392 



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



little justification in it for settling upon the date now put forward 

 by the writer, and, as will be indicated later, the king had infor- 

 mation of the "discovery " long before this letter was written. 



Next we have the letter quoted in B 1, on the authority of 

 which the whole theory ultimately rests. This letter was written 

 by Gaspar da India on November 16, 1506, to King Manuel, and 

 in it the writer makes Lourenco de Almeida say " at the time 

 I was about to leave for Ceilaom your son had left for Malaca, and 

 my father was sending you to the port of Batecala." On the 

 authority of the same writer the dates of these two events are 

 fixed respectively as being August 22, 1506, and September 1, 

 1506. If these dates are correct, we are within reasonable dis- 

 tance of the correct date of Loureneo's expedition. But unfortu- 

 nately on page 305 the writer of the article has definitely proved 

 that the second date cannot be correct, and on page 313 he 

 says of Gaspar da India, " In view of the disreputable character 

 of the writer, we might be inclined to regard his statements 

 regarding this expedition (one to Ormuz under Dom Lourenco) as 

 fiction." 



Surely it is most dangerous to base any theory on the boastful 

 assertion of a writer of admitted unreliability ? And it appears 

 to be a fact worthy of the gravest comment that, though the 

 letter is dated November 16, 1506, the passage quoted in the 

 note reads " on the 16th of November Dom Lourenco called 

 me to his room." 



I have already commented on the inference which might be 

 drawn from the king's letter to the pope ; that letter contains 

 certain minute details, regarding which the writers says: " I see 

 no reason to doubt what Correa tells us, that Dom Francisco 

 sent to Portugal a man who had accompanied the expedition to 

 Ceylon." And he refers us to the Appendix B 10. In that 

 passage Correa adds that the viceroy loaded the ships which 

 were then starting, and in which this messenger sailed, with the 

 cinnamon brought by his son, as well as a small elephant, which 

 was the first that ever went to Portugal. Correa is clearly referring 

 to the mission of de Abreu, which has already been discussed. If 

 the writer accepts one portion of Correa's narrative, that regarding 

 the messenger, as correct, I fail to see his justification for rejecting 

 the accompanying portion, merely "because it is absolutely incom- 

 patible with his theory. 



The despatch of that messenger explains a good deal. It is 

 undisputed that when the king gave his instructions of March 5, 

 1505, Ceilao was an unknown country. An expedition was to be 

 sent to " discover " it ; but the state of affairs is quite different 

 when we turn to the letter A 21, which is assigned by the writer 

 to the period March- April, 1506. It may be conceded that 

 that letter was written about April, but I am of opinion that 

 it was April, 1507, and not April, 1506, and for the following reason. 

 Every line of this letter shows that the king was no longer ignorant 

 about Ceylon ; he knew of the position of the island, of its import- 

 ance to India, its wealth and products, the desirability of establish- 

 ing a fortress there ; how it lay in the track of ships sailing to 



