138 REMJRKS on ths 



the niaterials of the paper, which I have now the honour to lay be- 

 fore this Society ; and it is perhaps neceffary that I fliould make 

 fome apology for prefenting here, what can have fo little claim, 

 to originality. The fadl is, that notwithftanding the moft pro- 

 found refpedt, for the learning and abilities of the author 

 of the AJlronnm't? Jnd'ientie, I entered on the ftudy of that work, 

 not without a portion of the fcepticifm, which whatever is new 

 and extraordinary in fcience ought always to excite, and fet 

 about verifying the calculations, and examining the reafonings 

 in it, with the moft fcrupulous attention. The refult was, an 

 entire convl(f\ion of the accuracy of the one, and of the folidity 

 of the other ; and I then fancied, that, in an argument of 

 fuch variety, I might perhaps do a fervice to others, by pre- 

 fenting to them, that particular view of it, which had ap- 

 peared to me the moft ftrlking. Such, therefore, is the ob- 

 jedl of thefe remarks ; they are di redded to three different 

 points : The firft is to give a fhort account of the Indian 

 aftronomy, fo far as it is knov/n to us, from the four fets of 

 tables above mentioned ; the fecond, to ftate the principal 

 arguments, that can be deduced from thefe tables, with refpedl 

 to their antiquit}' ; and the third, to form fome eftimate of the 

 geometrical fkill, with which this aftronomlcal fyftem is con- 

 ftrue'ted. In the firft, 1 have followed M. Bailly clofely ; in 

 the fecond, though I have fometlmes taken a different road, 1 have 

 always come to the fame concluflon ; having aimed at nothing 

 fo much, as to reduce the reafoning into a narrow compafs, and 

 to avoid every argument that is not purely aftronomlcal, and 

 independent of all hypothefis ; in the third, I have treated of a 

 queftion which did not fall within the plan of M. Baillv's 

 work, but have only entered on it at prefent, leaving to fome 

 future opportunity, the other dlfcuffiotlB to which it leads. 



5. The aftronomy of India, as you already perceive, is coir- 

 fined to one branch of the fcience. It gives no theory, nor 

 even any defcription of the celeftial phenomena, but fatlsfies 



itfelf 



