Antonio Pigafetta is the only eyewitness who wrote the name of Mactan’s “lord” who is hailed today as a Filipino hero. The spelling of his name, “Cilapulapu,” the c being a cedilla (c with a tail), the archaic spelling of s in the Romance languages, is uniform in all the four surviving codices of Pigafetta’s account of Magellan’s expedition.

This singular spelling is followed in all transcriptions, translations, and even the corrupted copies of Pigafetta’s account.
Even the first authentic edition of Pigafetta, Carlo Amoretti ‘s 1800 transcription and rendition into modern Italian of the codex known as Ambrosiana, does not deviate from “Cilapulapu” inspite of his dictum that the “Ci” in the names of the various chiefs was a prefix that was an honorific. Amoretti asserts, “…It appears that Si or Ci placed before a man’s name is a title of honour.” (See http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=WxsnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA288&dq=Pigafetta%27s+Voyage+Round+the+World&lr=&ei=i-0xSYDtHpuKkAS526zADQ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Pigafetta%27s%20Voyage%20Round%20the%20World&f=false)

The first Filipino to read an authentic Pigafetta account—the Amoretti Italian edition—is the first historiographer to break this orthographic tradition. Jose P. Rizal takes his cue from the Italian polymath and for the first time spells the Mactan chieftain’s name Si Lapulapu in his annotated 1890 edition of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las islas Filipinas por el doctor Antonio de Morga, obra publicada en Méjico el an̄o de 1609. nuevamente sacada à luz y anotada por José Rizal y precedida de un prólogo del prof. Fernando Blumentritt.

Rizal translates and quotes a Pigafetta passage and intercalates his “Si Lapulapu” in place of Pigafetta’s “Cilapulapu.” (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Lapulapu;rgn=full%20text;idno=AHZ9387.0001.001;didno=AHZ9387.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000050) Rizal does not explain his operation and fails to give a precise citation of his authority, Amoretti.
There is actually a difference between Rizal’s “Si” and Pigafetta’s “Ci.” The Italian’s was an honorific while the Filipino’s was an article.

Amoretti’s assertion—unargued and unsupported by evidence—is of doubtful validity? It’s falsified by the fact the most powerful king of all, Humabon, did not have a “Ci” before his name? There were so many other chieftains, no less powerful than Cilapulapu, whose names were not prefixed, e.g., Zula, the other no less powerful lord of Mactan; Bondara, Magalibe, Zula, Mandani, Teten, Japaa. The chief of Ceylon (today’s Panaon) was Cabulon; Baibai was Malegis; Butuan, Calambu; Chippit, Calanoa.

The Amoretti assertion would have been valid if the people of Zubu were Muslimized. But they were not. In Tausug si means sheikh, a title given to the early Arab missionaries and their descendants. At the time, there were no Tausugs yet; they were Butuanons yet, and would not make the exodus to Basilan and Sulo, an event that would happen only after the archipelago had been colonized by conquistador Legazpi.

Pigafetta gave a careful distinction between “heathens” and “Moors.” In the entire Cebu incident Pigafetta specifically referred to only one “Moor,” the trader from “Ciama” which could be either Champa or Siam. (Click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Siam;rgn=full%20text;idno=afk2830.0001.033;didno=afk2830.0001.033;view=image;seq=00000145)

Is it possible Magellan, out of lack of interest, did not know if the people of Cebu and Mactan and everywhere else were Muslims. But it was very vital for the Spanish expedition to know who were “Mahometans”, in fact in the entire narration of Pigafetta he was particular on this point. This is further proven by the Cebuano-Butuanon “dictionary” or “vocabulary” of 150 words which Pigafetta titled, “Words of those heathen people.”

Furthermore, when Magellan burned the houses in a village in Mactan, Bullaia, it was explained that “a cross was erected on the spot, because it was a village of idolaters; if the inhabitants had been Moors, i.e., Mahometans, a pillar of stone would have been raised to mark the hardness of their hearts.” (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.033&q1=Zubu&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=167)

As for the name, “Kalipulaku” this is the handiwork of a non-eyewitness, Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, who wrote Historia de las Indias (Valladolid: 1557). The part on Magellan and his voyage is in Book XX, Part II. Oviedo’s source was Sebastian Elcano who . Not being an eyewitness report, Oviedo commits a number of errors, including his report that the Easter mass of March 31, 1521 was held at Cebu.

The name “Qari Pulako” is a product of imagination based on the fictitious assumption Mactan was Muslimized. It’s on the same level of imaginative history of Isidro Escare Abeto who, on his own authority, declares Mactan chief’s real name was “Lupalupa.” (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Lapulapu;rgn=full%20text;idno=AKM8935.0001.001;didno=AKM8935.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000028) His book, Philippine history: reassessed, was published in 1989.

VICENTE CALIBO DE JESUS

Magellan’s slave’s name was “Henrich” in the eyewitness account of Antonio Pigafetta. In the Last Will of Ferdinand Magellan, it is Hispanicized as “Enrique” which is also what appears in official documents of the Spanish official agency, the Casa de Contratacion de las Indias.

He was most definitely Malay although there’s room for discussion as to exactly which place he comes from. Pigafetta states he was from Sumatra, Magellan states in his Will that Enrique was from Malacca. A non-eyewitness, Maximilian Transylvanus, who interviewed Enrique’s mates who did round the world, wrote the slave came from the Moluccas, which would make him an Indonesian. Maximilian’s statement, being not firsthand, would be what we’d call “hearsay” and therefore is the least credible among the three.

Did Enrique circumnavigate the globe? To be precise, let’s define “circumnavigate.” It means one sails from one longitude and goes around the world ending up in that same longitude where one started. If he’s from Malacca, at longitude 112° 30 East, then Enrique would have rounded the world if he had sailed back to that same longitude never mind if not exactly Malacca itself. There is no record he reached that longitude ever. The last written document or even oral testimony puts the slave in Cebu the Philippines on May 31, 1521. Nothing more is said of Enrique beyond that date which is recorded by Pigafetta. Cebu is at longitude 123°13′E. It is 11° short of rounding the globe.

If Enrique was from Sumatra, at 107°55 East, he was short of circumnavigating the globe by 16°.
If he were from the Moluccas, at 127°24′E, he would have overshot, i.e., overcirumnavigated the globe by 4°. If!

Those who contend he is Malaysian (either from Malacca or Sumatra) argue Enrique was able to hop unto a ship sometime after May 1521 and reached his home before Victoria, the last ship of Magellan’s Armada, sailed back to Spain in September 1521. The problem with such assertion is it is without support. It’s as valid as claiming Enrique did end up somewhere on planet Mars. Both statements are products of imagination, one wild the other out of this world.

There’s a very extensive discussion of this issue at Wikipedia which covers the equally popular claim that Enrique came from Cebu and therefore successfully circumnavigated earth on April 7, 1521 when Magellan’s fleet arrived at the place. This claim involved the implied claim that all those who wrote Enrique was from some other place lied. That is, Pigafetta, Magellan, Maximilian, and other eyewitnesses such as Gines de Mafra, Bartolome de las Casas, including the official documents, falsified truth.

To know more about this outlandish notion, which victimized many famous authors like Laurence Bergreen, William Manchester, etc., click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_of_Malacca.

VICENTE CALIBO DE JESUS
ginesdemafra@gmail.com