390 



JOURNAL, R.A.S. ( CEYLON ). [VOL. XIX. 



Ceylon, as well as an elephant. On this the writer says : " That 

 these two men sailed from India for Portugal in February is 

 confirmed by Barros, and that they carried cinnamon and an 

 elephant is possible ; but these had absolutely no connection with 

 any expedition to Ceylon, none having as yet taken place." 

 I believe this kind of argument is styled by logicians petitio 

 principii. When it is admitted that certain details contained 

 in a statement made bona fide by an unprejudiced narrator are 

 correct, we are not entitled to arbitrarily reject those other 

 details which are not in consonance with any pre- conceived 

 theories. Certainly the reasons given by the writer are far 

 from convincing. He says : " Had Vasco Gomes de Abreu 

 been the bearer of such important tidings as that Ceylon had 

 been discovered, it is certain that King Manuel would not have 

 waited some nine or ten months before informing the pope." 

 This information was conveyed in a letter dated September 25, 

 1507. The exact date of de Abreu's arrival is not known. The 

 writer conjectures that it was "at the end of 1506 or the begin- 

 ning of 1507," and this latter date I am prepared to accept ; 

 but it appears to me to be suspending his argument on an 

 excessively attenuated cord to depend on the date of the communi- 

 cation of the news to one who was merely in the position of a 

 friendly potentate. The Paper does not show that it was the 

 accepted custom to communicate similar news immediately it 

 was received. The communication was purely an act of courtesy, 

 and courtesy in Portugal was at the time the most ponderous 

 and slow-moving in Europe. Indeed, it is manifest from the 

 letter itself that it was not considered necessary to keep the Holy 

 See in immediate touch with what was being done by the Portu- 

 guese adventurers ; in fact, this was manifestly the first letter 

 written with reference to the doings of Francisco de Almeida, 

 who had started on March 25, 1505 ! " Cui jam cognitum 

 arbitramur misisse nos superioribus annis pro nobis viceregem," 

 &c. Clearly no formal intimation of the departure of de Almeida 

 for the East had been sent to Rome till now. "We believe it is 

 already known to you that some years back we dispatched as our 

 viceroy," &c. The letter then continues to state that after several 

 encounters with the enemy he sent "his son Dom Laurentius de 

 Almeida with a flotilla to attack the sea coasts and the territories of 

 our enemies, who also according to his instructions visited the far- 

 famed island of Taprobana." If language means anything, this 

 letter means that the attack on the enemies' coasts (clearly the 

 bombardment of Coulao) and the visit to Ceylon formed one 

 expedition. Is it possible that the authority relied on by the 

 writer has destroyed his case ? But without going so far as to say 

 that, it is suggested that.no argument should be deduced from 

 the date of the letter to the pope. 



The last objection brought forward by the writer is this : Payo 

 de Sousa and Fernao Cotrim are mentioned as having been among 

 the envoys sent by Lourenco to the king ; but Payo de Sousa could 

 not have reached Ceylon before May, 1506, nor Fernao Cotrim 



