Part 30 (1/2)

THE ACCOUNTS OF GALLEGO AND FIGUEROA COMPARED.--On carefully comparing these two accounts, I have no doubt that Figueroa derived almost all his information from the journal of Gallego. He, to a great extent, employs his own phraseology; but in the descriptions of the islands and of the natives, the words and expressions employed are often identical, and the mode and order of description are evidently supplied by the journal of Gallego. An indirect proof of the source, whence Figueroa drew his materials, is to be found in the circ.u.mstance that, after the two vessels were separated during the voyage back to Peru, he confines his account to the experiences of the ”Capitana,” which was Gallego's vessel; and here his account is substantially a condensed form of Gallego's journal which is occasionally quoted literally. Figueroa, however, does not inform us of the source of his information; and he has evidently, in some measure, endeavoured to infuse his own method of expression into the account. There are not wanting proofs, however, that he was a.s.sisted from other sources, but only in a small degree. For instance, he occasionally intercalates a circ.u.mstance to which Gallego does not allude; and he varies in the accounts of the conflicts with the natives: thus he refers to some of the Spaniards having died at Estrella Harbour, to there being a foot and a half of water in the hold of one of the s.h.i.+ps during the return voyage, to the s.h.i.+ps being heaved-down at St. Christoval, and to a few other similar occurrences unrecorded by Gallego. The account of Figueroa differs in the date of the year of the voyage. It contains only a bare reference to the cruise of the brigantine to St. Christoval and its adjacent islands, whilst the vessels lay at the Puerto de la Cruz on the coast of Guadalcanar. It is from this cause that the names of all the islands visited and named during this cruise of the brigantine are not given in Figueroa's account. Herrera, however, in his short description of these islands, gives a full list of the names of the islands, and, in this respect, his description is superior to that of Figueroa.

NOTE II.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DATES OF THE YEARS.--There is a strange discrepancy in the dates of the years during which this expedition was away from Peru. The year 1566, is given on the t.i.tle-page of the British Museum copy of Gallego's Journal; and the author expressly states that the expedition left Callao on November 19th, 1566; he carries this year on, naming the following year, 1567; but in August he gives the year as 1568, and makes the return to Peru to be in 1569. It is evident from the narrative that the s.h.i.+ps were absent from Peru about nineteen months, from November of one year to June of the second ensuing year; and it is highly probable that the year of their departure was 1566, and that of their return 1568... .

Figueroa differs strangely in the dates he gives.[393] In the first line of his account he says that the s.h.i.+ps were dispatched in 1567; and in the succeeding paragraph he gives January 10, 1568, as the date of their departure from Callao, thus being quite at variance with Gallego, both as regards the day, the month, and the year. The s.h.i.+ps reached the coast of Mexico on their return voyage in January 1568, according to Figueroa. From this inconsistency it may be inferred, that 1567 was intended as the date of the departure from Peru... . Herrera,[394] in his description of these islands, states that they were discovered in 1567, which accords with the narrative of Gallego... . Arias[395] in a memorial addressed to Philip III. of Spain, says that Mendana discovered San Christoval in 1565; but his account is both short and confused, and was evidently not derived from original sources... . Notwithstanding the conflicting character of the dates, the probable dates would appear to be as follows.--The s.h.i.+ps left Peru on November 19th, 1566, discovered the Isles of Salomon on February 7th, 1567, and arrived at Peru on June 19th, 1568.

[393] ”Hechos de Don Garcia H. de Mendoza,” por el Doctor Christoval S. de Figueroa. Madrid, 1613.

[394] ”Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales.” (Madrid, about 1601.)

[395] ”Early Voyages to Terra Australis,” by R. H. Major (p. 1).

Hakluyt Society, 1859.

NOTE III. (Page 199.)

THE ISLE OF JESUS.--Burney[396] estimated the longitude of this island to be 172 30' East of Greenwich; Krusenstern,[397] on surer grounds, fixed it at 171 30': but both estimates were based on an erroneous longitude of the Candelaria Shoals... . I have shown in note iv. that these shoals are probably identical, not with the Roncador Reef as is implied in the present charts, but with the islands of Ontong Java, to the northward; however, this correction affects but little the question of longitude. Taking the longitude of the centre of Ontong Java at about 159 30' E. (in lat. 5 25'

S.), the longitude of the Isle of Jesus, 167 Spanish leagues to the eastward (in lat. 6 45' S.), would be about 169 E. The only island shown on the present charts in the vicinity of this position is Kennedy Island, also called Motuiti, the existence of which is stated to be doubtful. Its position, as determined by the ”Nautilus”

in 1801, was 8 36' S. 167 50' E.[398] However, in 1883, the German war-vessel ”Carola” failed to find it in this position in the chart, and the initials _E. D._ are there attached to the name. The difficulty may, I think, be explained by the existence in this region of some atoll of no great size, the position of which has been never correctly determined. It would appear that a similar view is held by Captain Wharton, the present Hydrographer, since in the Sailing Directions for these seas issued in 1885, the island is still given prominent mention.[399] Not improbably the missing island will be found between the 6th and 7th parallels, and near the position a.s.signed to the Isle of Jesus.

[396] ”Chronological History of Vovages and Discoveries in the South Sea.” Vol. I. p. 289. London, 1803.

[397] ”Recueil de Memoires Hydrographiques.” St. Petersburg, 1824.

[398] Findlay's ”Directory of the Pacific Ocean.” Part II 999.

(London, 1851.)

[399] ”Pacific Islands.” Vol. I. p. 50. (Western Groups.) 1885.

Herrera gives the name of another island, ”El Nombre de Dios,” which is said by him to lie in 7 S. lat., and to be 50 leagues distant from Santa Anna; Gallego does not refer to any island with this name; and since Herrera makes no reference to the Isle of Jesus, it is possible that this isle may be here alluded to, as its lat.i.tude corresponds somewhat with that of ”El Nombre de Dios.” M.

Fleurieu[400] identifies this island, however, not with the Isle of Jesus, but with an island off the north end of Malaita which was named Gower I. by Captain Carteret in 1767, and Inattendue I. by M.

Surville, in 1769.

[400] ”Discoveries of the French, 1768-1769, to the S. E. of New Guinea,” p. 181. (London, 1791).

NOTE IV. (Page 199.)

THE CANDELARIA SHOALS.--The shoals were identified by Fleurieu with the Roncador Reef discovered by Maurelle in 1781; and Krusenstern subsequently confirmed this opinion. Gallego, however, describes shoals trending N.E. and S.W. for more than fifteen leagues, which cannot possibly be the Roncador Reef of the present chart, which is not more than six miles across. These Candelaria Shoals, on the other hand, correspond in their size with the large atoll of Ontong Java lying about 35 miles to the north of the Roncador Reef, and being about 50 miles in width. The apparent difference in lat.i.tude between Ontong Java, which lies in about 5 25' S., and the Candelaria Shoals of Gallego, which were placed by him in 6 15' S., may be explained by the circ.u.mstance that the majority of Gallego's observations of lat.i.tude in the Solomon Group were about two-thirds of a degree in excess of the true lat.i.tude.[401] By making this correction, the lat.i.tude of Ontong Java and of the Candelaria Shoals will be found to closely approximate. The bearing and distance of the Candelaria Shoals from the west end of Malaita (as given by Gallego on p. 205) and from Estrella Harbour (as given on p. 202) go to support my view that the Candelaria Shoals of Gallego and the Ontong Java of Tasman are one and the same.

[401] _Vide_ Note V. of Geographical Appendix.

NOTE V.

THE LAt.i.tUDES OF GALLEGO IN THE SOLOMON GROUP.--On making fourteen comparisons of the lat.i.tudes obtained by Gallego with the lat.i.tudes of the same places in the most recent Admiralty charts, places about which there can be no doubt as to their ident.i.ty, I find that all but two are in excess of the true lat.i.tude. The excess varies between 11' and 1 7' (about); and since seven of the twelve lat.i.tudes vary between 38' and 46' in excess, we may take 40' _plus_ as about the probable and average prevailing error of Gallego's observations of lat.i.tude in this group. A constant error points to some constant defect of observation; whether it may be instrumental or otherwise, I must leave to the judgment of my nautical readers.