was the commencement of the period of Osiris, and his conquests in Ethiopia and Asia. At B. C. 19,337 was the commencement of the period of the "Manouantaras" in India, a "date chronologically precise and approximatively verified by astronomy." At B. C. 14,611 was the "era of Ma. Chronologically the number is 14,606; astronomical verifications, very precise, give 14,611.” And here the author places the "origin of the great cycles of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, and of the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days." At B. C. 13,901 he places the "era of the Maha-Yuga, the origin of the period called Satya-Yuga, the Institutes of Manu, or legislator Vaivasvata, surnamed Satyavrata, the end of the Vedic epoch, the recension of the Vedas. The exactness of this date is as rigorous as that of the Egyptian date." Omitting the mention of some intermediate dates, at which important historical events are represented to have taken place, we come down to B. C. 9101, a date which is "rigorously verified," at which "Maya compiled the treatise of astronomy called the Surya Siddhantâ." At B. C. 4286 is another "date rigorously verified by astronomy," as that when the Egyptian calendar was reformed, &c., &c. These specifications are sufficient to place before the reader the character and pretensions of this remarkable work.

Now, the question arises, How does this author make out these high dates, some of which, he affirms, are verified approximatively, and others rigorously, by astronomy? I need only to indicate his processes in two or three instances. Take first the date B. C. 9101, which he

says is "rigorously verified," when the astronomical treatise called the Suryâ Siddhantâ was compiled. Having translated that work from the Sanskrit, while in India, I am pretty well acquainted with it, and with the astronomical literature of the Hindus; and I may state that the treatise itself contains astronomical data which refer the compilation of the work, in its present form, to the latter part of the fifth or the first part of the sixth century after Christ, though it doubtless comprises astronomical knowledge which had existed among the Hindus for centuries before. These are the facts as recognized by all oriental scholars who have given attention to this subject.

Now, how does our author make out the date of B. C. 9101? In this wise: In the commencement of the trea tise, it is said it was revealed by the Sun to the Asura Maya, at the close of the Krita or Satya-Yuga (or age) of the present Maha-Yuga, which consists of four million three hundred and twenty thousand solar years. But these are equal to twelve thousand divine years, or years of, the gods one year of the gods being equal to three hundred and sixty years of mortals, i. e., solar years. This is expressly stated in the work itself. Now, our author, setting aside or ignoring the express declarations. of the treatise, and of other astronomical treatises, makes the Maha-Yuga to consist of twelve thousand sidereal years, instead of four million three hundred and twenty thousand; and this would bring the end of the KritaYuga at B. C. 9101, when the Suryâ Siddhantâ was compiled. The declaration in the treatise itself makes the

was the commencement of the period of Osiris, and his conquests in Ethiopia and Asia. At B. C. 19,337 was the commencement of the period of the "Manouantaras” in India, a "date chronologically precise and approximatively verified by astronomy." At B. C. 14,611 was the "era of Ma. Chronologically the number is 14,606; astronomical verifications, very precise, give 14,611.” And here the author places the "origin of the great cycles of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, and of the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days." At B. C. 13,901 he places the "era of the Maha-Yuga, the origin of the period called Satya-Yuga, the Institutes of Manu, or legislator Vaivasvata, surnamed Satyavrata, the end of the Vedic epoch, the recension of the Vedas. The exactness of this date is as rigorous as that of the Egyptian date." Omitting the mention of some intermediate dates, at which important historical events are represented to have taken place, we come down to B. C. 9101, a date which is "rigorously verified," at which "Maya compiled the treatise of astronomy called the Surya Siddhantâ." At B. C. 4286 is another "date rigorously verified by astronomy," as that when the Egyptian calendar was reformed, &c., &c. These specifications are sufficient to place before the reader the character and pretensions of this remarkable work.

...

Now, the question arises, How does this author make out these high dates, some of which, he affirms, are verified approximatively, and others rigorously, by astronomy? I need only to indicate his processes in two or three instances. Take first the date B. C. 9101, which he

says is 66 rigorously verified," when the astronomical treatise called the Surya Siddhantâ was compiled. Having translated that work from the Sanskrit, while in India, I am pretty well acquainted with it, and with the astronomical literature of the Hindus; and I

may state that the treatise itself contains astronomical data which refer the compilation of the work, in its present form, to the latter part of the fifth or the first part of the sixth century after Christ, though it doubtless comprises astronomical knowledge which had existed among the Hindus for centuries before. These are the facts as recognized by all oriental scholars who have given attention to this subject.

Now, how does our author make out the date of B. C. 9101? In this wise: In the commencement of the trea tise, it is said it was revealed by the Sun to the Asura Maya, at the close of the Krita or Satya-Yuga (or age) of the present Maha-Yuga, which consists of four million three hundred and twenty thousand solar years. But these are equal to twelve thousand divine years, or years of the gods one year of the gods being equal to three hundred and sixty years of mortals, i. e., solar years. This is expressly stated in the work itself. Now, our author, setting aside or ignoring the express declarations of the treatise, and of other astronomical treatises, makes the Maha-Yuga to consist of twelve thousand sidereal years, instead of four million three hundred and twenty thousand; and this would bring the end of the KritaYuga at B. C. 9101, when the Suryâ Siddhantâ was compiled. The declaration in the treatise itself makes the

compilation, or rather revelation of it, to have been at about B. C. 2,163,101. Rodier thinks this a mistake, and, arbitrarily altering the date, makes it to be B. C. 9101, which he says "is rigorously verified," while the treatise itself furnishes unequivocal evidence that its compilation, in its present form, can be dated no earlier than the sixth century before Christ. Rodier might, with equal consistency, have made the epoch of the compilation of the Suryâ Siddhantâ to have been 2,163,101, instead of 9101, B. C.

Take another of his dates, " rigorously verified,” that of B. C. 13,901, the epoch of the Institutions of Manu, end of the Vedic epoch, the date of the recensions of the Vedas, of the adoption of the Egyptian Zodiac, &c., &c. How does he make this out? Very easily, in this way: There is appended to the Vedas an astronomical part called the Iyotisha; in this the position of the solstitial colure is given for the time, which a simple calculation shows to have been B. C. 1181 (Rodier says 1500). The original Sanskrit text, in defining the position, mentions the summer solstice as being at the particular point at that time, or what is equivalent to it. Now, Rodier has the boldness, as he terms it, to suppose that it is not the summer solstice that is meant, but the winter; and this carries back the epoch of the observation a space of time equal to that in which the equinoxes would retrograde through one half the whole circle of the. ecliptic, i. e., about twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty years.' This, added to the Vedic date, as admitted by Sanskrit scholars generally, viz., 1181, makes out Rodier's epoch *Rodier, p. 470.

*