Isaac of the tenth generation: Arphaxad, the son of Shem, lived 438 years; Selem, his grandson, 433; and Eber, his grandson, 464: and it was not until A. M. 2515, which is 613 years after the pundits all agree that the Solar dynasty became extinct, that the age of man was shortened to eighty years. To account for these supposititious dates (for Mr. Bentley does not even pretend to copy from Hindu accounts) he says, "from the bills of mortality it appears that the mean duration of human life does not exceed thirty-two, or thirty-three years. Admitting the mean duration to be thirty-three, we cannot admit more than seventeen at the utmost for the reign of each." Now it appears that Mizraim, the grandson of Noah, reigned sixty-two years; Athothes, his great grandson, fifty-nine years; and that, on an average, the twenty-first kings of Egypt, reaching to A. M. 2423, reigned above thirty years each; although several of them were more than two hundred years of age, when

their reign commenced. Strange, that those who attempt to explain the Chronology of the Hindus should be so ill informed, relative to that of their own religion. This author proceeds to state;

66

thirdly and lastly, that there was but one Budha (sage) in the time of Noah, who is said to have married Ila the daughter of Noah." Hence he infers, "that the Buddha (prophet) who appeared

in the 1002d year of the Calijug, or in the year 1907 of the creation, was the very same who married Noah's daughter, recorded as living near the beginning of the Tritajug of the poets, and as being contemporary with the sons of Noah." It has been already proved, that the beginning of the Tritajug commenced with the fifth century, and that it was at that period, that this race returned to the city of their great ancestor Swayambhuva or Adam. But, waving this circumstance, and admitting Budha to be postdiluvian, unless Mr. Bentley means to deny the deluge altogether, from what stock does his Budha descend? If all created beings, save Noah and his sons, were destroyed at that period, from whom did the contemporary of Noah's sons spring, whom Ila married A. M. 1907? (according to the Hindus A. M. 400.) If Ila was the daughter of Noah, she was the sister of Japheth, who was born A. M. 1557. Now supposing her born two hundred years after her brother, and when her father was seven hundred years of age, she must, according to this author, have been two hundred years of age, when the youthful Budha led her to the altar. And, as we find in the Mosaic account, that none of the descendants of Noah were more than thirty-five years of age, when their first child was born, it appears" monstrously absurd, and contrary to nature

and reason," to suppose that a contemporary of one of these should have chosen a bride who had attained her two hundredth year; more particularly, as two hundred years after, the birth of Isaac was considered miraculous, Sarah being 90 years of age. "Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in years, therefore Sarah laughed within herself, say-ing, After I am waxed old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old likewise?" This was in the year of the world 2107: but if we suppose, that this Budha was born, instead of having married in the 1002d year of the Cali age, and that his son was born when he was thirty, the average period in the race of Noah, then his wife Ila gave birth to that son, from whom the race of the Moon descended, in the two hundred and thirtieth year of her age. And this very incongruous history rests on no better foundation than the bills of mortality, more than four thousand years after. But even the parish registers might have taught this author better. They would have shewn him that the greater number of children of the present time die under two years of age. General history would have informed him, that the proportion of princes, who ascend a throne under that age, is as one to an Lundred. And a very superficial knowledge of the English history would have informed him, that in modern times (when the life of man is limited to threescore years

and ten, and when very many more die under forty years of age than above it,) the average or "mean duration" of the life of the last thirty-three kings of England, or from William the Conqueror, to the present reign inclusive," exceeds fifty years, and the period of their reigns nearly twenty-three years. Adopting, therefore, this author's system, we should have the children of the Sun and Moon shining at least six hundred years after the Christian era. In his chronological table, he professes to correct that of Sir William Jones, and places the commencement of the several reigns of those dynasties, of which Icshwacu and Budha are the head, at that period when the pundits universally admit that they became extinct: this author places the commencement of the dynasties, at A. M. 1907. All the pundits agree that they ended in the year B. C. 2100, or A. M. 1902. Mr. Bentley, allowing seventeen years for the rule of each child born in either family, and placing them all in succession, as following generations, allots the prolonged period of 1981 years for their reign: which he asserts did not become extinct until the year B. C. 120. At a loss to dispose of Pradyato, who is admitted beyond controversy to have usurped the throne when the dynasty of the Sun became extinct, he carries him back nearly two thousand years, making him the contemporary of Icshwacu,

and gives a list of his descendants for 1647 years, or until A. M. 3554. However erroneous the system which I have ventured to bring forward may be, namely, that system which supposes the dynasties antediluvian, thus much is certain, no argument yet produced by the various authors, who contend for their being the progeny of Noah, will stand the test of investigation: a certain proof of their fallacy. Two objections are stated by the last author: first, the alteration in the Menwantara; and secondly, the poets Valmic and Vyasu having flourished in different ages; he asserts as an indubitable truth that Meya the supposed author of the Surya Sidhenta increased the Menwantara from 306720000 to 308448000 years: whereas the author of that tract adopted the latter Menwantara without altering the former. Both continue in use to the present day, for the purposes for which they were originally intended: the former being the basis of a cypher, which must be rendered unintelligible, by the least deviation therefrom whereas the latter answered better for astronomical purposes, and brought their year

of

13 Lunar months nearer to that of 12 Solar months of 360 days. Had the alteration amounted to 1728000 years, as this author supposes, it had indeed been fatal to Chronology. But, as it merely lengthened the duration of a year of 355 days