the Sun Menus who perfectly understood the Scripture, who descended in succession from Swayambhuva, and reached to the deluge, named Iwarochisha, Auttama, Tamosa, Raivata, Cha'eshusha and Vaivaswata." The information of this author is drawn from the Egyptian side of India, as we may learn from the two generations being restored. In a note on the sixth generation, Mr. Wilford explains that Bharata was the great chief, who gave his name to the country of Bharat, or Bharatawarsha; which proves that the chief whom he labours to convince us was born 1042 years after the deluge, actually gave his name to a country in the antediluvian world. It requires little logic to prove that the same person, who flourished 497 years before the deluge, could not have reappeared 1042 years after that epoch, as governor of the whole world. So that, it is clear, the Egyptians, as well as the Hindus, place this great chief as the sixth in descent in the race of Cain. And, if we remove the asterisk placed by Sir William Jones against the name of Bharata* two names higher, that chief would appear in his proper place; the first of the sixth generation in the Lunar race. In a former letter, I observed that Bharata was the half-brother of Rama Chan * Vide p. 142. dra. Here we see him correctly placed, by Mr. Wilford, as the Irad of Scripture, and Agreus of Egypt, of the sixth generation in the line of Cain. So that, if any credit is due either to his own account, or to that of the Hindus, who profess that "Dasaratha was not only the father of Rama Chandra of the Solar race, but the nominal father of the great Bharata, who became sovereign of the world, and gave his name to that extensive country called after him," then must Mahalaleel have been depicted in the great Daosaratha, and his son Jared in Rama Chandra. And, as it is universally admitted, that the great war of Bharat was carried on by the Solar and Lunar dynasties, it follows that those dynasties were antediluvian. Mr. Wilford having, with some accuracy, traced the line of Cain, and compared it with that of Sanchoniatho, proceeds to give the line of Seth, comparing it with that of the Hebrews. Here he has failed entirely. For, with the exception of one name, which is properly placed, the whole is erroneous. Mr. Wilford's table of Solar Menus, and Hebrew patriarchs of the race of Seth, is as follows: 5 Pushparra 7 Ulmaca... 8 Anga.. .... 9 Vena... .Mahalaleel. .Jared. . Enoch. . Lamech. Names may be incorrectly written, or the same persons described by different names. But events always mark the person intended. With the exception of Chu'cshusha, all the princes, inserted in the foregoing list, were of the Lunar race. It appears that this author, understanding a Menwantara to be the reign of a Menu, and thinking it incongruous for such holy personages to belong to the race of Cain, transfers them to the better line; and then, that each of the fourteen Menwantaras might have its Menu, he extends his antediluvian genealogical table to the great grandchildren of Noah, in the fourth generation; thereby making fourteen generations in 958 years, in lieu of ten in 1656. And he previously informs us, that Dhruva, or Dherma which is the same, 66 was Budha of the Lunar dynasty, who married Ila, the daughter of Noah." From which it is evident, either that the ten antediluvian patriarchs, were born after the deluge, or that Ila* * Ila, the daughter of Swayambhuva, is supposed to have married Budha of the third generation in the Lunar race, Enoch of the race of Cain. was not the daughter of Noah. Enos was born A. M. 235, or 1421 years before the deluge. And Arphaxad, the third from Noah, A. м. 1659, or three years after it. And according to the epochs of this author, Enos, or Budha, was born A. M. 235, and Budha, who married Ila, A. M. 1302, or in the year B. C. 2700; which exhibits a difference of 1067 years in the age of the same person. These contradictory accounts form a part of the same essay; the one being given in page 244, the other in page 253 of the fifth volume of the Asiatic Researches, which, if this author was not satirizing the chronology, proves that he had no knowledge of the subject, on which he wrote, but merely copied from every legend that he met with. His table of Menus in the race of Seth is continued as follows. "10 Pritha or Noah." "11 Vijitaswa." "12 Visilaswa, (during the life of this prince Swayambhuva or Adam dies.)" "13 Visishada." "14 Ducsha; during the time of this prince Dhrava was translated to heaven." "For Dhruva, like Enoch in Scripture, is commended for his extraordinary piety, and the salutary precepts he gave mankind. He did not taste death, but was translated to heaven, where he shines in the polar star; but Enos and Enoch are confounded together." By whom are they confounded? Certainly not by the Hindus. For, although the similitude between Enoch and Enosh, as it is written in the Hebrew, might have misled an European, yet the pundits are not liable to such an error. For Hebrew names are not introduced in Sanscrit records. This author, probably having heard from his pundit, that Buddha the son of Máyá, of the seventh generation in the Solar race, was considered as the genius of justice, that he was translated, and still worshipped in the polar star, and finding that Budha of the third generation in the line of Atri, who married Ila, the daughter of Menu, was usually stiled Dherma Budha, to denote his wisdom and justice, confounded Enoch the son of Cain, with Enosh* the son of Seth. Very many of the Brahmans understand English perfectly well; and many of them are wonderfully well versed in our Scripture. It is therefore very probable, that the pundit, from whom this author got his information, told him that Budha of the third generation, who was stiled Dherma and who married Ila, the daughter of Menu, was Enoch + of our Scripture; which is * Icshwacu of the third generation in the solar race is frequently spoken of as a Budha. + Enoch the son of Cain. |