PERIPLUS OF THE ERYTHRÆAN SEA.

Introduction.[1]

The Periplûs of the Erythræan Sea is the title prefixed to a work which contains the best account of the commerce carried on from the Red Sea and the coast of Africa to the East Indies during the time that Egypt was a province of the Roman empire. The Erythræan Sea was an appellation given in those days to the whole expanse of ocean reaching from the coast of Africa to the utmost boundary of ancient knowledge on the East—an appellation in all appearance deduced from the entrance into it by the Straits of the Red Sea, styled Erythra by the Greeks, and not excluding the Gulf of Persia.

The author was a Greek merchant, who in the first century of the Christian era had, it would appear, settled at Berenîkê, a great seaport situated in the southern extremity of Egypt, whence he made commercial voyages which carried him to the seaports of Eastern Africa as far as Azania, and to those of Arabia as far as Kanê, whence, by taking advantage of the south-west monsoon, he crossed over to the ports lying on the western shores of India. Having made careful observations and inquiries regarding the navigation and commerce of these countries, he committed to writing, for the benefit of other merchants, the knowledge which he had thus acquired. Much cannot be said in praise of the style in which he writes. It is marked by a rude simplicity, which shows that he was not a man of literary culture, but in fact a mere man of business, who in composing restricts himself to a narrow round of set phrases, and is indifferent alike to grace, freedom, or variety of expression. It shows further that he was a Greek settled in Egypt, and that he must have belonged to an isolated community of his countrymen, whose speech had become corrupt by much intercourse with foreigners. It presents a very striking contrast to the rhetorical diction which Agatharkhidês, a great master of all the tricks of speech, employs in his description of the Erythræan. For all shortcomings, however, in the style of the work, there is ample compensation in the fulness, variety, accuracy, and utility of the information which it conveys. Such indeed is its superiority on these points that it must be reckoned as a most precious treasure: for to it we are indebted far more than to any other work for most of our knowledge of the remote shores of Eastern Africa, and the marts of India, and the condition of ancient commerce in these parts of the world.

The name of the author is unknown. In the Heidelberg MS., which alone has preserved the little work, and contains it after the Periplûs of Arrian, the title given is Αρῥιανου περιπλους της' Ερυθρας θαλασσης. Trusting to the correctness of this title, Stuckius attributed the work to Arrian of Nikomedia, and Fabricius to another Arrian who belonged to Alexandria. No one, however, who knows how ancient books are usually treated can fail to see what the real fact here is, viz. that since not only the Periplûs Maris Erythræi, but also the Anonymi Periplûs Ponti Euxini (whereof the latter part occurs in the Heidelberg MS. before Arrian’s Ponti Periplûs) are attributed to Arrian, and the different Arrians are not distinguished by any indications afforded by the titles, there can be no doubt that the well-known name of the Nikomedian writer was transferred to the books placed in juxtaposition to his proper works, by the arbitrary judgment of the librarians. In fact it very often happens that short works written by different authors are all referred to one and the same author, especially if they treat of the same subject and are published conjointly in the same volume. But in the case of the work before us, any one would have all the more readily ascribed it to Arrian who had heard by report anything of the Paraplûs of the Erythræan Sea described in that author’s Indika. On this point there is the utmost unanimity of opinion among writers.

That the author, whatever may have been his name, lived in Egypt, is manifest. Thus he says in § 29: “Several of the trees with us in Egypt weep gum,” and he joins the names of the Egyptian months with the Roman, as may be seen by referring to §§ 6, 39, 49, and 56. The place in which he was settled was probably Berenîkê, since it was from that port he embarked on his voyages to Africa and Arabia, and since he speaks of the one coast as on the right from Berenîkê, and the other on the left. The whole tenor of the work proclaims that he must have been a merchant. That the entire work is not a mere compilation from the narratives or journals of other merchants and navigators, but that the author had himself visited some of the seats of trade which he describes, is in itself probable, and is indicated in § 20, where, contrary to the custom of the ancient writers, he speaks in his own person:—“In sailing south, therefore, we stand off from the shore and keep our course down the middle of the gulf.” Compare with this what is said in § 48: προς την εμποριαν την ἑμετεραν.

As regards the age to which the writer belonged: it is first of all evident that he wrote after the times of Augustus, since in § 23 mention is made of the Roman Emperors. That he was older, however, than Ptolemy the Geographer, is proved by his geography, which knows nothing of India beyond the Ganges except the traditional account current from the days of Eratosthenês to those of Pliny, while it is evident that Ptolemy possessed much more accurate information regarding these parts. It confirms this view that while our author calls the island of Ceylon Palaisimoundou, Ptolemy calls it by the name subsequently given to it—Salikê. Again, from § 19, it is evident that he wrote before the kingdom of the Nubathæans was abolished by the Romans. Moreover Pliny (VI. xxvi. 101), in proceeding to describe the navigation to the marts of India by the direct route across the ocean with the wind called Hippalos, writes to this effect:—“And for a long time this was the mode of navigation, until a merchant discovered a compendious route whereby India was brought so near that to trade thither became very lucrative. For, every year a fleet is despatched, carrying on board companies of archers, since the Indian seas are much infested by pirates. Nor will a description of the whole voyage from Egypt tire the reader, since now for the first time correct information regarding it has been made public.” Compare with this the statement of the Periplûs in § 57, and it will be apparent that while this route to India had only just come into use in the time of Pliny, it had been for some time in use in the days of our author. Now, as Pliny died in 79 A.D., and had completed his work two years previously, it may be inferred that he had written the 6th book of his Natural History before our author wrote his work. A still more definite indication of his date is furnished in § 5, where Zoskalês is mentioned as reigning in his times over the Auxumitae. Now in a list of the early kings of Abyssinia the name of Za-Hakale occurs, who must have reigned from 77 to 89 A.D. This Za-Hakale is doubtless the Zoskalês of the Periplûs, and was the contemporary of the emperors Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. We conclude, therefore, that the Periplûs was written a little after the death of Pliny, between the years A.D. 80-89.

Opinions on this point, however, have varied considerably. Salmasius thought that Pliny and our author wrote at the same time, though their accounts of the same things are often contradictory. In support of this view he adduces the statement of the Periplûs (§ 54), “Muziris, a place in India, is in the kingdom of Kêprobotres,” when compared with the statement of Pliny (VI. xxvi. 104), “Cœlobothras was reigning there when I committed this to writing;” and argues that since Kêprobotres and Cœlobothras are but different forms of the same name, the two authors must have been contemporary. The inference is, however, unwarrantable, since the name in question, like that of Pandiôn, was a common appellation of the kings who ruled over that part of India.