ASTRONOMY of the BRAHMINS. 191 



or having its centre in the middle, between the earth and the 

 point about which the angular motion is uniform *. If to this 

 we add the great extent of geometrical knowledge requifite to 



combine 



* It fhould have been remarked before, that M. Bailly has taken notice of the ana- 

 logy between the Indian method of calculating the places of the planets, and Pto- 

 lemy's hypothefis of the equant, though on different principles from thofe that 

 have been followed here, and fuch as do not lead to the fame conclufion. In treating 

 of the queftion, whether the fun or earth has been fuppofed the centre of the planetary 

 motions by the authors of this aftronomy, he fays, " lis femblent avoir reconnu que les 

 " deux inegalites (l'equation du centre et la parallaxe de l'orbe annuel) etoient vues de 

 " deux centres differens ; et dans l'impoffibilite ou ils etoient de determiner et le lieu et 

 " la diftance des deux centres, ils ont imagine de rapporter les deux inegalites a un point 

 " qui tint le milieu, c'eft-a-dire, a un point egalement eloigne du foleil, et de la terre. 

 " Ce nouveau centre refemble afiez au centre de Pequant de Ptolkmee. (Aft. Ind. 

 Difc. Prel. p. 69.) The fictitious centre, which M. Bailly compares with the equant 

 of Ptolemy, is therefore a point which bifects the diftance between the fun and earth, 

 and which, in fome refpedts, is quite different from that equant ; the fictitious centre, 

 which, in the preceding remarks, is compared with the equant of Ptolemy, is a 

 point of which the diftance from the earth is bife&ed by the centre of the orbit, 

 precifely as in the cafe of that equant. M. Bailly draws his conclufion from the ufe 

 made of half the equation fchigram, as well as half the equation manda, in order to find 

 the argument of this laft equation. The conclufion here is eftabliftied, by abftracling 

 altogether from the former, and confidering the cafes of oppositions and conjunctions, 

 when the latter equation only takes place. If, however, the hypothefis of the equant 

 flia.11 be found of importance in the explanation of the Indian aftronomy, it muft be 

 allowed that it was firft fuggefted by M. Bailly, though in a fenfe very different from 

 what it is underftood in here, and from what it was underftood in by Ptolemy. 



For what farther relates to the parts of the aftronomy of Chaldea and of Greece, 

 which may be fuppofed borrowed from that of India, I muft refer to the ioth Chap, 

 of the Aflronomie Indienne, where that fubjedt. is treated with great learning and 

 ingenuity. After all, the filence of the ancients with refpedt to the Indian aftro- 

 nomy, is not eafily accounted for. The firft mention that is made of it, is by the 

 Arabian writers ; and M. Bailly quotes a very Angular paffage, where Massoudi, an 

 author of the I2th century, fays, that Brama compofed a book, entitled, Sind-Hind, that 

 is, Of the Age of Ages, from which was compofed the book Mag bijli, and from thence the 

 Almagejl of Ptolemy. Aft. Ind. Difc. prel. p. 175. 



The fabulous air of this paffage is, in fome meafure, removed, by comparing it with 

 one from Abulfaragius, who fays, that, under the celebrated Al Maimon, the 7th 

 Khalifof Babylon, (about the year 813 of our era) the aftronomer Habash compofed 

 three fets of aftronomical tables, one of which was ad regu/as Sind Hind j that is, as 

 Mr Costard explains it, according to the rules of fome Indian treatife of aftronomy. 

 (Afiatic Mifcel. Vol. I. p. 34.) The Sind-Hind is therefore the name of an aftronomical 

 book that exifted in India in the time of Habash, and the fame, no doubt, which Mas- 

 soudi fays was afcribed to Brama. 



