No. 59. — 1907.] PROCEEDINGS. 



399 



to Portugal a man who had accompanied the expedition to Ceylon," 

 while at the same time I reject other statements of the same 

 writer's. If it is a crime to sift evidence, accept what is borne out 

 by other testimony, and reject that which is palpably absurd or 

 incapable of proof, I plead guilty to being a criminal. 



Mr. Pieris goes on to make the astounding assertion that " It is 

 undisputed [!] that when the king gave his instructions of March 

 5, 1505, Ceilao [sic] was an unknown country. An expedition was 

 to be sent to 6 discover ' it ; " and, starting with this " theory," he 

 proceeds to show to his own satisfaction that King Manuel's letter 

 quoted' by me in App. A 21 was written in 1507, and not in 1506, 

 building on this hypothesis a very pretty house of cards, which * 

 at once falls to pieces when I tell him that the first part of the letter 

 treats of the duties assigned to Tristao da Cunha, " now setting 

 out, .... and Affonso d'Alboquerque who goes with him." So 

 that Mr. Pieris' s " opinion" as to the date of the letter is worthless, 

 and it is he that has destroyed his own theory. 



The last paragraph of Mr. Pieris' s lengthy criticism runs as 

 follows : — " The writer frankly admits that according to his 

 theory he cannot account for the manner in which Dom Lourenco 

 de Almeida was engaged from the beginning of November, 1505, 

 until his appointment in January or February, 1506, as 

 captain-major. But the greatest Portuguese historian of Ceylon, 

 de Queiroz, says he can. He relates that de Almeida landed first 

 at Galle, and thence made his way to Colombo, where he arrived 

 on November 15, 1505. The speaker could see no reason to doubt 

 the correctness of de Queiroz' s statement." Evidently this was 

 the trump card that Mr. Pieris had up his sleeve the whole time, 

 with which to confound me in the end. Well, I will at once 

 confess that he has the advantage of me, since, except for the last 

 portion, which was printed by Mr. F. H. de Vos some years ago, the 

 work of Fernao de Queiroz^ " the greatest Portuguese historian of 

 Ceylon" [!!!], remains in manuscript, and is inaccessible to me. 

 Why does not Mr. Pieris give this writer's statement in his own 

 words, so that we may judge what value is to be attached to 

 them ? Whence did Queiroz, who wrote so late as 1687, obtain his 

 facts ? 



In the opening paragraph of his criticism Mr. Pieris referred to 

 another statement by Queiroz, of which, in like manner, he failed 

 to give the ipsissima verba. In the Ceylon As. Soc. Jl. for 1899, 

 on page 23, is printed what purports to be an extract from the 

 work of Queiroz, which is absolutely unintelligible. Why does 

 not Mr. Pieris print this work in full, with a translation ? 



Mr. E. W. Perera refers to a sannasa that gives the initial date of 

 the reign of Parakrama Bahu IX. as 1501 Saka. Is this sannasa 

 genuine ? * The traditions he quotes in connection with the 



* The sannasa (if the translation filed in P. C, Chilaw, 15,482,^ be 

 correct) stands condemned as not genuine by intrinsic evidence. * It 

 reads : " In the year of the holy Gautama Buddha 2060 ; in the year 

 of the great King Saka 1135 : in the 12th year of the lord Chakrawarti 



