| YouTube Channel

अपभरणीस् (apabharaNIs)

 
Vedic Reference
English
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 derived^105 from that of a Nakṣatra,
but only Phālguna, ^106 Caitra, ^107 Vaiśākha, ^108 Taiṣya, ^109 Māgha^110
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 Jones^111 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. Weber^112 considered
that there was a possibility of fixing a date by this means, but
Whitney^113 has convincingly shown that it is an impossible
feat, and Thibaut^114 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. Weber^116 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 Thibaut^118 and Oldenberg^119 have
pronounced decidedly against the idea of connecting the
equinox with the Kṛttikās. Jacobi^120 has contended that in
the Rigveda^121 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
Brāhmaṇa^122 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 dvādaśa^123 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 Whitney^124 and Thibaut^125 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 Brāhmaṇa^126 expressly places it in the
new moon of Māgha (māghasyāmāvāsyāyām). It is not very
important whether we take this with the commentators^127 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,
Jones^128 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. Pratt^129 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 star^130 of Maghā, α Leonis or Regulus. Davis^131
and Colebrooke^132 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 variants^135 — 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 Siddhānta^136 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 Jacobi^140 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. Oldenberg^141 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 evidence^143
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 Saṃhitā^146 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
Āgrahāyaṇa^150 (‘belonging to the commencement of the year’).
Jacobi and Tilak^151 think that this one denoted the autumn
equinox in Mṛgaśiras, corresponding to the winter solstice in
Phalgunī. But, as Thibaut^152 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 Whitney^155
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
Testament^158 may really be the lunar mansions.^159 That the
Arabian system is borrowed from India, as Burgess^160 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 appear^163 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 out^167 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. Hommel^168 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 researches^169 are not
favourable to this claim. On the other hand, Weber, ^170
Whitney, ^171 Zimmer, ^172 and Oldenberg^173 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.
103) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 2, 10, 1.
Cf. vii. 4, 8, 1. 2
Pañcaviṃśa Brāh-
maṇa, v. 9, 1.
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.
105) Primarily an adjective, with māsa
to be supplied — e.g., Phālguna, ‘(the
month) connected with the Nakṣatra
Phalgunī.’
106) Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, v. 9, 8.
107) Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, xix. 3.
108) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 1, 1, 7.
109) Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, xix. 2. 3.
110) Ibid.
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa,
xiii. 8, 1, 4. For the later list, see
Weber, Naxatra, 2, 327, 328.
111) Asiatic Researches, 2, 296.
112) Op. cit., 2, 347, 348
Indische
Studien, 9, 455
10, 230, 231.
113) Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 6, 413
8, 85 et seq.
114) Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathe-
matik, 16.
115) Cf. Colebrooke, Essays, 2, 264
Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 234.
116) Naxatra, 2, 362-364
Indische
Studien, 10, 234
Indian Literature, 2,
n. 2, etc.
117) See Weber. loc. cit.
Bühler,
Indian Antiquary, 23, 245, n. 20
Tilak, Orion, 40 et seq.
118) Indian Antiquary, 24, 96.
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.
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.
121) vii. 103 (the ‘frog’ hymn)
x. 85
(the ‘marriage’ hymn).
121) vii. 103 (the ‘frog’ hymn)
x. 85
(the ‘marriage’ hymn).
122) i. 5, 2, 8.
123) Rv. vii. 103, 9.
124) Oriental and Linguistic Essays, 2,
383.
125) Indian Antiquary, 24, 97. Cf.
Keith, Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1910, 464, n. 4.
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.
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.
128) Asiatic Researches, 2, 393.
129) Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal, 31, 49.
130) Cf. Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic
Essays, 2, 373.
131) Asiatic Researches, 2, 268
5, 288.
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.
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.
134) Whitney, op. cit., 2, 375.
135) Cf. Whitney, op. cit., 377, 379
Weber, op. cit., 2, 363, 364, where he
prefers A.D. 582.
136) See Whitney's note on Sūrya
Siddhānta, iii. 12
op. cit., 2, 369, n. 1
374, n. 1. Cf. Tilak, Orion, 18.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
142) Indian Antiquary, 24, 86 et seq.
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.
144) xix. 2. 3.
145) Orion, 53 et seq.
198 et seq.
146) vii. 4, 8, 1.
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.
148) Thibaut, Indian Antiquary, 24, 93.
On the other side, Tilak, 198 et seq.
149) Thibaut, op. cit., 94
Tilak, 51
et seq. Cf. also Kātyāyana Śrauta
Sūtra, xiii. 1. 8-10
Weber, 2, 343,
n. 2, 344.
150) Thibaut, op. cit., 94, 95. Cf.
Weber, 2, 332-334.
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 (!).
152) Op. cit., 94, 95.
153) A corresponding Kārttika year is
not early, Thibaut, op. cit., 96. Cf.
Weber, op. cit., 2, 334.
154) Indian Antiquary, 23, 242 et seq.
155) Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 16, lxxxiv et seq.
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.
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.
158) 2 Kings xxiii. 5
Job xxxviii. 32.
159) Weber, Naxatra, 1, 317, 318
Whitney, op, cit., 359.
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.
161) Summed up in his two works,
Recherches sur l'ancienne astronomie
Chinoise, and Études sur l'astronomie
Indieune et l'astronomie Chinoise.
162) Naxatra, 1, 284 et seq. (1860).
163) See Chavannes, cited by Olden-
berg, Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1909,
566, 567.
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.
165) T'oung Pao, 1909, 121 et seq.
255 et seq.
166) Nachrichten, 1909, 544-572.
167) Ibid., 548, n. 9.
168) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
lāndischen Gesellschaft, 45, 592 et seq.
169) Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal, 63. 144-163. Cf. Astronomie,
etc., 15
Oldenberg, op. cit., 572.
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.
171) See op. cit., 2, 418-420.
172) Altindisches Leben, 356, 357, where
he is quite confident of the Semitic
origin of the Nakṣatras.
173) Op. cit., 572.
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.
See also his discussions in Indische
Studien, 9, 424 et seq.
10, 213 et seq.
Whitney's work lies partly in his
scientific determination (in many places
correcting Colebrooke's discoveries) of
the later Naxatras in his edition and
version of the Sūrya Siddhānta (Journal
of the American Oriental Society, 6), and
partly in his discussions of the question
of origin (Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 8), Oriental and Linguistic Essays,
2, 341-421 (with a stellar chart), and
of the question of date as against
Jacobi and Tilak's Orion (Journal of
the American Oriental Society, 16, lxxxii
et seq.). The views of Max Müller are
found in his Rigveda, 4^2, xxxiv et seq.
The modern discussion of the dates
inferable from the Nakṣatra was in-
augurated by Jacobi (1893) in the
Festgruss an Roth, 68-74 (translated in
the Indian Antiquary, 23). See also his
articles in the Nachrichten der königl.
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göt-
tingen, 1894, 110 et seq.
Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft,
49, 218 et seq.
50, 70 et seq.
Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1909, 721-
727. Independently Tilak, in his Orion,
developed similar views
but most of
his special points are disposed of by
Whitney in his review cited above.
Oldenberg has discussed and refuted
Jacobi's arguments in the Zeitschrift,
48, 629 et seq.
49, 470 et seq.
50, 450
et seq.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1909, 1090 et seq. Thibaut has
also rejected Jacobi's views in an article
in the Indian Antiquary, 24, 85 et seq.
See also his Astronomie, Astrologie und
Mathematik, 17-19. The recent litera-
ture on the origin of the Nakṣatras
consists of articles by Thibaut, Journa
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 63, 144
et seq.
Saussure, Toung Pao, 1909,
121 et seq.
255 et seq.
Oldenberg,
Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1909, 544
et seq. The Nakṣatras in the Epic are
dealt with by Hopkins, Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 24, 29-36.
Ludwig's views are given in his Trans-
lation of the Rigveda, 3, 183 et seq.