[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Travellers (1500–1858)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel) › [Storia do Mogor](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci) › [Storia do Mogor (Irvine)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine) › 13 # Storia do Mogor 13: VIII. MANUCCI'S BIOGRAPHY. Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 13 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [13.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1) — 8 parts - [13.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2) — 7 parts - [13.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.3) — 2 parts ### VIII. MANUCCI'S BIOGRAPHY. ### [13.1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.1) Although, as Foscarini says, Manucci's life, 'che fu piena d'accidenti curiosi,' can be easily put together from the 'Storia,' the accounts of him in the usual biographical dictionaries are singularly meagre and erroneous. Neither in the old nor the new edition of the 'Biographie Universelle' (Michaud) does his name appear either under Manouchi or Manucci. In the 'Nouvelle Biographie Générale' (Didot), xxxiii. (1860), we certainly have an entry. But, unfortunately, it is one crowded with demonstrable errors. There is no evidence that Manucci died about 1710; on the contrary, his continued existence in 1712 can be proved. That he returned to Europe in 1691 or any other year; that he retired to Portugal; that he published a work which had become very scarce, are all untenable propositions. The entry in Sir Thomas Phillipps's catalogue is of a manuscript, not of a printed book; it is, therefore, hardly to be wondered at if the dictionary contributor (F. D.) had never been able to find a copy. His authority, the 'Mercure Galant' for 1691, I have not been able to consult, as it is not in the British Museum; what his 'documents particuliers' were, we, of course, cannot know now. ### [13.1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.2) By the inquiries I instituted at Venice, I was unable to find any trace there of Manucci. I was told that the name was not Patrician. The only other Manuccis that I have come across do not, I fear, shed much lustre on the name; both occur in Casanova de Seingalt's 'Mémoires': one was the spy who denounced Casanova as a heretic, and secured his committal to I Piombi; the other was a friend met at Barcelona, whose plans Jacopo Casanova inadvertently betrayed. As Manucci nowhere tells us his father's Christian name or the parish of his birth, to search for his birth or baptism was a hopeless task. Nor did the police reports yield any notice of such a boy's disappearance. Further search under the right year and month (November, 1653) has not produced anything, nor any mention of Viscount Bellomont's stay at Venice and departure from it by sea. Thus the only means of reconstituting Manucci's life-story and its chronology is a search through the 'Storia.' This reconstruction I now attempt. ### [13.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.3) In the early part of his book, and up to about the year 1678, there is an almost constant defect of two years in Manucci's dates. From external evidence we know that the eclipse of the sun he saw at Zulfah, in Armenia, took place on August 12, 1654; that he landed in India in January, 1656; that the Battle of Samugarh, near Agrah, was fought on June 8, 1658. Calculating from these points as fixed data, we find that Manucci left Venice in November, 1653 (not 1651). He says he was then fourteen, and thus must have been born some time in 1639. He ran away from home, and hid on board a vessel bound for Smyrna; here he encountered Viscount Bellomont (Henry Bard), then on his way to Persia and India. Bellomont had pity on the lad, and took him into his service. From Smyrna they went through Asia Minor to the Persian court at Qazwin (August, 1654). Thence they moved to Isfahan, where they remained a year (September, 1654 to September, 1655), finally reaching Gombroon (Bandar 'Abbas) via Shiraz and Lar. A passage was obtained on the H.E.I. Company's Seahorse, in which they reached Surat, on the west coast of India, in January, 1656. Leaving that place in April, they travelled by Burhanpur, Handiyah, Sironj, Narwar, Gwaliyar and Dholpur to Agrah; thence they started for the Mogul court at Dihli. On June 20, 1656, when near Hodal, a place between Mathura and Dihli, Bellomont suddenly expired. ### [13.1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.4) Manucci went on to Dihli, and, through the dispute arising over the late ambassador's affairs, obtained an introduction to Prince Dara Shukoh, eldest son of the emperor Shahjahan. Manucci was enlisted as an artilleryman in Dara's service on rupees 80 a month. In 1658, when the princes Aurangzeb and Murad Bakhsh moved against Agrah, Dara Shukoh marched south to oppose them, Manucci being in his army. A countermarch to Samugarh followed, and there battle was delivered. Manucci was in the field, and after Dara's defeat fled with the rest to Agrah. Subsequently he succeeded in attaching himself in disguise to Aurangzeb's army, and was in it when Murad Bakhsh was seized. From Dihli Manucci managed to get away and join Dara Shukoh at Lahor. With that prince he marched to Multan and Bhakkar. He was placed at the head of the artillery in the latter fortress, under the command of the eunuch Basant, and the garrison stood a siege, only surrendering after the capture of their prince. Evacuating Bhakkar, the garrison returned to Lahor, and there Manucci escaped with his bare life from an attack in which Basant was killed. Returning with the other European artillerymen to Dihli, Manucci refused further service, as he disliked Aurangzeb. ### [13.1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.5) After he had witnessed that monarch's departure from Dihli for Kashmir (December 8, 1662), Manucci made an expedition eastwards, and, taking boat at Patnah, travelled to Rajmahal and Dhakkah, thence through the Sundarbans to Hugli, returning to Agrah by way of Qasimbazar. At Agrah and Dihli he gradually adopted medicine as a profession, but, obtaining an introduction to Rajah Jai Singh, of Amber, through his second son, Kirat Singh, he was offered by that prince the post of captain of artillery on 10 rupees a day. Jai Singh was appointed Governor of the Dakhin between March and September, 1664. Manucci marched with him for that country, being deputed on the way to negotiate with some petty rajahs north of Bombay. After seven months he rejoined at Aurangabad, where the rajah had united his forces with those of Shah 'Alam. He saw Shiva Ji in the rajah's camp in June or July, 1665. In Jai Singh's further move southwards against Bijapur Manucci also took part. ### [13.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.6) Apparently tiring of his position, Manucci resigned (II. 108, 109), and made his way via Kaliyani to Bassain, twenty-eight miles north of Bombay; he was there during the Lent of 1667, and narrowly escaped the Inquisition (III. 230). He reached Goa in May, 1667, and after a stay of fifteen months (May 1667 to August 1668) he left it disguised as a Carmelite, and returned to Agrah and Dihli (II. 130). At the latter place he attached himself to Kirat Singh, obtaining from him a horse and rupees 5 a day. After a year's time Kirat Singh was ordered to Kabul, and Manucci resolved to move to Lahor (end of 1670 or early in 1671), and start practice there as a physician. He practised as such for about six or seven years, and, having realized a small competence, decided on removing into territory governed by Europeans. This must have been in 1676, as he was at Daman, on the west coast, in that year (II. 137, III. 198), and during 1677 (III. 264, 265) he made his home at Bandora, on Salsette Island, nine miles north of Bombay fort. Having lost his money in a bad speculation, Manucci was obliged to try his fortunes once more at the Mogul court. He returned to Dihli, where, through a court chamberlain, he was called in to attend one of Shah 'Alam's wives, and, having cured her of a gathering in the ear, the lady interested herself in his affairs and procured his appointment by that prince as one of his physicians. ### [13.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.7) This must have been subsequent to January 30, 1678, the date on which Shah 'Alam returned to Dihli from Kabul. On September 28, 1678, Shah 'Alam was made governor of the Dakhin, and Manucci went there in his train. He says once that he was at Agrah in 1679, and possibly the occasion was on this march to the Dakhin. On September 6, 1679, Shah 'Alam's thirty-seventh birthday, they were at Aurangabad; but not long before this (December 18, 1678) Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur had died in Kabul, and Aurangzeb, after failing to seize one of the rajah's infant sons, resolved on the conquest of the Jodhpur state. Shah 'Alam was recalled to take part in the campaign, and the prince (Manucci with him) passed the rains of 1680 at Ujjain (II. 204). In January, 1681, they joined the main army at Ajmer, having seen a comet on their way (December 24, 1680). Prince Akbar had just fled (January 13, 1681), and had raised the standard of revolt. On the 26th Shah 'Alam was sent in pursuit, and remained on this duty until the end of March (1681). Some sort of peace was patched up with the other Rajputs, Akbar escaped to the Mahrattahs in the south, and, in consequence, on September 15, 1681, Aurangzeb began his first march towards the Dakhin, a country from which he was destined never to return. ### [13.1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.1.8) Finding his position an irksome one, and having some money in the hands of the Theatine Fathers at Goa, Manucci, apparently in 1682 or early in 1683, resolved to get away under the pretext of two months' leave of absence. On reaching Surat he obtained a boat from Francois Martin, of the French Company, which took him to Daman, and thence to Goa. The then governor of Goa, the Conde de Alvor, had taken charge on September 11, 1681, and at the time of our hero's arrival found himself closely threatened by an army under Sambha Ji, son of Shiva Ji, the Mahrattah. About August, 1683, having unwisely offered battle at Ponda on the mainland, the viceroy was badly defeated. Negotiations were opened, and Manucci was sent to interview Sambha Ji. Nothing resulted, and Santo Estevaon, one of the Goa islands, was captured by Sambha Ji during the night of November 25, 1683. Once more Manucci visited the Mahrattah chief, and also went to see Shah 'Alam, who was approaching in a threatening manner. He also took part in a second embassy to Shah 'Alam. For all these services the governor conferred on him a patent of knighthood in the Portuguese Order of St. Iago, this patent being dated January 29, 1684. ### [13.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.1) On the second visit Shah 'Alam detained Manucci as an absconder from his service. Flight was attempted, but the poor man was brought back much against his will. A difficult march through the Ghats was then made, and the prince rejoined his father at Ahmadnagar. Shortly afterwards Shah 'Alam was sent against the King of Gulkhandah. When the camp was at Malkher, Manucci managed to enter into communication with the general on the opposite side, and he was helped to escape to Gulkhandah. When Shah 'Alam occupied Gulkhandah (1686) Manucci fled further afield to the European settlements at Narsapur and Masulipatam, on the east coast. Soldiers brought him back to Gulkhandah, but he was successful in evading delivery to the agents of Shah 'Alam, who had left that place. Once more, with the aid of an Augustinian friar, he managed after two months to get away, and took refuge at the English settlement of Madras or Fort St. George. This was in the second half of 1686. ### [13.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.2) Paying a visit to François Martin at Pondicherry, eighty-six miles south of Madras, Manucci was dissuaded from returning to Europe, and was advised to marry. He was introduced to a Catholic widow, the daughter of Christopher Hartley and Aguida Pereyra. Her first husband, Thomas Clarke, had died on October 6, 1683. Manucci married her on October 28, 1686, and a son was born to them, but the child died in infancy. He resumed his practice as a physician, and much commends a cordial of which he had the secret, while his 'stones,' an imitation of the Goa stones of the Jesuits, had a great vogue. Almost immediately on his arrival at Madras Manucci's services were requisitioned by Governor William Gyfford (July 1681 to July 1687). Gyfford wrote to the 'Great Mogull' on February 17, 1686/7, and March 20, 1686/7, sending both letters by Manucci's messengers. Before the answer arrived from the court Gyfford had been superseded by Elihu Yale (July 1687 to October 23, 1692), and on September 16, 1687, the new governor ousted Manucci and made over the negotiation entirely to Khwajah Ibnus, alias Joan de Marke, an Armenian merchant at Gulkhandah, with whom the correspondence lasted until July, 1688. During Yale's (1687-1692) and Higginson's (1692-1698) governorships Manucci would appear to have remained out of favour. On the contrary, Thomas Pitt, governor from 1698 to 1709, seems to have liked and trusted Manucci — at any rate, he employed him a good deal. ### [13.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.3) 1700-1703. In 1700 Sir William Norris and Consul John Pitt, who had come out in the interests of the newly-founded rival English company, made overtures to Manucci to join the first-named as interpreter. Manucci declined on the score of age and blindness, but really out of a desire not to offend Governor Pitt. In O.C., No. 6737 (Masulipatam general letter of September 19, 1699), we have an intimation that a letter was awaited from 'Senr Manuchii,' which was delayed by his absence at Pondicherry, the French settlement, on some business he was transacting for them (the French). A translation of Manucci's answer to John Pitt is to be found at the India Office (O.C., vol. lxvi., Part I., No. 6790), and, as Sir Henry Yule does not give it, I insert it in full. 'MOST ILLUSTRIOUS SR. MR. PITT, 'I have received the honour of 3 letters, which you have done me the Favour of writing to me, and am infinitely obliged to you, for all the Goodness you show therein ; and (as I should be alwayes gladd to serve your Honr.) I would doe it with all my heart, but finding my Selfe Old and Infirme, I am not in a Condition to undertake what You desire of me ; If I enjoyed my former health and Strength, it would be a great honour to me, to find soe favourable an opportunity of Serving, his Majesty, his Excellency, and the Noble Company, but my Infirmity and Blindness will not permit me. ### [13.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.4) 'I desire your Honour will assure your selfe, that noe other reason should hinder me from accepting the soe Honourable Offers that you make me with soe much Goodness. 'I have not answered your two former Letters, not having mett with a secure oppertunity ; in fine, I offer you my whole heart, and upon all occasions You shall find me punctually ready, as your most humble Servant. God keep your illustrious person. 'Madrastapatan, 24th December, 1699. 'Most Illustrious Sr., 'Your most humble 'NICOLAS MANUCH. 'To the most illustrious Signor Mr. Pitt, President of the Noble Royall Company of England for the Coast of Cormandell, Metchlapatan.' The kingdom of Gulkhandah having finally fallen in 1687, the Moguls proceeded to invest Jinji, eighty-two miles south-west of Madras, but were unable to reduce it until 1698. From the date of its fall they became very active, and began to interfere throughout the Karnatik. Their deputy-governor, Da,ud Khan, Panni, obeying orders from court, made himself especially disagreeable. In 1702 he invested Madras for many weeks, when Manucci and a Brahmin were sent as joint envoys from Governor Pitt to the besieger (Part IV., 87, 93, 97, 244; V., 224). The story of these negotiations, from the official point of view, will be found in J. Talboys Wheeler's 'Madras in the Olden Time,' chapter xvi., pp. 195-221. In February and March, 1703, Manucci paid a visit to that Nawab at his house in Kadapah, 137 miles north-west of Madras. ### [13.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.5) With 1703 begins the active stage of the dispute between the Capuchins and Jesuits, arising chiefly out of the so-called Malabar Rites or Accommodation Strife, about the supposed concessions of Jesuit missionaries to heathendom. Into this and other ecclesiastical matters Manucci threw himself with great energy. In 1700 he had been the host of some priests who were on their way to China (IV., 231, 232), and at the end of 1701 he wrote to Da,ud Khan about persecutions in Tanjor, being thanked in two letters by the Père Pierre Martin, Jesuit, of that mission (second letter, dated February 6, 1702). With the arrival of Cardinal de Tournon, papal legate, at Pondicherry in November, 1703, ecclesiastical questions took precedence of all others in our author's mind. He devotes many pages to these questions, and in Père Norbert's 'Mémoires Utiles et Nécessaires,' Luques (Lucca), 1742, p. 187, under the date of January 10, 1707, we find 'Nicolo Manucci' as one of the four witnesses who attest that a certain request had been presented on September 28, 1706, by Père Michel Angelo, Capuchin, to the Bishop of St. Thomé, an ex-Jesuit. ### [13.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.6) In 1706 Manucci lost his wife, and at some date between that event and 1712 he moved his home to Pondicherry. In the latter year he proposed to make a journey to the Mogul court at Lahor on the request of Shah 'Alam, who had become emperor five years before. The Madras Council wished to make use of his mediation to clear up certain long-pending difficulties with the Mogul, and secure fresh privileges for their honourable masters. The death of Shah 'Alam put an end to Manucci's plans. But as a reward for previous services during Da'ud Khan's attack, the governor and Council on January 14, 1712, conceded to him in perpetuity his leasehold house and garden at Madras, situated outside the north-west corner of the then Black Town. The previous history of this renewal presents one or two points of interest. An order of March 22, 1705, directed a renewal for twenty-one years on the levy of a fine of sixty pagodas, with the rider: 'It being the generall opinion of all that the aforesaid Nicolo Manuch is very poor, and in consideration of his readiness to serve the Company on all occasions, 'tis agreed that upon his payment of the sixty pagodas before-mentioned, it be returned to him as a gratuity for his good services' ('Factory Records,' Fort St. George, vol. xiii., fol. 37). ### [13.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.2.7) Unfortunately, before the lease was drawn up and executed a Padre at Negapatam sent to the governor (Thomas Pitt) a 'letter full of strange invectives against Senr Manuch,' which, when produced before the Council, led them to suspect he ' was not true to the Company's interest.' The lease was stopped and inquiry ordered. It was found that ' the Padre was an infamous and scandalous fellow.' Manucci had detected him in attempts at debaucheries in his family, while the Padres at Madras and other Portuguese of good reputation gave the Padre a very ill character. It was determined on December 18, 1704, to grant the lease on the terms originally sanctioned (' Factory Records,' Fort St. George, vol. xiii., fol. 203). Then follows the lease, dated December 20, 1704. It recites that the first grant for thirty years was made to Thomas Clarke, gentn, in the year 1671. It consisted of a garden or parcel of ground without the town. Manucci petitioned as heir of Thomas Clarke (having married his widow). The terms were a fine of sixty pagodas (remitted as above stated), and a yearly acknowledgment of one pagoda. ### [13.3.153](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.3.153) This house and garden lay to the north of Madras, and just north of it again was a piece of ground known as the Elephant Garden (entry of May 7, 1706). The plot was 657 feet from north to south, and from east to west (at the north end) 353 feet and (at the south end) 482 feet. The boundaries were : North, the garden of Force Moortepan ; south, the Black Town wall ; east, Mantangaura's garden and some Pariah houses ; west, the highway from Tom Clarke's gate to the Company's old garden. The term granted was for twenty-one years from March 25, 1703, at a yearly rent of one pagoda (see Madras Consultations, January 15, 1705, Range 239, vol. lxxxiii., pp. 19-22, and 691). The perpetual grant of January 14, 1712, was made under the following circumstances : On November 1, 1711, Mr. Charles Boon, a free merchant, appeared before the Madras Council (Edward Harrison, president) with a petition from Senhor Nichola Manuch, ' formerly inhabitant of this place but now in Pondicherry.' The petition recites the lease of ground near Tom Clarke's gate, in which by mistake a piece of ground for which he (Nichola Manuch) held a bill of sale was wrongly included, and he prays for a rectification. On November 6, 1711, H. Davenport, B. Binyon, and W. Warre reported. The terms of the report are not entered, but apparently it was adverse to the application. But on January 14, 1712, the president revived the matter in council. He informed the Board that a special order had come to Pondicherry calling for Manucci's attendance at Shah 'Alam's court \[then at Lahor\]. Manucci was about to set out for Arkat to see the diwan, who had orders to supply all his necessities and forward him to Dihli. The president reverts to the refusal on November 6, 1711, to admit a higher title than that of leaseholder; and now for the following reasons: (1) As the land is of very small value; (2) as 'the said Manuch during his residence here was very serviceable to the Company's affairs by his perfect knowledge of the Persian language and the customs among the Moors, having been often employ'd between Governor Pitt and Nabob Doud Caun; (3) but yet more in consideration that he may be very usefull in our present circumstances by assisting those that go to court with the Present from Bengal; (4) and likewise representing our quarrel with Surup Sing with advantage on our side'; he proposes a new resolution in supersession of the former one. It is to the effect that in consideration of the good service done by Señor Nichola Manuch, they confirm to him and his heirs for ever that piece of ground which Thomas Drinkwater bought of Charles and Ann Ryly on September 26, 1674, since sold to Thomas Clarke on April 19, 1675, and by the said Thomas Clarke to Nicholas Manuch. While on the subject of Manucci's houses, it seems to be tolerably clear that he had a second house or country retreat at Big Mount or St. Thomas's Mount, eight miles from Fort St. George. This property is mentioned distinctly in Part V., folios 101, 102, and elsewhere. It must be the place where Manucci entertained Da,ud Khan. The late Mr. A. T. Pringle objected that in those disturbed times Europeans would not have lived so far away from Madras; and for the same reason doubted Manucci's story about a theft of fruit from the governor's garden at the same place on December 15, 1705 (Part V., folio 55). But the entry of December 1, 1705, ordering the destruction of the Mount House and the building of another there for invalids, shows that Manucci was quite right, and (for once) Mr. Pringle was wrong. There was a governor's house at St. Thomas's Mount in 1705 (Public Consultations, Fort St. George, vol. xxxv., pp. 269, 270). The first mention of obtaining a farman through Zu,lfiqar Khan, the new governor of the Dakhin, is in a letter from Fort St. George of December 16, 1711 (List of Old Records, No. 807); and under date December 1, 1711, the Surat Council speak of 'their' embassy (idem, No. 794). The Madras Council anticipated difficulties, owing to their having employed Ziya-ud-din Khan as their go-between, to the displeasure of Zu,lfiqar Khan, whose new office of viceroy made him all-powerful in the Dakhin. However, the emperor Shah 'Alam died at Lahor on February 27, and the report thereof reached Madras in April, 1712; thus, no doubt, Manucci did not start for the court, while the English for the time abandoned their project of an embassy. It was not until some years afterwards that John Surman was sent to Dihli from Calcutta. I have failed to trace Manucci farther at Madras or Pondicherry, and the only date for his death is a vague intimation in the work 'Della Litteratura Veneziana . . .' (4to., Venice, 1854), by the Doge Marco Nicolo Foscarini (b. February, 1695, d. March, 1763; Librarian of San Marco from 1742 to 1762), which was originally published in one volume, folio, at Padua in 1752. On p. 441 of the 4th edition (1854) it is said that Manucci died in India in 1717 as an octogenarian, 'as he \[Foscarini\] had heard.' Father Doyle of San Thome informs me that there are no records there previous to 1784, when Tippu's cavalry plundered and burnt everything. I have not been able to search the Pondicherry archives, and some entry may be found there. As would seem, Manucci left an estate of 30,000 pagodas (about £10,000), judging by the entry taken from Padre Saverini Capuchin's accounts, as printed in the 'Madras Catholic Directory' for 1867, p. 153. ### [13.3.p2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13.3.p2) Although 1742, the date of Saverini's appointment as superior (Penny, 'Church in Madras,' p. 240), is rather late for administration to the estate of a man dying in 1717, it is almost impossible of belief that there could have been in that part of the world, in the first half of the eighteenth century, any other 'Mr. Nicholas Manook' than Nicolao Manucci, the author of the 'Storia do Mogor.' The only possible argument against this identification is the fact that twice Manucci made himself out a poor man. Once was when the fine on the renewal of his lease was remitted by the Madras Council; the other instance was the non-payment in 1706 of a death-bed bequest by his wife of two hundred pagodas to the Bishop of San Thome. Father Michael Angelo, the Madras chaplain, urged him to pay it. Manucci said he had no money; the Father suggested borrowing, and to that Manucci replied that his debts were already too heavy for him to wish to add to them (V., f. 279). A search at the India Office in the copies of the Madras Records up to 1719, which are there preserved, has produced nothing bearing upon the question of our author's death or his estate. The reason of this is probably the fact, communicated to me by the Rev. Frank Penny, that for many years the estates of Roman Catholics were left in the hands of the priests for administration, and were not dealt with by the English officials. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.13) · Pramāṇa