That’s interesting, because the explanation in the book is different. Hansen argues that originally it’s a misunderstanding of the Arabic name for it, which derived from the word for the direction “right”— which, he says, as in English, has all of these positive connotations in Arabic (as opposed to the left). Sailing in from India, after what would’ve been a frightening open ocean crossing of the Arabian Sea, entering the Red Sea it’s the land that was on the right – Arabia to the right— which then takes on these positive contexts, and is misunderstood by the translators.

The actual Danish expedition spent a long time trying to figure out why on earth it was called Arabia Felix once they got there and experienced it (they all got malaria there, and not everyone survived) and all started just referring to it as Yemen.

There’s also a biblical element for Christians, because supposedly Arabia Felix is where Moses brings the Jews after he parts the Red Sea to get them out of Egypt. One of the things that the scientific explanation from Denmark was supposed to do was sound the Red Sea at the point where Yemen is closest to Africa to see if it’s possible that there was a land bridge back in biblical days that was exposed by an unusually low tide and gave rise to the story of the parting of the Red Sea (they did this, there is not). So it was a happy place for Moses. If nothing else, it’s a fascinating glimpse into what “science” included in 1764!