V. our accounts of these doctrines in Egypt are only CHAP. found in books written long after they had reached Greece through other channels. The only early authority is Herodotus, who lived after the philosophy of Pythagoras had been universally diffused. If, however, these doctrines existed among the Egyptians, they were scattered opinions in the midst of an independent system; and in Greece they are obviously adscititious, and not received in their integrity by any other of the philosophers except by the Pythagoreans. In India, on the contrary, they are the main principles on which the religion of the people is founded, to which all the schools of philosophy refer, and on which every theory in physics and every maxim in morality depends. It is well argued by Mr. Colebrooke, that the Indian philosophy resembles that of the earlier rather than of the later Greeks; and that, if the Hindús had been capable of learning the first doctrines from a foreign nation, there was no reason why they should not in like manner have acquired a knowledge of the subsequent improvements. From which he infers that "the Hindús were, in this instance, the teachers, and not the learners." * * Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i. p. 579. It may, perhaps, be observed, that the doctrines of Pythagoras appear to belong to a period later than Menu. The formation of a society living in common, and receiving common initiation, together with the practice of burying the dead instead of burning them, seem to refer to the rules of the monastic orders; while the strictness regarding animal food has also a resemblance to the tendency of later times. BOOK III. STATE OF THE HINDÚS IN LATER TIMES, CONTINUED. BOOK FEW of the subjects which follow are noticed by Menu: we can, therefore, no longer attempt to mark the changes effected since his time, but must endeavour from other sources to trace the rise and describe the present state of each branch of inquiry as it occurs. CHAP. I. ASTRONOMY AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE. I. THE antiquity and the originality of the Indian CHAP. astronomy form subjects of considerable interest.* The first point has been discussed by some of the greatest astronomers in Europe; and is still unsettled. Cassini, Bailly, and Playfair maintain that observations taken upwards of 3000 years before Christ are still extant, and prove a considerable degree of progress already made at that period. Several men, eminent for science, (among whon. are La Place and De Lambre,) deny the authenticity of the observations, and, consequently, the validity of the conclusion. The argument is conducted entirely on astronomical principles, and can only be decided by astronomers as far as it can be understood by a person unacquainted with science, it does not appear to authorise an award, to the extent that is claimed, in favour of the Hindús. All astronomers, however, admit the great an * Much information on these subjects, but generally with views unfavourable to the Hindús, is given in the illustrations, by different hands, annexed to Mr. Hugh Murray's Historical and Descriptive Account of British India, a work of great ability and value. Antiquity of the tronomy. III. BOOK tiquity of the Hindú observations; and it seems indisputable that the exactness of the mean motions that they have assigned to the sun and moon could only have been attained by a comparison of modern observations with others made in remote antiquity. Even Mr. Bentley, the most strenuous opponent of the claims of the Hindús, pronounces, in his latest work, that their division of the ecliptic into twenty-seven lunar mansions (which supposes much previous observation) was made 1442 years before our æra; and, without relying upon his authority in this instance, we should be inclined. to believe that the Indian observations could not have commenced at a later period than the fifteenth century before Christ. This would be from one to two centuries before the Argonautic expedition and the first mention of astronomy in Greece. The astronomical rule relating to the calendar, which has been quoted from the Védas †, is shown to have been drawn up in the fourteenth century before Christ; and Parasara, the first writer on astronomy of whose writings any portion remains, appears to have flourished about the same time.‡ * See Pond's La Place System of the World, vol. ii. p. 252. + In Appendix I. See also Asiatic Researches, vol. viii. p. 489.; vol. vii. p. 282. This appears by his observation of the place of the Colures, first mentioned by Mr. Davis. (Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. p. 268.) Sir W. Jones, in consequence of some further information received from Mr. Davis, fixed Parasara in the twelfth century before Christ (1181, B. C.); but Mr. Davis himself afterwards explained (Asiatic Researches, vol. v. p. 288.) that, from the I. In our inquiries into the astronomy of the In- CHAP. dians, we derive no aid from their own early authors. The same system of priestcraft, which has Its extent. exercised so pernicious an influence on the Hindús in other respects, has cast a veil over their science. Astronomy having been made subservient to the extravagant chronology of the religionists, all the epochs which it ought to determine have been thrown into confusion and uncertainty; no general view of their system has been given; only such parts of science as are required for practical purposes are made known; and even of them the original sources are carefully concealed, and the results communicated as revelations from the Divinity. most minute consideration he could give the subject, the observation must have been made 1391 years before the Christian æra. Another passage quoted from Parasara shows that the heliacal rising of Canopus took place in his time at a period which agrees with the date assigned to him, on other grounds. (Colebrooke, Asiatic Researches, vol. ix. p. 356. See also Asiatic Researches, vol. v. p. 288., for the opinion of Mr. Davis.) Mr. Bentley, however, at one time suspected the whole of the works of Parasara to be modern forgeries (Asiatic Researches, vol. vi. p. 581.); and when he admitted them afterwards (in his posthumous work), he put a different interpretation on the account of the rising of Canopus, and placed him, on that and other grounds, in the year 576 before Christ. (Abstract of Bentley's History, Oriental Magazine, vol. v. p. 245.) The attempt made by Sir W. Jones to fix other dates, by means of the mythological histories into which the name of Parasara is introduced, does not appear successful. (Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. p. 399.) * Thus the "Surya Sidhanta," the learned work of an astro |