Stevens' Maximilianus. He knew the Last Will and Testament of Magellan. He had not read Ginés de Mafra. How did he surmount the direct evidence coming from Magellan, Pigafetta, and Maximilianus--an enterprise no sane historian will do?

Those who have espoused the "Enrique de Cebu" notion have not read Quirino's article in Philippines Free Press of Dec. 29, 1991. It’s here that one sees the logic behind Quirino's improbable enterprise of negating his primary sources. Here Quirino recounts an incident at a Malacca slave market where Magellan and Enrique converse. This event is not found anywhere outside of Quirino’s own imagination. Advocates of the "Enrique de Cebu" notion--many of whom have not read Quirino, do not cite him, do not even know him--are completely ignorant of this incident which is the basis for Quirino's being able to dismiss all known sources.

Quirino describes the phantom event: "After his return to Malacca [from Sabah], he [Magellan] learned that there was a teen-age male to be bought at the slave market; one who, after he had conversations with him, said that he had come from an island farther east than Sabah on the same longitude as the Moluccas, but considerably north of it. The young slave, subsequently baptized with the name Enrique, must have told Magellan how he had been captured by Muslim pirates and that Europeans were unknown in his area of the Pacific Ocean. He must have come from one of the islands then known as the Luzones, about 12 days by sail northeast of Borneo. The idea of claiming that region, composed of a group of islands, must have entered the mind of Magellan. So he returned to Portugal in 1512, taking with him Enrique to propose to his master, King Emanuel of Portugal, that he be allowed to lead a seafaring expedition to those islands and claim them as part of the Portuguese empire."

This paragraph contains many falsehoods. One, longitude was not determined correctly until late in the 18th century with John Harrison's invention of a reliable chronometer around 1740. Ascribing an uncanny ability to know longitudes to this lowly slave is a case of projecting what we know today to someone over 400 years removed from us. The Pacific Ocean wasn't named so not until Magellan's voyage in 1519. In any case, this incident is belied by the fact Enrique wasn't bought in a slave market.

But Quirino reified--made real in his own mind--his own invented event which allowed him to dismiss Magellan's Last Will as the product of a liar; Pigafetta's account that Enrique was from Sumatra; Maximilianus' assertion it was not Enrique who did the interpreting at Cebu but a native; and dismiss whatever contrary testimony one can present. Here is what Quirino said of Magellan's testimony Enrique was from Malacca: "Magellan obviously wanted to keep secret the real birthplace of Enrique as east of Borneo." Quirino had sense enough not to say outright “Enrique came from Cebu."

In this Free Press article Quirino's inventive mind allowed him to write pure fiction. "Enrique immediately recognized his father, one of the dons around the rajah [Humabon]. 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."

Quirino's reification of his "Enrique de Cebu" tale ends, in the Free Press article, with a quotation of a passage in the biographical-psychological study on Magellan by the famous popular Austrian biographer, Stefan Zweig, that you can read at http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=tLoWg9mMh04C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=Ferdinand+Magellan%27s+Last+Will+and+Testament&source=bl&ots=Ydlxdv0s6v&sig=GVYQJGnHmNOjXl56ebuVFyNXe1Q&hl=en&ei=7SqqSZ-9NJWukAXhu7jkDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA234,M1

But Quirino deliberately removed this portion, "the Malay slave was dumbfounded, for he understood much of what they were saying…he was torn from his home upon the island of Sumatra, was bought by Magellan in Malacca…”

What happened to Enrique after Cebu massacre?

Quirino's last stab at his Enrique brainstorm was a short piece in his book Who's Who in Philippine History. See cover, http://books.google.com/books?id=ZvO5AAAAIAAJ&q=Carlos+Quirino&dq=Carlos+Quirino&ei=iE6fSaTgEZ-OkASU-9WNAg&pgis=1; attached is the Jpeg image of the article.

Here Quirino completes the fairy tale, gives a date of Enrique's demise, what happened to him on May 1. 1521 after the massacre at Cebu took place and the remnant of the fleet left. Enrique's year of death, Quirino tells us, was 1563; he was from a specific place in Cebu, Carcar; he was caught by pirates while fishing off the coast of Cebu [Quirino could not make up his mind what time of day, and if it was sunny and if he had company]. After May 1, 1521 Henrich served at the court of Rajah Humabon as Spanish and Portuguese interpreter. Enrique got married [name of wife hadn’t occurred to Quirino’s mind] and raised a family [number of children unspecified nor their sexes determined]. Enrique died in his seventies—why not 80s? Or 90s? Or better still 150?--just before Legazpi arrived in Cebu. If Quirino allowed him to live long enough, Quirino would probably have him meet Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur at the beaches of Leyte, why not? Since it's all fairy tale.

What does the record say?

Here are what contemporary accounts say what happened to Henrique: 1. In the extant French manuscript called Nancy-Libri-Beinecke-Yale codex, Antonio Pigafetta writes that massacre survivor João Serrão, who was pleading with his comrades to save him from the Cebuanos, said all who went to the banquet were massacred except Henrique. Click http://books.google.com/books?id=RB4usvtAZrEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Magellan%27s+Voyage&ei=B_GpSYmGC5-OkAT-q9ThBA#PPA90,M1. This is also found in the Ambrosiana MS in the edition of Theodore J. Cachey Jr., click http://books.google.com/books?id=Mcgy9Xn2KkEC&pg=PA129&dq=Magellan+by+F.H.H.+Guillemard&lr=&ei=Fx2qSd6OEYGElQT_pOmUBA#PPA60,M1. 2. Accdg. to the Genoese Pilot, Henrique “had been killed with Fernan de Magalhaes.” Click http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Junk+of+Ciama&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=98. This is obviously wrong. He survived the April 27 battle of Mactan.

3. Martin Fernandez de Navarette, from official records of the Casa de Contratación de Las Indias, lists “Henrique, de Malaca” as one of 27 men killed in the May 1 massacre. Go to Page 66 of http://www.archive.org/details/coleccibonviages04navarich 4. Sebastian de Puerta, survivor of Loaisa expedition (1523-1535), narrated February 1528 to men of the Saavedra expedition (1527-1529) that “eight of Magellan’s men survived the massacre and had been sold as slaves to Chinese merchants in exchange for a fixed quantity of iron or copper.” See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Sebastian%20de%20Puerta;rgn=full%20text;idno=adn6882.0001.001;didno=adn6882.0001.001;view=image;seq=207;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset Noone’s source was Martin Fernandez de Navarette, Colección de los viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los españoles desde fines del siglo XV, con varios documentos inéditos concernientes á la historia de la marina castellana y de los establecimientos españoles en Indias, Tomo V, Page 115, click http://www.archive.org/details/coleccibonviages05navarich. The historical record isn't clear. So it's all well to imagine along with Quirino. In fact I suspect Enrique was among those who received Legazpi with courtesy, elegance, and urbanity. Fairy tales are so much nicer.

Wikipedia tackles Enrique At Wikipedia, editors have yet to resolve if Enrique is indeed from Cebu. Some editors assert he wrote together with Pigafetta the Cebuano vocabulary (they forget it was started in Mazaua and contains Butuanon words), that he had inserted Cebuano words in the Malay vocabulary Pigafetta wrote. Where and how they got this notion is no different from Quirino’s conjuring anything his imagination could contrive.

The editors are aware of the primary and secondary accounts that puts the lie to the “Enrique de Cebu” tale but are hoping, probably dreaming and wishing evidence will surface in some happy future that will affirm Quirino's "Cebu de Carcar." This is what is called in logic the fallacy of the possible proof. If these editors hold on to this frame of mind, there will be no resolution. Because the fallacy allows eternity as the deadline for these proofs to come in.

Can fairy tales ever end? At Wikipedia, there’s one sucker born every day who defends Quirino’s tall tale. A number of sensible minds have been seduced by this enthralling tale—Laurence Bergreen, William Manchester, John Keay, and Filipino historiographers Chitang Nakpil, Alejandro Roces, and writer Perry Diaz, and countless other lesser lights. It’s time we end this fairy tale before it claims any more victims. To the credit of the linguistics world, no expert has even bothered to comment on Quirino’s basic assertion. It’s on its face a fatuous inanity.--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Quirino Bashing Unneccasary
No one is disputing the idea that Quirino is wrong! Users are only saying that all points of view must be maintained. if CERTAIN users wish to place a section destroying Quirino's credablity, either place it on an article about Quirino or place in in a SINGLE SECTION on this article. it is UNNESSARY to pollute the article with snide comments on the unverifiable data of Quirino and All other persons ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshshah007 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bashing? Or straightening out Quirino
Carlos Quirino happens to be the author of the Cebu de Carcar etc. brainstorm. I could not possibly ascribe it to Utkarshshah007 or some other author who hide under some pseudonym and do not reveal their real identity and stand for what they really believe in. They ought to have the courage of their conviction and let us know who they really are in the real world. And what do you really know about Enrique de Carcar and his circumnavigation of the world!--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the section on Enrique as a possible circumnavigator?
Not only was the section changed without any references as to why the already placed REFERENCED material was incorrect, it was then, by the same user deleted, removing it from the readers view and removing a pov different to that of user Vicente de Jesus. ACCORDING TO THE WIKIPEDIA NEUTRALITY POLICY, ANY AND ALL POV RELATIVE TO AN ARTICLE MUST BE PROPERLY EXPRESSED! Vicente de Jesus THIS IS A FINAL WARNING!! if you continue to vandalize and destroy the neutrality of this article, you will be REPORTED to a wikipedia monitor and if they conclude against you, you will be indefinitely banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshshah007 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It still hasn't been fixed. It now says Elcano was 'unquestionably the first to circumnavigate the globe'. Can we please have reasons as to why, even if it's wrong, we're deleting referenced, archived and intelligible material?

Kielbasa1 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalize?
You're barking on the wrong tree. I could not have removed the section on Enrique as a possible circumnavigator since that is precisely the area where I most definitely am interested in pursuing. You better get your facts right. You're precipitate, I'm afraid, and out of touch with fact, reality, and truth! Also, has anyone come up with evidence, solid proof showing your Enrique de Carcar comes from Cebu. As far as I can tell no one outside of Carlos Quirino has asserted Henrich or Henrique, Magellan's slave, is from Cebu. Bergreen and Manchester and the others simply followed Quirino to their eternal regret. May I urge the author of the above, who hides his identity behind a pseudonym and thus has the boldness to speak in precipitate language--please let's try to be more calm, circumspect, objective, and judicious in language. Maybe if you reveal your real identity then you'll find yourself forced to be more judicious in your approach to intellectual conversation like this. Please! And if you really think Quirino was mistaken, why don't we hear you say it and say why he was mistaken?Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the history page, your edit deleted much of the previous section. I apologize for "precipitate language" and I understand that you feel very strongly on this subject. Furthermore, I would like to dispute the idea that I agree with the ideas of Carlos Quirino, or that I agree with the idea that Enrique came from Cebu.I don't. I simply feel that the simple fact that Enrique went from somewhere in that area, around the world and back to somewhere in that area is enough evidence to at least mention in this article, neutrally!, The idea that he could (possibly) have been a cirucumnavigator. As for your strange attacks on my username, it is just that, a username. my own name is enclosed within it, for the original name is already being used by another person of the same name. As for where my information is coming from, Please look on page 81 and 82 of the Book of General Ignorance by Stephen Fry and Alan Davies. It not only talks about what I am saying, but also about everything you have said, even, as I am sure you will find entertaining, considers the ideas of Carlos Quirinos and finds them to be unbased. I am not looking to start a fight, simply to ensure that all points of view and possibilities are mentioned, regardless of whether they are irrefutable or not.--Utkarshshah007 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, On an unrelated note, Please try and maintain Wikipedia's cleanup policy. put your citations and links in a proper format, not simply left in the article for all to see. Try to refrain from quoting long strings of other languages, it is disconcerting to the common reader.--Utkarshshah007 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to access all of Quirino's published works on Enrique de Carcar
Carlos Quirino's published articles on his hypothesis Enrique, Magellan's slave, is from Cebu in Central Philippines, are not found anywhere on the Net except at this site, http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MagellansPortMazaua/files/Enrique%20de%20Carcar%20of%20Carlos%20Quirino/. I invite Wikipedia editors who probably have not read a single one of these to go to that site and know, for the first time, what Quirino really did write. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Massively inappropriate editing by one user
Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) : I understand you feel strongly about this subject, however, your continued attacks at a single author's point of view is not appropriate. Like I mentioned, if a proposed fact is not correct, it needn't be included in the article. It should not be included for the sake of bashing it. Worse still, you have repeatedly removed our requests in this Talk Page to abide by the Wikipedia editing standards. This is an egregious abuse of the NPOV resolution system.

I'm going to ask that you refrain from removing this notice, as well as any other posts on this talk page, as neutral editors evaluate this article and remove any content that violates the NPOV standard. Further violations of this will result in a user review. Meneitherfabio (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaking arguments against Quirino's position as personal attack on Quirino. It's his hypothesis that is being challenged. If you feel strongly about Quirino's thesis and perhaps agree with him, you're perfectly free to defend it. There is absolutely nothing to stop Meneitherfabio from presenting your facts, your evidence, your authority, your citations to prove Quirino right. We'd all profit if you can bring these out into the open. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with Quirino. I agree with your position. You have simply been editing this page in a way that is not neutral, and is not pursuant to Wikipedia's standard of article publication. It needs to be corrected immediately. Please agree to an article overhaul that will remove the outlandishly inappropriate language you've inserted against Quirino's position. Meneitherfabio (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Canon of Evidence, the Eyewitness Accounts vs 20th century notions
It might help to restate the canon of evidence, as I notice some of us cite non-eyewitnesses five centuries removed from the event who are given more weight than those who lived with Enrique firsthand. David Hackett Fischer, in Historians’ Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, discusses this issue of evidence on Page 62-63.

The best evidence, says Hackett, is that which is most immediate to the event which is itself but of course this is irremediably lost to us. The second best is an “authentic remains of the event”, e.g., an affidavit testifying to Enrique’s being from Cebu or Sumatra or Malacca. No affidavit has ever surfaced nor has it ever been mentioned.

The third best evidence is direct observation or eyewitness testimony. There are four direct observations left to us, the eyewitness testimonies of Ferdinand Magellan, Antonio Pigafetta, Bartolome de las Casas, and Ginés de Mafra. There is a secondhand account by Maximilianus Transylvanus, who interviewed the survivors of the voyage.

1. Magellan’s Last Will – Was executed on August 24, 1519 at Seville. Its English translation by F.H.H. Guillemard is in his book, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan and the First Circumnavigation of the Globe 1480-1521. London: 1890. It’s found on Pages 317-326. Reference to Enrique is at the 4th paragraph on Page 321: “And by this my present will and testament, I declare and ordain as free and quit of every obligation of captivity, subjection, and slavery, my captured slave Enrique, mulatto, native of the city of Malacca, of the age of twenty-six years more or less, that from the day of my death thenceforward for ever the said Enrique may be free and manumitted, and quit, exempt, and relieved of every obligation of slavery and subjection, that he may act as he desires and thinks fit; and I desire that of my estate there may be given to the said Enrique the sum of ten thousand maravedis in money for his support; and this manumission I grant because he is a Christian, and that he may pray to God for his soul.” Guillemard’s text was reprinted in Tim Joyner’s Magellan, International Marine: 1992, Pages 299-302. Carlos Quirino, in his article in a local newsmagazine, Philippines Free Press, December 24, 1991, Page 22, quotes the entire passage above. Then he adds, “Magellan obviously wanted to keep secret the real birthplace of Enrique as east of Borneo.” He came to this conclusion after assuming, without any supporting evidence, that Enrique was from the Philippines. Here is Quirino’s supposition, “After his [Magellan’s] return to Malacca, he learned that there was a teen-age male to be bought at the slave market, one who, after he had conversations with him, said that he had come from an island farther east than Sabah on the same longitude as the Moluccas, but considerably north of it. The young slave, subsequently baptized with the name of Enrique, must have told Magellan how he had been captured by Muslim pirates and that Europeans were unknown in his area of the Pacific Ocean. He must have come from one of the islands then known as the Luzones, about 12 days by sail northeast of Borneo. The idea of claiming that region, composed of a group of islands, must have entered the mind of Magellan.” No document records any conversation between Magellan and Enrique at a slave market. No document records the thoughts of Magellan. Also, when the slave was baptized his name must have been spelled “Henrique” which is Portuguese orthography for that name. The slave became Spanish “Enrique” when he joined the Spanish expedition.

2. Antonio Pigafetta’s testimony "Henrich" is from Sumatra is in the English translation of an extant French manuscript, 5650, in The First Voyage Round the World, by Magellan/Translated from the Accounts of Pigafetta and Other Contemporary Writers, Accompanied by Original Documents with Notes and an Introd. by Lord Stanley of Alderley. This book has been digitized and published on the site Southeast Asia Visions of Cornell University. The incident where Henrich is identified as native of Sumatra is on this page 76, click http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea;cc=sea;q1=Ballanghai;rgn=full%20text;idno=sea061;didno=sea061;view=image;seq=162;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset.

In the extant Pigafetta Italian manuscript popularly referred to as the Ambrosiana, this incident is on Page 113 of the James Alexander Robertson edition, click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.033&q1=balanghai&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=119.

3. Maximilianus Transylvanus’ secondhand account of Magellan’s voyage is in the Stanley book, Pages 179-210. This English translation was done by Mr. James Baynes of the Printed Book Department of the British Museum. The story someone else not Enrique, did the translation to Humabon is on Page 200, click http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Lord+Stanley+of+Alderley&node=sea061%3A1.3&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=288. Another English translation of Maximilianus Transylvanus by Henry Stevens appears in Vol. I of Blair and Robertson’s The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803; explorations by early navigators, descriptions of the islands and their peoples, their history and records of the Catholic missions, as related in contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the political, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those islands from their earliest relations with European nations to the beginning of the nineteenth century; [Vol. 1, no. 1] at t he site The United States and its Territories, of the University of Michigan Library's Southeast Asia collection. The part referring to Enrique not doing the translation but a native of Cebu is at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;idno=afk2830.0001.001;q1=the%20King%20of%20Mauthan;frm=frameset;view=image;seq=336;page=root;size=s.

4. Pigafetta testimony attesting/corroborating/stating what Maximilian more clearly relates that Enrique did not speak Cebuano. In the incident Pigafetta relates, during negotiations between Magellan and Humabon, it was a merchant from Ciama who was doing the interpreting, This is in Stanley, Page 85, click http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Junk+of+Ciama&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=171.

5. Ginés de Mafra testimony explicitly or unequivocably states Magellan’s slave spoke Malay for which reason he was brought on the voyage is found in Wikipedia at several places, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gin%C3%A9s_de_Mafra#Chapter_XI.2C_which_deals_with_what_transpired_after_Magellan.27s_departure_from_the_Ladrones_islands. It is also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_mass_in_the_Philippines#Capitulo_XI_que_trata_de_lo_que_mas_sucedi.C3.B3_.C3.A1_Magallanes_partido_de_las_islas_de_los_ladrones.

5. Stefan Zweig was the sole authority on Enrique’s roots ever cited by Carlos Quirino. Zweig explicitly identifies Enrique as Sumatran which portion Quirino removed from his quote. Click http://books.google.com/books?id=1NHsGkgmIisC&pg=PA234&dq=Enrique+de+Malacca&lr=&ei=yU-fSefXF6WQkASfltCNAg.

Carlos Quirino’s Writings

1. Who’s Who in Philippine History by Carlos Quirino. Published by Tahanan Books, 1995, 227 pages. URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZvO5AAAAIAAJ&q=Carlos+Quirino&dq=Carlos+Quirino&ei=iE6fSaTgEZ-OkASU-9WNAg&pgis=1 This is the final piece of Quirino. Here he gives a birth-to-death biography: “ ‘Enrique’ (b. Carcar, Cebu, ca. 1493; d. Cebu City, ca. 1563), arguably the first man to circumnavigate the globe. His early life is unknown, but he was said to be fishing off the coast of Cebu when he was captured by pirates and brought to the slave trade center of Malacca, the Portuguese colony in what is now Malaysia. Ferdinand Magellan purchased him because he came from an unheard of place, named him Enrique, then took him along to India, Africa, and Lisbon, Portugal. Before they left Spain on to their voyage to the east, Magellan freed him as a slave (although Enrique did not know this). They traveled to Guam, and then to Cebu, where Enrique witnessed the killing of his master by the Mactan chieftain, Lapu-Lapu, and decided he would not return to Spain as a slave. The new commander, Barbosa, ordered him to ask Rajah Humabon for jewels to be presented to the Spanish King. Instead he set the Spaniards up for a lunch with the local leader, at which they were slain. He proved useful to Humabon for his knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese. He must have married, raised a family, and passed away in his seventies just before Legaspi arrived. (It is arguable that Magellan could not claim to have been the first man around the world because when he sailed east of Malacca he only reached as far as Sabah, thus leaving a gap between that place and Mactan. Sebastian del Cano did not make his circumnavigation until two years after Enrique had come home to Cebu.)

2. Italians in the Philippines: Three Lectures Held at the University of the Philippines on July 16, 1980 by Carlos Quirino, Esteban A. de Ocampo, Giuliano Bertúccioli. Published by Philippine-Italian Association, 1980, 29 pages.

This was the first time Quirino discussed his notion Enrique was from Cebu. It’s a brief article without citation of authorities. Here is the part where he states his main argument: “After leaving Homonhon on Maundy Thursday, a baroto from the west came along side the Spanish ships. The slave Enrique spoke to Pigafetta, ‘they immediately understood him.’ From that time on, conversation between the natives and the Spaniards proceeded quickly with Enrique as interpreter.

“How could Enrique have known the Sugbuanon language? The tongue spoken in Malacca is very different from that of any Philippine language. The only explanation is that Enrique originally came from Cebu. He was probably captured as a boy of 10 or 12 and taken as a slave to Malacca. Tome de Pires, the first Portuguese ambassador to China, wrote in 1513 that Borneans voyaged to Luzones to buy gold and foodstuff which they traded in Malacca; it is highly probable that Enrique was one of those captured in a raid. At that time, a colony of Luzones existed in Malacca, which had been seized by the Portuguese and was a great center in southeast Asia. Magellan must have talked to young Enrique, and hearing that he came from a group of islands in the same longitude as the Spice Islands, decided to buy and bring him to Europe, where they tarried for several years before Magellan could make the trip under the auspices of the Spanish king, Carlos I.

“Linguistic evidence is conclusive that the so-called slave Enrique was a Cebuano. 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 t he world, nor Sebastian Elcano the Spaniard, but a humble Filipino named Enrique. It is high time that we Filipinos render Enrique that homage, thanks to the Italian chronicler Pigafetta who carried the young Cebuano’s name in the first account of the circumnavigation of the globe.” It should be noted the incident he speaks of did not happen in Cebu but in Mazaua where the language spoken is Butuanon. If we were to grant Quirino’s argument, Enrique will be Mazauan not Cebuano.

More to the point, Malay was spoken widely in the Southeast Asia region. In Language and Language-in-education Planning in the Pacific Basin by Robert B. Kaplan, Richard B. Baldauf, Ricard B. Baldauf Jr., the authors who are linguistics experts—Quirino has no credentials in the field—state “Malay was lingua franca of the region for perhaps a thousand years…”, click http://books.google.com/books?id=FgCa3Rt19MQC&pg=PA83&dq=Malay+as+SEA+lingua+franca&ei=VGGnSbSuHZnClATrmrmPBA.

Furthermore, Carlo Amoretti, discoverer of the first authentic account of Magellan's voyage the extant manuscript popularly called the Ambrosiana, states in a footnote on Page 328, “From the Philippines to Malacca the Malay tongue is universally spoken. It is therefore by no means astonishing an inhabitant of Sumatra should be understood in the Philippine Islands.” See Carlo Amoretti in John Pinkerton’s English translation http://books.google.com/books?id=KVG-d40WYesC&pg=PA288&dq=John+Pinkerton+on+Pigafetta%27s+Voyage+Round+the+World&ei=-mWnScHqNJLOlQTUkKSnBA#PPA328,M1

'''[Note: The incident Quirino cites occurred at Mazaua, not Cebu. The language Mazauans used was Butuanon not Cebuano. If one agrees with the logic of Quirino, Enrique was Mazauan, so he circumnavigated the globe in Mazaua.]'''Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious Neutrality Issues
There are some very serious neutrality issues in this article. First and most importantly, there are TOO many anti - Quirino quotes and talks. Regardless of the writers opinion of Quirino, Wikipedia is not the place for it, and Wikipedia's policy of neutrality is clearly stated. --Unsigned

Why arguments are directed towards Quirino's contentions
Quirino is the real "father" of the "Enrique de Carcar/Cebu" notion. The reason his name is hardly read is because many have appropriated his idea, e.g., Laurence Bergreen, William Manchester, and other minor writers who have heard of the notion and have not read Quirino. If you notice not one of those who argue for "Enrique de Cebu" have ascribed to him authorship of the idea.

If they can only read his writings--there are three of these--then perhaps they'll begin to appreciate how incredible is the basis of Quirino's notion.

His paper read before the University of the Philippines on July 16, 1980 consists of just three paragraphs. It cites no source, it invokes no authority, it offers no fact. Quirino's paper is a statement of belief; it is not history. And he even got his facts wrong. He mistakes the location where Enrique is first understood as Cebuano country. In fact the island is Mazaua, in Mindanao, where Butuanon not Cebuano is spoken. Thus, if we follow Quirino's logic, Enrique is Mazauan, and spoke Butuanon, ergo, he's Mazauan, ergo a Mazauan is the first circumnavigator.

And he states a patent fallacy, that Malay was not spoken in the archipelago. And he asserts, "Linguistic evidence is conclusive that the so-called slave Enrique was a Cebuano." The linguists in the audience were so appalled by this incredulous claim they did not deign to give it the courtesy of a reaction. Indeed, no linguistics expert has taken pains to give it notice even of the passing kind. Why? Because it is utter nonsense. Malay was the trade lingua franca in the Southeast Asia region for a thousand years.

The only authority he cites to support his contention is the Austrian biographer, Stefan Zweig. This quote appears in his article in a newsmagazine in the Philippines, the Philippines Free Press of December 29, 1991. This article is crucial to understanding how Quirino was able to dismiss all the eyewitnesses from Magellan himself, Pigafetta, Maximilianus, the records of the Casa Contratación de Las Indias. excepting Ginés de Mafra's which he hadn't read. De Mafra states the slave spoke Malay which was the reason why he was on that expedition. But even if he had read de Mafra it probably will not change Quirino's mind.

What was his device for dismissing Magellan, Pigafetta, etc.? He invents an incident that he is able to nullify, as far as Quirino is concerned, anything and everything that falsifies his notion. Here is his fictitious episode: "After his [Magellan's] return to Malacca[from a supposed trip to Sabah], he learned that there was a teen-age male to be bought at the slave market, one who, after he had conversations with him, said that he had come from an island farther than east than Sabah on the same longitude as the Moluccas, but considerably north of it. The young slave, subsequently baptized with the name of Enriquez, must have told Magellan how he had been captured by Muslim pirates and that Europeans were unknown in his area of the Pacific Ocean. He must have come from one of the islands then known as the Luzones, about 12 days by sail northeast of Borneo. The idea of claiming the region, composed of a group of islands, must have entered the mind of Magellan. So he returned to Portugal in 1521, taking with him Enrique to propose to his master, King Emanuel of Portugal, that he be allowed to lead a seafaring expedition to those islands and claim them as part of the Portuguese empire."

And after five paragraphs Quirino comes up with an insight resulting from the above phantom incident. "Magellan obviously wanted to keep secret the real birthplace of Enrique as east of Borneo."

There are many more statements of the same nature--assertions starting with words like "must have" and "obviously" and "clearly" or "arguably", etc.--that taken together make up the fallacy of the hypostatized proof. This fallacy, according to Perrell F. Payne, "consists in identifying the received theory about X...with X itself, and hence rejecting some variant theory of X on the grounds that it does not do justice to the nature of X." In historical scholarship, states David Hackett Fischer, this form of error commonly occurs when a historian reifies a historiographical interpretation and substitutes it for the actual historical event it allegedly represents, and then rejects contradictory interpretations or affirms compatible ones."

Thus, Quirino rejects Magellan's testimony and all the other eyewitnesses as false since he had already assumed Enrique was from Cebu and anything that contradict his being from somewhere else--from Cebu--were all meant "to keep secret the real birthplace of Enrique."

That conversation between Magellan and Enrique at a slave market is pure invention. Its only source is the imagination of Quirino. Magellan states Enrique was captured. The only source for his having been bought in a slave market is Maximilianus Transylvanus which cannot have more evidentiary weight than the firsthand testimony of Magellan.

There are elements that are simply incredible as these are fictitious. The reference to the Pacific Ocean could not have come from either Enrique and Magellan as knowledge of the vast sea not to speak of its name became known only in 1521, nine years after the supposed marketside conversation. Reference to longitude as something known to Enrique is patently invented. No one knew correct longitude until the late 18th century that longitude could be measured with some accuracy.

Those in this discussion who think Enrique comes from Cebu ought to take pains to read Quirino and see finally that the hypothesis is based on the solid air of imagination and invention. --119.94.181.189 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: How is dispute resolved?
As I see it, the dispute consists in personal opinions that seek to impugn eyewitness testimonies of Ferdinand Magellan himself, Antonio Pigafetta, and Ginés de Mafra. How can opinions have any evidentiary weight as to overwhelm direct evidence from eyewitnesses themselves?

I have invited those who claim Enrique comes from Cebu or anywhere else other than Malay-speaking areas principally Malacca (Magellan's testimony) or Sumatra (Pigafetta's) or the Moluccas (Maximilianus) to present their evidence, to cite their authorities, facts, etc. The best they have presented--without even naming him--is the writings of Carlos Quirino which they have not even read. Clearly, they don't even know the only authority Quirino has ever cited in all his writings was Stefan Zweig. I have provided the URL of Zweig's statement that Quirino cited. There Zweig explicitly states Enrique spoke Malay and that he was from Sumatra.

Again, may I invite those who dispute the fact of Enrique's being Malay and that he spoke the Malay language--not Cebuano, not Butuanon, not Waray--to cite their sources, their authorities, their facts. If they have only opinions to show, how can there be any dispute?

By the way, this Enrique article started with someone who read Nestor Paluguid Enriquez' claim Magellan's slave was his relative, that Enrique de Malacca was from Cebu. Nestor is not from Cebu but is a native of Cavite in Luzon, Cebu is in the Visayas. Nestor has since then retracted his claim. And may I point out nowhere did Enriquez present any evidence, cite any source, invoke any authority.

And, so far, no one in this discussion has pointed to any evidence supporting the claim Henrique is from other than the Malay places.

May I invite Wikipedia editors to state how direct evidence can be contradicted by opinions? --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone cite primary or secondary source saying Enrique is not Malayan?
I have cited three primary sources--Antonio Pigafetta, Ferdinand Magellan, and Ginés de Mafra--who explicitly state Enrique/Henrich/Henrique is Malay and spoke the Malay language. My citations are accompanied by URLs where these testimonies can be directly accessed.

I have also cited, giving the URL where the source can be directly accessed, a secondhand account by Maximilianus Transylvanus, who interviewed the survivors of the Magellan expedition, who explicitly state it was not Enrique who was interpreter in the discussion between Magellan and the King of Cebu, Humabon.

I invite those who claim otherwise to cite their sources for any claim that Magellan's slave is from Cebu or from Mazaua or from any other place than Malacca or Sumatra. This should help resolve once and for all any contrary claim that Enrique spoke Malay and that he was Malayan by birth.

I cannot find any citation by Carlos Quirino of his authority. The only author he ever cited was Stefan Zweig who is very explicit in saying Enrique was from Sumatra. Those who invoke Carlos Quirino as their authority should please tell us who Quirino's sources were. I can share with them all the writings of Quirino, if they themselves have not read him.

If they cannot cite any firsthand or even secondhand authority, then I hope they'll have the grace, the integrity, and intellectual honesty to allow the truth to shine brightly and freely. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added Template:Cleanup and Template:NPOV to this article. It is an absolute mess.

User Vicente Calibo de Jesus : I understand you are presenting an argument against a certain Phillipine author. Whether you are correct or incorrect does not matter. Wikipedia is not the place for this. If Carlos Quirino is factually wrong about something, there is no need to argue; Simply remove the incorrect statement.

If there is dispute over whether Carlos Quirino is correct, then there needs to be a section entitled "Controversy", explaining in brief both sides of the argument. Lines like this:

"Carlos Quirino, the first to talk of Enrique being from Cebu arrived at his hunch based on a number of purely imagined, fictitious incident."

Are absolutely not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. Please refrain from editing this article further until a "Controversy" section can be created, or, discussed. Meneitherfabio (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion? Or fact?
There is a difference between opinion and a statement of fact. When I wrote Quirino's supposition of what was taking place in the mind of Magellan is "pure fiction" or "conjurations", that is not opinion. If there is basis for Quirino's writings, he certainly didn't cite his sources. He did cite Stefan Zweig excising Zweig's explicit statement that Enrique was from Sumatra. I wonder if the writer above has even read Quirino at all. The craft of history is about fact, sources, citation, references. Quirino disregarded this and in their place he had his musings and suppositions of what Magellan was thinking. I have read everything Quirino wrote on Enrique. He cites no one except Zweig. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, The First Circumnavigator issue expanded on below. If what really happened is in dispute, then that's great, put both opinions up. However, having only one opinion is not logical.

Third, Titles. Titles such as "Imaginary Cebu Ethnicity" is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Titles especially, being one of the few things that people notice as they scan an Article, cannot be one sided. Titles should be more like "Dispute over Cebu Ethnicity".

I would like to ask all those further editing this page to be careful about Neutrality issues and to try to correct those that I was unable to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshshah007 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality? Is better than factual, precise?
The author of the above statement may be right if he's in the arena of diplomacy where sensibilities are paramount over fact, truth and reality. There is simply no factual basis for allowing the "Cebuanoness" of Enrique. It's the product of fiction without basis in historiographical sources nor specially linguistics which is the foundation of Quirino's hypothesis. If you have an authority that will contradict the reality that Malay was the lingua franca in many Southeast Asian countries including the Philippines, then you can allow some margin of tolerance for Quirino's false claim. Even Quirino's logic is twisted. He wrote in his lecture at the University of the Philippines that Malay is not understood in Cebu today. That is true enough. Therefore, it could not have been understood in 1521? This is patently invalidated by Gines de Mafra who said it was widely spoken hereabouts. It is also falsified by experts in linguistics, unless you can cite an authority who says otherwise. Please read Gines de Mafra. This fact is even asserted by Carlo Amoretti, as late as 1800. Go to Page 328 of Pinkerton's English translation of Amoretti. Click http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=WxsnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA288&dq=Pigafetta%27s+Voyage+Round+the+World&lr=&ei=i-0xSYDtHpuKkAS526zADQ&hl=en. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that factual information is very important, but Wikipedia's neutrality policy is very very explicit. there are NO exceptions. Please read Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy throughly before disputing whether neutrality is necessary. On your own website this would be fine, on Wikipedia however, it is not.--Utkarshshah007 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The factual, precise thing is to say that there is debate on the matter. Surprisingly enough, you have NOT completely silenced any and all debate regarding his supposed circumnavigation. The precise AND neutral thing to to is state that the matter is disputed. Kielbasa1 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Definition of Term "Circumnavigation"
If we go by this definition, you'll be left standing alone in the debate. Most scholars, navigation historians, 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--also Giovanni Battista Ramusio and Peter Martyr d'Angehiera, accdg. to Amoretti, see Pinkerton, Page 292--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)

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

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)

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

- Original Message - From: "Nestor Enriquez"  To: "John Martinez"  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  wrote: >  > > (From a fellow filipino.) > >  > > Fair is fair, > >  > > According to this > > > > > 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.

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)

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.

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).

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)Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)122.2.146.219 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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). --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)--122.2.157.76 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No citation, no authority, no source
Quirino also states, in a 1980 paper (click http://books.google.com/books?id=T9UVAAAAMAAJ&q=Carlos+Quirino&dq=Carlos+Quirino&lr=&ei=X_VSSb20KIfEkATAorS7BA&pgis=1) 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 remarkable 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, click http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea&cc=sea&idno=sea061&q1=Junk+of+Ciama&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=288. See also http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Zebu;rgn=full%20text;idno=afj2246.0001.001;didno=afj2246.0001.001;view=image;seq=284;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset).

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). Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)122.2.146.219 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Worse he suppresses evidence, from his own authority, that completely belies his "Enrique de Carcar" brainstorm. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC) --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Martin de Ayamonte; 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!Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)122.2.146.219 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.


 * You made a good point, but to say he's from Java is totally misleading. In the past People in Java spoke Sundanese (West) and Javanese (Central and East). So the assumption he came from Java is very unlikely. However people in Sumatera and current Malaysia spoke the same language (Malay / Bahasa Melayu). there were hardly distinguishing dialects back then, despite now the Indonesian version of Malay language (bahasa indonesia) branch off from the Malay language and all of Indonesia speak the same language. to say there are so many dialects in Malay language does not apply to the language when it's spoken in the 1500s - because all those dialects are emerging in relatively new period.
 * I think people should stick with the most authentic fact, that he's from Sumatra as written by Pigafetta (no other source/evidence is recorded in original writing - only "assumption" from future authors). The area surrounding the Malacca strait (Sumatera esp Riau, current Malaysia and Singapore) was the spot for traders, so why would Magellan choose his interpreter for his trading purpose from other part of the area, who's most probably not proficient in the local language.
 * Case in point for analogy: Parameshwara, the founder of the Malacca Sultanate which resided in current Malaysia was from Palembang in Sumatera. So basically they were the same people/kingdom with the same language.
 * I don't know why people argue that Enrique was from the Phillipine, if that was the case then he would definitely have trouble with conversing other traders in the Malacca strait, or at least won't be as proficient as the local/native. The Malay language was spoken universally in Sumatera and Malaysia, but not in Borneo, Celebes, Java, let alone the Philippine. UUlum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

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 [] 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)

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))

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)

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. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nWcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PRA1-PA118,M1 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))--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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))

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))

Vicente needs to look up his sources again. Enrique has frequently been referred to as Henry in several Western textbooks, and is referred to as Henry in multiple questionnaires designed to test the public's knowledge of History. Simply because Vicente does not use the name Henry to refer to this man does not mean that the possibility that he is known to the public as Henry should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshshah007 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Please go direct to the page where Maximilian states it was not Enrique who was doing the translation, click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.001&q1=Zebu&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=336 Vicente C. de Jesus 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)) --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"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)).--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2008 (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)

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.

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)


 * Hi Vincente, a little addition from me. In the 1500s there's no such thing as Indonesia, so people in Sumatra refer to themselves as the Malay people, even today people still call Bahasa Indonesia (which is designed in the early 20th and based on the Malay language) as the Malay language. Sumatra was under the same sultanate (the Malacca), so the term Malacca refer to both current Malaysia, Singapore and current Indonesian Sumatera - Please remember most of Indonesia/Malaysia/Singapore was overlapped in the past - there's no such concept as nationality. The fact that Pigafetta said he's from Sumatra and Magellan said he's native Malacca is not a contradiction. Since you are so knowledgeable about this issue, you can research about that. For example, Parameswara who built the Malacca was born in Palembang (South Sumatra), so pretty much those areas (current Malaysia and Sumatra) spoke the same language. Also, I cannot believe that Philippine authors claimed traders in the Malacca strait also traded slaves (and stated those are mostly muslims), that's totally unheard of for those familiar with the history of the place and now I tend to think that Philippine's historians like to make up their own stories..
 * The Malacca strait was the busiest place in the world where people from China, India, Mid-East, Java, Molucca, Malays/Sumatra all united to trade goods, not people !! That's why the Europeans travelled the world because they want to be a part of, especially the spice trade. that's also why the people in America called the 'Indians' because Columbus originally try to find those trade spot in Asia (they only knew India) which was a hotspot for international trade (and NOT SLAVE TRADE!!), I cannot believe people do not aware of this. UUlum (talk)

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

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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,. 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)

Enrique name in other languages
Henrich or Henrique is the most likely baptismal name of Magellan's slave. We know the slave was baptized into the Catholic fold as Magellan's Last Will refers to him as "a Christian" (See Page 322, The Life of Ferdinand Magellan and the First Circumnavigation of the Globe, 1480-1521 by F.H.H. Guillemard, London: 1890.)

Henrique's name in other languages is discussed more extensively in astronomy.com. Here is a snippet of the discussion there: "Henry is an English language male given name and a surname, derived from the Germanic languages name Heinrich, which was derived from the word elements heim, meaning "home" and ric, meaning "power, ruler." Harry, its English short form, was considered the "spoken form" of Henry in medieval England.... Henrik is a male given name of Germanic origin, primarily used in Scandinavia, Hungary and Slovenia. Equivalents in other languages are Henry , Heikki , Hendrik , Heinrich , Enrico , Henri , Enrique , Henrique and Henryk." Source: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Henry. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of citation from Panglima Awang - Harun Aminurrashid
I would like to correct a citation in this article from somebody who wrote that the so-called real name of Enrique of Malacca was Awang. Someone must have wrongly cited and given us an incorrect understanding of his memory from the book written by Harun Aminurrashid who wrote the "Panglima Awang" historical novel in 1957. Anyway, the author of the historical novel wrote it based on the historical facts and events that he referred from an English news article and an Indonesian news article.

I myself have that old book (historical novel) of Harun Aminurrashid entitled Panglima Awang which was published by Pustaka Melayu (address: Malaysia Press Ltd., 745/747, North Bridge road, Singapura 7.) with the brand name Buku Punggok. The book that I own was the 8th print of April, 1965. At a Sudut Sejarah (English: Historic Point of View; Preface) page [the preface has Harun Aminurrashid name and dated 11.9.1957 (11th September, 1957)], Harun Aminurrashid did not mention that Enrique's real name was Awang instead he tells the readers (in his preface) that he names Enrique with a Malay name Awang due to Enrique's race and some other traits owned by Enrique.

He mentions that Awang name was chosen due to the name symbolizes a young Malay man's name while "Dara" is a symbol of young woman's name. He then adds the Panglima (English: Commander) title in front of "Awang" due to Enrique's wisdom, strength, and activeness (energetics). Finally, he then entitles the book as "Panglima Awang", as he told in his preface, dated 11th September 1957.

Harun Aminurrashid gave Enrique the name "Awang" in order to make known Enrique's race in the historical novel because there was no information regarding Enrique's real Malay name in any historical documents found at that time.

So, I hope somebody will reedit the 4th paragraph in Magellan Expedition section with appropriate words/sentences.

Thanks.

Reference: Harun Aminurrashid. 1957. Panglima Awang, Singapore. Pp. Sudut Sejarah(the preface). Mr. Knows (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The First Man to Ever Circle the World
I was surprised that is is not mentioned in the main article, that by all reasonable accounts, Enrique was the first man ever to circle around the World. Only few months later when the ship returned back the survived members of the Magellan crew joined this title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashuvalov (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enrique of Malacca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720122659/http://brbl-net.library.yale.edu/pre1600ms/docs/pre1600.ms351.htm to http://brbl-net.library.yale.edu/pre1600ms/docs/pre1600.ms351.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050509155152/http://www.histal.umontreal.ca/pdfs/La%20vuelta%20al%20mundo%20en%20ochenta%20lenguas.pdf to http://www.histal.umontreal.ca/pdfs/La%20vuelta%20al%20mundo%20en%20ochenta%20lenguas.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)