One thing is settled, however, beyond the possibility of doubt, and that is, that De Gonneville landed on no other soil but that of Australia, and nowhere else but at the mouth of some of the north-western rivers.
The maps of the sixteenth century, known to have existed long before the voyages of the Dutch and the English, bear witness to the fact that the north-western part of the coast of Australia was sighted by the Portuguese on their voyages to and from the East Indies and the Spice Islands.
A critical examination of these charts, some of which have been reproduced for the Public Libraries of the chief Australian cities from the originals in the British Museums, tends to show—although most of the names of features on the north-west coast are in French—that some of them appear to have been translated from the Portuguese. The older of these charts bears the date of the year 1542, but there are two more maps in the "Bibliotheque Nationale de France" which are still more ancient. One, which is the work of Guillaume Le Testu, a pilot of Dieppe, shows a portion of the coast in a fairly correct position, indicating features which can easily be recognised, although their longitude and latitude are not exact; the names, which are all in French, do not exhibit any sign of having been translated from any other language; and there is little doubt that Le Testu, who published this chart in 1536, must have heard of the expedition of De Gonneville, which could hardly have failed to attract attention at the time among the sailors of note in the ports of the Normandy coast. Considering the state of geographical science at that epoch, the delineation of the north-west coast of the Australian continent is certainly as accurate as that of the island of Java and minor islands in those regions, which were much better known, and there is in this fact evidence enough that the data upon which Le Testu, Jean Rotz, and other cartographers worked, must have been fairly accurate. The Norman pilot shows on his map the entrance of several rivers and features which closely resemble the outline of this coast as at present known, but except in the vicinity of the rivers mentioned, the coast on the south and the north-east is prolonged without data, and merely indicates a probable extension of land in these directions. The other maps agree fairly well in this respect, the outlines of very small portions only of the coast being—susceptible of identification at present. From these facts we may infer that Guillaume Le Testu probably obtained much of his information from the report of De Gonneville, whilst Rotz and the authors of the maps in the British Museum had theirs from Portuguese sources, and as the latters' delineation of the north-west coast is less accurate, it may be that the Portuguese sailors, from whose reports this information was obtained, merely sighted these coasts without attempting to land.
To close this discussion, it may be added, that in most instances the early voyages of the Dutch or possibly the Portuguese to Western Australia were the result of such accidents as befell De Gonneville, as they were carried by storms out of their course to India or the Sunda Islands, and thrown on the west coast of the Australian Continent.
The first claim to the discovery of the Australian Continent may be, therefore, settled in favor of De Gonneville; although, there is little doubt that the existence of a great southern land was suspected by the Chinese, and also by the ancients. This great land, situated on the opposite side of the world, was named by them ANTI-CHTON, and its supposed inhabitants "Antichtones," and the fact of the possibility of it being inhabited at all gave rise to a good deal of discussion among ancient writers. They, however, agreed in the belief that "the fury of the sun, which burns the intermediate zone," rendered it inaccessible to the inhabitants of the world. Plinus, Pomponius Mela, Scipio, Virgilius, Cicero, and Macrobius considered this land as habitable, and the two last mentioned authors held the opinion that it was inhabited by a different race of beings.
This question was also debated by the early Christian fathers, and perhaps the most remarkable argument against the existence of the ANTICHTONES will be found in the works of the celebrated theologian and venerated father, St. Augustine, who devotes the whole of Chapter IX., Book XVI. of his admirable work, "De Civitate Dei," to the discussion of this knotty question.
"Quod verò," writes St. Augustine, "Antipodes esse fabulantur, id est, homines a contaria parte terrae, ubi sol oritur, quando occidit nobis, adversa pedibus nostris calcare vestigia, nulla ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla historica cognitione didicisse se affirmant, sed quali ratiocinando conjectant, es quod intra con vexa coeli terra suspenda sit, eum demque locum mundas habeat, et infirmum, et medium: et ex hoc opinantur alteram terra pattern, quae infra est, habitatione hominum carere non posse. Nec adtendunt, etiamsi figura conglobata et rotunda mundus esse credatur, sive aliqua ratione monstretur; non tamen esse consequens, ut etiam ex illa parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra devide etiamus nuda sit, neque hoc statum necesse esse, ut homines habeat, Quoniam nulla modo Scriptura ista mentitur, quae narratis praeteritis facis sidem, eo quod ejus praedicta complentur: nimisque absurdurn est, ut dicatur aliquos hornines ex hae in illam partem, oceani immensitate trajecta, navigare ac pervenive potuisse, ut etiarn illic ex uno illo primo hornine genus institueretur hurnanurn?"
The substance of which is: "That there can be nothing more absurd than the belief of some ancient writers who imagined that the land on the opposite side of the world could be inhabited by human beings. Those who made this assertion admit they have no historical fact to base it upon, and that it is merely a logical deduction of philosophy. But if we accept as true the principles upon which they base their arguments, is it to be necessarily admitted that because these countries are habitable, that they are in reality inhabited. As the Holy Scripture, which is our guide in all matters of belief, makes no mention of this, and as it is an accepted fact that the descendants of our first parents could not have sailed to and reached these countries, how is it possible that they could be inhabited."
Although the existence of a great Austral land was a subject of philosophical and theological discussion among the ancients, they, however, never attempted to sail across that ocean which was the limit of the world they knew. It is possible that the Chinese may have been more bold, but it is very doubtful whether they ever sailed so far south as to land on the coast of the Australian continent. They have left no trace of their passage, either on the land itself, or among its inhabitants. Besides, the Chinese were never very enterprising sailors, the form of their junks, their peculiar sails, and the scantiness of their nautical knowledge prevented them from extending very far the radius of their maritime explorations. Marco Polo is the authority generally quoted in this matter, as he states that the people of Cathay knew of the existence of a great land far to the southward, with the inhabitants of which they were accustomed to trade. This is rather an indefinite description, and might apply to New Guinea as well as to the Australian Continent. More so to the former and the islands surrounding it on the north and east, where evidence exists of the voyage of the Chinese traders and fishermen in search of the precious trepang. But as these holothuriae are generally found in the vicinity of the coral banks of Polynesia, to the eastward of New Guinea, and not in the direction of the Australian coast, there is much reason to think that the Chinese claim to the discovery of this continent is purely mythical, although, like the ancients, they may have believed in its existence as a logical deduction of philosophy.