apabharaṇīs

The Vedic Index of Names and Subjects

☞ vol. 1, p. 419.

28. Apabharaṇīs, Bharaṇīs, or Bharaṇyas, ‘the bearers,’ is

the name of the small triangle in the northern part of the Ram

known as Musca or 35, 39, and 41 Arietis.

The Nakṣatras and the Months. — In the Brāhmaṇas the

Nakṣatra names are regularly used to denote dates. This is

done in two ways. The name, if not already a feminine, may

be turned into a feminine and compounded with pūrṇa-māsa,

‘the full moon,’ as in Tiṣyā-pūrṇamāsa, ‘the full moon in the

Nakṣatra Tiṣya.’¹⁰³ Much more often, however, it is turned

into a derivative adjective, used with paurṇamāsī, ‘the full

moon (night),’ or with amāvāsyā, ‘the new moon (night),’ as in

Phālgunī paurṇamāsī, ‘the full-moon night in the Nakṣatra

Phalgunī’;¹⁰⁴ or, as is usual in the Sūtras, the Nakṣatra adjec-

tive alone is used to denote the full-moon night. The month

itself is called by a name derived¹⁰⁵ from that of a Nakṣatra,

but only Phālguna,¹⁰⁶ Caitra,¹⁰⁷ Vaiśākha,¹⁰⁸ Taiṣya,¹⁰⁹ Māgha¹¹⁰

occur in the Brāhmaṇas, the complete list later being Phālguna,

Caitra, Vaiśākha, Jyaiṣṭha, Āṣāḍha, Śrāvaṇa, Prauṣṭhapada,

Āśvayuja, Kārttika, Mārgaśīrṣa, Taiṣya, Māgha. Strictly

speaking, these should be lunar months, but the use of a lunar

year was clearly very restricted: we have seen that as early as

the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there was a tendency to equate lunar

months with the twelve months of thirty days which made up

the solar year (see Māsa).

The Nakṣatras and Chronology. — (1) An endeavour has been

made to ascertain from the names of the months the period at

which the systematic employment of those names was intro-

duced. Sir William Jones¹¹¹ refers to this possibility, and

Bentley, by the gratuitous assumption that Śrāvaṇa always

marked the summer solstice, concluded that the names of the

months did not date before B.C. 1181. Weber¹¹² considered

that there was a possibility of fixing a date by this means, but

Whitney¹¹³ has convincingly shown that it is an impossible

feat, and Thibaut¹¹⁴ concurs in this view. Twelve became

fixed as the number of the months because of the desire,

evident in the Brāhmaṇas, somehow or other to harmonize

lunar with solar time; but the selection of twelve Nakṣatras

out of twenty-seven as connected with the night of full moon

can have no chronological significance, because full moon at

no period occurred in those twelve only, but has at all periods

occurred in every one of the twenty-seven at regularly re-

current intervals.

(2) All the lists of the Nakṣatras begin with Kṛttīkās. It is

only fair to suppose that there was some special reason for this

fact. Now the later list of the Nakṣatras begins with Aśvinī,

and it was unquestionably rearranged because at the time of its

adoption the vernal equinox coincided with the star ζ Piscium

on the border of Revatī and Aśvinī,¹¹⁵ say in the course of the

sixth century A.D. Weber¹¹⁶ has therefore accepted the view

that the Kṛttikās were chosen for a similar reason, and the

date at which that Nakṣatra coincided with the vernal equinox

has been estimated at some period in the third millennium B.C.¹¹⁷

A very grave objection to this view is its assumption that the

sun, and not the moon, was then regarded as connected with

the Nakṣatras; and both Thibaut¹¹⁸ and Oldenberg¹¹⁹ have

pronounced decidedly against the idea of connecting the

equinox with the Kṛttikās. Jacobi¹²⁰ has contended that in

the Rigveda¹²¹ the commencement of the rains and the summer

solstice mark the beginning of the new year and the end of the

old, and that further the new year began with the summer

solstice in Phalgunī.¹²¹ He has also referred to the distinction

of the two sets of Deva and Yama Nakṣatras in the Taittirīya

Brāhmaṇa¹²² as supporting his view of the connexion of the

sun and the Nakṣatras. But this view is far from satisfactory:

the Rigveda passages cannot yield the sense required except

by translating the word dvādaśa¹²³ as ‘the twelfth (month)’

instead of ‘consisting of twelve parts,’ that is, ‘year,’ the accepted

interpretation; and the division of the Nakṣatras is not at all

satisfactorily explained by a supposed connexion with the sun. It

may further be mentioned that even if the Nakṣatra of Kṛttikās

be deemed to have been chosen because of its coincidence with

the vernal equinox, both Whitney¹²⁴ and Thibaut¹²⁵ are pre-

pared to regard it as no more than a careless variant of the date

given by the Jyotiṣa, which puts the winter solstice in Māgha.

(3) The winter solstice in Māgha is assured by a Brāhmaṇa

text, for the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa¹²⁶ expressly places it in the

new moon of Māgha (māghasyāmāvāsyāyām). It is not very

important whether we take this with the commentators¹²⁷ as

the new moon in the middle of a month commencing with the

day after full moon in Taiṣa, or, which is much more likely, as

the new moon beginning the month and preceding full moon in

Māgha. The datum gives a certain possibility of fixing an epoch

in the following way. If the end of Revatī marked the vernal

equinox at one period, then the precession of the equinoxes would

enable us to calculate at what point of time the vernal equinox

was in a position corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha,

when the solstitial colure cut the ecliptic at the beginning of

Śraviṣṭhās. This would be, on the strict theory, in the third

quarter of Bharaṇī, 6(3/4) asterisms removed from Śraviṣṭhās, and

the difference between that and the beginning of Aśvinī=

1(3/4) asterisms = 23(1/3)° (27 asterisms being = 360°). Taking the

starting-point at 499 A.D., the assured period of Varāha Mihira,

Jones¹²⁸ arrived at the date B. C. 1181 for the vernal equinox

corresponding to the winter solstice in Māgha — that is, on the

basis of 1° = 72 years as the precession. Pratt¹²⁹ arrived at

precisely the same date, taking the same rate of precession and

adopting as his basis the ascertained position in the Siddhāntas

of the junction star¹³⁰ of Maghā, α Leonis or Regulus. Davis¹³¹

and Colebrooke¹³² arrived at a different date, B.C. 1391, by

taking as the basis of their calculation the junction star of Citrā,

which happens to be of uncertain position, varying as much as

3° in the different textbooks. But though the twelfth century

has received a certain currency as the epoch of the observation

in the Jyotiṣa,¹³³ it is of very doubtful value. As Whitney

points out, it is impossible to say that the earlier asterisms

coincided in position with the later asterisms of 13(1/3)° extent

each. They were not chosen as equal divisions, but as groups

of stars which stood in conjunction with the moon; and the

result of subsequently making them strictly equal divisions

was to throw the principal stars of the later groups altogether

out of their asterisms.¹³⁴ Nor can we say that the star ζ Piscium

early formed the eastern boundary of Revatī; it may possibly

not even have been in that asterism at all, for it is far remote

from the Chinese and Arabic asterisms corresponding to Revatī.

Added to all this, and to the uncertainty of the starting-point —

582 A.D., 560 A.D., or 491 A.D. being variants¹³⁵ — is the fact that

the place of the equinox is not a matter accurately determin-

able by mere observation, and that the Hindu astronomers of

the Vedic period cannot be deemed to have been very accurate

observers, since they made no precise determination of the

number of days of the year, which even in the Jyotiṣa they do

not determine more precisely than as 366 days, and even

the Sūrya Siddhānta¹³⁶ does not know the precession of the

equinoxes. It is therefore only fair to allow a thousand years

for possible errors,¹³⁷ and the only probable conclusion to be

drawn from the datum of the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa is that it

was recording an observation which must have been made some

centuries B.C., in itself a result quite in harmony with the

probable date of the Brāhmaṇa literature,¹³⁸ say B.C. 800-600.

(4) Another chronological argument has been derived from

the fact that there is a considerable amount of evidence for

Phālguna having been regarded as the beginning of the year,

since the full moon in Phalgunī is often described as the

‘mouth (mukham) of the year.’¹³⁹ Jacobi¹⁴⁰ considers that this

was due to the fact that the year was reckoned from the winter

solstice, which would coincide with the month of Phālguna

about B.C. 4000. Oldenberg¹⁴¹ and Thibaut,¹⁴² on the other

hand, maintain that the choice of Phālguna as the ‘mouth’ of

the year was due to its being the first month of spring. This

view is favoured by the fact that there is distinct evidence¹⁴³

of the correspondence of Phālguna and the beginning of spring:

as we have seen above in the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, the new

moon in Māgha is placed at the winter solstice,¹⁴⁴ which puts

the full moon of Phalgunī at a month and a half after the

winter solstice, or in the first week of February, a date not in

itself improbable for about B.C. 800, and corresponding with

the February 7 of the veris initium in the Roman Calendar.

This fact accords with the only natural division of the year

into three periods of four months, as the rainy season lasts from

June 7-10 to October 7-10, and it is certain that the second set

of four months dates from the beginning of the rains (see

Cāturmāsya). Tilak,¹⁴⁵ on the other hand, holds that the

winter solstice coincided with Māghī full moon at the time of the

Taittirīya Saṃhitā (B.C. 2350), and had coincided with Phālgunī

and Caitrī in early periods — viz., B.C. 4000-2500, and B.C. 6000-

4000.

(5) The passages of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā¹⁴⁶ and the Pañca-

viṃśa Brāhmaṇa,¹⁴⁷ which treat the full moon in Phālguna as

the beginning of the year, give as an alternative the full moon

in Caitra. Probably the latter month was chosen so as to

secure that the initial day should fall well within the season of

spring,¹⁴⁸ and was not, as Jacobi believes, a relic of a period

when the winter solstice corresponded with Caitra. Another

alternative is the Ekāṣṭakā, interpreted by the commentators as

the eighth day after the full moon in Maghās, a time which

might, as being the last quarter of the waning half of the old

year, well be considered as representing the end of the year.

A fourth alternative is the fourth day before full moon; the full

moon meant must be that of Caitra, as Ālekhana quoted by

Āpastamba held, not of Māgha, as Āśmarathya, Laugākṣi and

the Mīmāṃsists believed, and as Tilak believes.¹⁴⁹

(6) Others, again, according to the Gṛhya ritual, began the

year with the month Mārgaśīrṣa, as is shown by its other name

Āgrahāyaṇa¹⁵⁰ (‘belonging to the commencement of the year’).

Jacobi and Tilak¹⁵¹ think that this one denoted the autumn

equinox in Mṛgaśiras, corresponding to the winter solstice in

Phalgunī. But, as Thibaut¹⁵² shows clearly, it was selected as

the beginning of a year that was taken to commence with

autumn, just as some took the spring to commence with Caitra

instead of Phālguna.¹⁵³

(7) Jacobi has also argued, with the support of Bühler,¹⁵⁴

from the terms given for the beginning of Vedic study in the

Gṛhya Sūtras, on the principle that study commenced with the

rains (as in the Buddhist vassā) which mark the summer

solstice. He concludes that if Bhādrapada appears as the

date of commencing study in some texts, it was fixed thus

because at one time Proṣṭhapadās (the early name of Bhadra-

padās) coincided with the summer solstice, this having been the

case when the winter solstice was in Phālguna. But Whitney¹⁵⁵

has pointed out that this argument is utterly illegitimate; we

cannot say that there was any necessary connexion between the

rains and learning — a month like Śrāvaṇa might be preferred

because of its connexion with the word Śravaṇa, ‘ear’ — and

in view of the precession of the equinoxes, we must assume that

Bhādrapada was kept because of its traditional coincidence

with the beginning of the rains after it had ceased actually so

to coincide.¹⁵⁶

The Origin of the Nakṣatras. — As we have seen, there is no

evidence showing the process by which the Nakṣatras may

have originated in India. They are mentioned only as stars in

the earlier parts of the Rigveda, then the names of three of

them are found in the latest parts of that Saṃhitā, and finally

in the later Atharvaveda and in the Yajurveda Saṃhitās the

full list appears. It may also be noted that the Vedic Indians

show (see Graha) a remarkably small knowledge of the other

astronomical phenomena; the discovery of a series of 27 lunar

mansions by them would therefore be rather surprising. On

the other hand, the nature of such an operation is not very

complicated; it consists merely in selecting a star or a star

group with which the moon is in conjunction. It is thus

impossible a priori to deny that the Vedic Indians could have

invented for themselves a lunar Zodiac.¹⁵⁷

But the question is complicated by the fact that there exist

two similar sets of 28 stars or star groups in Arabia and in

China, the Manāzil and the Sieou. The use of the Manāzil in

Arabia is consistent and effective; the calendar is regulated by

them, and the position of the asterisms corresponds best with

the positions required for a lunar Zodiac. The Indians might

therefore have borrowed the system from Arabia, but that is a

mere possibility, because the evidence for the existence of the

Manāzil is long posterior to that for the existence of the

Nakṣatras, while again the Mazzaroth or Mazzaloth of the Old

Testament¹⁵⁸ may really be the lunar mansions.¹⁵⁹ That the

Arabian system is borrowed from India, as Burgess¹⁶⁰ held, is,

on the other hand, not at all probable.

Biot, the eminent Chinese scholar, in a series of papers

published by him between 1839 and 1861,¹⁶¹ attempted to prove

the derivation of the Nakṣatra from the Chinese Sieou. The

latter he did not regard as being in origin lunar mansions at all.

He thought that they were equatorial stars used, as in modern

astronomy, as a standard to which planets or other stars

observed in the neighbourhood can be referred; they were, as

regards twenty-four of them, selected about B.C. 2357 on

account of their proximity to the equator, and of their having

the same right ascension as certain circumpolar stars which had

attracted the attention of Chinese observers. Four more were

added in B.C. 1100 in order to mark the equinoxes and solstices

of the period. He held that the list of stars commenced with

Mao (= Kṛttikās), which was at the vernal equinox in B.C. 2357.

Weber,¹⁶² in an elaborate essay of 1860, disputed this theory,

and endeavoured to show that the Chinese literary evidence for

the Sieou was late, dating not even from before the third

century B.C. The last point does not appear¹⁶³ to be correct,

but his objections against the basis of Biot's theory were rein-

forced by Whitney,¹⁶⁴ who insisted that Biot's supposition of

the Sieou's not having been ultimately derived from a system of

lunar mansions, was untenable. This is admitted by the latest

defender of the hypothesis of borrowing from China, Léopold

de Saussure,¹⁶⁵ , but his arguments in favour of a Chinese origin

for the Indian lunar mansions have been refuted by Oldenberg,¹⁶⁶

who has also pointed out¹⁶⁷ that the series does not begin with

Mao (= Kṛttikās).

There remains only the possibility that a common source for

all the three sets — Nakṣatra, Manāzil, and Sieou — may be

found in Babylonia. Hommel¹⁶⁸ has endeavoured to show

that recent research has established in Babylonia the existence

of a lunar zodiac of twenty-four members headed by the

Pleiades (= Kṛttikās); but Thibaut's researches¹⁶⁹ are not

favourable to this claim. On the other hand, Weber,¹⁷⁰

Whitney,¹⁷¹ Zimmer,¹⁷² and Oldenberg¹⁷³ all incline to the

view that in Babylonia is to be found the origin of the system,

and this must for the present be regarded as the most probable

view, for there are other traces of Babylonian influence in

Vedic literature, such as the legend of the flood, perhaps the

Ādityas,¹⁷⁴ and possibly the word Manā. [Footnote] 103) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 2, 10, 1.

Cf. vii. 4, 8, 1. 2; Pañcaviṃśa Brāh-

maṇa, v. 9, 1. [Footnote] 104) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 6, 3.

11 et seq.; vi. 2, 2, 18; xiii. 4, 1, 4;

Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa, i. 3; iv. 4; v. 1.

See also Caland, Über das rituelle Sūtra

des Baudhāyana, 36, 37, and Māsa. [Footnote] 105) Primarily an adjective, with māsa

to be supplied — e.g., Phālguna, ‘(the

month) connected with the Nakṣatra

Phalgunī.’ [Footnote] 106) Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, v. 9, 8. [Footnote] 107) Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, xix. 3. [Footnote] 108) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 1, 1, 7. [Footnote] 109) Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, xix. 2. 3. [Footnote] 110) Ibid.; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa,

xiii. 8, 1, 4. For the later list, see

Weber, Naxatra, 2, 327, 328. [Footnote] 111) Asiatic Researches, 2, 296. [Footnote] 112) Op. cit., 2, 347, 348; Indische

Studien, 9, 455; 10, 230, 231. [Footnote] 113) Journal of the American Oriental

Society, 6, 413; 8, 85 et seq. [Footnote] 114) Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathe-

matik, 16. [Footnote] 115) Cf. Colebrooke, Essays, 2, 264;

Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 234. [Footnote] 116) Naxatra, 2, 362-364; Indische

Studien, 10, 234; Indian Literature, 2,

n. 2, etc. [Footnote] 117) See Weber. loc. cit.; Bühler,

Indian Antiquary, 23, 245, n. 20;

Tilak, Orion, 40 et seq. [Footnote] 118) Indian Antiquary, 24, 96. [Footnote] 119) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-

lāndischen Gesellschaft, 48, 631; 49, 473;

50, 451, 452; Nachrichten der königl.

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,

1909, 564; Keith, Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society, 1909, 1103. [Footnote] 120) Festgruss an Roth, 68 et seq. =

Indian Antiquary, 23, 154 et seq.; Zeit-

schrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen

Gesellschaft, 49, 218 et seq.; 50, 83;

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1910,

463. [Footnote] 121) vii. 103 (the ‘frog’ hymn); x. 85

(the ‘marriage’ hymn). [Footnote] 121) vii. 103 (the ‘frog’ hymn); x. 85

(the ‘marriage’ hymn). [Footnote] 122) i. 5, 2, 8. [Footnote] 123) Rv. vii. 103, 9. [Footnote] 124) Oriental and Linguistic Essays, 2,

383. [Footnote] 125) Indian Antiquary, 24, 97. Cf.

Keith, Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society, 1910, 464, n. 4. [Footnote] 126) xix. 3. This was first noticed by

Weber, Naxatra, 2, 345 et seq., who

pointed out its relation to the datum

of the Jyotiṣa. The same date as that

of the Jyotiṣa is found in a passage of

the Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra cited by

Shamasastry, Gavām Ayana, 137 (māghe

māse dhaniṣṭhābhir uttareṇaiti bhānumān,

ardhāśleṣasya śrāvaṇasya dakṣiṇenopani-

vartate, ‘in the month of Māgha the

sun goes north with the asterism

Dhaniṣṭhās, in the month of Śrāvaṇa

he returns south in the middle of the

asterism Āśleṣa’; the sense is clear,

though the text is corrupt). The passage

is apparently not in Caland's manu-

scripts, or he would have mentioned

it in his paper, Über das vituelle Sūtra

des Baudhāyana, 36, 37. Its date and

value are therefore not quite certain. [Footnote] 127) Vināyaka on Kauṣītaki Brāh-

maṇa, loc. cit.; Ānartīya on Śāṅkh-

āyana Śrauta Sūtra, xiii. 19, 1; Weber,

Naxatra, 2, 345. The assumption of

the scholiasts seems to be due to the

fact that to their minds a month must

end with a new moon (amānta) or with

full moon (pūrṇimānta). But there is

no reason to say that in Vedic times

the month may not have commenced

with the new moon; the Kauṣītaki

passage would thus be quite satisfac-

torily explained. [Footnote] 128) Asiatic Researches, 2, 393. [Footnote] 129) Journal of the Asiatic Society of

Bengal, 31, 49. [Footnote] 130) Cf. Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic

Essays, 2, 373. [Footnote] 131) Asiatic Researches, 2, 268; 5, 288. [Footnote] 132) Essays, 1, 109, 110. See Sir T.

Colebrooke, Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society, 1, 335 et seq.; Whitney, op. cit.,

2, 381, 382. [Footnote] 133) E.g., Lassen, Indische Alterthums-

kunde, 1^2, 606, 607, 976, and cf. Thibaut,

Astronomie, Astrologic und Mathematik,

17, 18; Tilak, Orion, 38, 39. [Footnote] 134) Whitney, op. cit., 2, 375. [Footnote] 135) Cf. Whitney, op. cit., 377, 379;

Weber, op. cit., 2, 363, 364, where he

prefers A.D. 582. [Footnote] 136) See Whitney's note on Sūrya

Siddhānta, iii. 12; op. cit., 2, 369, n. 1;

374, n. 1. Cf. Tilak, Orion, 18. [Footnote] 137) Whitney, 384, followed by Thibaut,

Indian Antiquary, 24, 98; Astronomie,

Astrologie und Mathematik, 18. See also

Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 236; Indian

Literature, 2, n. 2; Whitney, Journal of

the Royal Asiatic Society, 1, 313 et seq.;

in Colebrooke's Essays, 1^2, 120 et seq.;

Max Müller, in his edition of the Rig-

veda, iv^2, xxx et seq., was also inclined

to regard the date as very uncertain;

only in his popular works (Chips, 1,

113, etc.) did he accept 1181 B.C., or

rather 1186 B.C, as recalculated by Main

from Pratt's calculation. Shamasastry's

defence, Gavām Ayana, 122 et seq., of

the Jyotiṣa shows a misunderstanding

the criticisms made. See Keith,

ournal of the Royal A siatic Society, 1910,

66, n. 5. [Footnote] 138) Cf. Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature,

12, 202; Keith, Aitareya Āraṇyaha, 20

et seq. It has been put earlier: see

Thibaut, Astronomie, etc., 18; Būhler,

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen

Gesellschaft, 55, 544, and cf. Būhler,

Sacred Books of the East, 2, xl et seq.;

Indian Antiquary, 23, 247; von Schroeder,

Indiens Literatur und Cultur, 45 et seq.

See also Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 3; Hille-

brandt, Rituallitteratur, 31, who are in-

clined to accept an early date, fourth

or fifth century B.C., for the Āpastamba

Sūtras, from which a still earlier date

for the Brāhmaṇas must be conceded.

But Eggeling is more probably correct

when he assigns the Āpastamba Sūtras

to the third century, B.C. See Sacred

Books of the East, 12, xl, and it seems

unwise unduly to press back the date

of Vedic literature. It is noteworthy

that in the Epic the solstice is still in

Māgha (Mahābhārata, xiii. 168, 6. 28).

Reference is, however, made (ibid., i. 71,

34) to the Nakṣatras commencing with

Śravaṇa, and the first month is Mārga-

śīrṣa (see Hopkins, Journal of the

American Oriental Society, 24, 21 et seq.).

Cf. also Tilak, Orion, 37, 216. [Footnote] 139) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vii. 4, 8, 1. 2;

Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, v. 9, 9. Cf.

Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, iv. 4; v. 1; Tait-

tirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 1, 2, 8; Śatapatha

Brāhmaṇa, vi. 2, 2, 18; Āśvalāyana

Śrauta Sūtra, v. 3. 16. According to

the Taittirīya and the Kauṣītaki Brāh-

maṇas, the beginning falls at the middle

of the joint asterisṃ. [Footnote] 140) Indian Antiquary, 23, 156 et seq.;

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen

Gesellschaft, 49, 223 et seq.; 50, 72-81.

See Tilak, Orion, 53 et seq.; 198 et seq. [Footnote] 141) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-

lāndischen Gesellschaft, 48, 630 et seq.;

49. 475, 476; 50, 453-457. Cf. Whitney,

Journal of the American Oriental Society,

16, lxxxvii. [Footnote] 142) Indian Antiquary, 24, 86 et seq. [Footnote] 143) See Weber, Naxatra, 2, 329 et seq.,

and cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 6, 3,

36; Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, v. 1; a Śruti

passage in the commentary on Kātyā-

yana Śrauta Sūtra, i. 2, 13; Baudhā-

yana Dharma Sūtra, ii. 2, 4, 23. and

especially Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 4.

1, 2. 4. So the Phālguna full moon

is called the ‘month of the seasons’

(ṛtūnām mukham) in Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā,

viii. 1; Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, i. 6, 9. [Footnote] 144) xix. 2. 3. [Footnote] 145) Orion, 53 et seq.; 198 et seq. [Footnote] 146) vii. 4, 8, 1. [Footnote] 147) v. 9. See Weber, op. cit., 2, 341-

344; Thibaut, Indian Antiquary, 24, 85

et seq., for a full discussion of the points

raised by Tilak, Orion, 43 et seq. [Footnote] 148) Thibaut, Indian Antiquary, 24, 93.

On the other side, Tilak, 198 et seq. [Footnote] 149) Thibaut, op. cit., 94; Tilak, 51

et seq. Cf. also Kātyāyana Śrauta

Sūtra, xiii. 1. 8-10; Weber, 2, 343,

n. 2, 344. [Footnote] 150) Thibaut, op. cit., 94, 95. Cf.

Weber, 2, 332-334. [Footnote] 151) Tilak's view is given in Orion,

62 et seq. It is based mainly on Amara's

(i. 2, 23) āgra-hāyaṇā as a synonym of

Mṛgaśiras, and on certain myths (chaps.

v.-vii.); he equates (221 et seq.) Āgra-

yaṇa and Orion (!). [Footnote] 152) Op. cit., 94, 95. [Footnote] 153) A corresponding Kārttika year is

not early, Thibaut, op. cit., 96. Cf.

Weber, op. cit., 2, 334. [Footnote] 154) Indian Antiquary, 23, 242 et seq. [Footnote] 155) Journal of the American Oriental

Society, 16, lxxxiv et seq. [Footnote] 156) Mention should here be made of

the following points: (1) Jacobi's argu-

ment from the word Dhruva, the name

of the star pointed out to the bride in

the marriage ritual. The word does

not occur in the literature anterior to

the Gṛhya Sūtras, and it must remain

an undecided question whether the

practice was or was not old. Jacobi

urges that Dhruva means ‘fixed,’ and

that it must originally have referred to

a real fixed pole star, and he thinks

that such a star could only be found

in the third millennium B.C. Whitney

and Oldenberg definitely reject this

view on the ground that too much

must not be made out of a piece of

folk-lore, and that the marriage ritual

requirements would be satisfied by any

star of some magnitude which was

approximately polar. This conclusion

seems convincing. Cf. Keith, Journal

of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1909, 1102;

1910, 465; contra, Jacobi, ibid., 1909,

726 et seq.; 1910, 464. (2) The Śata-

patha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 1, 2, 3, asserts

that the Kṛttikās do not move from

the eastern quarter, which the others

do; and stress has been laid (by Jacobi,

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1910,

463, 464) upon this assertion as giving

a date of the third millennium B.C. for

the Śatapatha observation. But this

notice is quite inadequate to support

any such result, and its lack of trust-

worthiness as a chronological guide is

increased by the fact that the Baudhā-

yana Śrauta Sūtra, xviii 5, has a similar

notice, coupled with another notice,

which, according to Barth, would only

be true somewhere in or after the sixth

century A.D., the equatorial point being

placed between Citrā and Svātī, which

in the early period were both very

much north of the equator (see Caland,

Über das rituelle Sūtra des Baudhāyana,

37-39). The same passage of the Śata-

patha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 1, 2, 2, in the

Mādhyaṃdina recension, states that

the number of the Kṛttikās is greater

than that of the stars in any of the

other Nakṣatras, which consist of one,

two, three, or four stars, or which,

according to the Kāṇva recension (see

Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, 12,

282, n. 2), have four stars. It is not

possible to put much faith in this asser-

tion, for Hasta later has five stars, and

its name (with reference to the fingers)

suggests five (cf. Weber, Naxatra, 2,

368, 381), and that number is possibly

referred to in the Rigveda (i. 105, 10).

See Geldner, Vedische Studien, 3, 177.

(3) Attempts have been made to regard

the names of the Nakṣatras as signifi-

cant of their position in the list. Thus

Bentley, Historical View, 2, thought

Viśākhā was so called because the

equinoctial colure divided the equator

about 1426 B.C.; this is refuted by

Tilak, Orion, 57 et seq. Jyeṣṭhaghnī

has been interpreted as ‘slaying the

eldest’ — i.e., as marking the new year

by putting an end to the old year.

Tilak, 90, suggests that Mūla was so

called because its acronycal rising

marked the beginning of the year when

the vernal equinox was near Mṛgaśiras.

More probable is Whitney's view, Sārya

Siddhānta, 194, that it was the most

southern, and so, as it were, the basis

of the asterisms. [Footnote] 157) Max Müller, Rigveda, 4^2, xliv

et seq., maintains the Indian origin of the

system. Thrbaut, Astronomie, Astrologie

und Mathematik, 14, 15, admits it to be

possible, as does Whitney, Oriental and

Linguistic Essays, 2, 418. [Footnote] 158) 2 Kings xxiii. 5; Job xxxviii. 32. [Footnote] 159) Weber, Naxatra, 1, 317, 318;

Whitney, op, cit., 359. [Footnote] 160) Journal of the American Oriental

Society, 8, 309-334. This was Weber's

view also, according to Whitney, 413

et seq.; but Weber himself disclaimed

it (see Indische Studien, 9, 425, 426; 10,

246, 247). On the other hand, Sédillot,

Matériaux pour servir à l'histoire com-

parée des 'Sciences Mathématiques par les

Grecs et les Orientaux (Paris, 1845-1849),

favoured influence from Arabia on

India. [Footnote] 161) Summed up in his two works,

Recherches sur l'ancienne astronomie

Chinoise, and Études sur l'astronomie

Indieune et l'astronomie Chinoise. [Footnote] 162) Naxatra, 1, 284 et seq. (1860). [Footnote] 163) See Chavannes, cited by Olden-

berg, Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft

der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1909,

566, 567. [Footnote] 164) Journal of the American Oriental

Society, 8, 1 et seq.; Oriental and Lin-

guistic Essays, 2, 385 et seq. For his

controversy with Weber, see Weber,

Indische Studien, 9, 424 et seq.; 10, 213

et seq.; Whitney, Journal of the American

Oriental Society, 8, 384 et seq. [Footnote] 165) T'oung Pao, 1909, 121 et seq.;

255 et seq. [Footnote] 166) Nachrichten, 1909, 544-572. [Footnote] 167) Ibid., 548, n. 9. [Footnote] 168) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-

lāndischen Gesellschaft, 45, 592 et seq. [Footnote] 169) Journal of the Asiatic Society of

Bengal, 63. 144-163. Cf. Astronomie,

etc., 15; Oldenberg, op. cit., 572. [Footnote] 170) Naxatra, 1, 316 et seq.; Indische

Studien, 10, 246, and elsewhere. Weber,

Nakṣatra, 2, 362, 400, laid great stress

on the fact that the Jyotiṣa, 8, referred

to the difference of the longest and

shortest day as being six muhūrtas,

which makes the longest day fourteen

hours twenty-four minutes: and he

compared the Babylonian day of four-

teen hours twenty-five minutes, and a

Chinese day of fourteen hours twenty-

four minutes. But Whitney, Oriental

and Linguistic Essays, 2, 417, 418, shows

that no stress can be laid on this argu-

ment, since the correspondence is only

approximate, and the latitudes of the

Babylonian and Chinese observations

are approximately the same. [Footnote] 171) See op. cit., 2, 418-420. [Footnote] 172) Altindisches Leben, 356, 357, where

he is quite confident of the Semitic

origin of the Nakṣatras. [Footnote] 173) Op. cit., 572. [Footnote] 174) For the flood, see Zimmer, op. cit.,

101, 357, who is opposed to Weber's

view (Indische Studien, 1, 160; Indische

Streifen, 1, 11) that the story preserves

an old Āryan tradition, and a reminis-

cence of the home of the Indians

beyond the Himālaya (cf. Muir, Sanskrit

Texts, 1^2, 190; 2^2, 323, n. 96; Lassen,

Indische Alterthumskunde, 1^2, 638, and

cf. Oldenberg, Religion des Veda, 276,

n. 3). For the Ādityas, see Oldenberg,

Religion des Veda, 185 et seq.; Zeitschrift

der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesell-

schaft, 50, 43 et seq. His view is not

accepted by Macdonell, Vedic Mythology,

p. 44; Bloomfield, Religion of the Veda,

133. Still more doubtful is Zimmer's

view (Altindisches Leben, 363, 364) of the

division of day and night into thirty

parts, which he sees in Rv. i. 123, 8,

and which he thinks is based on the

Babylonian division of the same period

of time into sixtieths. Cf. also V. Smith,

Indian Antiquary, 34, 230, who argues,

but inconclusively, that the use of iron

was introduced from Babylonia.

The facts about the Nakṣatras are

(with the exception of the data from the

Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā and the Baudhā-

yana Śrauta Sūtra) collected in Weber's

second essay, Die vedischen Nachrichten

von den Naxatra, 1861. The first essay,

1860, deals with the problem of origins.