From the account we have received from Macrobius, Diodorus, Varro, St. Augustin, Plutarch, and other celebrated writers, it seems proved that the primitive nations had the custom of giving the appellation of a year to a revolution of a planet, without however, confining themselves at all times to the same planet. In this way, when they considered the moon as the planet by the revolution of which they marked the progress of time, the year consisted sometimes of one week, at other times of two, and more generally of four weeks, according to the mode they looked upon each, or all its phases, as the mark of time. Thus, for instance, if they took the whole of one of its revolutions into calculation, whether from a new or from a full moon, to the next new or the next full moon, the year consisted of a whole month. While, on the other hand, if they reckoned from the new to the full moon, or from one quarter to the next quarter, the year then consisted of one or two weeks. The same principle they applied to the motion of the sun. When they took the whole revolution of that planet, counting time from the moment it left a fixed place of the heaven, till its return to the same place, then the year consisted of twelve months. But as sometimes they confined their observation to a part only of its annual career, whether from solstice to solstice, or from a solstice to the next equinox, then the year, in the first case, consisted of six months, and in the second only of three. And we are informed by Palephatus

and Suidas that very often they reckoned their time by the apparent diurnal motion of that planet, that is, from sun-rising to sun-rising, and not seldom from sun-rising to sun-setting.

From this statement it is evident that the length of the year, amongst the ancients, varied considerably. Sometimes it consisted of twelve, and at other times of six, or even three months; sometimes of four, and at other times one or two weeks, and very often of a single day. This difference, as I have already mentioned, arose from their taking now the sun, now the moon, and sometimes the whole, and other times only a part, of the revolution of each of these luminaries, as a measure of time.

This being established, the question will be to ascertain which of these reckonings was followed by the Chaldeans, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Chinese, in computing the length of their annals. M. Gibert asserts, that it was the diurnal revolution of the sun. He says that the solar day was their astronomical year; and he proves this assertion by a variety of arguments, which seem to establish the truth of his opinion.

As neither the object of this Lecture, nor the time allowed to us, permit me to follow the learned writer in all the views he takes of this subject, I must be satisfied to give you the results only of his reasoning; and they turn chiefly on the manner in which the enormous length of the Oriental annals may be reduced, so as to correspond with

our chronology. Thus, for instance, the 473,000 years which the Chaldeans allowed to their empire, if they be considered as so many days, and the whole be divided by 365, we shall have the sum of nearly 1296 of our years. Now this is precisely the period which Eusebius makes to have elapsed, from the first discoveries made in astronomy by Atlas, to the invasion of Asia by Alexander. According to the chronology of the Septuagint, this invasion took place in the year 1682, after the death of Abraham; and Eusebius, following the same chronology, asserts that the astronomical discoveries of Atlas happened in the three hundred and eighty-fourth year after the death of Abraham; deducting, therefore, 384 from 1682, the result is 1298, which is very nearly the sum total of the 473,000 years mentioned by the Chaldean Chronicle.

Again; Callisthenes, in calculating the antiquity of the Babylonian astronomical observations, says, that they took place 1903 years before the taking of that empire by Alexander. This number of 1903 years, established by Callisthenes, seems quite irreconcilable with that mentioned by the Babylonian historian Epigenes, who asserts that they had taken place 720,000 years before that epoch. But if we consider these 720,000 years as 720,000 days, and divide the whole by 365, we shall have 1972 years, and nearly eight months, as the quotient; and this sum differs only by sixty-eight years from that which Callisthenes had calculated upon to

D d

mark the antiquity of these discoveries; and even this difference, small as it is, disappears, if we consider that the calculation of Callisthenes ends at the taking of Babylon by Alexander; while Epigenes, who lived under Ptolemy Philadelphus, brought his down to his own time.

Upon this calculation therefore, it is evident that the astronomical observations of Babylon do not reach higher than the year 2285 before Christ, which is much within the limits of the reckoning of the Septuagint, though much above the computation of the Hebrew text.

This is all very plausible and very conclusive; but M. Gibert continues his calculations and proofs to a greater extent. I shall give you one or two instances more.

Alexander Polyhistor, copying Berosus, asserts, that in Babylon they had preserved for 150,000 years, historical memoirs of what had happened during this long interval. This proposition at first sight, carries every possible mark of being a fable; because it is an historical fact, that Nabonassar, who lived about 410 or 411 years before Alexander, had destroyed every possible historical monument he could find. The assertion, therefore, of Alexander Polyhistor and Berosus, has been regarded as a proof of the extent to which some of the ancient historians had carried their fabulous recitals, and has been quoted by many learned writers, as one of the most conclusive arguments against the veracity of ancient annals.

But according to the theory of Gibert, if we consider these 150,000 years mentioned by Berosus to be as many days, and reduce them into our solar years, we shall have 410 years, eleven months, and fifteen days, which is precisely the period that elapsed between Nabonassar and Alexander. The utmost therefore, that can be urged against Berosus and Polyhistor is, that they are guilty of a puerile affectation unworthy of historians; unless it should be said, in extenuation of this affectation, that by so doing they flattered the vanity of the nation, by giving them a large apparent claim to antiquity, without however violating the strictness of truth.

In the same way, the 30,000 years which the Egyptians gave to the reign of the sun, under which appellation, according to the best critics, they symbolized Joseph, produce no more than 82 of our years, for which time, according to Scripture, the ministry of that patriarch lasted. The 1300 and more years, which some writers assert to have passed between Menes and Neithocris, are simply years of six months each, producing 650 Julian years, which the canon of the Theban kings, preserved by Erastosthenes, counts to have elapsed between these two reigns: and the 2936 years which Dicearcus assigns as the period intervening between Sesostris and the first Olympiad, are merely the computation of the several seasons; or, in other words, years of three months each, and which, in fact, produce the 734 Julian years which