If these conjectures may be admissible, the account which is given of the rivers in this book, agrees very exactly with the account given by Mr. Bruce, while we are able to draw another inference from the assertion that of these rivers, some flow to the south, and others to the north, since, it necessarily follows, that they must rise in a very mountainous country, such as Abyssinia is represented to be.

But in the book of Astronomy, an account is given of the lengthening of the days, from which the Archbishop of Cashel has most satisfactorily shewn that the author of this portion must have lived in a country having, at least, forty-five degrees north latitude, (Pr. Dissertation, page 37.) "At that period the day is longer than the night,

being twice as long as the night, but the night is "shortened and becomes six parts." (Trans. p 87.)

Thus, it is evident, that the work of at least two different authors, living in countries removed from one another, by not less than thirty degrees of latitude, is combined in one portion of this book; and I have endeavoured to trace out this fact the more distinctly, because, it will thus be probable,

L

that other parts of these writings have undergone the same accidental or wilful transposition, or alteration, which must have occurred in the present instance.

It must necessarily be inferred that the part which is of Abyssinian origin, is the most modern; and hence arises another presumption of the antiquity of the former parts; because even this addition itself was, written, as I have already shewn, in the Hebrew language.

Hence also, as the composition which is referable only to a northern latitude, may have origi nated, according to the opinion expressed by the learned Translator, among some of those Jews of the dispersion, who were situated farthest to the northward; the discovery of this book in a situation so remote from its origin would lead to the inference, that any other books under the name of Enoch, which might be found between these two extreme points, might also be combined by transcribers, and transmitted to later ages, under the

same name.

It appears indeed, from the construction of the astronomical tables of the solar and lunar year,

that this book must not only have been written by a Hebrew, but that the knowledge contained in it must have been obtained from the Egyptian or Chaldean astronomers.

Both the lunar and solar year are described, and in the latter, under the names of their presiding angels, four intercalated days seem to be alluded to, one in each quarter of the year, and thus there is a degree of similarity to the Julian calendar, which might seem to argue the priority of that reformation to this part of the book of Enoch. Other circumstances however, militate against this supposition. If indeed the author of the book were acquainted with the reformed calendar, he must also have been aware of the manner in which the more ancient Roman calendar was constructed; and had he meant to allude to the Roman enumeration of time, he would hardly have failed to use their most ancient mode of computation. But it rather seems that the computation of Enoch must be referred to the same source as that from which the Julian calendar was itself derived.

We learn from Pliny that Sosigenes, to whom the construction of that calendar was entrusted,

was either himself an Egyptian, or had acquired his knowledge of astronomy in Egypt. Hence, as the ancient Egyptian year consisted of twelve months of thirty days, with five days added at the end, the principle on which the Julian reformation was conducted was evidently derived from the Egyptian mode of computation; and thus, as will hereafter be shewn, it may be supposed that the method here made use of, and that of Sosigenes, had a common origin.

It will be seen that the commencement of the year coincides with the Jewish computation, while the lunar year is also reckoned in correspondence with theirs, although no notice is taken of their embolimic month of Adar. But it is remarkable that the ancient Jewish months agree with the computation here used for the solar year, since they were certainly months of thirty days each; this mode of calculation being used in the book of Genesis. In chap. vii. 11. it is said, that "in the "second month, the seventeenth day of the month, "the windows of heaven were opened;" and while the time during which the waters prevailed on the earth is stated as "an hundred and fifty days,"

(chap. vii. 24.) it is declared, (chap. viii. 3.) that at "the end of the hundred and fifty days the "waters were abated; and the ark rested in the "seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the "month."

Thus there were in five complete months, an hundred and fifty days: in other words, each month contained thirty days. If then we attribute this book to a Jewish author, the inference from the length ascribed to the solar months, would be that he lived at a very early period; and since the book was written in Hebrew, the omission of any names for the months would lead to the same conclusion.

As the length of the solar year is also fixed by him at 364 days, and as several repetitions of this computation forbid the supposition that there can have been any error of transcription in this number; it would seem that the astronomical knowledge of that period had not attained to the precision which shewed that five days at least, must be added to the solar months: and from hence also it might be inferred that the date of this composition must be prior to the æra of Nabonassar.