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.
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,[7] 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.
He also mentions, p. 145, the following gentlemen as being with Albuquerque in the attack on Goa:
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.”