WORKS ISSUED BY
The Hakluyt Society.
FIRST VOYAGE ROUND THE WORLD,
BY MAGELLAN.
No. LII.
[Illustration:
FERDIN·MAGALLANUS·
SUPERATIS·ANTARCTICI·FRETI·
ANGUSTIIS·CLARISSIMUS·]
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 Introduction,
BY
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY.
M.DCCC.LXXIV.
T. RICHARDS, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET.
COUNCIL
OF
THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY.
+The Right Hon. Sir+ DAVID DUNDAS, +President+.
+Rear-Admiral+ C. R. DRINKWATER BETHUNE, C.B. }
+Major-General Sir+ HENRY RAWLINSON, K.C.B., F.R.S., } +Vice-Presidents+.
+Pres.+R.G.S. }
W. A. TYSSEN AMHURST, +Esq.+
+Rev. Dr.+ GEORGE P. BADGER, D.C.L., F.R.S.
J. BARROW, +Esq.+, F.R.S.
+Vice-Admiral+ R. COLLINSON, C.B.
+Captain+ COLOMB, R.N.
W. E. FRERE, +Esq.+
EGERTON V. HARCOURT, +Esq.+
JOHN WINTER JONES, +Esq.+, F.S.A.
R. H. MAJOR, +Esq.+, F.S.A.
+Sir+ CHARLES NICHOLSON, +Bart.+, D.C.L.
+Sir+ W. STIRLING MAXWELL, +Bart.+
+Vice-Admiral+ ERASMUS OMMANNEY, C.B., F.R.S.
+Rear-Admiral+ SHERARD OSBORN, C.B.
+The Lord+ STANLEY +of Alderley+.
EDWARD THOMAS, +Esq.+, F.R.S.
+The Hon.+ FREDERICK WALPOLE, M.P.
CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, +Esq.+, C.B., F.R.S., +Sec.+R.G.S.,
+Honorary Secretary+.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
+Introduction+ i–lx
+The Genoese Pilot’s Account of Magellan’s Voyage+ 1–29
+Narrative of the Anonymous Portuguese+ 30–32
+Pigafetta’s Account of Magellan’s Voyage+ 35–163
+Pigafetta’s Treatise of Navigation+ 164–174
+Names of the First Circumnavigators+ 175–176
+Magellan’s Order of the Day in the Straits+ 177–178
+Letter of Maximilian, the Transylvan+ 179–210
+Log-Book of Francisco Albo or Alvaro+ 211–236
+Account of the “Trinity” and her Crew+ 237–242
+Account of the Mutiny in Port St. Julian, and
Gaspar Correa’s Account of the Voyage+ 243–256
+Cost of Magellan’s Fleet+ 257
+Appendix+ i–xiv
+Index+ xvii–xx
PLATES AND MAPS.
+Portrait of Magellan+ _to face Title_
+Arms of Magellan+ 1
+Facsimiles of Signatures+ 1
+Pigafetta’s Map of the Straits+ 65
+Track of the “Victoria” in the Pacific+ 177
+Islands of Amsterdam and St. Paul+ 235
INTRODUCTION
AND
LIFE OF MAGELLAN.
——Teucer Salamina patremque
Quum fugeret, tamen uda Lyæo
Tempora populeâ fertur vinxisse coronâ,
Sic tristes affatus amicos:
Quo nos cunque feret melior Fortuna parente,
Ibimus, o socii comitesque!
Nil desperandum Teucro duce et auspice Teucro;
Certus enim promisit Apollo
Ambiguam tellure novâ Salamina futuram.
O fortes, pejoraque passi
Mecum sæpe viri, nunc vino pellite curas:
Cras ingens iterabimus æquor.
Though Magellan’s enterprise was the greatest ever undertaken by
any navigator, yet he has been deprived of his due fame by the
jealousy which has always existed between the two nations inhabiting
the Peninsula: the Spaniards would not brook being commanded by a
Portuguese, and the Portuguese have not yet forgiven Magellan for
having abandoned them to serve Castile. But Magellan really had no
choice; for if the western passage which he expected to discover was
to be sought for, it could only be under the auspices of Spain, within
whose demarcation those waters lay.
It would seem that D. Manuel had only himself to blame for the loss
of Magellan’s services; and, as M. Amoretti well observes, D. Manuel
ought to have been well aware of the value of those services, since
Charles V knew it, and showed his appreciation of them. It is difficult
to believe that the injury of which Magellan complained, and which led
him to seek other service, was merely, as Osorio says, the refusal of
promotion in palace rank, and which he had well deserved, especially
since the motive ascribed by Osorio to the king’s refusal, namely the
necessity of avoiding a bad precedent, was not alone a sufficient
affront to account for Magellan’s sacrificing all his hopes and
property in his own country, had he not also felt that the king was
condemning him to inaction, obscurity, and uselessness. Barros, indeed,
says that:
“The favours of princes given for services are a retributive
justice, which must be observed equally with all, with regard to
the quality of each man: and that if a man’s portion be denied
him, though he endures it ill, yet he will have patience; but if
he see the advancement of those who have profited more by artifice
and friends than by their own merits, he loses all patience;
indignation, hatred, and despair arise, and he will commit faults
injurious to himself and others. And what outraged Magellan more
than the refusal of the half ducat a month, was that some men who
were with him at Azamor, said that his lameness was feigned to
support his petition.”
The king, moreover, refused to receive Magellan, and showed his
ill-will against him. It is therefore highly probable that before
Magellan took the step of leaving Portugal, D. Manuel, prompted by
his niggardly disposition, had refused to entertain Magellan’s desire
for employment at sea, or his projects of discovery, from which
no immediate profit was to be expected. This is apparent from the
statement of Barros, _Decad._ III, lib. v, cap. viii, that letters of
Magellan to Francisco Serrano were found after the death of the latter
in Maluco, in which Magellan said that he should soon see him; and, if
it were not by way of Portugal, it would be by way of Castile, and that
Serrano should therefore wait for him there. Further on, Barros says
that recourse to Castile appears from these letters to have been in
Magellan’s mind some time before the occurrence of the king’s dismissal
of his business: and that this was shown by his always associating with
pilots, and occupying himself with sea-charts.
The Portuguese exaggerated very much the injury they expected to
result, and, later, which they thought had resulted from Magellan’s
voyage, which could not change the position of the Moluccas, nor
consequently the Portuguese title to them; but the apprehensions
which they felt, arose from their fear of others sharing in the spice
trade, and from the limited geographical knowledge of the period,
which left both parties very much in doubt as to the true position of
those islands, or as to the extent of the circumference of the globe.
The question of the exact position of the Moluccas was not definitely
ascertained till much later, though a compromise was arrived at in 1529
by the treaty between Spain and Portugal, by which Charles V gave up
whatever rights to the Moluccas he imagined he possessed, to Portugal,
for a sum of three hundred and fifty thousand ducats.[1] As late as
1535, Gaspar Correa mentions, tom. iii, p. 661, a Dominican friar in
Portuguese India, who was learned in cosmography, and who asserted that
the Moluccas fell within the demarcation of Castile.
The grounds of complaint of the Portuguese against Magellan are,
perhaps, best expressed, and in the strongest terms, by Bishop Osorio,
so it may be well to quote from him the following passage. Lib. XI, §
23.
“About this time a slight offence on the part of the king (D.
Manuel) so grievously exasperated the mind of a certain Portuguese,
that, forgetful of all faith, piety, and religion, he hastened to
betray the king who had educated him, and the country which had
brought him forth; and he risked his life amongst the greatest
perils. Ferdinand Magellan, of whom we have before spoken, was a
man of noble birth, and endued with a high spirit. He had given
proofs in India, in warlike affairs, of courage and perseverance
in no small degree. Likewise in Africa he had performed his duties
with great ardour. Formerly it was the custom among the Portuguese
that the king’s servants should be fed in the palace at the king’s
expense; but when the number of these servants had become so great
(because the sons of the king’s officers retained the same station,
and besides, many were admitted for their services into the king’s
household), it was seen to be very difficult to prepare the food
of such a multitude. On this account it was determined by the
Kings of Portugal that the food which each man was to receive in
the palace should be provided by himself out of the king’s money.
Thus it was settled that a certain sum of money was assigned per
month to each man. That money, indeed, when provisions were so
cheap, provided abundantly for the men; but now that the number of
men, and the prices of commodities had increased, it happened that
the sum, which formerly was more than sufficient for their daily
expenses, was now much too small. Moreover, as all the dignity of
the Portuguese depends upon the king, this small sum of money is
as eagerly sought after as though it were much more ample. And
as the Portuguese think that the thing most to be desired is to
be enrolled amongst the king’s household, so also, they consider
the greatest honour to consist in an increase of this stipend.
For, as there are various ranks of king’s servants, so the sum of
money is assigned to each servant according to the dignity of his
rank. The highest class is that of nobleman; but, as there are
distinctions of nobility, so an equal salary is not given to all.
Thus it happens that the nobility of each is estimated according
to the importance of this stipend, and each one is held to be more
noble in proportion to the more ample stipend which he receives.
This judgment, indeed, as human affairs go, is often most false;
for many obtain through ambition and pertinacity what ought to be
assigned to deserts and innate nobleness. The Portuguese, however,
since they are over anxious in seeking this nobility, and imagine
that their nobility is increased by a small accession of salary,
very often think that they must strive for this little sum of
money, as though all their well-being and dignity depended upon it.
Now, Magellan contended that for his services, his stipend should
be increased monthly by half a ducat. The king refused it him,
lest an entrance should be opened to ambitious persons. Magellan,
excited by the injury of the refusal of this advantage to him at
that time, abandoned the king, broke his faith, and brought the
State into extreme danger. And whilst we ought to tolerate the
injuries inflicted by the State, and to endure also the outrages of
kings, who are the fathers of the republick, and whilst we ought
to lay down our lives for the well-being of our country, which
lives we owe to our country; this most audacious man conceived such
despite on account of half a ducat, amounting to five denarii,
which was refused to him, that he opposed the State; he offended
the king, who had brought him up; and brought his country, for
which he should have died, into peril. For the affair reached
such a pitch that the danger of a perilous war impended over the
commonwealth. I do not know, indeed, whence so barbarous a custom
has crept into the State: for, whilst the name of a traitor is not
only hateful and hated, but also burns in the stain of everlasting
dishonour upon a whole posterity; yet men who determine upon
breaking their faith, and opposing their kings or states, may
reject the favours they have received by formal letters, may abjure
their fealty, and despoil themselves of the rights and duties of
the State; they bid the king keep for himself that which belongs
to him, and they attest that thenceforward they will have nothing
in common with their country: then, at length, they contend that
it is allowable for them to commence war against their country. Be
it so: reject favours if it please you; contemn the liberality of
your country; grumble as much as you please, that a reward equal
to your dignity has not been granted. But by what means can you
betray the faith which you have plighted? My country has inflicted
on me a severe outrage; it has inflicted, indeed, the worst. But
an outrage is not to be avenged, either upon parents or upon one’s
country. I have abandoned, he says, all that I had received from my
country. Have you then rejected life, disposition, and education?
By no means. But all these things; you received them, in the first
place, from God, and then from the laws, customs, and institutions
of your country. It will never be allowable to combat nature, to
injure your country, or to break faith, even should you be laden
with every injury. Nay, your life should be given up, and the most
extreme punishments should be undergone, sooner than break your
faith, or betray your duty. Abjure fealty as much as you please,
attest your perfidy by public letters, leave to posterity a notable
memory of unspeakable wickedness; yet you will not be able by any
such document to avoid offending the Deity, nor the stain of an
everlasting opprobrium.”
Against this view of Osorio may be set the following passage from
Vattel, which has all the more weight, in that it is simply an
enunciation of law and right, and is not written to support or to
denounce any particular person.
“Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete
solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may _quit his
country_, or _the society of which he is a member_. The children
are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born;
they are under an obligation to shew themselves grateful for the
protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great
measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought,
therefore, to love it, as we have already shewn, to express a just
gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible by
serving it in turn. We have observed above, that they have a right
to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But
every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the
years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him
to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he
does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to
quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his
favour, and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow
him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it.”—_Chitty’s
translation of Vattel_, book I, cap. xix, § 220.
There are also some remarkable passages in a pamphlet by Condorcet,
dated October 25th, 1791, named _Opinion sur les Emigrants_. This
opinion deserves attention, both on account of its author and the time
in which it was written, when popular passions and prejudices were much
excited against those who were expatriating themselves from France.
Condorcet begins with the statement, that:
“It is a great error to imagine that the public utility is not
constantly to be found united with the rights of individuals, or
that the public well-being may demand acts of real injustice.
This error has everywhere been the eternal excuse for the inroads
of tyranny, and the pretext for the artful manœuvres employed to
establish it.[2]”
“On the contrary, in the case of every measure that is proposed
as useful, it must first be examined whether it is just. Should
it not be so, it must be concluded that it had only an empty and
fallacious appearance of utility.”
* * * * *
“Nature concedes to every man the right of going out of his
country; the constitution guarantees it to every French citizen,
and we cannot strike a blow at it. The Frenchman who wishes to
leave his country, for his business, for his health, even for
the sake of his peace and well-being, ought to have the fullest
liberty to do so: he ought to be able to use this liberty, without
his absence depriving him of the least of his rights. In a great
empire, the variety of professions, and inequality of fortunes,
do not admit of residence and personal service being regarded as
a common obligation which the law may impose upon all citizens.
This rigorous obligation can only exist in the case of absolute
necessity; to extend it to the habitual state of society, and even
to all periods when the public safety or tranquillity may seem to
be menaced, would be to disturb the order of useful labours, and to
attack the sources of general prosperity.”
“Every man, moreover, has the right to change his country; he may
renounce that in which he was born, to choose another. From that
moment, as a citizen of his new country, he is only a foreigner in
the first; but if some day he returns to it, if he has left any
property in it, he ought to enjoy there to the full the rights of
man; he has only deserved to lose those of a citizen.”
“But here a first question presents itself. Is this citizen by his
sole renunciation released from every obligation towards the body
politic which he abandons? Does the society from which he separates
himself lose immediately all its rights over him? Doubtless, not;
and I do not speak only of those sentiments which a noble and
grateful soul preserves for its country, even though it be unjust;
I speak of rigorous obligations, of those which a man cannot fail
to fulfil without becoming guilty of an offence: and I say that
there exists a time during which a man placed between his ancient
and his new country can only permit himself to express hopes as to
the differences which arise between them: a time when that one of
the two nations against which he might bear arms would have the
right to punish him as an assassin; and when the man who might
employ his riches or talents against his former countrymen, would
really be a traitor.”
“I will add that each nation has also the right to fix the time
after which the citizen who abandons it is to be considered as free
from all obligation, and to determine what are his duties until
the expiration of that period, and what actions it still preserves
the power to forbid him. To deny this principle, would be to break
all the social bonds which can bind men together. This period,
doubtless, is not an arbitrary one; it is that during which the
citizen who abdicates can employ against his country the means
which he has received from it, and during which he can do it more
injury than could a foreigner.”
Further on, Condorcet proposes two years as the period during which
a citizen who renounces his nationality shall engage not to enter
the service of any foreign power, unless he has been authorised so
to do by a decree of the national assembly. He also proposes various
measures for different classes of emigrants, and the full enjoyment of
their property on the same footing as foreigners, by those who sign an
engagement not to take foreign service for two years, nor during that
time to solicit the aid of any foreign power against the nation or its
constituted authorities.
Magellan fully satisfied the conditions specified by Vattel, as
may be seen by his conversations with Sebastian Alvarez, the King
of Portugal’s agent: at this date, also, it is sufficiently clear
that Magellan not only did no harm to his native country, but that
he increased its renown by his own services, and by those of the
other Portuguese officers whom he associated with his labours. If his
countrymen have preferred Gama to him, it is because he only served
the interests of science, whilst Gama served the passions of his
countrymen, and aided them to enrich themselves. After D. Manuel had
refused employment and advancement to Magellan, and seemed inclined
to leave him in the obscurity of a small garrison in Africa, the
Portuguese would seem to have no more right to complain of Magellan’s
profiting by the opportunities offered by Spain, than the Genoese would
have had, if they had reproached Columbus for availing himself in a
similar way of the resources of that country. D. Manuel, it is true,
made offers to Magellan if he would leave Spain and return to Portugal,
but it was then too late, for the great navigator had already pledged
his word to Charles V.
There is another circumstance which justifies Magellan still more
than if he had been an Englishman or a Frenchman, a circumstance
peculiar to Spain and Portugal. In the Peninsula, the kingly power was
of recent origin, and had been divided amongst several crowns: the
wearers of these crowns had been at first only the equals of other
great lords, and, after they had acquired these crowns, they were only
the first amongst their equals; and such they recognised themselves to
be by their coronation oaths, even long after the time of Magellan.
In these coronation oaths they also bound themselves more than did
other European sovereigns to respect all the privileges of the great
nobles; any infraction of which was held to justify these in revolt
from the sovereign. At the same time there existed the custom and
tradition of disnaturalisation, in accordance with which any noble
who felt aggrieved, formally renounced his fealty to the sovereign,
and betook himself to some neighbouring state. Osorio and Mariana,
who wrote when the kingly power had become consolidated, ridicule
this custom; but it must have had the advantage of giving time and
opportunity for a peaceable settlement instead of an immediate recourse
to arms. But whether the custom was good or bad, there is no doubt
that it was generally and constantly acted upon; and Magellan was
following precedents that were generally received in the Peninsula.
It is unfortunate that the document mentioned by historians, by which
Magellan formally renounced fealty to D. Manuel, is not forthcoming in
the archives either of Spain or Portugal; but it may be supposed to be
similar in substance to those renunciations which Osorio mentions and
reproves.
Among those who disnaturalised themselves may be cited various Condes
de Haro of Biscay, and Guzman, who gave his services to Marocco,
and who bears the title of El Bueno. With regard to Count Diego de
Haro, who in 1216 withdrew from Castile to Navarre, Mariana makes the
following observations.
“Several great lords of Castile, irritated against their king,
whose avarice they could not endure, had passed into the kingdoms
of Navarre and Aragon, after having renounced their right of
naturalisation by a public deed, a means formerly in use amongst
those nations, in order not to be regarded as traitors and rebels
when they quitted the states of their sovereign.... Among the
grandees who came to take refuge in Navarre, the most illustrious
beyond dispute was Don Diego de Haro. This lord had excellent
qualities: never were seen greater constancy, probity, or zeal for
the public service than his; the slightest injustice irritated him.
It was in order not to see his country and freedom oppressed, that
he abandoned Castile.”—_Mariana, History of Spain_, book XIII.
“In the year 1276, Alfonso the Wise had defeated Yussuf, the
Emperor of Marocco, and made peace with him with the assistance of
Guzman: a tournament was held in Seville in celebration of it, and
King Alfonso having asked who had most distinguished himself, was
told D. Alonzo Perez. He asked which of them, and D. Juan Ramirez
de Guzman replied: ‘Alonzo Perez de Guzman, my brother of profit.’
This answer seemed ill to all, and especially to Guzman, who saw
that a slur was cast upon the illegitimacy of his birth, for at
that time they named children of profit (_gananciu_), those who
were born of unmarried women, and his mother had not been married.
Guzman, irritated at being thus spoken of before the king and the
court, then said: ‘You speak truth, I am a brother of profit, but
you are and will be one of loss; and were it not for the respect
due to the presence in which we stand, I would teach you the manner
in which you should treat me; but you are not to blame for it,
but rather he who has brought you up and taught you so ill.’ The
king, against whom this complaint appeared to be directed, then
said: ‘Your brother does not speak ill, for so it is the custom
in Castile to name those who are not children of women married
to their husbands.’ ‘So also,’ he replied, ‘is it the custom of
the nobles of Castile, when they are not well treated by their
sovereigns, to go abroad to seek those who will treat them well; I
will do likewise; and I swear not to return until with truth they
may call me a man of profit. Grant me, therefore, the term which
the privilege of the nobles of Castile gives, that I may go out of
the kingdom, for from this day I disnaturalise myself, and take
leave of being your vassal.’ The king attempted to dissuade him,
but his efforts being in vain, he had to grant him the term which
he asked for; during which Guzman sold all that he had inherited
from his father or acquired in the war, and went out from Castile,
accompanied by thirty of his friends and servants.”—Quintana,
_Vidas de Españoles Celebres_.
There seems to be some inconsistency on the part of those who refuse
to admit of disnaturalisation, yet at the same time maintain that
rebellion can be justified. If there is a justification of rebellion,
the right of expatriation, or of withdrawal from amongst those
who provoke rebellion, must exist; and there can be no doubt that
the peaceable withdrawal of those who are oppressed or injured is
preferable in the interests of all to armed insurrection. Even Bishop
Osorio and Mariana would probably admit that the disnaturalisation of
Prim and Serrano would have been better than their treason, which has
plunged Spain in anarchy and bloodshed for so many years.[3] Rebellions
have almost always been conducted by minorities; and as their
justification does not depend upon the numerical importance of those
engaged in them, it would follow that in the case of disnaturalisation,
where numbers are not requisite, as in the case of armed insurrection,
the right would exist equally even if the minority consisted only of
one.
There are some writers on the Law of Nations, with whom I am agreed
in general, who disapprove of the Naturalisation and Disnaturalisation
Act of the Session of 1869. I am compelled to differ from them with
respect to that measure, for the foregoing reasons, and also because
it seems to me that they have lost sight of another circumstance
which affects the question. So long as kingly power was a reality,
personal allegiance and duty to the sovereign was a reality also.
But now that modern innovation and corruption have substituted the
rule of majorities for the kingly power, the feeling of the personal
duty of the subject is almost lost; and the subject, or citizen, has
become only one of an aggregation of individuals, or of an association
of persons with equal rights; and each member of such an association
has clearly the right to choose whether he will form part of it or
not: so that whatever rights of expatriation may have existed in the
times of Magellan, Grotius, and Vattel, have become much stronger at
the present time, when the conscience of the subject is no longer
considered by some as held bound by duty to the sovereign, who has
become almost impersonal: instead of loyalty and fealty, we have the
duty of fair dealing as between partners and associates on equal terms,
as is exemplified by the argumentation of Condorcet in the passage
quoted above. That this view is in accordance with the common sense
and consent of mankind is shown by the general repudiation of the
pretension of the northern portion of the United States to term the
secession of the southern states a rebellion; and this pretension was
seen to be especially illogical on the part of those who had repudiated
the name of rebels when they departed from the duty of obedience to
their lawful sovereign.
Magellan has not had the good fortune of Vasco da Gama, whose exploits
have been narrated by Camoens and Gaspar Correa; he did not survive
to give his own account of his great voyage, and the only accounts
preserved were written by two Italians of very small literary capacity.
There are, however, more documents concerning Magellan in existence
than are to be found with respect to Gama.
The birth-place of Magellan is doubtful; according to his will
executed in Lisbon, December 29th, 1504, in favour of his sister,
Theresa de Magalhāes, wife of Joan da Sylva Telles, he was born at
Villa de Sabroza, in the district of Villa Real, Traz os Montes; in
his will of August 24th, 1519, he calls himself “Vezino de Porto,” or
domiciled at Porto; documents quoted by M. Ferdinand Denis make him to
be born at Villa de Figueiro in Portuguese Estremadura. His family was
“hidalgo,” with a known coat of arms, of which a plate is given in this
volume.
The book of noble genealogies of Portugal, by Bernardo Pimenta do
Avelar Portocarrero, states, in the vol. M, done and copied in the year
1721, fo. 641, that Ruy de Magalhaēs, whose parents are unknown, was
Alcaide-mōr of Aveiro. He married Alda de Mesquita, daughter of Martin
Gonzalves Pimentel and Ignez de Mesquita. Antonio de Lima (another
genealogist) represents her as the wife of Gil de Magalhaēs, fifth son
of Gil de Magalhaēs; and he gives her the same children as others give
to Ruy de Magalhaēs: who had
Genebra de Magalhaēs, wife of Pero Cāo.
Fernāo de Magalhaēs, who married Da. Brites Barbosa, daughter of his
relation Diogo Barbosa, alcaidemōr of Seville, in the absence of D.
Alvaro of Portugal; he had
Da. Anna de Magalhaēs, his heiress, the wife of D. Hernando de Henao e
Avila, from whom his lineage continues. She was his only child.
This does not agree with the archives of Seville, from which it appears
that Beatriz Barbosa was daughter of Diego Barbosa and Maria Caldera,
and that Fernan Magalhaēs and Beatriz Barbosa had a son named Rodrigo;
and that after the death of these three, Diego Barbosa became their
heir; and he having died in 1525, his son Jayme inherited.
Fernan Magellan executed a will in Seville on the 24th day of August,
1519. He instituted by it a mayorazgo for his son, grandson, or
relation, who should bear the name of Magallanes, and who should be
bound to live in the kingdoms of Castille. He also bequeathed a sum of
12,500 maravedis to the Convent of N. S. de la Victoria in Triana.
Two facsimiles of the signature of Magellan are given, one taken from
his signature to the protocol of the Council of War, held at Cochim in
1510; there is also a facsimile of the signature of another Magellan,
taken from the book of Moradias or Palace stipends, attached to a
receipt printed by Navarrete, who appears to have supposed it to
have been that of the navigator: and a facsimile of the signature of
Magellan’s brother-in-law Duarte Barbosa.
Gaspar Correa states, in his _Lendas da India_, tom. II, p. 28, that,
in January of 1510, Alfonso d’Alboquerque despatched the ships from
Cochim to the kingdom.
“Two ships of Bastian de Sousa and Francisco de Sá convoyed this
fleet, and at night they both struck on the shoals of Padua, which
are opposite the Maldive Islands, and remained aground, upright,
and without breaking up. Upon this they prepared the boats as
well as they could, and raised their sides, and put inside water
and biscuit, and victuals which did not require cooking. The
captains and pilots, and as many men as could, got into these
boats and returned to Cochym. The people who remained in the ships
set shores[4] on each side of the ships, with the yards, which
they cut. All this was arranged and commanded by an honourable
gentleman, who remained as overseer, named Fernan de Magalhaēs,
who had been much wounded in Calecut. He took much care that the
chests should not be broken, and that there should be no robbery,
because the captains were going to request ships of the governor,
with which to return to the ships to save what goods had not been
wetted. These captains reached Cananor in eight days, from whence
they sent a message to the governor, who at once sent Gonzalo de
Crasto in a caravel, with two pilots; and they went to the ships
and put the best things on board the caravel, until they could not
load it any more, and having recovered all the men, they set fire
to the ships, as they were already full of water. So they returned
to Cochim. In this Fernan de Magalhāes worked hard, and did much
service, and attended well to everything.”
“This Fernan de Magalhāes was of the king’s household, and came to
India with the Viceroy Dom Francisco [d’Almeida], and he was in
the action with the Turks; and he was always much wounded in the
fleets and in Calecut; and in these ships he lost his small portion
of property,[5] and he went away poor to Portugal, and went about
with claims for his services, and begged of the king a hundred reis
increase of his palace stipend,[6] which the king did not choose to
grant, at which he was aggrieved, and went to Castile to live at
Seville, where he married. As he had much knowledge of the art of
navigation, and enterprise, and devoted himself to that, he came
to an understanding with the directors of the House of Trade of
Seville, so that the emperor gave him a fleet of five ships, with
which he navigated, discovering a new way to Maluco, which was in
the year 1519, as I will relate further on in its place; with which
he caused great difficulties to Portugal.”
Correa again refers to the incident of Magellan remaining with the
wreck, in his tome II, p. 625, where he says:
“Fernan de Magalhāes, an honourable gentleman, who served in
these parts in the time of the Viceroy Afonso d’Alboquerque, of
whom I made mention in the first book, with respect to two ships
which were going to the kingdom, which were lost on the shoals
of Padua, and their captains went back to Cochym in their boats,
and this Fernan de Magalhāes remained in the ships with the men
taking care of the ships until caravels came from Cochim in which
much property, belonging to the king and to private individuals,
was saved. This Fernan de Magalhāes, on going to the kingdom and
bringing before the king his services, asked in satisfaction for
them that he should have an increase in his palace stipend of a
hundred reis a month, which the king refused him, because he did
not find favour with him, or because it was so permitted to be.
Fernan de Magalhāes, offended at this, because he much entreated
the king to do it, and he would not, asked his leave to go and live
with whoever would show him favour, where he might obtain more good
fortune than with him. The king told him to do as he pleased; for
which he wished to kiss his hand, which the king did not choose to
give him.”
Castanheda, in relating the wreck on the Padua banks, says (lib. III,
cap. v):
“There were disputes as to who should go away with the captains
from the grounded vessels, and Magellan said that it was clear
that all could not go away, and that to avoid strife, which was
commencing, let the gentlemen and chief men go away with the
captains, and he would remain with the sailors and other common
people, provided they would promise to return for him, or get
the governor to send for him. This they swore to, and Fernan de
Magalhāes stayed behind, the common people consented to remain,
for otherwise there must have been strife. As Magalhāes was in
the boat, when it was nearly ready to go away, a sailor, thinking
that he repented himself of remaining, said to him: ‘Sir, did you
not promise to remain with us?’ He replied: ‘Yes; and see, I am
coming;’ and went to them and remained with them. In this he shewed
great courage, and confidence in the men.”
Barros relates the incident of the two vessels wrecked on the banks of
Padua, and says that Antonio Pacheco was sent with a caravel to their
assistance; and that:
“As much honour as Antonio Pacheco gained in the method with which
he recovered these crews, with the differences which he had with
them on account of some goods which the men took with them, so much
honour also did Magellan gain by the good management of these men,
which he shewed whilst waiting with them till they came to fetch
them. And if he had had as much loyalty to his king and country,
as he observed with a friend of his, on whose account he would
not go away in company with Bastian de Sousa [the captain]; for
they did not take away the other man, as he was not a man of much
importance, perchance he would not have lost himself with a name of
infamy, as will be seen further on.”—_Decad._ II, lib. IV, chap.
i.
Thus Castanheda and Barros, who are both of them very hostile to
Magellan, have preserved one of the finest traits of his life. Whether
the motive of Magellan in remaining by the wreck was fidelity to the
interests of his friend, or devotion to the common seamen, or the
repugnance of an officer and a gentleman to abandon a ship which had
not broken up, this trait is alone sufficient to show that he was
incapable of disloyalty, or of being influenced by pique, as the
Portuguese historians have represented.
The next mention we find of Magellan is in the following document,
preserved in the archives of Lisbon, which contains an account of a
Council of War held by Albuquerque respecting his attack on Goa. This
document confirms what Correa says of Albuquerque’s departure from
Cochym for Goa.
_Council held by Alfonso d’Albuquerque with the Captains with respect
to going to Goa._
Torre do Tombo. Corpo Chron. Part 2_a_, Maç 23, Doc. 190.
Thursday, which was the tenth day of the month of October, of five
hundred and ten, the captain-major ordered all the captains of the
king our sovereign to be summoned in Cochim, in order to hold a
council with them, to which council there came those named below,
and no others. This council was as to whether, whilst the ships of
burden remained in Cochim taking in their cargo, it seemed good to
them to carry all their crews with them to the action of Goa, or
not.
* * * * *
Fernan de Magalhāes said that it seemed to him that the captain-major
ought not to take the ships of burden to Goa, inasmuch as if they went
thither they could not pass this year to Portugal, since we are at the
twelfth of October; and that, making their shortest course without
touching at Cananor, nor at any other port, it was not possible to lay
the fleet before the port of Goa before the eighth of November,* as
the winds were now contrary for that place: and with respect to the
crews, let his worship say whether it was well that they should go,
that it seemed to him that he ought not to take them, since there did
not remain time for them to lay out their money, nor to do anything of
what was necessary for the voyage; and this said Fernan de Magalhāes.
The following gave an opinion:
Nuno Vaz, captain of the Rumesa.
Antonio da Costa ... Rei Pequeno.
Duarte da Silva ... Galé Grande.
*Simāo Martins.
*D. Joāo de Lima ... Sta. Maria d’Ajuda.
*Sebastian de Miranda ... Galé Pequeno.
Fernan de Magalhāes.[8]
Jeronimo Teixeira ... Sta. Maria do Campo.
*Jorge da Silveira.
Francisco de Sousa ... Boa Ventura.
*Manuel da Cunha.
*Garcia de Sousa ... Sta. Clara.
Francisco Corvinel ... Sant-Iago.
Lourenço de Paiva.
Antonio Real, alcaìde-mór and captain of Cochim.
Gonzalo de Sequeira, captain-major of the fleet which had just come
from Portugal.
Affonso d’Albuquerque said at the end what he determined to do.
(N.B. Albuquerque said at the end of these opinions that he was
determined to sail on the following day, the eleventh of October, with
the captains who wished to accompany him. Therefore, _we are at the
twelfth of October_, means that that day was close at hand, and not
that the council was held on that day.)
Gaspar Correa says, tome II, p. 138:
“When this was thus ended, the governor told all the captains that
he was going immediately, and that he would sail from Cananor with
all the ships and men that he could take, and go and take Goa, as
he trusted in the Lord’s Passion that He would assist him; and he
gave them notice that so he would act, and not occupy himself with
anything else: and he gave them all this notice, because he trusted
in the Lord, that he should be able to send news to the king in
these ships, that he was taking his rest inside the city of Goa:
and, as it was already October, whoever had the will to serve the
king, and win such great honour, as it would be to find oneself
in such a noble action, would still have time enough to witness
the action and return to embark in his ship, carrying away so much
honour from having been present in the action: and each one was to
act according to his own will, for he would give an account of all
to the king in his letters. But the captains, occupied with their
profits of selling and taking in cargo, set little store by this,
and the governor departed, saying that he was not going to take
anyone away with him against his will.”
Albuquerque then went to Cananor, which G. Correa says he again left
on the 3rd October for Goa (tom. II, p. 140); _tres_ is probably an
error for _treze_, the 13th, which would be in accordance with the
statement of the document that Albuquerque sailed from Cochim on the
11th of October. Gaspar Correa gives the following names of captains
who accompanied Albuquerque against Goa.
*Joan de Lima.
Jeronymo de Lima, his brother.
Manuel de Lacerda.
Fernan Peres d’Andrade.
Simāo d’Andrade, his brother.
Diogo Fernandes de Beja.
*Manuel da Cunha.
Duarte de Mello.
Francisco de Tavora.
Vasco Fernandes Coutinho.
*Gracia de Sousa.
Gaspar Cāo.
Lopo Vaz de Sampayo.
Ayres da Silva.
Diniz Fernandes de Mello.
Joan Serrano.
Diogo Mendes de Vascogoncellos.
Pero Coresma.
Baltesar da Silva.
Mice Vinete Cerniche.
Antonio Raposo.
*Simāo Martins.
Gaspar de Paiva.
Francisco Pantoja.
*Bastian de Miranda, d’Azevedo.
Afonso Pessoa.
Jorge Martins de Liāo.
Francisco Pereira.
Twenty-eight ships, and 1,700 Portuguese.
* The names marked with an asterisk are among those who gave an
opinion at the Council of War above mentioned.
He also mentions, p. 145, the following gentlemen as being with
Albuquerque in the attack on Goa:
Fernan Gomez de Lemos.
Nuno Vaz de Castello Branco.
*Jorge da Silveira.
Ruy de Brito.
Luis Coutinho, brother of Vasco Fernandes.
Simāo d’Andrade, brother of Fernan Peres.
Gonzalo d’Almeida.
Simāo Martins Henriques.
Payo Rodrigues de Sousa.
Diogo Pires de Miranda.
Duarte de Mello.
Alvaro Paçanha.
Luis Preto.
Pero d’Afonsequa.
Antonio de Matos.
Antonio Diniz.
And other gentlemen.
The supposition may be hazarded that it was this opinion which Magellan
gave at the Council of War in opposition to Alfonso d’Albuquerque,
which set D. Manuel against him. Such opposition was enough to have
made Albuquerque write unfavourably of Magellan to D. Manuel; and the
ill-will of D. Manuel to Magellan, and his refusal to grant him a due
recognition of his services is not otherwise sufficiently accounted
for. On the other hand, Gaspar Correa, who was Albuquerque’s secretary
at one time, does not indicate this; but Correa is the most friendly to
Magellan of all the Portuguese historians, and does not appear, like
the others, to have taxed Magellan with treason.
After this, Magellan appears to have left India, and to have been
stationed at Azamor in Morocco, where, in a skirmish with the Arabs,
he was wounded in the leg by a javelin, which left him somewhat lame.
After that, some disputes arose as to the distribution amongst the
townsmen of some cattle that had been captured from the Arabs. When
João Soarez, Captain of Azamor, left that place, and was succeeded by
D. Pedro de Sousa, Magellan left Azamor without leave from D. Pedro de
Sousa, and came to Portugal; his petition with regard to the increase
of his palace stipend had already been sent to D. Manuel; but D. Pedro
de Sousa having written to the king of Magellan having left Azamor
without leave of absence, and of the complaints made about the cattle,
the king refused to receive Magellan, and commanded him to return at
once to Azamor, and there give himself up as he was accused. When he
arrived there, as Barros says, either because he was free from blame,
or, as was mostly asserted, because the frontier officers of Azamor,
in order not to vex him, would not accuse him, he received a sentence
of acquittal, and returned with it to Portugal; but the king always
bore ill-will to him, and, Magellan’s requests not being granted, he
set about that business of which he had written to his friend Francisco
Serrano, who was in Maluco.
After Magellan had disnaturalised himself, he took refuge in Spain,
accompanied by the astrologer Ruy Faleiro, and having arrived at
Seville on the 20th of October, 1517, he entered upon negotiations with
the ministers of Charles V; and the King of Portugal did his utmost,
through his agents, to thwart him; Osorio says that the king would
have succeeded in dissuading Charles V from employing Magellan, had
not the Spanish nobles persuaded him not to lose such an opportunity
of increasing the Spanish empire. Charles V then ordered ships to be
provided for Magellan, by which he might discover a new way to the east.
Here follows an abstract of documents, copies of which are contained
in the Torre do Tombo, relating to the appointment of Magellan, and the
privileges and powers conferred upon him: these documents are dated in
the spring of 1518, more than a year before Magellan sailed; and it
appears that delay was caused partly through the procrastination of
the Spanish authorities in Seville, who were charged with equipping
the fleet, and partly by the intrigues of the agents of the King of
Portugal. These intrigues appear to have been partially successful, and
to have caused delay. A final order for the departure of Magellan was
given in Barcelona, April 19th, 1519. The original of this document
is preserved in the Lisbon archives, and it was probably carried out
with the fleet, and fell into the possession of the Portuguese in the
Moluccas after Magellan’s death; a translation of this order is given
below, and the text is in the Appendix.
After this document, translations are given of two letters (the text
of which is given in the Appendix) from Alvaro da Costa, the Portuguese
ambassador in Spain, and from Sebastian Alvarez, the Portuguese factor,
about the efforts made by them to prevent Magellan’s expedition. M.
Ferdinand Denis, in the _Biographie Universelle_, mentions that Alvaro
da Costa is said to have pushed his zeal to the extremity of wishing to
assassinate Magellan, and even his poor associate, Ruy Faleiro; this,
with regard to the latter, seems hardly probable, judging from Costa’s
own letter. Navarrete states that the Portuguese agents succeeding in
exciting the mob of Seville against Magellan on the 22nd of October,
1518, under the empty pretext that he was substituting the arms of
Portugal for those of Castile in his ships. Faria y Sousa, in his
_Europa Portuguese_, tom. II, pt. IV, cap. I, p. 543, says:
“D. Fernando de Vasconcellos, Bishop of Lamego, alone expressed
the desire that the King of Portugal should either grant favours
to him (Magellan) or else have him killed, because his intentions
were most dangerous to the kingdom. The result of this (counsel)
was that the kingdom received a great disappointment, and Magellan
glorious and everlasting fame; since, whilst the world endures it
will endure in the monument of his name, which has remained applied
to all the South Sea and to his Straits.”
Que nunca se vera tāo forte peito,
Do Gangetico mar ao Gaditano;
Nem das Boreaes ondas ao Estreito,
Que mostrou o aggravado Lusitano.
_Camoens_, Canto II, 55.
And never will their prowess find its mate,
No, not from Ganges to the Gadite shore,
Not from Arcturus to the Southern Strait
Which first an injured Lusian will explore.
_Quillinan._
Eis aqui as nóvas portas do Oriente,
Que vosoutros agora ao mundo dais,
Abrindo a porta ao vasto mar patente,
Que com tam forte peito navegais:
Mas he tambem razaō, que no ponente
De hum Lusitano hum feito inda vejais,
Que de seu Rey monstrandose agravado,
Caminho ha de fazer nunqua cuidado.
_Camoens_, Canto X, 138.
Thus hast thou all the regions of the East,
Which by thee giv’n unto the world is now:
Opening a way with an undaunted breast,
Through that vast sea which none before did plough.
But it is likewise reason, in the West
That of a Lusian too one action thou
Shouldst understand, who (angry with his king)
Achieves a great and memorable thing.
_Fanshaw._
_Contract and Agreement made by the King of Castile with
Fernan Magellan for the discovery which he was to make,
a copy of which he carried with him, signed by the Officers
of the King of Castile, and made by his Secretary
Fernan de los Cobos, and copied word for word._[9]
Gav. 18, Maço 10, No. 4.