366 
JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CBYLON). [VoL. XVIII. 
in Luiz (?) Monteiro's epitaph this line is still faultier, lacking the proper 
number of syllables. The problem is, How came these lines to be on two 
stones so far apart as Evora and Colombo ? If, as the Viscount de Sanches 
states, they were ' traced ' (on the stone ?) by the poet at some time 
between 1533 and 1540, it is probable that they had found their way to 
Ceylon in the brain of some person, whose memory, however, failed him in 
regard to the fourth line. 
So much for the inscription. Now as to what has become of the stone. 
Mr. Lewis concludes his paper by remarking : — ' I am afraid that this 
stone is not likely to re- appear until the latest equivalent of the New 
Zealander contemplates the ruins of the present St. Lucia's Cathedral from 
a shattered girder of the Victoria Bridge.' Has Mr. Lewis the gift of 
clairvoyance ? Apparently so, if what I am about to relate be true. In a 
periodical entitled Ta-ssi-yajig-kuo, published in Lisbon, has been appearing 
a very valuable contribution by Fa. Christovao Casimiro de Nazareth, 
headed 'Mitras Lusitanas no Oriente,' which gives chronological lists, 
with details, of the Portuguese vicars-general, &c., in the East from the 
earliest times. In ser. II., vol. III., No. 6 (1902), Ceylon is dealt with, the 
first person mentioned being ' D. Joao Vaz Monteiro' (yet another variant 
of the name), the discovery of whose tomb in 1836 is duly recorded. A 
footnote is appended in which the following almost incredible statements 
are made : — ' The tombstone of this bishop, discovered among some ruins, 
having been placed by the English Government at the disposal of the vicar 
apostolic (Silani ?), to be preserved as a historic memorial, the depositary 
had it broken in pieces and the fragments placed in the foundations of 
the cathedral which was being rebuilt in Colombo. The same fate befel 
the inscribed stones of the | King D. JoaO Dharmapala, converted by the 
Portuguese missionaries, and of many other deserving Portuguese priests, 
of that mission.' — Jornal das Colon. Lisb., 1886, setb. 27. Apparently the 
statements are quoted from the Jornal das Colonias of 27th September, 1886, 
and I do not know upon what authority they rest. The matter calls for 
inquiry, though, I fear, Mr. Lewis is a true prophet as regards the re- 
appearance of the stone. 
According to the Lisbon paper the tomb of Dom Joao Perea Pandar 
(Dharmapala) has suffered the same fate. About this tomb I inquired in 
the Lit, Reg, I, Its destruction is in many ways even more to be re- 
gretted than that of the tombstone of the first vicar of Ceylon. 
With regard to the reading " Luiz" for " Vaz," Sr. Viterbo comments as 
follows Rivar a was wrong in interpreting Vaz hj Luis, certainly there 
would have been before that name a Jo, the abbreviation for Joas. Besides 
Luis was not written with a Zhnt with an 5." 
