The honour of that first authenticated discovery, as hitherto accepted in history, I am now prepared to dispute. Within the last few days I have discovered a MS. Mappemonde in the British Museum, in which on the north-west corner of a country, which I shall presently show beyond all question to be Australia, occurs the following legend: “Nuca antara foi descuberta o anno 1601 por mano (sic) el godhino de Evedia (sic) por mandado de (sic) Vico Rey Aives (sic) de Saldaha,” (sic) which I scarcely need translate, “Nuca Antara was discovered in the year 1601, by Manoel Godinho de Eredia, by command of the Viceroy Ayres de Saldanha.”
The misfortune is that this map is only a copy, but I think I shall be able to answer from internal evidence any doubt that might be thrown upon the authenticity of the information which it contains. The original was made about 1620, after the discovery of Eendraght’s Land, on the west coast of Australia, by the Dutch in 1616, but before the discovery of the south coast by Pieter Nuyts in 1627. So far from its author suspecting the existence of a south coast, he continues the old error which had obtained throughout the sixteenth century, of representing the Terra Australis as one vast continent, of which the parts that had been really discovered were made to protrude to the north as far as the parallel in which these discoveries respectively lay. Thus in this map we have Australia, as already described, on the right side of the map; and the Island of Santa Cruz in the New Hebrides, there called Nova Jerusalem, discovered by Quiros, on the left side; but both connected and forming part of the one great Southern Continent.
Now, it may be objected that this map, being only a copy made at the beginning of the present or close of the last century, the statement which forms the subject of the present paper may have been fraudulently inserted. But to give such a suggestion weight, a motive must be shown, the most reasonable one being that of assigning the honour of the first authenticated discovery to Portugal instead of to Holland. For this purpose we must suppose the falsifier to have been a Portuguese. To this I reply, that while all the writing of the map is in Portuguese, the copy was made by a person who was not only not a Portuguese himself, but who was ignorant of the Portuguese language. For example, the very legend in question, short as it is, contains no less than five blunders, all showing ignorance of the language: thus, the words “por Manoel” are written “por mano el,” “Eredia” is written “Evedia,” “do” is written “de,” “Ayres” is written “Aives,” “Saldanha” is written “Saldaha” without the circumflex to imply an abbreviation.
But further, if we attribute to such supposed falsification, the ulterior object of claiming for the Portuguese the honour of a prior discovery, whence comes it that that object has never been carried out? It is not till now that the fact is made known, and those most interested in the ancient glory of the Portuguese nation are ignorant of the discovery which this map declares to have been made. That it never became matter of history, may be explained by the comparatively little importance which would at the time be attached to such a discovery, and also by the fact that the Portuguese, being then no longer in the fulness of their prosperity, were not keeping the subject before their attention by repeated expeditions to that country, as the Dutch shortly afterwards really began to do.
Again, the speculation might be hazarded that, as this map is a copy, the date of the discovery may have been carelessly transcribed; as, for example, 1601 may easily have been written in the original 1610 and erroneously copied. Fortunately, the correctness of the date can be proved beyond dispute. It is distinctly stated that the voyage was made by order of the Viceroy Ayres de Saldanha, the period of whose viceroyalty extended only from 1600 to 1604, thus precluding the possibility of the error suggested, and terminating before the period of the earliest of the Dutch discoveries.
But yet, again, it may be objected that a country so vaguely and incorrectly laid down may not have been Australia. The answer is equally as indisputable as that which fixes the date. Immediately below the legend in question is another to the following effect: “Terra descuberta pelos Holandeses a que chamaraō, Enduacht, (sic) au Cōcordia” (land discovered by the Dutch, which they called Endracht or Concord). Eendraghtsland, as we all know, was the name given to a large tract on the western coast of Australia, discovered by the Dutch ship the Eendraght, in 1616.
Moreover, if the legend in question were not a genuine copy from a genuine ancient map, how came the modern falsifier to be acquainted with the name of a real cosmographer who lived at Goa at a period which tallies with the state of geographical discovery represented on the map, but none of whose manuscript productions had been put into print at the time when the supposed fictitious map was made or the legend fictitiously inserted?
I think these arguments are conclusive in establishing the legitimacy of the modern copy from the ancient map. As regards the discoverer, Manoel Godinho de Eredia (or rather Heredia, as written by Barbosa Machado and by Figaniere), I find the following work by him; “Historia do Martyrio de Luiz Monteiro Coutinho que padeceo por ordem do Rey Achem Raiamancor no anno de 1588, e dedicada ao illustrissimo D. Aleixo de Menezes, Arcebispo de Braga;” which dedication was dated Goa, 11th of November, 1615; fol. MS. with various illustrations.
Barbosa Machado calls him a distinguished mathematician; and Figaniere, a cosmographer resident at Goa. It follows as a most likely consequence that the original map was made by himself. The copy came from Madrid, and was purchased by the British Museum in 1848, from the Señor de Michelena y Roxas. It will be matter of interest to discover at some future day the existence of the original map, but whether that be in the library at Madrid, or elsewhere, must be a subject for future inquiry.
In a scarce pamphlet entitled “Informacāo de Aurea Chersoneso, ou Peninsula e das Ilhas Auriferas, Carbunculas e Aromaticas, ordenada por Manoel Godinho de Eredia, Cosmographo,” translated from an ancient MS. and edited by Antonio Lourenço Caminha, in a reprint of the “Ordenacōes da India, do Senhor Rei D. Manoel,” Lisbon, Royal Press, 1807, 8vo., occurs a passage which may be translated as follows:—