APPENDIX.—INQUIRY INTO THE

embraces a subject upon which the labour of my life has been employed, and fortunately ratifies my decision of the question by deducing the same conclusions from the same premises.

Our mutual correspondence on this subject is so similar, that, unless plagiarism were demonstrably impracticable, it might be imputed to either party with every appearance of probability to support the charge. The proof, however, to the contrary, is unequivocal, for Mr. Gibbon died in January, 1794, and my first edition of the Periplûs of the Erythréan Sea was not published till 1800. Neither was it possible for me to have seen Mr. Gibbon’s memoir, as it was in your lordship’s custody till October, 1814. If, then, we have both used the same materials, and applied them to the same purpose, without communication, it is but reasonable to allow that the sole object of both must have been the investigation of truth.

That I am proud of this coincidence of opinion, may naturally be supposed, for it will appear from the Dissertation itself that Mr. Gibbon had examined this subject with the utmost attention, and formed his judgment upon mature deliberation. My own arguments, and the conclusions deduced from them, are stated at large in the Periplôs, at p. 186, Part the first; and at p. 661, Part the second, there is an express dissertation on the Venetian planisphere of Fra Mauro, which exhibits 4 southern termination of Africa, thirty-nine years previous to the voyage of Gama. My work has probably not come under your lordship’s contemplation, but I recommend you to consult the second edition as far more correct than the former one. It was published in 1807, comprising the voyage of Nearchus and the Periplûs, under the general title of the Navigation of the Ancients in the Indian Ocean, and completed in 1809, with a translation of the two original voyages, and the Greek text.

I am sensible that I had given offence to many eminent persons in the republic of letters, by questioning the authority of Herodotus in regard to the Phenician voyage round Africa in the reign of Neko; and it must be confessed, that it stands on very different grounds from similar voyages imputed to Hanno, Eudoxus, and Antipater; but by comparing it with the voyage of Nearchus it was easy to shew what . ancient navigators could, or could not do; and by contemplating the

reiterated

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF AFRICA, &c. 507

reiterated attempts of the Portuguese for almost a century before they succeeded, it was natural to conclude that the Phenician voyage performed in three years, must be a fiction of the Egyptian priests, without impeaching the veracity of Herodotus.

The Phenicians directed their course by the stars without instruments, and the navigators in the Indian ocean, as late as the time of Ptolemy, sailed by the Canébus, as the southern polar star. But that star is in latitude 37° from the pole, by which we may judge of the danger of adopting it for the direction of a course in the southern hemisphere. The currents, it 1s true, round thé Cape, favour an attempt from the east, but again the currents for twenty degrees in the neighbourhood of Cape Verd, are as directly adverse. Could they double such a Cape by rowing near the coast? or durst they stand out to sea to double it as modern navigators do? These are my grand objections to the Phenician voyage, and with all the respect I bear to the Father of History, the authority of his Egyptian priests is directly contradicted by Polybius, Strabo, Ptolemy, and Scylax; and equally rejected by Purchas, D’ Anville, Gossellin, and Robertson, among the moderns; to this list let me add the name of Horsley, who personally expressed to me his conviction, and the testimony of Gibbon, whose evidence I value as highly as any that has been given by the ancients or the moderns. Very happy should I have been, if I could have included the illustrious names of Larcher and Rennell in the number ; -but I respect them both too much, to give offence by entering into a ‘. consideration of their arguments.

I conclude, my lord, that there are several other Tracts to be inserted in the volume which you are now publishing, that will be equally acceptable to the learned world; but this immediate disquisition is more interesting to me, as it corroborates all the arguments which I have advanced, and all the opinions I had formed; and give me leave to add, that if my judgment is of weight, a more masterly treatise than this never came from the pen of Gibbon.

I have the honour to subscribe myself, Your lordship’s most obedient and faithful servant, ..

a W. Vincewr.