OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN ASrA. 175 



The writers now mentioned, however widely discordant as 

 to other particulars, seem to agree in one point, that of treat- 

 ing with contempt, and almost with ridicule, the ancient idea 

 which extends Serica to China. Dr Vincent alone, who thinks 

 always for himself, has declared his adherence to the latter opi- 

 nion. His subject, however, has led him to rest almost entire^- 

 ly on the maritime testimonies, which do not, 1 confess, appear 

 to me so decisive as to the learned writer. They are contain- 

 ed in the narratives of Arrian and Cosmas Indicopleustes, 

 persons who never passed Indostan, and collected only vague 

 and inaccurate reports of the regions beyond. The testimony 

 of such writers, it would appear, can never be put in competi- 

 tion with that collected from a company of merchants, who, if 

 they did not enter Serica, at least habitually trafficked on its 

 frontier. I certainly concur, therefore, with D'Anville and 

 the other geographers, in considering Ptolemy as the main 

 authority by whom the question must be decided. But, 

 in adopting their premises, I have been led pretty confi- 

 dently to a conclusion the opposite of theirs. The works 

 of Ptolemy and his cotemporaries appear to me to con- 

 tain a series of statements which fix down, in a very de- 

 cided manner, Serica as China. As results quite opposite 

 have been drawn from every analysis yet made of these state- 

 ments, and as they appear to me to involve a view of the entire 

 geography of central Asia, widely different from any at present 

 received, these circumstances, I hope, may plead my excuse 

 for the unexpected length to which the discussion has ex- 

 tended.. 



Considering the decidedly opposite opinion which has been 

 held by the most eminent geographers of the present age, I 

 should perhaps have hesitated in laying before the Society the 

 result of my inquiries, had they not been so strongly supported 



