164 REMARKS on the 



34. The obliquity of the ecliptic is another element in which 

 the Indian aftronomy and the European do not agree, but 

 where their difference is exactly fuch as the high antiquity of 

 the former is found to require. The Brahmins make the obli- 

 quity of the ecliptic 24°. Now, M. de la Grange's formu- 

 la for the variation of the obliquity*, gives 22', 32", to be 

 added to its obliquity in 1700, that is, to 23 °, 28", 41", in or- 

 der to have that which took place in the year 3102 before our 

 era. This gives us 23 , 51', 13", which is 8', 4.7", fhort of 

 the determination of the Indian aftronomers. But if we fup- 

 pofe, as in the cafe of the fun's equation, that the obfervations 

 on which this determination is founded, were made 1200 years 

 before the Calyougham, we fhall find that the obliquity of the 

 ecliptic was 23 °, 57', 45", and that the error of the tables did 

 not much exceed 2 f. 



$5. Thus, do the meafures which the Brahmins aflign to 

 thefe three quantities, the length of the tropical year, the equa- 

 tion of the fun's centre, and the obliquity of the ecliptic, all 

 agree in referring the epoch of their determination to the year 

 3102 before our era, or to a period ftill more ancient. This 

 coincidence in three elements, altogether independent of one 

 another, cannot be the effect of chance. The difference, with 

 refpect to each of them, between their aftronomy and ours, 

 might fingly perhaps be afcribed to inaccuracy ; but that three 

 errors, which chance had introduced, mould be all of fuch 

 magnitudes, as to fuit exactly the fame hypothefis concerning 

 their origin, is hardly to be conceived. Yet there is no other 

 alternative, but to admit this very improbable fuppofition, or 

 to acknowledge that the Indian aftronomy is as ancient as one, 

 or other of the periods above mentioned. 



36. This conclufion would receive great additional confirma- 

 tion, could we follow M. Bailly in his analyfis of the aftro- 

 nomy 



* Mem. Acad. Berlin, 1782, p. 287. 

 f Aft. Ind. p. 165. 



