Chronology of the Hindoos. 
itow, the year 1)84 is made to correfpond with the years 48 and 49 (or Anund 
and Rakjhefa) of the cycle of fixty, which appears, to have the fanftion of a 
Preface to the Benares Pattra , or calendar, of which a tranflation is givep. 
Though relu&ant to call fuch authority in queflion, I venture to afiert, that the 
true Hindoo date fhould be 37 and 38, for the former and latter part of 1784, 
prom among a variety of authorities concurring to effablifli this computation, I 
lhall produce, in the firfl place, that of Befchius, the Author of a Grammar 
of the TamooJ language (peculiar to that country in which the cycle is ufed), who 
has treated briefly, but with great accuracy, of chronology, and given the names of 
the 60 years in the original charter, with the correfponding dates. M. le 
Gentil mentions having poflefied himfelf of a copy of this work (printed at 
Tranquebar in 1738), and bringing it with him to Europe. Abraham Roger 
( whofe book, entituled, in the French tranflation from the Dutch, Be la Fie et des 
Mceurs des Brames, and printed at Amflerdam in 1670, contains much original 
information refpe&ing the Hindoos) gives likewife the names of the fixty years ; 
and fays (p. 79.), that the year 1640, in the month of Auguft, correfponded 
with Wicrama , the 14th of the cycle; confequently 1760 with the 14th alfo, 
and 1784 with the 38th. The communications of Waltherus, a learned 
miffionary, publiflied by Bayer under the title of Dottrina temporum Indica, are 
explicit as to this point. M. Bailly, in his Traite deV AJlronomie Indienne , adopts 
in his calculations the date that I have affigned, and gives (p. 326.) the years of 
the cycle of fixty from P. du Champ, in which 1724 ( a nd confequently 1784) 
is remarked as correfponding with the 38th year. To this, if it were neceflaiy, 
I might add the authority of a Hindoo date in the Afiatic Refearches, before 
quoted, where the year Pingala (51) agrees with 939 of Saca or Salaban. The 
year I of the prefent cycle correfponded with 1669 of the era, according to the 
table I have given; and therefore 51 of the preceding cycle with 1659, from 
which deduft twelve whole cycles, or 720 years, and 939 rema ^ n J which, as the 
table was founded on other documents, will be allowed no weak corroboration, 
the date in queflion being from an ancient copper plate. I obferve, with feme 
concern, that I differ alfo from Mr. Burrow, both in the year of Bikramcjit 
and that of Salaban. He makes the interval between them 136 years, whereas, 
by the authorities I have followed, it. fhould be only 134, or 56 years before 
Chrift, and 78 after. I fliould certainly not be forward to point out thefe appa- 
rent inaccuracies but from an apprehenflon, were I to pafs them unnoticed, that 
my own computations might be condemned on an appeal to thofe of Mr. Bur- 
row’s almanac as a criterion* I have not feen any fubfequeiit to that for 1784, 
" 
which was the firlt. 
