Fo-hi to mean Noah, then the third in descent from him was not born until A. M. 1659, which is only two years after the deluge: consequently, the reign of the third in descent from Fo-hi, whether he were antediluvian or postdiluvian, could not have commenced A. M. 1309. This proves that the first six cycles of Couplet were introduced, and made subservient to that number of years, which, mistaking the Chou for the reign, he assigned for the six princes who reigned between Fo-hi and Yau. We may, therefore, pronounce the whole chronology of Couplet erroneous; at least so far as cycles are concerned. The Chinese antediluvian records are admitted by themselves to be very imperfect. They do not profess to have any certain dates before the flood of Yau, further than those which relate to him. Nevertheless, all their historians agree, that the world was divided into two great lines during the third generation from Fo-hi. That Whang-ti was at the head of one of those lines; that he was the third, or yellow, emperor, and that by him the cycle was first invented and afterwards perfected. But of the year in which it commenced they have no certain ac count; although they trace very accurately the death of the prince who invented it to A. M. 1140, or the 11th year of the 6th cycle. Now the Hindu history throws much light on this subject. Icshwacu, like Whang-ti, was the third in descent from the first-created; in his time the world was divided into two great lines, and in his time the cycle of 60 was introduced. The rule of this prince commenced at the beginning of the second age, or A. M. 401, when he was about 160 years of age. The Arabians represent him as well skilled in Natural Philosophy and Astronomy. And the first cycle, at least the first cycle of a cycle of cycles, or period of 3600 years, began about 400 years after the commencement of his rule, or A. M. 829; at which period I have little doubt but that the cycle was first brought into use. This prince could not have reigned, in succession, until the death of his father A. M. 1041. It is, therefore, probable, that the Chinese are correct in stating that, "after his accession to sovereign rule," he appointed six Kelau to organize and bring to perfection arts, which he had cultivated before he succeeded to the throne of his father. So might the mandarin Tanuo have organized the cycle; that is, arranged the 10 roots and 12 branches in such a manner, that no two could ever occur in the same year until the cycle was complete. If a grand period commenced A. M. 829, then, as the deluge is placed in the 756th year of the Cali age, it must have commenced in the 47th year of the - 14th cycle. Couplet, Du Halde, and all the other missionaries place the commencement of the first cycle, after the deluge at the year B.C. 2337; because A. M. 4006-23371669; the Brahmans place at the year B. c. 2333, because A. M. 4002-23331669. But, since the Chinese agree with the Hindus, in placing it in the Cali year 769, the second grand period consequently commenced in the Cali year 3529, or in the 427th year of the Christian era, calculating that epoch at A. M. 4002. If therefore the calculations of the Brahmans are just, as the Cali age commenced in the 12th year of a second cycle, it must have commenced A. M. 901 and that their calculations are just we learn from this being the ninth year of the 24th cycle of the last grand period. Which proves, to mathematical demonstration, that the Chinese and Hindu cycles are the same, and that they commenced long before A. M. 1309, which year was the commencement of the ninth, and not of the first cycle. It has, I trust, been clearly proved, that the chronology of Couplet is unfounded. That of the other missionaries is less objectionable. For, unable to ascertain the number of cycles that were passed, they consider them as arbitrary, leaving others to draw their own conclusions. They observe that the first cycle after our epoch of the deluge, commenced in the year B. c. 2337; which differs in four years * Vide Appendix (A). only from the Chinese chronology, owing to the reasons above given. The missionaries seem aware of this circumstance. For, in giving the history of the reign of Chong-kong the fourth emperor of the first Chinese dynasty, they inform "that in the second year, or, according to others, the sixth year, of the cycle, there happened a remarkable eclipse of the Sun." Missionaries admit the difference of four us, years. The Chinese do not, in direct words, tell us the year of the cycle, in which the flood happened. But they tell us, that the reign of Yau commenced after 3267000 years, which answers to the Cali year 757, which, we know, was the 48th year of the 14th cycle, which answers to A. M. 1657; adding, that the first years of his reign were employed in draining off the waters that remained stagnant in the vallies. The missionaries who never distinguish between Chou's reigns and rules, place this epoch seven years further back; which may be cited as a proof of the accuracy of the Chinese records; since Lamech the father of Noah died A. M. 1651. The missionaries place the accession of the son at the death of his father; forgetting that he succeeded his grandfather, who outlived his son. Couplet, therefore, places the commencement of the reign of Yau in the 41st, instead of the 48th year of a cycle; and the deluge, happening just one year before the reign of Yau, is placed in the 40th, instead of the 47th year of a cycle. The missionary, reading that the great inundation happened in the Chou of Yau, concludes that it was during his reign. At a loss, therefore, to account for the incongruity of an event happening in the 40th year, when the reign did not commence until the 41st year of the cycle, he carries it forward 59 years, or to the 40th year of the succeeding cycle, which he names the 7th. Now every nation, that records the deluge, speaks of it as having happened in the time of the prince, who was saved in the ark; the Hindus place it in the Antara of Satyavrata; the Chaldeans in the time of Sisuthrus; the Hebrews in the time of Noah; and the Chinese in the Chou of Yau. Thus each nation places the reign of the prince, however named, one year after the commencement of the flood. The account, as given by the missionary, refutes itself. He begins by informing us, that Yau ruled alone for 72 years; that it was the especial care of this prince, by draining the stagnant waters which remained on the low lands after the deluge, to render them fertile. For which purpose he appointed Quen an overseer; who, having betrayed the confidence placed in him, either by neglect or design, was, after nine years, put to death; that his son Yu, desirous to repair |