Part 18 (1/2)

[89] See VOL. X, p. 171, note 19.

[90] Santa Ines publishes a translation of the same sentence that varies somewhat in phraseology from the above, but which has the same sense. It is dated however: ”the first year of Quercho, on the twentieth day of the eleventh moon.” J.J. Rein (j.a.pan, London, 1884) publishes a version different from either, which is as follows: ”Taiko--sama. I have condemned these people to death, because they have come from the Philippine Islands, have given themselves out as amba.s.sadors, which they are not, and because they have dwelt in my country without my permission, and proclaimed the law of the Christians against my command. My will is that they be crucified at Nagasaki.” For the persecutions in this and succeeding administrations, see Rein, ut supra.

[91] Santa Ines gives the names and order of the crucifixion of religious and converts, twenty-six in all. They were crucified in a row stretching east and west as follows: ten j.a.panese converts, the six Franciscans, three Jesuits, and seven j.a.panese converts, with about four paces between each two. The j.a.panese served the Franciscans in various religious and secular capacities. The six Franciscans were: Francis...o...b..anco, of Monte Rey, Galicia; Francisco de San Miguel, lay-brother, of Parrilla, in the Valladolid bishopric; Gonzalo Garcia, lay-brother, of Bazain, East India, son of a Portuguese father and a native woman; Felipe de Jesus, or de las Casas, of Mexico; Martin de la Ascension, theological lecturer, of Beasain, in the province of Guipuzcoa; and Pedro Bautista, of San Esteban, in the Avila bishopric. The Jesuits were, at least two of them, j.a.panese, and were not above the rank of brother or teacher. Five Franciscans of the eleven in j.a.pan escaped crucifixion, namely, Agustin Rodriguez, Bartolome Ruiz, Marcelo de Rivadeneira, Jeronimo de Jesus, and Juan Pobre. The first three were forced to leave j.a.pan in a Portuguese vessel sailing to India.

[92] The Lequios Islands are identified by Rizal as the Riukiu or Lu-Tschu Islands. J. J. Rein (j.a.pan, London, 1884) says that they form the second division of the modern j.a.panese empire, and lie between the thirtieth and twenty-fourth parallels, or between j.a.pan proper and Formosa. They are called also the Loochoo Islands.

[93] See Stanley, appendix v, pp. 398-402, and Rizal, note 4, p. 82, for extracts and abstracts of a doc.u.ment written by Father Alexander Valignano, visitor of the Society of Jesus in j.a.pan, dated October 9, 1598. This doc.u.ment states that three Jesuits were crucified by mistake with the others. The doc.u.ment is polemical in tone, and explains on natural grounds what the Franciscans considered and published as miraculous. The above letter to Morga is published by Santa Ines, ii, p. 364.

[94] Santa Ines publishes a letter from this religious to another religious of the same order. From this letter it appears that he later went to Macan, whence he returned to Manila.

[95] Called Alderete in Argensola, doubtless an error of the copyist.--Rizal.

[96] The same king wrote a letter of almost the same purport to Father Alonso Ximenez, which is reproduced by Aduarte.--Rizal.

[97] Diego Aduarte, whose book Historia de la Provincia del Santo Rosario (Manila, 1640), will appear later in this series.

[98] Morga's own account of this, ante, says distinctly that there were two vessels and that Bias Ruiz had entered the river ahead of Diego Belloso. Hernando de los Rios Coronel, however, explains this in his Relacion of 1621, by stating that one of the two vessels had been wrecked on the Cambodian coast.

[99] The original is en la puente, which translated is ”on the bridge.” We have regarded it as a misprint for en el puerto, ”in the port.”

[100] This kingdom has disappeared. The ancient Ciampa, Tsiampa, or Zampa, was, according to certain Jesuit historians, the most powerful kingdom of Indochina. Its dominions extended from the banks of the Menam to the gulf of Ton-King. In some maps of the sixteenth century we have seen it reduced to the region now called Mois, and in others in the north of the present Cochinchina, while in later maps it disappears entirely. Probably the present Sieng-pang is the only city remaining of all its past antiquity.--Rizal.

[101] That is, his mother and grandmother.

[102] From which to conquer the country and the king gradually, for the latter was too credulous and confiding.--Rizal.

[103] Rizal misprints Malaca.

[104] Stanley thinks that this should read ”since the war was not considered a just one;” but Rizal thinks this Blas Ruiz's own declaration, in order that he might claim his share of the booty taken, which he could not do if the war were unjust and the booty considered as a robbery.

[105] Aduarte says: ”The matter was opposed by many difficulties and the great resistance of influential persons in the community, but as it was to be done without expense to the royal treasury, all were overcome.”--Rizal.

La Concepcion says, vol. iii, p. 234, that the royal officials did not exercise the requisite care in the fitting of Luis Dasmarinas's vessels, as the expedition was not to their taste.

[106] A Chinese vessel, lighter and swifter than the junk, using oars and sails.

[107] Aduarte says that the fleet left the bay on September 17.--Rizal.

La Concepcion gives the same date, and adds that Dasmarinas took in his vessel, the flags.h.i.+p, Father Ximinez, while Aduarte sailed in the almiranta. The complement of men, sailors and soldiers was only one hundred and fifty. Aduarte left the expedition by command of the Dominican superior after the almiranta had put in to refit at Nueva Segovia, ”as he [i.e., the superior] did not appear very favorable to such extraordinary undertakings.” He returned with aid to Dasmarinas, sailing from Manila September 6, almost a year after the original expedition had sailed.

[108] The island of Corregidor, also called Mirabilis.--Rizal.

[109] The almiranta was wrecked because of striking some shoals, while pursuing a Chinese craft with piratical intent. The Spanish s.h.i.+p opened in two places and the crew were thrown into the sea. Some were rescued and arrested by the Chinese authorities.--Rizal.

La Concepcion says that the majority of the Spaniards determined to pursue and capture the Chinese vessel contrary to the advice of the pilot and a few others, and were consequently led into the shoals.

[110] This man became a religious later. We present his famous relation of 1621 in a later volume of this series. Hernando de los Rios was accompanied by Aduarte on his mission.

[111] It has been impossible to verify this citation. Of the four generally known histories of the Indias written at the time of Los Rios Coronel's letter, that of Las Casas only contains chapters of the magnitude cited, and those chapters do not treat of the demarcation question. Gonzalez Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes: Historia general y natural de las Indias (Madrid, Imprenta de la Real Academia de la Historia, 1851), edited by Amador de los Rios, discusses the demarcation in book ii, ch. viii, pp. 32, 33, and book xxi, ch. ii, pp. 117, 118; Bartolome de las Casas: Historia de las Indias (Madrid, 1875), edited by Marquis de la Fuensanta del Valle (vols. 62-66 of Doc.u.mentos ineditos para la historia de Espana), in book i, ch. lxxix, pp. 485, 486; Antonio de Herrera: Historia general de los Indios occidentalis (Madrid, 1601), in vol. i, ch. iiii, pp. 50-53, and ch. x, pp. 62-64; Joseph de Acosta: Historia de las Indias (first published in Spanish in Sevilla in 1590) does not discuss the matter. Neither is the reference to Giovanni Pietro Maffei's Historiarum Indicarum (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1590), where the demarcation is slightly mentioned.