English
Bailly, or any other person pretending to a knowledge of astro- nomy, should place the age of a work at that period of tintte wten its rules made an error in the moon's place of near 6°, in the moon's apogee upwards of S0°, and in the moon's node near 24° ? How was it pos- sible for eclipses to be calculated by the rules of that book, when the moon, at the actual time of an eclipse^ would be 6^ distant from the sun by the rules ? And how was it possible for it to point out the precession of the equinoxes, when it erred 60 days in the. time? The tables of Trimlor and t^krishnub&rum are from the Surya Siddhanta, and of course contaiwed these errors in them for the be- Digitized by Google PREFACE. XKI guming of the Kali Ymga; but Mr. Bailly havii^ imagined that the mean motiong were drawn ac-^ cording to the European method, which has been repeatedly shown wai not the case, he fell into the mistake. How is it possible that a man, pretending to a knowledge of the principles of astronomy, should or could give in to such errors ? The eclipses of the sun and moon are the most material evidence for determining the date of astronomical tables, whether the motions be drawn on an artificial plan or not : it is by them that the astronomer proves the truth of his tables, and his own abilities; and it is by the time, quantity, and other circumstances of an eclipse, that he is enabled to see and correct, from time to time, the errors that may be concealed in his tables or rules, before he makes them known. Why did not the reviewer determine the age of the Si^nfa Siddhanta by this criterion, if he did not like the rule we proposed, in respect of the portion and motion of the planets ? It may be that he thought the labour of calculating eclipses, and comparing them with those deduced from correct European tables, too great, and, moreover, that it would prove too much, vizu that the Surya Siddhanta was not composed 3100 years before the Christian era. The reviewer, not satisfied with what he ays in the teath volume of the Edinburgh Review, on the snl^ect of my reply to his strictures on my first Digitized by Google XXII Pil£]fAC£. paper, accuses me of attacking the opiiikHis of Bailly and others, thus: — *' Mr. Bentley having with great courage brought forward his own peculiar views, in opposition to the audiority of such celebrated names as those of Bailly, Le Gentel, Playfair, smd Sir William Jones, it certainly did not occur to us thBt we could be guilty of any very unpardonable pre- sumption, in venturing to doubt whether his specu- lations were in all respects conclusive. Mr. Bentley, however, has thought fit to resent our scepticism with a good deal of philosophical warmth, and with unmerciful severity accuses us of both attachment to system, and of relinquishing that system." The reviewer, not only here, but in. every other instance, endeavours to cloke his attack, and Sup^ port his arguments under the authority of such names as Bailly and others, because I differed from them in opinion. I could not help feeling warm at a wanton and insidious attack being made on me for explaining the nature of the astronomical system contained in the Surya Siddhanta, and the formation of the numbers and revolutions it contained, which clearly pointed out that Bailly was completely inis-^ taken in the ideas he had adopted. This was the crime for which I was attacked ; and I was the more vexed at it, because it appeared to be done wi& ci view to put down all such investigations for the future,^ and I was actually so told. So then, if a great man is. to commit a mistake, we are not at Digitized by Google PREFACE. loan liberty to point it out ; it must remain so tot ever, at least ihe reviewer would so insinuate ; but I am of a very differ^t opinicm: the greater the man, the more necessary it is to point out his errors, and the foundation of them, that otl^rs may not fall into the same. It was for this reason that I pomted out the cause why the motions given in the Surya SiddhSnta, though a modem work, must of necessity differ from the European, in consequ^ice of the position as* sumed at the beginning of the Kali Yuga being (f (f 0' 0*. The example I have given above in refi^>ect of Venus, explains this circumstance suffr' ciently clear; so that it is not necessary to insist more on it here. Mr. Pla3rfair, who supported Mr. Bailly with his calculations, was then living: did he consider that I made an attack cm him, because I explained the cause of the errors, by which all his calculations became of no use ? Most certainly ndt : though he was wrongfully stated by some as the author of the review, in ordfer to throw the odium upon hhn, and take it from the real person. I sent Mr. Playfair a copy of my piper on the antiquity of the Skifya SSddkaMa, to open his eyes as to the foun-^ dation of Mr. Bailly's ibistake : and after the review on it came out, it being industriously fathered dn Mr. Playfair, I directed enquiry to be made at Ediabui^h through some of Mr. Playfair's most in- timaite friends, to ascertain fr'om himself if he was the auth(Hr of the review. The reply was, what I c Digitized by Google XXIT PREFACE. would have expected frotn a man of c^mdour and wcieace, that he was not the author of the review, and that he could not, conskitentiy with h character, foe the author of any such nonsense. What further infemtation be afiwded, need not now be notfeed. Havmg thus far ascertained that Mr. Playfeir was not the author of the review in question, nor of those diat followed on d^ same topic, I was anxious to hn/orw the opinions of otherisr on the subject : for though i was perfectly satined I was right in the conclusions I dfew, yet to have the ideas of others, whose skill and knowledge in astronomy could not be doubted, would be highly gratifying. I therefore cdleoted togethear vsudoos astronomical hxtts, par- tkmlarly those above alliided to respecting the inobn's plaos, &&; at the beginning of the Kali Vugd, in order to show the error, not imlyof Mr* Bailiy, but of the reviewer, who imagined, that by using his name he t^Mild do won^s. These facts I fmwarded to a M^td in London, doling him to show th^tn to tiie Astronomer Royal, the late Rev. Dr. Maskelynb, and to get his opinion thereon; which he accordingly ^d, and trtUismitted me Dr. Maskelyne's ^mswer, in, a letter under date the 13th April, 1811, which I shall now take the liberty to introduce. He says: ■'II showed your aE^onomioal letter to Dr. Maske- iyne ; ind^ I 1^ it with him several weeks : be returned it to me at his' own tabte> at dinner, with fliefoliowingo^sea^i^ns:— - Digitized by Google PREFACE. XXV - V I think BeaHey ri^t: he has proved by his calcuhttioas that there ware no real observatkms matdB at the beginning of the KaU Vuga. BaHly was a pleasing historical writer; bi;^ he had more imaghiation thm judgn^ent, and I know that he was tK^demned by hk firi^ds La Lande and La Place, as a ^uparfidal (utmnomer^ and a very indifferent cat- cukftor. These two g^ndemen entertained the. sarnie opinidn with myself, with respect to the antiquity cf Hindu astronomy; axul I think Mr* Bentley has made ont satisfactorily the real antiquity of the Sun/a SiddkintaJ' . It is. well known that Dr. Mo^keljiie was an astronon&er of the ^stHnate abilities, and of Ihe utmost integrity. Here he give his opinion free from any prejudice. He does not cmiescend to notice the reviewer, whom, for his soj^ustry, he considCTs as beneath his observations. Deiambre, one of the greatest modem astrono- mers, has also taken up tiie subject* ia fas Andent Astronomy ; and Aough he notices the reviewer, he tneatk his notions with contempt, by deciding at :once against Ihe pretended antiquity of the Stitya Sidi^mta. So far, therdSbre, I thou^tit ri^t, and m justice to myself, to exhibit the opinions of far sup^ior authorities to an obsoure pretender^ who odarw not to come 6x&x with hisownname, kn<^wing, Jdwtlvrimt he assi^rts is not tmie^.and *that Iflifi whole .of his object is decei^on,..:s<^[Aiedary^ and^b^mls]^- Digitized by Google XXVI PREFACE. presentation of fia.cts. He has complained, that I have attacked him with severity : but whose fault is that? Why has he meddled with me?