In 1565, over four decades after Magellan was killed in the Battle of Mactan, Miguel Lopez de Legazpi entered Cebu and wrote a report that read in part:“…One of the soldiers went into a large and well-built house of an Indian, where he found an image of the child Jesus (whose most holy name I pray may be universally worshiped). This was kept in its cradle, all gilded, just as it was brought from España; and only the little cross which is generally placed upon the globe in his hand was lacking. This image was well kept in that house, and many flowers were found before it, no one knows what object or purpose. The soldier bowed before it with all reverence and wonder, and brought the image to the place where the other soldiers were. I pray to the holy name of this image which we have found here, to help us and grant us victory, in order that these lost people who are ignorant of the precious and rich treasure which was in their possession may come to a knowledge of him.”
In 1566, an unsigned printed document on the Legazpi expedition came off the press in Barcelona that made this reference to the image:
“In a poorly built house was found an image of the Child Jesus, such as come from Flanders, with his veil and the globe in his hand, and in as good condition as if it were just made…They began construction of a fort, outside of which they erected a church, wherein the child Jesus was placed, and they called the church [Santissimo] Nombre de Jesus [Holy Name of Jesus].”
Based on the above and other contemporary documents, we all know the story of the Santo Niño de Cebu. Is the one venerated in Cebu today the exact same one found by Legazpi in 1565? Is it the same one presented by Magellan to the wife of Humabon in 1521? I checked the Skelton translation of the Pigafetta manuscript preserved in Yale University and promptly got confused. Relating the conversion of the king and queen of Cebu, Pigafetta wrote:
“After dinner our chaplain and some others…went on shore to baptize the queen. And she came with forty ladies and we led them on to the platform, then we caused her to sit on a cushion…until the priest was ready. Meanwhile we showed her a lady carved in wood, holding her child (which was very well made) and a cross. The sight of this gave her a greater wish to be a Christian, and asking for baptism, she was baptized, and named Joanna, like the emperor’s mother…Then she begged us to give her that wooden image to put in place of her idols. Which we did.”
Some days afterward, the queen attended Mass with her ladies. Pigafetta not only describes what she wore but related that Magellan sprinkled rose muscat water over them then, “The captain, knowing that the wooden image greatly pleased the queen, gave it to her saying that she should have it instead of her idols, for that it was the memorial and representation of the Son of God. And hearing this, the queen accepted it, and warmly thanked the captain for it.”
From the above it seems that two images were given to the Cebuana queen–an image of the Madonna and child and that of the Santo Niño. However, before jumping into hasty conclusions I checked the other editions of Pigafetta—three of the four manuscript versions are in French and only one, the Ambrosian Codex, is in a mixture of Italian, Spanish and Venetian. The Ambrosian Codex is reputedly the most authoritative and says pretty much the same thing as the French version cited above except for the details. In the first instance, during the baptism of the queen, Pigafetta showed her three images, that of “Our Lady, a very beautiful wooden child Jesus, and a cross.” The queen asked for the Santo Niño to keep in place of her idols but left empty-handed. A few days later the converted Queen Joanna came for Mass and as she was waiting, Magellan sprinkled her with rose water. Informed of the queen’s wish to have the Santo Niño, he presented her with the image.
Historians try to reconstruct the whole picture of the past from fragments. While all documents point to a Santo Niño, there are some sources that say something else. Folk sources refer to the image originating from a pre-colonial firebrand, or how the image walks abroad when people are not looking. The challenge is trying to find objective truth in a maze of sources.
