398 



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



Mr. Pieris says he " is not prepared to presume such ignorance 

 of the navigation of the Indian Ocean " on the part of the viceroy 

 as is shown in his dispatching his son on an expedition to the Mal- 

 dive islands and Ceylon at one and the same time. That Barros 

 was mistaken on this point r^ likely, the expedition being probably 

 intended for the Maldives only ; but that the dispatch took place 

 at the wrong time of year for reaching those islands is evident, 

 since the ships were carried by the currents to Ceylon. As the 

 " good Indian pilots," it is only Correa that applies the adjective 

 to thenu which seems hardly justified under the circumstances. 



Mr. Pieris next proceeds to demonstrate (or thinks he does so) 

 that the whole of the actual evidence for my " theory " consists in 

 the statements in the summary of the viceroy's letter of 27 De- 

 cember 1506, and that of Gaspar da India of 16 November 1506. 

 With regard to the former he says : — " It must, however, be 

 remembered that despatches to Portugal could only be sent at 

 one period of the year ; there is nothing in any way surprising 

 if a detailed report was sent in December, 1506, as supplementary 

 to the information sent through de Abreu." On which I would 

 remark that the first statement is not correct, and that the second 

 is mere " theorjr." 



Not being able to controvert the statement of Gaspar da Gama, 

 Mr. Pieris delightedly seizes hold of my description of the man as 

 having a " disreputable character," and adds : " Surely it is most 

 dangerous to base any theory on the boastful assertion of a writer of 

 admitted unreliability ? " Apparently Mr. Pieris wishes it to be 

 thought that I had admitted the unreliability of the bigamous 

 "Christian" Jew; for in the previous paragraph he has, character- 

 istically, garbled my words by omitting the end of the sentence. I 

 do not admit the unreliability of Gaspar da Gama's statements of 

 facts such as the one in question. What earthly purpose could it 

 serve for him to invent such a statement in a letter to the king ? 



The height of absurdity is reached when Mr. Pieris solemnly 

 continues : — " 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 4 on the 16th of Novem- 

 ber Dom Lourenco called me to his room.' " The explanation 

 is very simple. The letter, like many contemporary ones, was 

 written in instalments at various times ; and when the writer 

 penned the above sentence he did not know that he would have 

 to bring his epistle to a hurried close the same evening. So Mr. 

 Pieris has made a mountain out of a molehill. 



In the same way Mr. Pieris makes much of the apparent dis- 

 crepancy between the statement of Gaspar da Gama and the date 

 of the viceroy's license to Gaspar Pereira. It is " much ado about 

 nothing," since the viceroy's order might well have been given on 

 September 1, and yet not carried out until some days later. 

 (Gaspar da Gama's words are capable of that construction.) 



Once more Mr. Pieris falls foul of me because I say that " I see 

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



