has shewn[1] why the above-named epocha ought to be 543 and not 544,[2] (his reasons it is not necessary for me to repeat,) then, if we add 543 to the second period 638, we shall have the space of 1181 years between them; if we add to which the period 19, we shall have exactly 1200, which makes two Neroses. Cassini says, “Between the two Indian epochas there is a period of 1181 years, which being joined to a period of 19 years, there are two periods of 600 years, which reduce the new moons near the equinoxes.”[3]
Lalande, in his Astronomie,[4] says, “Si l’on emploie la durée de l’annee que nous connoissons et le mois Sinodique tel que nous l’avons indiqué ci-devant, c’est-a-dire, des mois de 29 jours 12 heures 44 min. 3 sec. chacun, on aura 28 heures, 1 min., 42 sec. de trop, dans les sept mille, quatre cent, vingt-une lunaissons: ainsi la lune retarderoit de plus d’un jour au bout de six cents ans.”
I notice this, here, that a reader learned in astronomy may not suppose me ignorant of it, or that I have overlooked it. In mythological calculations for short periods, small errors like this can be of little consequence. In a future book of this work, I shall shew that, at last, a very important consequence arose from this error; and I flatter myself that I shall be able, by its means, to explain a part of the ancient mythology, beyond all question the most curious and important of the whole.
2. The prophecy of Isaiah alluded to by Cassini had reference in the first place to a new cycle, which may be called the cycle of Cyrus, because in Isaiah he is described by name. It probably began about the captivity. The date of it professes to be some time before that cycle of 600 years, which cycle preceded the birth of Christ; which birth ought to be precisely at the end of the cycle above-named, in which the 543 years before Christ are spoken of. It is evident that this prophecy of the cycle of Cyrus would, in a considerable degree, apply to every succeeding cycle of the Neros. In the same manner I shall shew that the prophecies of Cristna and Buddha will be found to apply to their re-appearances.
The prophecy of Isaiah may be said to have been a mystery, an example of judicial astrology. It required no divine inspiration to prove to the initiated, that, at the end of the cycle then running, a new cycle would commence, or that the cycle of the God Cristna, the Sun, would be born again: and this leads us to a discovery which will account for and remove many of the difficulties which our learned men have encountered respecting Buddha and Cristna. It is evident that both of them being the sun, mystically and astrologically speaking, their year was 600 years long, and their birthday on the first year of the 600, on which was a conjunction of sun and moon at the vernal equinox. The day of the first birth of Buddha was at the vernal equinox of that 600 when the sun entered Taurus, of Cristna of that 600 nearest to the time when he entered Aries. The birthdays of both returned every 600 years—when the Phēn or Phenishe or Phoenix was consumed on the altar of the temple of the sun at Heliopolis, in Egypt, and rose from its ashes to new life. This, I think, seems to have been purely astrological.
At first many persons will be greatly surprised at the assertion, that the passages of Isaiah, ch. vii. 14, viii. 8, are not prophecies of Christ. In order to force the text of Isaiah to serve this
- ↑ Sect. xix. p. 219.
- ↑ Vide Asiat. Res. Vol. VI. p. 266. 8vo.
- ↑ The Brahmins were acquainted with the Cycle of 19 years. Crawfurd says, “It is curious to find at Siam the knowledge of that Cycle, of which the invention was thought to do so much honour to the Athenian astronomer Meton, and which makes so great a figure in our modern calendars.” Researches, Vol. II. p. 18. The Siamese had the Metonic cycle more correctly than Numa, Meton, or Calippus, and the Epact also more correct than the French in the time of Cassini. Cassini, p. 213. M. Bailli observed that the Chinese, the Indians, the Chaldeans, and the Egyptians, all had the same astronomical formulæ for the calculation of eclipses, though the principles of them were forgotten. Faber, Pag. Idol. Vol. I. p. 37.
- ↑ Tome II. Art. 1570, ed. 3.
Z
