associated, the following testimony: The years of the sovereigns before and after Fu-hi down to King Le, are, I apprehend, dark, and hardly to be ascertained,* and we borrow the names of the këa-tsze cycle to chronicle them, adding himself, When did this practice of using the cycle names to chronicle years commence? It commenced in the time of the usurper Mang.' (A. D. 9-22)."†

Mr. Chalmers is of the opinion that the Chinese borrowed the elements of their chronological system. He remarks, "In the second century before the Christian era, the Chinese made extraordinary efforts to open communication with the west. They explored due west as far as the borders of Persia. At the same time they became acquainted with the northern parts of India. Sze-ma-Ts'een, who gives

* The first king, Le, in the list of Chinese sovereigns, is the tenth of the Chan dynasty, beginning to reign B. C. 878.

† Legge's Chinese Classics, vol. iii. prol. p. 82. "Sze-makwang gets the credit of fixing the standard chronology; but let me call the attention of the student to Choo-he's (died A. D. 1200) account of the matter. He tells us, When Kwang first made a chronological soheme, his earliest date was the first year of Wei-leě (B. C. 424). Afterward he extended his dates to the time of Kung and Ho (B. C. 840). After this again, he made his "Examination of Antiquity," beginning with the highest period; but he could give no dates earlier than that time of Kung and Ho. It was Shaou-K'ang-tsẽě who pushed the calculations up to the first year of Yaou,'"-i. e., to B. C. 2357. — Ib.

I am unable to state the precise time when Sze-ma-kwang lived.

a full history of .these discoveries, does not, indeed, tell us that they became acquainted with the period of Calippus,* either through the Bactrians or the Hindus; but there is scarcely a shadow of doubt that this was the case. In no other way can we account for the sudden appearance in Ts'een's history of a method so far in advance of anything known before in China, and one which had already been employed in the west for more than two centuries.†

This opinion, while probably correct in the main, is, I think, erroneous as to the derivation of the cycle of sixty from a foreign source. There seems to be good evidence that it was employed in comparatively ancient times, though its application was to days only. This supposition may explain some seeming contradictions and inconsistencies in the Chinese records, while it admits the antiquity of the cycle itself.

From what has now been advanced, it appears that the received Chinese chronological system, in its present form, owes its origin to scholars of the Han

* A correction of the Metonic cycle of 19 solar years, at which time the new moons return to the same days of the year. This period exceeding 235 lunations by 7 hours, Calippus proposed to drop a day at the end of four cycles, or 76 years, by changing one of the months of 30 days to 29 days.- Brande's Dict.

Chin. Classics, vol. iii. prol. pp. 96, 99.

dynasties (B. C. 202–A. D. 220.) That was the Augustan age in Chinese literature. Those scholars, doubtless, made the best use of the materials at their command in constructing an accurate chronology of their national history. The question then remains, Were those materials reliable? Did they have sufficient data for constructing an accurate chronology for times very long anterior to their own?

On this point, Dr. Legge remarks (vol. iii. prol. p. 83), "There can be no doubt that, before the Han dynasty, a list of sovereigns, and the lengths of their several reigns, was the only means which the Chinese had of determining the duration of their national history. And it would still be a sufficiently satisfactory method if we had a list of sovereigns, and of the years each reigned, that was complete and reliable. We do not have this, however. Even in the earlier part of the Han dynasty, Sze-maTs'een's father and himself were obliged to content themselves with giving simply the names and order of most of the rulers of Shang and Hia.* The lengths of the several reigns in the standard chronology have been determined mainly, I believe, to make the whole line stretch out to the years which had been fixed, on astronomical considerations, for

* The IIId and IId dynasties, B. C. 2205-1122.

the periods of Chung-k'ang of the Hia dynasty, and of Yaou."

From this opinion of Dr. Legge I see no good reason for dissenting. It finds abundant support in the facts and arguments which he has furnished. He seems to regard the chronology from the commencement of the Chan dynasty (B. C. 1122) as reliable; that of the Shang dynasty (B. C. 1766– 1122) as doubtful in regard to the details of reigns and dates; while that of the first or Hia dynasty is still more unreliable.

The founder of this dynasty was Yu the Great. The accounts given of him show that he was a mythological personage. His birth was preternatural. The record says, "His mother saw a falling star, which went through the constellation Maou, and in a dream her thoughts were moved till she became pregnant; after which she swallowed a spirit's pearl. Her back opened in due time, and she gave birth to Yu in Shih-neu. He had a tiger nose and a large mouth. When he grew up, he had the virtue of a and six inches long." * deeds, especially in draining off the waters of the inundation, is evidently mythical. One is reminded,

sage, and was nine cubits The story of his great

* Translation of the Annals of the Bamboo Books, in Dr. Legge's Chin. Classics, vol. iii. part 1, p. 117.

in reading it, of the labors of Hercules. So with his predecessors just named. Their births were as marvelous as that of Yu. Things are related of some of them which suggest a suspicion that they are confused traditions of events described in the Mosaic records. What more plausible supposition than that the inventor of the famous cycle of sixty, Nau (or Nao) the Great is no other than the Jewish patriarch himself, with but the slightest change or corruption of the name? One certainly can not but be surprised that such a writer as Pauthier should say, as before quoted, "Chinese history possesses all the characters of certitude which historic criticism has a right to demand." (Vol. ii. p. 33.)

And here the question naturally arises, whether the Chinese historians had the materials for writing authentic annals of the early ages of that country. The most valued of the Chinese classics, as already intimated, is the Shu-king, or Book of Records, of which Confucius is the reputed author or compiler (born B. C. 549). It is a series of dialogues designed to give a brief history of China from the time of Yaou down to Ping Wang, of the Chan dynasty, B. C. 770. "The internal evidence," says Williams (Mid. King. i. p. 504), "leads to the conclusion that Confucius acted principally as editor of documents existing in his day; but the changes