Huet, As Is Justly Remarked By Dr. Vincent, Drops The
Prosecution Of The Question At The Very Point He Ought To Introduce It; And
Afterwards Countenances, Or Seems To Countenance, The Opposite Opinion.
Dr.
Robertson bestows much labour, ingenuity, and learning in support of the
opinion, that under the Ptolemies, a direct trade was carried on with
India; yet, after all, he concludes in this manner:
"It is probable that
their voyages were circumscribed within very narrow limits, and that under
the Ptolemies no considerable progress was made in the discovery of India:"
and when he comes to the discovery of the Monsoon by Hippalus and the
consequent advantage taken of it to trade directly to India, by sailing
from shore to shore, he acknowledges that all proofs of a more early
existence of such a trade are wanting. Dr. Campbell virtually gives up his
support of the opinion, that a direct trade was carried on under the
Ptolemies, in the same manner.
We have already remarked, that the strongest spirit of enterprize that
distinguished Egypt existed in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus and
Ptolemy Euergetes; that these monarchs pushed their discoveries, and
extended their commercial connections much farther than any of their
predecessors; and that therefore, if a direct and regular communication
between Egypt and India did not take place in their reigns, we may be
assured it was unknown to the Egyptians at the period of the Roman
conquest. To their reigns, then, we shall principally direct our enquiries.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 167 of 1007
Words from 45865 to 46115
of 273188
