Chapter II: 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.

Dodwell, again, was of opinion that the _Periplûs_ was written after the year A.D. 161, when Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were joint emperors. He bases, in the first place, his defence of this view on the statement in § 26: “Not long before our own times the Emperor (Καῖσαρ) destroyed the place,” viz. +Eudaimón-Arabia+, now Aden. This emperor he supposes must have been Trajan, who, according to Eutropius (VIII. 3), reduced Arabia to the form of a province. Eutropius, however, meant by Arabia only that small part of it which adjoins Syria. This Dodwell not only denies, but also asserts that the conquest of Trajan embraced the whole of the Peninsula—a sweeping inference, which he bases on a single passage in the _Periplûs_ (§ 16) where the south part of Arabia is called ἡ πρώτη Αραβία, “the First Arabia.” From this expression he gathers that Trajan, after his conquest of the country, had divided it into several provinces, designated according to the order in which they were constituted. The language of the _Periplûs_, however, forbids us to suppose that there is here any reference to a Roman province. What the passage states is that +Azania+ (in Africa) was by ancient right subject to the kingdom τῆς πρώτης γινομένης (λεγομένης according to Dodwell) Ἀραβίας, and was ruled by the despot of +Mapharitis+.

Dodwell next defends the date he has fixed on by the passage in § 23, where it is said that +Kharibaël+ sought by frequent gifts and embassies to gain the friendship of the emperors (τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων). He thinks that the time is here indicated when M. Aurelius and L. Verus were reigning conjointly, A.D. 161-181. There is no need, however, to put this construction on the words, which may without any impropriety be taken to mean ‘_the emperors for the time being_,’ viz. Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

Vincent adopted the opinion of Salmasius regarding the date of the work, but thinks that the Kaîsar mentioned in § 26 was Claudius. “The Romans,” he says, “from the time they first entered Arabia under Ælius Gallus, had always maintained a footing on the coast of the Red Sea. They had a garrison at +Leukê Kômê+, in Nabathaea, where they collected the customs; and it is apparent that they extended their power down the gulf and to the ports of the ocean in the reign of Claudius, as the freedman of +Annius Plocamus+ was in the act of collecting the tributes there when he was carried out to sea and over to +Taprobanê+. If we add to this the discovery of Hippalus in the same reign, we find a better reason for the destruction of Aden at this time than at any other.” The assertion in this extract that the garrison and custom-house at +Leukê Kômê+ belonged to the Romans is not warranted by the language of the _Periplûs_, which in fact shows that they belonged to +Malikhos+ the king of the Nabathæans. Again, it is a mere conjecture that the voyage which the freedman of Plocamus (who, according to Pliny, farmed the revenues of the Red Sea) was making along the coast of Arabia, when he was carried away by the monsoon to Taprobanê, was a voyage undertaken to collect the revenues due to the Roman treasury. With regard to the word Καῖσαρ, which has occasioned so much perplexity, it is most probably a corrupt reading in a text notorious for its corruptness. The proper reading may perhaps be ΕΛΙΣΑΡ. At any rate, had one of the emperors in reality destroyed Aden, it is unlikely that their historians would have failed to mention such an important fact.

Schwanbeck, although he saw the weakness of the arguments with which Salmasius and Vincent endeavoured to establish their position, nevertheless thought that our author lived in the age of Pliny and wrote a little before him, because those particulars regarding the Indian navigation which Pliny says became known in his age agree, on the whole, so well with the statement in the _Periplûs_ that they must have been extracted therefrom. No doubt there are, he allows, some discrepancies; but those, he thinks, may be ascribed to the haste or negligence of the copyist. A careful examination, however, of parallel passages in Pliny and the _Periplûs_ show this assertion to be untenable. Vincent himself speaks with caution on this point:—“There is,” he says, “no absolute proof that either copied from the other. But those who are acquainted with Pliny’s methods of abbreviation would much rather conclude, if one must be a copyist, that his title to this office is the clearest.”

From these preliminary points we pass on to consider the contents of the work, and these may be conveniently reviewed under the three heads Geography, Navigation, Commerce. In the commentary, which is to accompany the translation, the Geography will be examined in detail. Meanwhile we shall enumerate the voyages which are distinguishable in the _Periplûs_,[2] and the articles of commerce which it specifies.