Читать книгу Northmost Australia - Robert Logan Jack - Страница 34

INSULARITY OF NEW GUINEA. KNOWN TO THE SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE. DENIED BY THE DUTCH. PROVED BY TORRES, BUT PROOF LONG WITHHELD FROM PUBLICITY. DEMONSTRATED BY COOK.

We have seen that, in 1606, PEDRO FERNANDEZ DE QUIROS found a harbour which he named VERA CRUZ, on the east side of one of the islands of the New Hebrides group. Believing the land adjoining the harbour to be the east coast of the southern continent, he named the supposed continent LA AUSTRALIA DEL ESPIRITU SANTO, and selected a site for its capital, which was to be called the New Jerusalem.

Admiral (i.e., Second-in-Command) Luis DE VAES TORRES, who parted with Quiros at Vera Cruz, threw a justifiable doubt on Quiros' assumptions and sailed along the south coast of New Guinea. He thus demonstrated—though not for the first time—the SEPARATION OF NEW GUINEA FROM AUSTRALIA, a few months after the Dutch vessel the "Duyfken" had made a voyage along the southwest coast of New Guinea and the west coast of Cape York Peninsula, which voyage left, as far as the Dutch were concerned, the question of a strait unsettled. In 1623, CARSTENSZOON, in the "Pera" decided that there was no strait, although the west coast of the Peninsula was indented with a shallow bight.

Carstenszoon's view as to the connection of New Guinea with Australia was held by ROBERT DE VAUGONDY, one of the best-informed Geographers of the eighteenth century, when he and his father, who was Geographer to the King of France, issued their magnificent Atlas Universel, containing a map (on a globular projection) dated 1752. The map also showed Tasmania as a part of Australia, and from Tasmania a "conjectural coast-line" ran north-eastward to include Vera Cruz and then west-north-westward to take in the north side of New Guinea, [1] in accordance with Tasman's ideas on the conclusion of his voyage of 1642-3.

Robert de Vaugondy issued another map (on Mercator's projection) in 1756, "pour servir de la lecture de 1'Histoire des Terres Australes." This, which is generally known as "Vaugondy's

[1) This 1752 map is reproduced in Collingridge's work, p. 305, but transposed to a plane projection.]

Map," was on a scale of .15 inch to a degree. It is reproduced on a slightly smaller scale (.109 inch to a degree) in Bartholomew and Cramp's Australasian School Atlas of 1915. [1] It shows a very distinct expanse of water between New Guinea and Cape York Peninsula.

A comparison of Vaugondy's two maps, therefore, leads to the conclusion that between 1752 and 1756 the cartographer had become convinced of, or had strong reason to suspect, the existence of Torres Strait. What was the source of his information? As the raison d'etre of the second map was to help in the correct reading of President du Brosses' work, we naturally turn to that work for an explanation of the change in Vaugondy's views between 1752 and 1756; and, strange to say, the text only refers to the connection of New Guinea and the Southern Continent as doubtful. Perhaps something was known to Vaugondy of which du Brosses was ignorant. (SEE MAP A.)

In rediscovering Torres Strait in 1770, COOK was, in one sense, merely settling a question which was still open to discussion, although he discovered a channel distinct from that used by Torres. Had he read Torres' report of 1607 there would have been no such question for him to settle. It is possible that Cook was aware of the conclusion arrived at by Vaugondy between 1752 and 1756, without knowing the ground on which that conclusion was based.

In these circumstances, it would be well to know at what time the fact of Torres' passage through the strait (which he does not claim as a discovery at all) was given to the world, or "published."

In accordance with the custom and policy of Spain, the report would be kept a secret as long as possible. Likely enough, as it so happened that shortly after Torres' voyages Spain's interest in the South Sea diminished greatly, the report would soon be forgotten, "pigeon-holed" and lost sight of.

ALEXANDER DALRYMPLE [2] an eminent British Geographer (afterwards Hydrographer to the Admiralty), published in 1767, an Account of the Discoveries in the South Pacifck Ocean previous to 1764. The chart accompanying the volume bears the date of October, 1767, and shows Torres' route between New Guinea and New Holland, but the text makes no reference to Torres' adventures.

Dalrymple again, in 1770, issued the same map, with the date October, 1767, in his Collection of Voyages and Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean. Although Volume I is correctly described as "being chiefly a literal translation from the Spanish Authors," it contains no reference to Torres' report.

[1) The only omission from the reproduction is that of the legend "Carpentarie en 1644" applied to Cape York Peninsula, or perhaps more correctly to the whole of the land supposed to continue eastward to Vera Cruz.]

[2) Born 1737. See Biography in European Magazine for Nov., 1802. Mitchell Library, A 923, 9 C.]

As early as 1774, Dalrymple had claimed, in a letter to the editor of Cook's Voyages, that he had marked Torres' route on his map from information contained in Arias' Memorial, and that he had given a copy of that map to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Joseph Banks before the latter sailed with Cook in the "Endeavour" (i.e., before 27th May, 1768). [1] He therefore was quite justified in assuming that Cook's passage through the strait was "determined by" that information. It is reasonable to suppose that Cook took into consideration the probability of there being a passage, but that he considered it open to doubt as being based on maps only (Vaugondy's 1756 map and Dalrymple's 1767 map—probably then in manuscript—supplied by him to Banks).

It is clear that Dalrymple, although he had been in possession of Torres' Narrative since 1762, had not yet seen, or at any rate had not yet translated, the narrative of Torres when he furnished Banks (prior to 27th May, 1768) with a map showing Torres Strait. He himself states that the information which he had at that date was taken from Arias' Memorial.

I believe that TORRES' REPORT, written in 1607, was, to begin with, kept secret by the Spanish Government, and was then pigeon-holed and forgotten. It need not, however, be supposed that Torres sent in his report, or narrative, without keeping a copy, and there is nothing in the narrative, as given by Dalrymple, to indicate that it was accompanied by a chart. [2] A man who had a genuine grievance against his government, Torres probably (perhaps long after 1607) showed, or gave copies of the narrative and chart to people of importance whom he wished to interest. It is more than likely that he himself gave some high officer of the Dutch East India Company at Manila the copy of the narrative which was found by Alexander Dalrymple in the archives of the city when it was taken by the British in 1762. It is probable that a copy of Prado's general chart had come into Vaugondy's hands between 1752 and 1756, but if a copy of Torres' own narrative had come into Dalrymple's possession in 1762, he had evidently not mastered its contents—perhaps had not reached it in the course of working through the translations—when he published his Collection of Voyages in 1770.

DR. JEAN Luis ARIAS, acting as the mouthpiece of a Committee of priests, in a MEMORIAL to King Philip III of Spain, exhorted the King to rise to a sense of the duties of his position and conquer the Southern Land, to the end that Christianity might be spread, and, above all, that Dutch and English heretics might be forestalled.

[1) Collingridge, p. 200.]

[2) Three very accurate charts of localities on the south side of New Guinea, all of which are described as having been discovered by Torres, were made by Captain Prado, Torres' companion, but they only came to light about 1778. Prado referred, in a letter dated 24th December, 1613, to a general chart of the Quiros-Torres Voyage, which has not yet been discovered. The report of Torres himself bears internal evidence of having been written at a time when he had not the charts of his voyage to refer to.]

Among the arguments employed are the achievements of early Spanish navigators (recounted at some length), including those of Torres.

Internal evidence dates this remarkable document between 1614 (referred to as the year of Quiros' death) and 1621 (when Philip III died). The Memorial was published in Spanish in Edinburgh, and translated by Dalrymple, who printed it as an appendix to his Charts and Memoirs in 1772.

After relating the parting of Quiros and Torres, in 1606, the memorialist goes on to say:—

"The Admiral Luis Vaes de Torres being left in the Bay, and most disconsolate for the loss of the 'Capitano' [Quiros' vessel] resolved to continue the discovery...Finding himself in great straits in 21° S., to which high latitude he had persevered in sailing in about a SW. direction from the 15° or 20° S., in which lay the aforesaid Baia, he put back to the NW. and NE. up to 14°, in which he sighted a very extensive coast, which he took for that of New Guadalcanal. From thence he sailed westwards, having constantly on the right hand the coast of another very great land, which he continued coasting, according to his own reckoning, more than 600 leagues, having it still on the right hand (in which course may be understood to be comprehended New Guadalcanal and New Guinea). Along the same course he discovered a great diversity of islands. The whole country was very fertile and populous. He continued his voyage on to Bachan and Ternate, and from thence to Manila, which was the end of his discovery." [1]

Had Arias and his colleagues themselves seen Torres' report they would not have had to conjecture, as they did (and rightly), that the land which lay on Torres' right hand included New Guinea, as Torres' report leaves no room for question on the point. They therefore must have obtained the information at second hand. The report was almost new—at the most not fourteen years old—and must have been zealously kept a secret if even priests powerful enough to lecture the King on his neglect of duty, with impunity, were denied a sight of it.

It was not Torres' report but Arias' summary of it which was known to Dalrymple in 1768 (although it may have been in his possession, but still untranslated), and we may believe that it had already come to the knowledge of Robert de Vaugondy between 1752 and 1756.

Torres' report, or a copy of it, was discovered in the archives of Manila in 1762. [2] It was first presented to English readers in a translation by Dalrymple in Captain James Burney's Discoveries in the South Sea, 1806, Part II, p. 467. The translation is

[1) An English translation is given by R. H. Major in Early Voyages to Terra Australis. London, Hakluyt Soc., 1859. Another is printed in the same Society's Voyages of Quiros, 1904. A portion of it is given by Collingridge, p. 225.]

[2) Flinders, Voyage to Terra Australis in 1801, 1802 and 1803. London, 1814. In vol. i. p. 10, Flinders writes: "Torres, it should appear, took the precaution to lodge a copy of his letter in the Archives of Manila, for after that town was taken by the British forces in 1762, Mr. DALRYMPLE found out and drew from oblivion this interesting document of early discovery; and...NAMED the passage TORRES STRAIT."]

reprinted in Collingridge, p. 229, where it is more accessible to the general reader. Captain Burney refers (p. 272) to the manuscript as follows:

"Mr. Dalrymple has in his possession a copy of the Narrative written by de Torres, of which he has made an English translation...I have to acknowledge the being favoured with the use of this valuable manuscript."

Although Dalrymple had been in possession of a copy of the Torres' manuscript since 1762, or shortly thereafter, he was unaware of its contents in 1768, when he only knew as much of the doings of Torres as is related in the Arias Memorial.

According to Collingridge (p. 229), Quiros' original narrative is in the castle of Simancas, near Valladolid. [1] The probability is that Dalrymple's copy was one of those promulgated by Quiros himself, and not the original, which had been filed in the archives of the State.

[1) The documents in the castle were taken away by Napoleon and afterwards restored. Collingridge, p. 246. Except for this interruption, the archives of Castile and Leon have been preserved in this stronghold since 1563.]