The Commerce and Navigation of the Erythræan Sea: Being a Translation of the Periplus Maris Erythræi, by an Anonymous Writer, and of Arrian's Account of the Voyage of Nearkhos, from the Mouth of the Indus to the Head of the Persian Gulf — John Shaqi
The Commerce and Navigation of the Erythræan Sea: Being a Translation of the Periplus Maris Erythræi, by an Anonymous Writer, and of Arrian's Account of the Voyage of Nearkhos, from the Mouth of the Indus to the Head of the Persian Gulf
History
The Commerce and Navigation of the Erythræan Sea: Being a Translation of the Periplus Maris Erythræi, by an Anonymous Writer, and of Arrian's Account of the Voyage of Nearkhos, from the Mouth of the Indus to the Head of the Persian Gulf
Classical geography; Geography, Ancient; India -- Description and travel -- Early works to 1800; Indian Ocean Region -- Commerce -- History
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account