of time the Hindus, through the Greeks, became acquainted with two separate branches of the knowledge of the stars (the one really scientific, the other quasi-scientific), they must have feit some difficulty in incorporating the mathematical astronomy and the so-called judicial astrology into their Samhita. In keeping distinct the divisions, among which the second and third are different from each other not so much in matter as in method, they continued to feel, it is not unnatural tosuppose, too well theetymological meaning of Samhita not to apply it occasionally to the whole course of the Jyotihgastra or J)-otisasarïgraha. 1
Varaha-mihira distinguished himself in all the three branches of thejyotihgastra. Before writing the Brhat-Samhita he had composed aworkon pure astronomy, and one on horoscopy, as we learn from Brh. Samh. Ch. I. vs. 10.2 His first and astronomical work is always designated by himself as his Karana or Karana grahanam, and we know only from Bhatta Utpala, Alblrïinï, and others, that its title was Pancasiddhantika, a name derived from its being founded upon the five Siddhantas. Albïrünï is speaking of Karanas, as a kind of astronomical work, defines them as works forming a sequel to the Siddhantas, or as Reinaud seems to interpret the Arabic word tabi, being subservient to the Siddhantas. 3 That, however, is not the common acceptation of the term; a Karana differsfrom aSiddhanta, in this respect, that in the latter the calculations refer to the beginning of the Yuga, in the former to the Qaka era. As to the word itself, it means simply «calculation», as is proved by the juxtaposition of grahanam, one might say «mathematical operation». — About the contents of the Karana Pancasiddhantika Albïrünï (Mém. sur 1'Inde, p. 332) expresses himself thus: «Varaha-mihira has composed astronomical tables, in a small volume, to which he has given the title of Pancasiddhantika. One would be led to suppose that these tables contained the substance of the five forementioned works (the 5 Siddhantas), and that they are substitutes for those; but that is by no means the case.» Now, the manner in which Varaha-mihira speaks of his treatise, 4 and the numerous quotations from it, given by
1 Concerning the three divisions of a Jyotih<;astra one may compare a passage in the Jnana Bhaskara, as published by Weber in his Catalogue of the Berlin Skr. MSS. 287.
2 In the passage from the Brh. Jat. cited above, lie says that he wrote the third part or Qakha, so that at first sight, it would appear that he wrote the passage after liaving finiahed the Brh. Samhita, not before it. But, supposing even that the passage stands at its right place, which is far from certain, it is readily explained by the supposition that he edited the Hora and the Samhita, as a whole, at the samc time, or that ho wrote after completing the whole at the end of each part, or volume, those noticcs which, in a certain manner, correspond to our prefaces.
5 Beinaud, Mémoire sur 1'Inde, p. 335.
4 See Brh. Samh. I. 10; V. 18; XVII. 1; XXIV. 5.