ferred from the present publication; we ought to possess the whole of his treatises before we could do him justice. In the Brhat-Samhita he is in the awkward position of a man who has to reconcile the exigencies of science and the decrees, deemed infallible, of the Rsis. 1 Ihe result of such an attempt is not satisfactory. This much is to be gathered from his writings, especially from the fragments of the Pancasiddhantika, that he belongs to the class of Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, Bhaskara. It has been supposed that he was the first to fix the Hindu sphere at the beginning of Agvinï, but this does not appear from his works, so far as they have come to us. From the manner in which he expresses himself in a passage Brh. Samh. Ch. III. vs. I sq. connected with the ancientand actual position of the colures, one is even tempted to infer that he had no theory whatever as to the cause of the fact; he knows that the position of the colures was different in former times, but he alleges no other ground for explaining the fact, but the one «because it was declared to be so in ancient books». For aught we know, the observation which put the naksatra Agvinï at the head of the series, may have been made some generations before 500 A. D. If we knew therelative position of the star in the lunar mansion at the time of Varaha-mihira, a somewhat more precise result might be arrived at, but that is not the case.
As an author he has deservedly been held high by his countrymen. His style, although here and there obscure, and not always graceful, is pith\ , néver childish, bearing throughout the stamp of individuality, something not very common among Hindu authors, allowance being made for brilüant exceptions. His language shows decided affinity with Sugruta; compared with that of Kalidasa and Amara-simha it looks archaical, only however in the use of some grammatical forms and the choice of words. This peculiarity must, I think, be ascribed to his conscious or unconscious imitation of more ancient writings. Another peculiarity, a merely accidental one, is the great number of Greek terms in his works; in no other author have so many of these been found together; but we should find the same number in many other works, had they been preserved.
1 For some curious examples see Byh. Saqih. V. 1—17; IX. 6, sq.
» Their number is 36, viz. Kriya, Tavuri, Jituma, Leya, Pathena (Pathona is a corrupt reading, the best MSS. have Pathena, which is evidently the onginal one for it corresponds to TtaQ&évOg), Dyüka or Jüka, Kaurpya, Tauksika, Akokera Hrdroga, It tham, Heli, Himna, Ara, Jyau, Kona, Asphujit, hora, kend'ra, dreskana or drekkana, lipta, anapha, sunapha, durudhara, kemadruma," ve<?i. apoklima, panaphara, hibuka, jamitra, mesura^a, dyunam, dyutam, rihpha. Weber, who gives this list (Indische Literaturgeschichte, p 227) adds kulira and trikona, but these seem to be genuine Sanskrit words. On the other hand ought to be added harija = o»*. In the Sürya-siddhanta, Y. vs 1, this word means «longitudinal parallax,, but Varaha-mihira and Utpala never use it in