concern whatever with the followers of Cristna—Siam being far away from the country where the religion of Cristna prevails. The old manuscript which La Loubère sent over to Cassini was not understood by him, but sent to the astronomer for examination. It was not until a hundred years after this manuscript came to Europe, that any of the circumstances relating to Cristna, which the reader has seen from Mr. Maurice, &c., were known: and it is very probable that M. Cassini did not see the consequences which would arise from his calculations.
Mr. Maurice has laboured hard to prove that the Babylonians were the inventors of the Neros. This he does because he fancies it supports the Mosaic system. I shall now shew that it cannot have been invented either by them or by the Egyptians; and I suppose no one will suspect the Greeks of being the inventors of it. And this will compel us to go for it to the ancestors and country of Abraham, if we can only find out who and where they were: this I do not despair of doing in due time.
Respecting the extent of the walls of Babylon we have two histories, one of Herodotus, and the other of Diodorus Siculus, between which there appears at first to be a considerable disagreement. Herodotus states them to be, in his time, 480 furlongs; Diodorus, that they were originally made only 360, in accordance with the supposed number of days in the year; that two millions of men were employed to build a furlong a day, by which means they were completed in a year of 360 days.[1] This apparent contradiction Mr. Maurice has reconciled, by shewing from another passage of Berosus, reported by Josephus, that they were lengthened by Nebuchadnezzar, so as to equal those of Nineveh, which were 480 furlongs in extent. From this ignorance of the length of the year I conclude that the builders of Babylon could not be the inventors of the cycle of the Neros; nor could they even have known it. This fact is at once decisive against the whole of Mr. Maurice’s theory, that the Babylonians were the inventors of the ancient astronomy. I place my finger on the cycle of the Neros, and unhesitatingly maintain, that the persons acquainted with it could not have believed the year to be only 360 days long.
Mr. Maurice has shewn that the Babylonians were ignorant of the length of the year so late even as the reign of Cyrus, until which time they supposed it to consist of only 360 days. This all tends to confirm Baillie’s doctrine, that the Babylonian science is only the débris of an ancient system. The ignorance of the early Egyptians of the true length of the year is as well established as that of the Babylonians. This we learn from Diodorus Siculus, who, among other things, states that the Egyptian priests made 360 libations of milk on the tomb of Osiris, when they bewailed his death, which he says alluded to the days of the primitive year, used in the reign of that monarch.[2] I contend also, that the inventors of the Zodiac were in the same state with respect to science as the builders of Babylon, or they would not have divided it into 360 degrees only. Had they known the real length of the year, they would have made some provision for the five days.
Respecting the length of the old year, there is a very curious story in Plutarch, which has been noticed by Sir William Drummond, in his Œdipus Judaicus, p. 103, in the following words: “The number 318 is very remarkable. Plutarch relates, that a connexion having been discovered between Saturn and Rhea, the Sun threatened that the latter should not be delivered of a child in any month or year. But Mercury, who was in love with Rhea, having won from the Moon at dice the 20th part of each of her annual lunations, composed of them the 5 days, which were added to the year, and by which it was augmented from 360 to 365 days. On these 5 days Rhea brought forth Osiris, Arueris, Typhon, Isis, and Nephte. Now the old year being com-
