80 



JOURNAL, R.A.S, (CEYLON). 



[Vol. XX. 



Dec. V., Bk. i., Chap. vii. 



Of the various opinions that have existed amongst geographers 

 as to what was the Tapobrana of Ptolemy ; and of the reasons 

 that we give for its being this island of Ceilao ; and of the 

 names that its cinnamon bears amongst all nations 1 . 



Before we enter upon other matters, now that we are occu- 

 pied with the affairs of Ceilao, and have shown the source of 

 its population, and the origin of its kings, and the names that 

 the natives gave to it, it will be right that we also state 

 those that it bears amongst strangers, and that we show that 

 it is the true Tapobrana of Ptolemy, regarding which there 

 has been such confusion amongst geographers, and the reasons 

 why all of them thought this to be the island of Qamatra 2 . 



Pliny, speaking of Tapobrana 3 , says that is six 4 thousand 

 stadia in length and five thousand in breadth, and that it was 

 in a way considered a new world, and that it was discovered 

 in the time of the emperor Claudius, and that a king of that 

 island sent ambassadors to him, and that the ships that used 

 to go there were not directed or steered by the stars, because 

 they did not see the poles. 



Strabo speaking of Tapobrana makes it of a like size as does 

 Pliny 5 . 



Onesicritus 6 , a captain of Alexander the Great's, who sailed 

 this coast of India, says that Tapobrana is of five thousand 

 stadia, without stating whether it is in breadth or in length, 

 and that it was separated from the people of the Prasis on the 

 Ganges by a sail of twenty days 7 ; and that between it and 

 India there were many other islands, but that this more than 

 all others lay to the south. 



1 On Ceylon as known to the Greeks and Romans see Ten. i. pt. v. 

 ehap. L, Suckl. i. chap, ix., but especially the excellent volumes of J. W. 

 McCrindle, Anc. Ind. as desc. in Class. Lit. Valentyn (Ceylon 14-8) has, 

 without the slightest acknowledgment, taken over this whole chapter 

 from Couto, and, in doing so, has made some absurd blunders, which I 

 shall point out below. 



2 I do not consider that Couto in what follows proves that Ceylon was 

 the Taprobane of the ancients, nor do I regard the question as yet 

 solved (perhaps it never will be). I would merely refer to the further 

 references to the subject in the documents given-in the appendices to my 

 paper on " The Discovery of Ceylon by the Portuguese in 1506." 



3 See McCrindle's Anc. Ind. 102-6. 

 1 Read " seven." 



5 This is not quite correct (see Anc. Ind. 20, 96). 



6 See Anc. Ind. 20. 



7 Onesikritos does not mention the Prasians. 



