his contemporary, who was killed in the war of Bharat, by Abhimanyu, son of Arjun, and father of Paricshit, to the time when the Solar and Lunar dynasties are believed to have become extinct in the present divine age; and for these generations the Hindus allot a period of one thousand years only, or a hundred years for three generations; which calculation, though probably too large, is yet moderate enough compared with their absurd account of the preceding ages; but they reckon exactly the same number of years, for twenty generations only in the family of Iarasandha, whose son was contemporary with Yudhishthir, and founded a new dynasty of Princes in Magadha or Bahar: and this exact coincidence of the time in which the three are supposed to have been extinct, has the appearance of an artificial chronology, formed rather from imagination, than from historical evidence; especially as twenty kings, in an age comparatively modern, could not have reigned a thousand years. I nevertheless exhibit the list of them as a curiosity; but am far from being convinced, that all of them ever existed; that, if they did exist, they could not have reigned more than seven hundred years, I am fully persuaded by the course of nature, and the concurrent opinion of mankind."

"Puranjata, son of the twentieth king, was put to death by his minister, Sunaca, who placed his own son, Pradyato, on the throne of his master and this revolution constitutes an epoch of the highest importance in our present inquiry; first, because it happened according to the Bhagavatamrita, two years exactly before Buddha's appearance in the same kingdom: next, because it is believed by the Hindus to have taken place 3888 years ago, or 2100 years before Christ; and lastly, because a regular chronology, according to the number of years in each dynasty, has been established from the accession of Pradyato to the

*

* Before A.D. 1788.

subversion of the genuine Hindu government; and that chronology I will now lay before you, after observing only, that Rhadacanta himself says nothing of Buddha in this part of his work, though he particularly mentions the two preceding Avatars in their proper place."

KINGS OF MAGADHA.

Pradyato, Y. B. C. 2100.

Palaca.

Visac'hayupa.

Rajaca.

Nandiverdhana, 5 reigns=138 years.

Sisunaga, Y. B. C. 1962.

Cacaverna.

Cshemadherman.

Cshetrajnya.

Vidhesara.

Ajatasatru.

Dharbhaca.

Ajaya.

Nandiverdhana.

Mahanandi, 10 reigns=360 years.

Nanda, Y. B. C. 1602.

"This prince, of whom frequent mention is made in the Sanscrit books, is said to have been

murdered, after a reign of one hundred years, by a very learned and ingenious, but passionate and vindictive Brahman, whose name was Chanacya, and who raised to the throne a man of the Maurya race, named Chandragupta. By the death of Nanda and his sons, the Cshatriya family of Pradyato became extinct.”

Such are the comments of Sir William Jones, on the genealogy of the Hindus, as furnished by Rhadacanta, and which I have followed so far as the year B. c. 1502, as comprehending the life of the last Buddha: and these observations I have given at large, because, if we refute them, the arguments brought forwards by minor authors will deserve little attention.

Had the dynasties of the Sun and Moon been postdiluvian, it is impossible that, in an account so circumstantial as that given by Rhadacanta, the princes who ruled during the first age, should have been omitted. But considering them as antediluvian, the seeming omission is correct. For we have seen, that during the first age Menu ruled alone. No feuds had then commenced: but, at the setting in of the second age, a different system became necessary; the race of Atri returned, and then two dynasties arose; until which time the children of the Sun inhabited the Holy City, with their great sire, as one family; all was unity and peace.

Now let us, for a moment, suppose, with those who adopt the new system of ancient mythology, agreeing with its learned author, that the first year denoted the first year after the deluge, and that all historic record commenced from that epoch. Considering Noah as the first of men, and consequently the Solar and Lunar dynasties as the offspring of that patriarch, let us examine whether it is possible to reconcile dates with that hypothesis. In the Chronological Table under consideration, it is asserted that fifty-six princes reigned in succession during the second age, and thirty during the third; making an aggregate of eighty-six reigns, the last of which, according to this author, ended Y. B. C. 3100, or A. M. 902: and as these are reckoned by the years that had elapsed between that epoch and the birth of Christ, there can be no error in respect to the numeration. Now these are said by Europeans, to have descended in a line of eldest sons, from Cush, the son of Ham, whom, as the contemporary of Selah (who was born A. M. 1694), we cannot place further back; since our author asserts, that his father was not born until after the flood. In which case, no less than eighty-six generations descended from Cush 792 years before he was born; and the last of these eighty-six postdiluvian princes ended his reign 751 years before the deluge. Giving the