Chapter V: Part I: I (3)

History does not tell of communication between Greece and India, sufficient to account for this similarity of astronomical method, till after the date of Alexander’s conquest--about 300 B.C. The Greeks could not at that late date have first become acquainted with the figures of the Zodiac, for in Grecian literature of a much earlier age the figures of the Zodiac and other constellations are alluded to as already perfectly well known. As the Greeks therefore could not have learnt all their astronomic lore from the Indians, the Indians must have learnt theirs from the Greeks at some date later than Alexander’s Eastern conquests.

A corroboration of this opinion is drawn from the consideration that, in the most ancient Sanscrit work in existence--the purely Indian Rig Veda, containing no Grecian taint--the twelve-fold divisions of the Zodiac appear to be unknown. This opinion as to the Rashis or constellations of the Solar Zodiac is so generally adopted, that the age of any Sanscrit work in which mention of these Rashis occurs is at once--no matter what its claims to antiquity may be--set down as not earlier than the comparatively modern date of 300 B.C.

II. As regards the Indian Lunar Zodiac. The Indians make use at present for calendrical purposes, not only of the twelve-fold Solar Zodiac, they have also a series of 27 Nakshatras, or Lunar mansions (this is for convenience sake designated by European writers as the Lunar Zodiac). It is admitted on all hands that the Nakshatra series was not derived from Grecian sources. But it is contended that the fixation of the initial point of this Lunar Zodiac (a point at the end of Revatī and the beginning of Aswinī, 10 degrees west of the first point of our constellation Aries) was due to an astronomical reform of the Hindu calendar, probably carried out under Grecian auspices at a date not much earlier than 600 A.D. A very clear statement of this opinion is thus given by Whitney (the editor of Burgess’ translation of the _Sûrya Siddhânta_):--

“The initial point of the fixed Hindu sphere from which longitudes
are reckoned, and at which the planetary motions are held by all
schools of Hindu astronomy to have commenced at the creation, is
the end of the asterism Revatî, or the beginning of Açvinî. Its
situation is most nearly marked by that of the principal star of
Revatî ... that star is by all authorities identified with ζ Piscium,
of which the longitude at present, as reckoned by us, from the Vernal
Equinox, is 17° 54´. Making due allowance for the precession (of the
equinoxes), we find that it coincided in position with the vernal
equinox, not far from the middle of the sixth century, or about A.D.
570. _As such coincidence was the occasion of the point being fixed
upon as the beginning of the sphere_, the time of its occurrence
marks approximately the era of the fixation of the sphere, and of the
commencement of the history of modern Hindu astronomy.”[45]

[45] _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. vi. p. 158.

In further corroboration of this view--deduced from the astronomical supposition (to which I have drawn attention by italics) put forward in this extract--ancient Sanscrit literature is appealed to. Hymns and lists referring to the Nakshatras are to be met with in the Yajur and Atharva Vedas, in which Krittikā, now the third Nakshatra, holds the first place.

The Nakshatra Krittikā contains the group of stars known to us as the Pleiades. The most brilliant stars in the Nakshatra Aswinī are the two stars in the head of the constellation Aries (the Ram), known to astronomers as α and β Arietis.

The vernal equinoctial point coincided about 2,000 B.C. with the constellation Krittikā. It is considered to be most probable that on account of this coincidence, at the early date when the hymns and list in question were composed, Krittikā was chosen as the leader of the Nakshatra series, and hence a similar reason for the later choice of Aswinī as leader relegates it to a date not much earlier than 570 A.D.

These very briefly, as far as I have been able to gather them, are the chief arguments in favour of--

(1) The Grecian introduction of the twelve-fold Zodiac into India about 300 B.C.

(2) The date of 570 A.D. for the fixation of the initial point of the Indian Zodiacs, and for the commencement of the history of Indian astronomy.

These propositions are based on cogent reasonings, and are maintained by very high authorities. The opponents of the modern theory have brought and bring forward the following considerations:--

“The _Bráhmans_ were always too proud to borrow their science from
the _Greeks_, _Arabs_, _Moguls_, or any nation of _Mléchch’has_, as
they call those who are ignorant of the _Védas_, and have not studied
the language of the Gods; they have often quoted to me (Sir William
Jones) the fragment of an old verse, which they now use proverbially
(_na níchò yavanátparah_), or, ‘_no base creature can be lower than
a Yavan_,’ by which name they formerly meant an _Ionian_ or _Greek_,
and now mean a _Mogul_.”[46]

[46] Sir William Jones, _The Antiquity of the Indian Zodiack,
Complete Works_, vol. i. p. 345.

Again the same writer points out that the resemblance between the Indian and the Greek Zodiac is--

“not more extraordinary than that, which has often been observed
between our _Gothick_ days of the week and those of the _Hindus_,
which are dedicated to the same luminaries, and (what is yet more
singular) revolve in the same order: _Ravi_, the Sun; _Sóma_, the
Moon; _Mangala_, Tuisco; _Budha_, Woden; _Vrihaspati_, Thor; _Sucra_,
Freya; _Sani_, Sater; yet no man ever imagined that the _Indians_
borrowed so remarkable an arrangement from the _Goths_ or _Germans_.”

These considerations put forward by Sir William Jones are further emphasized by the reflection that not only does the Grecian theory entail the improbability of the proud and jealous Brahmins adopting into their science and their mythology the teachings of foreigners; but that it also entails the greater improbability of the two rival Hindu sects, Brahmins and Buddhists, having at the same date and with equal enthusiasm adopted into their science and religious symbolism and calendars the same innovations.

Again the opinion of the Greek writers at the beginning of our era may be quoted as showing the high estimation in which, at that time of the world, Indian astronomy was held: as for instance in the life of Apollonius of Tyana (written about 210 A.D. by Philostratus), the wisdom and learning of Apollonius are set high above those of all his contemporaries; but from the sages of India he is represented as learning many things, especially matters of astronomy.[47]

[47] _Apollonius of Tyana_, Book iii. chapter 13.

This high opinion held by Greeks in regard to Indian astronomy may be contrasted with the very moderate praise bestowed on the Grecian science by Garga, a Hindu writer of, it is supposed, the first century B.C. He says:--

“The Yavanas (Greeks) are Mlechchas (non-Hindus, or barbarians),
but amongst them this science (astronomy) is well established.
Therefore they are honoured as Rishis (saints); how much more then an
astronomer who is a Brahman?”[48]

[48] Romesh Chunder Dutt, _Ancient India_, p. 136.

Somewhat to the same effect speaks a Hindu author of a later date, Varāhamihira, who wrote an astronomical dissertation treating of five different works known to him on the science of astronomy. He says:--

“There are the following Siddhântas: The Pauliśa, the Romaka, the
Vâsisṭha, the Saura, and the Paitámaha. Out of these five, the first
two (the Pauliśa and Romaka, which appear to have been European
treatises) have been explained by Lâṱadeva. The Siddhânta made by
Pauliśa is accurate, near to it stands the Siddhánta proclaimed by
Romaka; more accurate is the Sávitra (Saura)[49] (_Sūrya Siddhānta_,
the _Hindu_ standard work); the two remaining ones are far from the
truth.”[50]

[49] This opinion of Varāha has been confirmed by modern European
scholars. Burgess (from whose translations of the _Sūrya Siddhānta_
we have already quoted) remarks, “in regard to ... the amount of the
annual precession of the equinoxes, the relative size of the sun and
moon as compared with the earth, the greatest equation of the centre
of the sun, the Hindus are more nearly correct than the Greeks.”
(_Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. vi. p. 480.)

[50] _The Pañchasiddhântikâ._ Edited by G. Thibaut, ch. i. § 3.

This moderate, and, as it reads, judicial opinion of Varāhamihira, touching the superiority of the native _Sūrya Siddhānta_ over the Pauliśa and Romaka Siddhāntas, may be appealed to as not conveying the impression that when Varāha wrote his co-religionists and scientists were accepting, wholesale and with avidity, Grecian astronomic methods in place of their own already well-established native science. It is true that in Varāha’s work many words evidently of Grecian origin are to be met with; and some scholars have claimed that these “Greek terms occurring in Varāhamihira’s writings are conclusive proofs of the Greek origin of Hindu astronomy.” That such terms should occur in a work professedly a _resumé_ of five astronomic treatises--some of them Indian, and some European--can scarcely be considered as conclusive proof that in the writer’s time no purely Indian astronomic science existed. Varāha’s writings suggest an author interested in comparing the resemblances and the differences to be met with in home and foreign methods, rather than one introducing for the first time important astronomic truths to the notice of his readers.

It may be further urged that the claims to antiquity in Sanscrit astronomical works are so well known, that those who adopt the Grecian theory must necessarily throw discredit in a very wholesale manner on all their authors. Bentley’s furious diatribes may be quoted as an extreme example of the way in which the evidence of such Sanscrit claimants to antiquity is sometimes dealt with; and it may be pointed out that such violent denunciation cannot be looked on as convincing argument.

“The fact is,” writes Bentley, “that literary forgeries are now so
common in India, that we can hardly know what book is genuine, and
what not: perhaps there is not one book in a hundred, nay, probably
in a thousand, that is not a forgery, in some point of view or other;
and even those that are allowed or supposed to be genuine, are found
to be full of interpolations, to answer some particular ends: nor
need we be surprised at all this, when we consider the facilities
they have for forgeries, as well as their own general inclination and
interest in following that profession; for to give the appearance of
antiquity to their books and authors increases their value, at least
in the eyes of some. Their universal propensity to forgeries, ever
since the introduction of the modern system of astronomy and immense
periods of years, in A.D. 538, are but too well known to require
any further elucidation than those already given. They are under no
restraint of laws, human or divine, and subject to no punishment,
even if detected in the most flagrant literary impositions.”[51]

[51] _A Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy_, etc., p. 181.

It is unnecessary now to further pursue the pros and cons of what has hitherto been said and written on the vexed questions as to the originality and antiquity of astronomy in India, and especially as to the Indian acquaintance with the twelve-fold divisions of the Zodiac, and the date of the fixation of the initial point in their Zodiac. We have seen that by the majority the Grecian and modern theory is the favoured one.

Within the last quarter of a century, however, an unexpected reinforcement has come into the field, in aid of the disheartened and nearly silenced minority, who still believe in a great antiquity for the science of astronomy in India.

The researches of archæologists in Western Asia have of late brought to our knowledge vast hoards of information concerning the ancient inhabitants of Babylonia and Assyria, and the surrounding highlands and plains; amongst other matters, concerning the science of astronomy possessed by these peoples.

In 1874, a Paper entitled _The Astronomy and Astrology of the Babylonians_ was read by Professor Sayce before the “Society of Biblical Archæology,” and since that date other Papers, by various authors, dealing with the subject have appeared in the same Society’s _Proceedings_. Also in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, articles have been contributed by such writers as Epping and Strassmaier, Oppert, Mayer, Mahler, Jensen, Lehmann, and others, in which the calendars and astronomical methods in use in Mesopotamia are discussed.

Epping and Strassmaier’s _Astronomisches aus Babylon_ and Jensen’s _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_, are important volumes devoted to these same matters.

Whatever else concerning the subject of all these writings remains uncertain and open to discussion, some facts are clearly established. We now know that the inhabitants of Babylonia in a remote age (certainly as early as the fourth millenium B.C.) were acquainted with the twelve divisions of the Zodiac, and that these divisions were imagined under figures closely resembling in almost every instance those now depicted on our celestial globes. The calendar used by the Accadians, and later by the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, was indeed based on the observance of the Zodiacal constellations and of the journeyings through them of the sun and moon. The varying positions of the planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are also noted by references to the Zodiacal asterisms: and not only Zodiacal, but several of the extra-Zodiacal ancient constellations are represented on the monuments.

All this information gained from the cuneiform tablets concerning the science of astronomy in Western Asia must undoubtedly affect the judgment of enquirers into the history of the same science in India.

Now that it is clearly proved that 3,000 B.C. and earlier the twelve-fold fanciful signs of the Solar Zodiac were known to the inhabitants of Babylonia, it cannot any longer be asserted dogmatically that the inhabitants of India must have waited till 300 B.C. to learn this twelve-fold division from Grecian astronomers after the date of Alexander’s conquest.

But again as regards the fixation of the initial point of the distinctively Indian Lunar Zodiac, or circle of the Nakshatras, at the “end of Revatî, and the beginning of Açvinî,” that is to say, at a point not far from the first degree of Aries--cuneiform tablets teach us the important fact that long before the equinoctial point coincided with any of the degrees of Aries, that constellation was the leader of the Zodiacal series--inasmuch as the month Bar zig-gar (Accadian) the “Sacrifice of righteousness,” that is, the month when the sun was in conjunction with Aries, always in the tablets appears as the 1st month of the year.[52]

[52] This fact is admitted (see art. “Zodiac,” sub-heading “first
sign,” _Encyclopædia Britannica_). But it is a fact opposed to
the hitherto received opinion touching the necessary connexion of
the equinoctial point and of the initial point of the Zodiac. “A
prehistoric reform” of the calendar is supposed, and corrections of
the ancient texts to suit this reform, are suggested. Until traces
of such reform and corrections can be shown to exist, the evidence
of the tablets may still be cited as pointing to a year counted
from the sun’s entry into Aries, in the earliest ages of Babylonian
civilization.

These late revelations of archæology seem to strike at the root of the main arguments relied on by the advocates of the Grecian and modern origin of astronomic science in India; and this being the case, it is possible to turn with unbiassed minds to a consideration of the teachings of Sanscrit literature, and endeavour to learn from them what is the real truth as to the acquaintance of ancient Indian authors with the figures of the Zodiac and other astronomic phenomena.

The opinion has been very generally adopted, as has been said, that in the Rig Veda there is no mention of any of the twelve figures of the Solar Zodiac. Some few writers have contended that occasional references to these figures are to be met with, and this question has been argued on etymological grounds. My entire ignorance of the Sanscrit language prevents me from at all following the arguments employed in this discussion. And here it may be said, and said with good reason, that for the discussion of points connected with Vedic literature, writers ignorant of the language in which the Vedas were composed are but ill equipped for the task. At every step I keenly feel my own disqualifications; but many translations and commentaries on the Rig Veda are in existence; and without entering into etymological questions, it has seemed to me that broad astronomic explanations of some of the myths might be supplied, if only the possibility of the Vedic Rishis having been acquainted with the strange figures of the celestial sphere should be admitted. In this paper I am anxious to draw the attention of those who can study Vedic texts in their original language to these possible explanations. Those only who know Sanscrit are really qualified to judge finally whether the suggestions here made can be sustained on further enquiry into the Vedas. If the interpretations of Vedic myths here proposed are correct--no doubt corroboration will be found for them in the Sanscrit names and epithets of mythic personages. If no such corroborations are to be met with, the probabilities in favour of the correctness of the astronomic interpretations will be greatly diminished.

But to return to our subject. It is sometimes argued that the Vedic bards could not have been acquainted with the twelve-fold division of the Zodiac, as otherwise these great constellations would surely have claimed at their hands clear and outspoken notice. With this argument I cannot fully agree. Even before pointing out the important place which I believe astronomical phenomena hold in the Rig Veda, I would draw attention to the fact that according to the generally received and non-astronomic explanation of the myths, it is necessary to suppose that still more striking and important natural phenomena than those connected with the constellations of the Zodiac--phenomena with which the Vedic bards must certainly have been acquainted--were almost entirely ignored by the authors of the Rig Veda. It is true that some great scholars claim on linguistic grounds a solar origin for much Vedic imagery and nomenclature; yet when the hymns are examined in translations, and the notes and commentaries which accompany these translations are studied, the impression left on the mind of any reader unacquainted with Sanscrit must be that very little attention or honour is given to sun, moon, or stars, in comparison to that so freely lavished on the elements of fire, air and water, and on the mysterious properties of the juice of the Soma plant.

The beauty of the dawn is almost the only celestial glory that appears to appeal with any insistence to the imaginations of the Vedic Rishis.

If out of the more than one thousand hymns of the Rig Veda, not one is addressed to the moon, and on the most liberal calculation considerably less than a hundred to the sun, under any aspect, it need not be cause for wonder if the constellations of the Zodiac are not remembered. The poets of the Rig Veda, however ignorant of astronomy, and at whatever age they lived, must have sometimes lifted their eyes above the sacrificial fire and its smoke, above the rain and storm-clouds, above their altars and libations of Soma. They must have often seen “the sun when it shined” and “the moon walking in brightness,” and if they so rarely hymned these great luminaries with whose appearance and existence they so certainly were acquainted, it would prove no ignorance on their part of the twelve-fold division of the Zodiac and its quaintly imagined figures, were it indeed the case that all mention of these figures is absent from the Rig Veda.

But as has been stated above, my desire is to draw attention to possible astronomic interpretations of many of the Vedic myths, and the adoption of such interpretations would necessarily entail a reversal of the dictum that all mention of the twelve-fold Zodiac is absent from the Rig Veda.

Those who have studied this wonderful and mysterious collection of hymns most constantly and deeply are obliged to confess that it is still very imperfectly understood, and though it is agreed unanimously that the Gods of the Veda are personifications of the phenomena of nature, yet as to the exact phenomena underlying the various Vedic myths there is among scholars much difference of opinion. It is impossible not to feel in reading the hymns and the many speculations, notes, and comments appended to them, that notwithstanding all the labour and research bestowed on the work, much of this ancient Veda still remains a cypher, for the right understanding of which the modern reader does not possess the key.

Guided by the teachings of archæology, I now make the suggestion that the key to this cypher may perhaps be found in crediting the authors of the Veda with a somewhat advanced knowledge of astronomy, and an acquaintance with the, to us, apparently fanciful constellations of the celestial sphere and Zodiac; and in assuming that the figures of the “ancient constellations” often supplied the basis of Vedic imagery.

To pursue this possible clue towards the understanding of the myths, it were much to be desired that all students should be acquainted with the names and positions in the heavens of the forty-five constellations--so well distinguished by the epithet “ancient”--and that they should master some of the more easily observed conditions of their diurnal and annual apparent movements, as also those of the sun and moon, and further that they should have learnt what changes in the scenery of the heavens have been brought about by the slow movement known to astronomers as the “precession of the equinoxes.”

Classical and philological scholars have however so rarely time and attention to spare from their own intensely interesting and important studies that as a rule astronomical phenomena are not much observed or considered by them. The accompanying diagrams drawn from a celestial precessional globe may, it is hoped, enable those, who have not as yet devoted thought to such subjects, to judge for themselves of the reasonableness or otherwise of the following astronomic suggestions concerning the most important of the Vedic gods.

According to A. A. Macdonell--who in his late work _Vedic Mythology_ has summed up clearly and compendiously the opinions of a host of scholars on the nature of the Vedic gods--Indra is the favourite national god of the Rig Veda; he is celebrated in 250 hymns, a greater number than that “devoted to any other god, and very nearly one-fourth of the total number of hymns in the Rig Veda.”[53]

[53] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 54.

What may be called the central myths related of Indra, stripped of all epithet and ornament, relate that, invigorated by copious draughts of Soma, Indra fights with, overcomes, and drives from heaven and earth a demon called Vritra or Ahi, who is represented under the form of a dragon, serpent or water snake. Indra also searches for, finds, and releases cows which had been stolen from the gods (or according to some commentators, from the angirasas, or priests). Indra bestows on his worshippers all the blessings of plenty, especially he is the dispenser of rain.

According to the usual non-astronomic explanations of these myths, Indra, an “atmospheric god,”[54] is “primarily the thunder god” who conquers “the demons of drought or darkness,” or again, “Indra[55] is a personification of the phenomena of the firmament, particularly in the capacity of sending down rain. This property is metaphorically described as a conflict with the clouds which are reluctant to part with their watery stores until assailed and penetrated by the thunder-bolt of Indra; ... the cloud is personified as a demon named Ahi or Vritra ... a popular myth represents him (Indra) also as the discoverer and rescuer of the cows, either of the priests or of the gods which had been stolen by an _Asura_ named Pan̂i or Vala.”

[54] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 66.

[55] Wilson, _Rig Veda_, Introduction, pp. xxx.-xxxi.

Macdonell, alluding to the same incident, observes:[56] These “cows released by Indra may, in many cases, refer to the waters, for we have seen that the latter are occasionally compared with lowing cows. Thus Indra is said to have found the cows for man when he slew the dragon.... But the cows may also in other cases be conceived as connected with Indra’s winning of light, for the ruddy beams of dawn issuing from the blackness of night are compared with cattle coming out of their dark stalls. Again, though clouds play no great part in the Rig Veda under their literal name (_abhra_, etc.), it can hardly be denied that, as containing the waters, they figure mythologically to a considerable extent under the name of cow (_go_), as well as udder (_ūdhar_) ... thus the rain-clouds are probably meant when it is said that the cows roared at the birth of Indra.”

[56] _Vedic Mythology_, p. 59.

At the close of the section devoted to Indra, Macdonell refers to the probably pre-Vedic origin of the Indra myths. He says:[57] “The name of Indra occurs only twice in the Avesta. Beyond the fact of his being no god, but only a demon, his character there is uncertain. Indra’s distinctive Vedic epithet _vrtrahan_ [Vritra-slayer] also occurs in the Avesta in the form of _verethraghna_, which is, however, unconnected with Indra or the thunderstorm myth, designating merely the God of Victory. Thus it is probable that the Indo-Iranian period possessed a god approaching to the Vedic form of the Vrtra-slaying Indra. It is even possible that beside the thundering god of heaven, the Indo-European period may have known as a distinct conception a thunder-god, gigantic in size, a mighty eater and drinker, who slays the dragon with his lightning bolt.”

[57] _Vedic Mythology_, p. 66.

In reading the Indra hymns in the Veda, and in trying to fit them to the explanation given in the passages quoted, a constant and very disagreeable strain is put on the imagination; it must, for instance, attempt to grasp and hold, at the same time, two very far apart opinions as to the nature of the demon Vritra. Vritra is to be thought of as a demon of darkness, and as a demon of drought; the cows are clouds, they are also ruddy beams of light!

Darkness and drought are not to be easily bracketed together. Drought is in all lands, India not excepted, connected with a long continuance of bright and stainless skies. The appearance then of a little cloud “like a man’s hand” is the joyously hailed precursor of “the sound of abundance of rain.”

Again, the driving away of a snake-like cloud is no forcible simile by which to describe in myth the advent of rain in India--rain which to be of any use is no mere refreshing shower, but a long-continued downpour from clouds not hastily dispersed.

Indra’s action first in driving away the cloud-demon Vritra, and then in seeking for the beneficial cloud cows, is also contradictory.

For the reconciling of many of these contradictions the astronomic interpretation of the Indra-Vritra myths is as follows:--Indra may still retain all his atmospheric attributes of sending down rain but--_Indra is primarily and essentially a personification of the summer solstice_.

The summer solstice in India is an all-important agricultural epoch; it brings with it “the rainy season,” the real spring of the Indian year. Before this season all the land is parched and arid, and vegetation is at a standstill.

The punctuality of the rains in many parts of India is so exact that the farmer foretells their arrival not only to the day, but to the hour. In good years heavy and almost incessant rain lasts for two or even three months. Indra, as a personification of the season which so punctually brings the rain, is an atmospheric god, the enemy of the demon of drought. But Indra is more than this: many praises are bestowed on Indra in the Rig Veda for deeds which cannot easily be explained on the simple atmospheric theory. “Indra is the highest of all” is the refrain of many Vedic verses; “Indra placed the sun high in the sky,” “Indra tore off one wheel of the sun’s chariot,” “Indra stopped the tawny coursers of the sun.” Now all these phrases are at once and clearly to be interpreted if we think of Indra as the personification of the summer solstice, and especially of the solstice in India, where at that season of the year the sun attains to the very zenith, and thus Indra associated with the _sun_ under one figure of speech is spoken of as “highest of all,” and in a slightly varied figure associated with the _season_, is said to have “_placed_ the sun high in the sky.” Or again translating into myth the very meaning of the word solstice or “_the sun being made to stand_,” we read that Indra “tore off the wheel of the chariot of the sun,” and “stopped his tawny coursers.” Indra is, I cannot but believe, not merely an atmospheric god; he is the god of the summer solstice. And if this should be the case, what then may Vritra be? Is the demon of the solstitial Indra personified as only a snake-like cloud? It is impossible to think so. The astronomic interpretation of the myth I would propose is that--_a snake-like constellation_, not a snake-like cloud, is the representation of the demon Vritra.

On the celestial sphere many serpents and dragons are represented, but the far-reaching constellation Hydra exceeds all the others in its enormous length from head to tail. No very brilliant stars mark the asterism, nor in the grouping of its stars is there anything especially snake-like. For some reason other than its appeal to the eye did astronomers of old invest with all the horrors of the Hydra-form the monotonous length of this space on the vault of the skies.

This reason may be arrived at, with almost certainty, in studying, with the help of a precessional globe, the position in the heavens of this constellation in different ages of the world’s history. So studying, we shall find that 4,000 B.C.--or to be more precise, one or two hundred years earlier--Hydra extended its enormous length for more than 90° symmetrically along one astronomically important (though invisible) mathematical line--the line of the heavenly equator--and was at the same date accurately bisected by another equally important mathematical line, namely the colure of the summer solstice (see Plate IX.).

Almost irresistibly, as it appears to me, the conviction forces itself on the mind, in considering the position held by the constellation Hydra 4,000 B.C., that it was at that date that this baleful figure was first traced in imagination on the sky, there fitly to represent the power of physical (and may we not suppose also, of moral?) darkness--a great and terrible power--but a power ever and ever again to be conquered by the victorious power of light. In astronomic myth this power was represented as that of the sun at the season of its highest culmination, the season of the summer solstice. For an observer in the temperate northern zone all through the long nights of mid-winter, the whole length of the dreadful Hydra was at the date named visible above the horizon. The dark midwinter season was therefore the time of the Hydra’s greatest glory. At every season of the year, except at that of midsummer, some portion of the monster’s form was visible during some part of the night. But at the summer solstice no star in the constellation might show itself for ever so short a time.[58]

[58] Plate IX. represents the constellations above the horizon, _but
invisible at noon at the midsummer solstice_. It therefore represents
those above the horizon, _and visible at midwinter midnight_.

Position of the Sun amongst the Constellations at Summer Solstice, 4,000 B.C. Observer in Lat. 40° N. Constellations between the lines H Z and Z H invisible all through the night of Summer Solstice.

[_To face p. 118._]

The supposed latitude of the observer in Plate IX. is 40° N., a latitude considerably to the north of any part of India; but it is to be remembered that the Indra-Vritra myth cannot be claimed with any certainty as a purely and originally Indian myth, for, as Macdonell points out (as quoted above), there is a probability that “the Indo-Iranian period possessed a god approaching to the Vedic form of the Vrtra-slaying Indra,” and that “it is even possible that beside the thundering god of heaven, the Indo-European period may have known as a distinct conception a thunder-god, gigantic in size, a mighty eater and drinker, who slays the dragon with his lightning bolt.”[59]

[59] V. p. 114.

For the _origin_ of this world-wide myth, therefore, we should not look to the tropical Indian Zone; but it is in Indian latitudes that we should look for an explanation of the physical phenomena _hymned by Vedic bards in the distinctly Indian development of the Indra-Vritra myth_. I believe that in thus tracing the course of the Indra story from temperate to tropical latitudes, we shall find a reason for the contradictory attributes assigned to the demon Vritra, namely those of darkness and drought.

In northern latitudes winter is distinctly the _dark_ season; in tropical India there is little or no perceptible difference between the darkness of winter and summer. But in India winter is distinctly the dry season. Midsummer is the all-important season of the rains. Indra’s conquest over Vritra, or the arrival of solstitial rains, marked by the disappearance of the constellation Hydra from the sky, was mythologically in the Vedas described as Indra’s conquest over the demon of _drought_, but still traditionally--for the power of tradition is great--even in India Indra retained the attributes of the conqueror over the demon of _darkness_.

Portion of Sun at Summer Solstice, 3,000 B.C. Observer in Lat. 23° N.

Constellations between the lines H H Z and Z H H invisible all through the night of Summer Solstice.

[_To face p. 121._]

At Plate X. a drawing is given of the southern heavens and of the constellations--invisible at midsummer and visible at midwinter, above the horizon of an observer in latitude 23° N. at the date 3000 B.C., a thousand years later than the date referred to in Plate IX. For reasons which will appear more clearly when we come to the discussion of the Soma myth, it is to about this date that I would attribute the composition of many of the Vedic hymns.

But if Indra is to be considered as representing the summer solstice, and Vritra as representing the constellation Hydra, we must surely expect some astronomic interpretation for Soma--Soma by which the mighty Indra is invigorated and enabled to triumph gloriously over the demon. According to non-astronomic explanations, “the concrete terrestrial plant and the intoxicating juice extracted therefrom” are considered to be the basis of the mythology of Soma. It is admitted that in post-Vedic literature Soma is a regular name of the moon, which is regarded as being drunk up by the gods, and so waning. Some writers point to the possibility that even in the Rig Veda, “in the Soma hymns there may occasionally lurk a veiled identification of ambrosia and the moon, ... but on the whole, with the few exceptions generally admitted, it appears to be certain that to the seers of the Rig Veda the god Soma is a personification of the terrestrial plant and juice.”[60]

[60] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 113.

One German writer, Hillebrandt, very strongly upholds the view that Soma in the Rig Veda “often personifies the moon,”[61] and especially according to him is this the case in the 114 hymns of Maṇḍala IX., all addressed to Soma pavamāna, or “purified Soma,” prepared for and quaffed by Indra to invigorate him for the Vritra combat.

[61] _Vedic Mythology_

That Soma in the Rig Veda is primarily the moon, and that the moon is symbolized and always more or less directly referred to in the Vedic hymns to Soma, fits in, as must be evident to the readers of this paper, with the astronomic theories advocated in it. If we consider that Indra’s conquest over Vritra represents the god of the summer solstice, with his bright weapons, conquering, and driving from heaven and earth the constellation Hydra, we can easily understand how in this contest Indra might be strengthened by copious draughts of Soma, _i.e._ by the bright light of the full moon flooding the heavens with radiance and enfeebling all but the brightest stars.

But a further confirmation of the lunar character of Soma, and an elucidation of the imagery of the Soma pavamāna hymns of Maṇḍala IX., are to be found if--still crediting the Vedic Rishis with a knowledge of the ancient constellations--we study the position of these constellations at the date 3,000 B.C. (see Plate XI.)[62] At that date the full moon of the midsummer or solstitial season was always to be observed in the constellation Aquarius. With this thought in our mind as we read the mystical hymns of Maṇḍala IX., in which Soma is so often described as rushing impetuously to the vase or pitcher, and as surrounded by celestial waters, with many other such expressions, we easily recognise an allusion to the _midsummer full moon in the constellation Aquarius_; and when further we read the legend so often repeated, that the eagle brought the Soma to Indra, or to the sacrifice, we have only to look at the celestial globe to see the eagle (Aquila) directing its flight towards the pitcher of Aquarius--and to remember that the very night before the moon attained the celestial vase, it would have been on the same meridian as the constellation Aquila; and the imaginative Vedic bard might then describe it as borne along by the eagle,--one of the most glorious constellations in that part of the sky.

[62] Lunar dates are variable. The full moon _nearest_ to the summer
solstice might have been observed somewhat to the east or the west of
its position in the diagram, but always in the constellation Aquarius.

Position of Moon amongst the Constellations at Summer Solstice, and of the Sun at Winter Solstice, 3,000 B.C. Observer in Lat. 23° N.

[_To face p. 124._]

In one hymn especially devoted to the legend of the Soma-bearing eagle (or hawk), allusion to the small but well-marked-out constellation Sagitta (the arrow) may be detected. In Wilson’s translation of Maṇḍala IV. 27 (vol. iii. p. 174), we read: “When the hawk screamed (with exultation) on his descent from heaven, and (the guardians of the _Soma_) perceived that the _Soma_ was (carried away) by it, then, the archer Kriṣánu, pursuing with the speed of thought, and stringing his bow, let fly an arrow against it.”

Now to turn to another important Vedic deity, Agni.

Agni is classed, according to Macdonell, amongst terrestrial gods, but he points out that in some passages he is to be identified with the sun. Wilson describes Agni as comprising[63] “the element of _Fire_ under three aspects: 1^{st}, as it exists on earth, not only as culinary or religious fire, but as the heat of digestion and of life, and the vivifying principle of vegetation; 2^{nd}, as it exists in the atmosphere, or mid-heaven, in the form of lightning; and 3^{rd}, as it is manifested in the heavens, as light, the sun, the dawn, and planetary bodies.” And--having enumerated various deities who in the hymns appear as manifestations of the sun--he adds, “still, however, the sun does not hold that prominent place in the _Vaidik_ liturgy which he seems to have done in that of the ancient Persians, and he is chiefly venerated as the celestial representative of Fire.”

[63] Wilson, _Rig Veda_, Introduction, vol. i. pp. xxvii.-xxviii.

The classification of Agni as a terrestrial god, given by Macdonell, and the order of his “aspects,” as given by Wilson, are not in accordance with the theory here advocated, nor, according to Macdonell, is it the classification or order always adhered to by Vedic authorities.

For some very puzzling myths concerning Agni, I believe an astronomic interpretation may be given, and thereby the position of Agni in the _first_ place, rather than in the _last_, as a celestial god, may be established.

The Vedic deity Apām Napāt--the son of Waters, is classed by
Macdonell as an atmospheric god, and he says,[64] “In the last
stanza of the Apām napāt hymn, the deity is invoked as Agni, and
must be identified with him,” and again,[65] “Agni’s origin in the
aerial waters is often referred to. The ‘son of waters’ has, as has
been shown, become a distinct deity.” Then turning to other legends
regarding Agni he says, “In such passages the lightning form of
Agni must be meant. Some of the later hymns of the Rig Veda tell a
legend of Agni hiding in the waters and plants, and being found by
the gods.... In one passage of the Rig Veda also it is stated that
Agni rests in all streams; and in the later ritual texts, Agni in the
waters is invoked in connexion with ponds and water-vessels. Thus,
even in the oldest Vedic period, the waters in which Agni is latent,
though not those from which he is produced, may in various passages
have been regarded as terrestrial.... In any case the notion of Agni
in the waters is prominent throughout the Vedas.”

[64] _Vedic Mythology_, p. 70.

[65] _Ibid._, p. 92.

To explain this legend, Wilson makes other suggestions. He writes:[66] “The legend of his (Agni’s) hiding in the waters, through fear of the enemies of the gods, although alluded to in more than one place, is not very explicitly related ... the allusions of the _Súktas_ (hymns) may be a figurative intimation of the latent heat existing in water, or a misapprehension of a natural phenomenon which seems to have made a great impression in later times--the emission of flame from the surface of water either in the shape of inflammable air, or as the result of submarine volcanic action.”

[66] Wilson, _Rig Veda_, Introduction, vol. i. p. xxx.

It cannot but be admitted that these myths are puzzling, and that to account for the notion so prominent throughout the Vedas of “Agni in the waters,” the various suggestions of “lightning,” “latent heat existing in water,” “the emission of flame from the surface of the waters, either in the shape of inflammable air or as the result of submarine volcanic action,” are inadequate to explain the fact that Agni, whose very name “is the regular designation of fire”[67] should in the hymns be so closely associated with water. Nor are the difficulties concerning “Agni in the waters” to be overcome by the tempting and poetic suggestion, put forward by some writers, that in these passages reference is made to the sun rising in the morning out of the ocean, and again hiding itself beneath the waves at sunset. The composition of the Rig Veda is attributed to Aryan settlers “scattered over the Punjaub and regions lying to the west of the Indus”: by such settlers the sun could never have been seen _rising_ out of the ocean, for no ocean bounded their horizon on the east. Even the phenomenon of the sun hiding itself at evening in the water, could only have been observed by those who lived on the western _coast_, and it is therefore not easy to imagine why sunrise and sunset should in India have been so closely and constantly associated with a sea horizon.

[67] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 88.

But if once the acquaintance of the originators of the Agni myths with the Zodiacal figures is admitted, the astronomic interpretation of those relating to Agni in the waters is not difficult; it is as follows:

Agni is the personification of fire, but his chief personification is as the fire of the sun. _“Agni in the waters” is especially the fire of the sun in the celestial waters of Aquarius._ 3,000 B.C. the sun was in conjunction with Aquarius at the time of the _winter solstice_.[68] Those hymns therefore which dwell upon the myths of Agni hiding himself in, being born in, and rising out of the waters, may be considered as hymns referring to _the sun at the winter solstice in conjunction with the constellation Aquarius_, and therefore as hymns especially suitable for use on the occasion of a great yearly festival held at that season of the year.

[68] The position of the sun at the _winter solstice_ 3,000 B.C. was
identical with that represented at Plate XI. as the position of the
full moon at the _summer solstice_.

European writers often describe the mid-winter sun as _hiding_ itself, or as every day withdrawing itself more and more from view. In poetic similes, the snows of winter often crown the head of the aged out-going year, while the in-coming year is represented as a _babe_ or _infant_. The appropriateness of such similes is due to the fact, that our calendrical new year is fixed within a few days of the winter solstice. Again, in sober prose, the sun at the time of the winter solstice is said, having attained its lowest point, _to rise_ or _begin its upward course_ on the ecliptic. It is therefore not difficult to understand how the Vedic Rishis, who appear to have combined the characteristics of poets and of scientific observers of the heavens, should have 3,000 B.C. described _the fire of the solstitial sun, as hiding in, being born in, and rising out of the celestial waters of the constellation Aquarius_.

In this Agni myth, as in that of Indra, we may perceive traces of a pre-Vedic origin. The latitudes in which the Rig Veda was composed are not those in which attention is forcibly drawn to the diminution of the strength and visibility of the sun at the winter season. In the Rig Veda, however, Indra’s conquest over darkness as well as over drought is celebrated, and the same _traditional_ cause may be assigned for the description of Agni hiding himself at the time of the winter solstice in the waters of Aquarius.

Indra, Soma, and Agni no longer hold the important place in the Hindu Pantheon which they appear to have held in Vedic times, and on the astronomic theory, this fact may partly be accounted for by noticing how slow but inevitable changes in the scenery of the heavens, produced by the precession of the equinoxes, gradually obscured more and more completely the meaning of the _imagery_ employed in the hymns to these deities. Indra, if he represents the summer solstice, is indeed still as powerful as ever, and still triumphs over the demon of drought, but no longer is that demon well represented by the snake-like constellation Hydra; for on the night of the summer solstice, after the sun has set, the whole of Hydra is still above the horizon. No longer does the mid-summer full moon bathe its brightness in the celestial waters of Aquarius, nor does the mid-winter sun hide itself in them. The hymns remain, the phenomena they referred to, exist no longer.

But leaving now the subject of the “ancient constellations” and of reference to them in the Rig Veda, let us turn to the second section of the argument in favour of the modern origin of Hindu astronomy as stated above.[69] It is a claim made for the very modern date of 570 A.D. as that for the fixation of the initial point of the Indian Zodiac at the “end of Revatî and the beginning of Açvinî.”--This claim I desire to oppose.

[69] V. p. 92.

It has been admitted by scholars, but almost with a sort of reluctance, that mention is made of some of the Nakshatras in a few of the Rig Veda hymns. The matter is rather avoided than cordially enquired into. It is, however, a question of great and important interest to ascertain, if possible, whether the circle of the Nakshatras was known to the Vedic Rishis, and if it were known, whether the initial point was fixed there, where as we have read, _all schools of Hindu astronomy agree in declaring that the planetary motions commenced at the creation_.[70]

[70] V. p. 93.

We have learnt from Babylonian archæology that we are no longer forced to assume that only at the date of about 570 A.D. could this initial point have been fixed by Indian astronomers. It therefore need no longer be looked upon as an unreasonable quest to search in the ancient pages of the Rig Veda for indications that this important astronomical point had been fixed, even before Vedic times, as the starting-point of a calendrical and sidereal year--and if we should find such indications in the Rig Veda, they may well out-weigh arguments against the antiquity of this fixation, based upon passages in later works, such as the Yajur and Atharva Vedas.

From the Yajur Veda itself, arguments may be drawn in favour of a year beginning in the month Chaitra,[71] at or before the date of the composition or compilation of that Veda.

[71] Chaitra is the month which begins, as closely as a luni-solar
month may, at the sun’s arrival at the initial point of the Hindu
Zodiac--the beginning of Aswinī.

In the Taittirîya Sanhitâ (contained in the Yajur Veda) a passage occurs[72] which is translated and commented upon by B. G. Tilak (_The Orion, or Antiquity of the Vedas_, p. 46 _et seq._). In this passage is discussed the superior suitability of three different days on which worshippers might consecrate themselves for the yearly sacrifice. Not any one of these three days has any connexion with the _spring equinox_ or the sun’s conjunction with Krittikā. The choice of date for the yearly sacrifice appears to lie between, first, the “Ekâṣhṭakā (day)” of some month not named,[73] but one in the “distressed,” or “reversed” period of the year, _i.e._ the mid-winter season; second, the full moon of Phalgunī; and third, the Chaitra full moon. B. G. Tilak, after some pages of comment on the passage referred to, states in his summing up, amongst others, the following conclusions which he has arrived at.

[72] Taittirîya Sanhitâ, vii. 4. 8.

[73] At p. 48 he quotes authorities in favour of the Ekâṣhṭakā (day)
in this passage meaning the 8th day of the dark half of Mâgha.

“1^{st}, that in the days of the Taittirîya Sanhitâ the winter solstice occurred before the eighth day of the dark half of Mâgha ... and that throughout the whole passage the intention of sacrificing at the beginning (real, constructive, or traditional) of the year is quite clear: ... 2^{nd}, that the year then commenced with the winter solstice”: “3^{rd}, that as there can not be three real beginnings of the year, at an interval of one month each, the passage must be understood as recording a tradition about the Chitrâ full moon and the Phalgunī full moon being once considered as the first days of the year.”

This is B. G. Tilak’s conclusion; merely judging from the _translation_, the passage might, as it seems to me, be understood as unreservedly recommending the full-moon of Chaitra as the most suitable for the beginning of the sacrifice, for in the text of the Taittirîya Sanhitâ it is said of it, “It has no fault whatsoever.”

But in whichever sense the words are understood, this passage from the Yajur Veda may be set against the hymns and lists in the Yajur and Atharva Vedas, above alluded to,[74] in which Krittikā is celebrated in the first, and Aswinī in the twenty-seventh place.

[74] V. p. 94.

The fact that the evidence as to the beginning of the year “in the days of the Taittirîya Sanhitâ,” is, as it seems, so uncertain, and so contradictory to the opinion based on the hymn in the Taittirîya Brāhmana concerning Krittikā being the leader of the Nakshatras, seems to add interest to the question whether there are, or are not, indications in the Rig Veda that the Indian year was counted from the same point on the ecliptic as at present?[75]

[75] At present the month Chaitra in most parts of India is the first
month of the Hindu year. The beginning of the year is measured by the
return of the sun to the same point in the Zodiac: at present the
beginning of the Lunar Mansion Aswinī. (See _Indian Calendar_, p. 45.)

And at once, as it seems to me, on turning to the Rig Veda, on page after page, such indications are to be met with.

The first Nakshatra in the Indian series is named Aswinī (Aswins). The two chief stars in that Nakshatra are the twin stars, as they may fairly be called, α and β Arietis--stars of almost equal radiance. The joyous hymns addressed to the twin heroes, the Aswins, I would claim as new-year hymns composed in honour of these _stars_, whose appearance before sunrise heralded the approach of the great festival-day of the Hindu new year.