Timothy Jay Schwab who is the God Culture is back in business. That business of fabricating quotes. Here is the latest. Tim claims the authors of a French history books assert that fabricated stories exist in Pinto's journal. Let's take a look.
The very compilers of Histoire générale des voyages were not blind to inconsistencies in Pinto’s account — or, more precisely, the distortions introduced by his editors. They note the questionable nature of some key details, especially regarding Pinto’s alleged departure from Siam:
“D’ailleurs Pinto n’étoit pas parti de Siam; il s’étoit dans la Jonque d’un Corsaire Chinois... les prétentions d’éditeurs n’ont point persuadé...”
Translation:
Pinto hadn’t even departed from Siam, as claimed. The Chinese junk story was invented by editors, whose pretensions are unconvincing.
Tim claims the authors of this history affirm that the portion of Pinto's story where he discovers Japan was invented by editors.
Here is the original French followed by an English translation.
L'embarras n'est qu'à concilier ce récit avec celui de Fernand-Mendes Pinto, qui non-seulement s'attribue l'honneur de cette découverte, mais qui compte Zeimoto entre ses compagnons ; avec cette différence, qu'au lieu de François, il le nomme Diego. D'ailleurs Pinto n'était pas parti de Siam ; & c'était dans la Jonque d'un Corsaire Chinois que faisant voile pour les Isles de Lequios, où le vent contraire ne leur permit point d'aborder, ils tournèrent volontairement vers une Isle du Japon. Des prétentions si contraires n'ont point empêché le nouvel Historien de cet Empire d'adopter le récit de Pinto, sans avoir éclairci le fond de la difficulté. Ses réflexions ne marquent néanmoins aucune prévention, en faveur d'un Écrivain, à qui l'on est redevable d'une partie des lumières qui servent à l'Histoire de l'Apôtre des Indes.
The difficulty lies only in reconciling this account with that of Fernand-Mendes Pinto, who not only attributes to himself the honor of this discovery, but who also counts Zeimoto among his companions; with this difference, that instead of François, he names him Diego. Furthermore, Pinto had not departed from Siam; and it was in the junk of a Chinese Corsair that, sailing towards the Isles of Lequios, where contrary wind did not allow them to land, they voluntarily turned towards an Isle of Japan. Such contradictory claims have not prevented the new Historian of this Empire from adopting Pinto's account, without having clarified the root of the difficulty. His reflections nevertheless show no bias in favor of a Writer, to whom one is indebted for a part of the insights that serve the History of the Apostle of the Indies.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t52f8sc8m&seq=658&q1=lequios
While the first part of Tim's quote is in the text the second part after the ellipse is entirely fabricated and does appear in the French.
D'ailleurs Pinto n'était pas parti de Siam ; & c'était dans la Jonque d'un Corsaire Chinois...les prétentions d’éditeurs n’ont point persuadé
Tim has corrupted the original French which reads:
Des prétentions si contraires n'ont point empêché
"Contraires" has become "d’éditeurs" and "empêché" has been transformed into "persuadé." That is not a mistake, that is intentional.
Absolutely nowhere do the editors of this history write:
The Chinese junk story was invented by editors, whose pretensions are unconvincing.
The point of this paragraph is an attempt to reconcile Pinto's account with other Portuguese accounts of discovering Japan. They are not saying Pinto is untrustworthy or his journal is corrupt or filled with imagined stories added by editors. What they are saying is there are contradictions between other accounts and Pinto that need to be reconciled. Tim doesn't care to investigate the context, forgoes nuance, and decides to fabricate a citation, misrepresenting the original authors as claiming a section in Pinto's book "was invented by the editors."
Let's take a look at the full context by adding the preceding and following paragraphs.
The Portuguese, who attribute to themselves the glory of having discovered Japan, do not even agree among themselves on the time to which this event should be reported. Some trace it back to the year 1535. Others place it in 1541, still others in 1548, and some bring it even closer to our time. In this uncertainty, Kampfer's Translator does not believe that one can refuse precedence to the opinion of Diego de Couto, Continuator of the Decades of Barros. This Scholar, who was the Historiographer of Philip II, King of Spain and Portugal, had spent the best part of his life in the Indies. The Archives of Goa were entrusted to his keeping, and it was from this source that he had drawn materials for his great Work of Portuguese discoveries and conquests, which he carried up to the end of the sixteenth century. He informs us, in his fifth Decade, that in 1541, while Martin-Alphonse de Sousa governed the East Indies, three Portuguese, Antoine da Mota, François Zeimoto, & Antoine Peixota, were cast by a storm, on the Coasts of Japan, aboard a Junk laden with leather, which was going from Siam to China.
The difficulty lies only in reconciling this account with that of Fernand-Mendes Pinto, who not only attributes to himself the honor of this discovery, but who also counts Zeimoto among his companions; with this difference, that instead of François, he names him Diego. Furthermore, Pinto had not departed from Siam; and it was in the junk of a Chinese Corsair that, sailing towards the Isles of Lequios, where contrary wind did not allow them to land, they voluntarily turned towards an Isle of Japan. Such contradictory claims have not prevented the new Historian of this Empire from adopting Pinto's account, without having clarified the root of the difficulty. His reflections nevertheless show no bias in favor of a Writer, to whom one is indebted for a part of the insights that serve the History of the Apostle of the Indies.
Let us conclude that, if the discovery of Japan by the Portuguese cannot be contested, the name of the Discoverer is too uncertain to obtain a rank in History on this title. But let us also observe that one must not judge discoveries concerning the East Indies in the same way as those made at the same time in another Hemisphere. The former, that is, those of America, had as their object truly unknown Countries, which for this reason were justly named a new World; whereas, in the East Indies, one knew the existence and even the name of most Countries, before having penetrated them. It is impossible, for example, that independently of Marco Polo's Relation, the Portuguese established in China would not have learned, before the year 1541, that to the North of a sea they frequented, there were, at a short distance, large & powerful Isles, where the Chinese carried their Commerce. Thus, to express oneself properly, the question is not who was the Portuguese who discovered Japan, but who was the one whom the chance of a storm, or other causes, caused to land there first.
Here we can see the editors are not calling Pinto an untrustworthy liar or his journal corrupt. They are saying the Portuguese accounts of discovering Japan do not agree among themselves. The authors say Diego de Couto adopted Pinto's account as being authoritative without reconciling the difficulties arising from the other accounts. The contradiction writes about is in one account the explorers left Siam for China and subsequently ended up in Japan, while Pinto left China aboard a Chinese pirate ship and then ended up in the Lequios Islands and Japan.
That does not mean Pinto never travelled to Japan via the Lequios Islands. Here is his account.
We proceeded on our voyage in the battered condition we were in, and three days later we were struck by a storm that blew over the land with such fierce gusts of wind that that same night we were driven out of sight of the shore. And since by then we were unable to approach it again, we were forced to make with full sail for the island of the Ryukyus where this pirate was well known to both the king and the other people there. With this in view we sailed ahead through the islands of this archipelago, but since at this time we were without a pilot, ours having been killed in the recent battle, and the northeast winds were blowing head on, and the currents were running strong against us, we went tacking with great effort from one board to the other for twenty-three days until finally, at the end of that time, our Lord brought us within sight of land. Coming in closer to see if it showed any sign of an inlet or harbor with good anchorage, we noticed a huge fire burning over to the south, almost at a level with the horizon. This led us to believe that it was probably inhabited and that there might be people there who would sell us water, which we were running short of.
As we were anchoring opposite the island in seventy fathoms of water, two small canoes with six men on board came rowing out from shore. They came alongside, and after an exchange of greetings and courtesies in their fashion, they asked us whence the junk had come. Our answer was that we had come from China, bringing merchandise to trade with them, if they would give us leave to do so. One of them replied that as long as we paid the duties that were customarily charged in Japan, which was the name of that big land mass outlined ahead of us, the nautoquim, lord of that island of would readily grant us permission. He followed this up by Tanegashima, telling us everything else that we needed to know and showed us the port where we were supposed to anchor.
pg. 274
Saying this is story is an editor's invention does not take into account the subsequent chapters which document Pinto's travels and adventures in Japan especially with the King of Bungo. Pinto's narrative extends to his return to China and ensuing shipwreck in the Lequios Islands. The editors have nothing negative to say about Pinto's shipwreck in the Lequios Islands where he writes:
That Lequian island lies situated at twenty-nine degrees.
Essa ilha léquia jaz situada em vinte e nove graus
https://fundar.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/peregrinacao-vol-ii.pdf pg. 53
Even the account of Francis Gaullé's voyage affirms the latitude of 29° for the Lequios Islands.
Being past the fair Islands, we held our course East and East and by South, for two hundred and forty miles, until we were past the length of the Islands Lequios, sailing about fifty miles from them, as the said Chinar told me, that those islands called Lequios are very many, and that they have many and very good Harbours, and that the people and inhabitants thereof have their faces and bodies painted like the Bysayas of the Islands of Luzon of Philippines, and are appareled like the Bysayas, and that there are also mines of gold; he said likewise that they did often come with small ships and barkes laden with Bucks and Harts hides; and with gold in grains of very small pieces, to trade with them on the coast of China, which be assured me to be most true, saying that he had been nine times in the small Island, bringing of the same wares with him to China; which I believe to be true, for that afterwards I inquired thereof at Macau, and upon the coast of China, and found that he said true. The furthest or uttermost of these Islands both Northward and Eastward lie under 29 degrees.
Being past these Islands, then you come to the Islands of Japon whereof the first lying West and South is the Island of Hirado, where the Portuguese use to trade. They [the Japanese islands] are in length altogether one hundred and thirty miles, and the furthest Eastward, lies under thirty-two degrees [latitude]. We ran still East, and East by North, until we were past the said one hundred and thirty miles.
Yet, Tim writes:
Their conclusion?
"Le nom même de la plupart des Pays... avant que d’y avoir pénétré..."
“The names of most of these countries were known [to the Portuguese] before they ever arrived there.”
📍 Key Insight:
They weren’t discovering Lequios — they were renaming what they already knew: Luzon.
This perspective is even echoed by Rebecca Catz, who acknowledges corruption in the earliest printings and editorial insertions, yet continues to cling to the 29° coordinate and a Ryukyu identification that ignores the geography, the trade data, and the entirety of Pinto’s contextual narrative. Many scholars have followed suit — not in deception, but in inherited oversight.
This analysis is all wrong. First of all the section is about the discovery of Japan, not the Lequios Islands. Second of all the authors are saying the existence and names of countries in East Asia was known long before they were penetrated in contrast to the Americas which were wholly unknown.
The former, that is, those of America, had as their object truly unknown Countries, which for this reason were justly named a new World; whereas, in the East Indies, one knew the existence and even the name of most Countries, before having penetrated them.
The Portuguese knew the name of Japan through The Travels of Marco Polo. Even if that book had not existed they would have learned the name of Japan through their contacts with the Chinese. The editors of this history are absolutely not saying Luzon was being renamed as Lequios. Luçon is discussed in this book separately from the discovery of Japan and from any mention of the Lequios Islands. Tim cites a section of the book that explicitly describes the Lequios Islands as being separate from the Philippines.
It is generally known that opposite Manila, on the North side, between Cape Boxeador and Cape Enganno, twenty-four miles from land, one finds the two small Islands, which are called the Babuyanes, the first of which is inhabited by Christian Indians who pay tribute to Spain, and the other by Savages, who are not far from the two Lequios and Formosa Island.
Tim's interpretation of this passage is as follows.
The Lequios are described in direct geographic relation to the Babuyanes and Formosa, confirming that they were perceived within the Northern Philippines–Taiwan arc — not over 1,000 kilometers north in Ryukyu.
That is wrong. Lequios is grouped together with Formosa, Taiwan, and both are placed at a distance from Luzon and the Northern Philippines. If the Lequios were any part of the Philippines they would not be mentioned apart from the Philippines.
Tim brings in Rebecca Catz as a witness against Pinto's discovery of Japan. But she does not agree with Tim.
Nevertheless, the debate on Pinto’s veracity and reliability continues. Veracity and reliability, it must be stressed, should be seen as two distinct problems. This delicate distinction becomes important when we stop to consider that if Pinto—to take the question of the discovery of Japan as an example—was not actually present on that historic occasion, he was certainly among the earliest group of travelers to arrive on the scene. As such he was close enough to events to have been in a position to pass on a fairly accurate description of the discovery, which cannot easily be dismissed by the historian as unreliable, or as any less reliable than hearsay European accounts, written long after the facts.
Tim still has no basis on which to call 29° unreliable especially since it is confirmed by another source dating to 1582 which is decades before Pinto's journal was even published. Tim loves to quote the following Bible verses as his epistemological foundation.
Deut. 19:15 KV "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."
Matt. 18:16 KJV "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."
2 Cor. 13:1 KJV "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
Therefore 29° is an established fact.
Tim has two other citations on this page but in light of this fabrication and profoundly misguided analysis they are not worth looking at. This gross and deliberate error overshadows everything else on the page. It serves as a stark reminder of the lengths to which Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture will go to manipulate historical sources to fit his baseless theories.
No comments:
Post a Comment