I forbear here to enter into a description of the contents of the BrhatSamhita, because it can be done much more conveniently in the translation which is in preparation. Besides, the text itself is now accessible to all; as a substitute I shall give as many particulars as I have been able to collect about the authorities whom Varaha-mihira mentions in his works. The information is chiefly taken from Utpala's commentaries which, with one exception, are not accessible to everybody.
1 aking only the Brhat-Samhita we find mentioned Paragara, Garga (Vrddha-Garga), Kagyapa, Narada, the Paitamaha-Siddhanta, the SauraSiddhanta, the Pauliga-Siddhanta, the Vasistha-Siddhanta, the RomakaSiddhanta, Visnugupta, Asita-Devala or Asita and Devala, Rsiputra, Qukra or Uganas or Bhrgu, Maya, Brhaspati, £akra, Garutmat, the seven Rsis (the Great Bear), Badarayana, Nagnajit, Sarasvata, a work called Savitra, another named Sastyabda, Manu, Vigvakarman, Vajra (or Vatsa, Vatsya), £rï-Dravyavardhana (or £ri-Vardhamanaka), Kapisthala, Bharadvaja, and incidentally Kapila and Kanabhuj. To these may be added those which are quoted in other works of our author, namely Satya or Bhadatta, Manittha, Devasvamin, Siddhasena, the Greek authors, Jïvagarman, Lata-acarya, Simha-acar}-a and Aryabhata.
Man>- of the Rsis upon whose authority the doctrines of astronomy and astrology are held to be founded are pure myths. 1 In the case of some, as
that sense. That it moans horizon is clear, e. g. from Brh. Jat. 5, 17: yadvad raijir vrajati liarij am, «in the manner in which a sign comes to the horizon», i. e. «rises», where the comment: udayalekham parityajati, and further on: yatrakapam bhümya sahasaktam samantad drijyate tad dharijam.
1 By myth here is meant the personification of any natural phenomenon, or of any moral, historica!, social fact; in many cases it is the embodiment of a rude philosophical theory in a poetical shape. Take the example of a modern myth, the existence of aCompaDy Bahadoor». One, unacquainted with the history of the English East India Company, on hearing the brilliant achievements of Companj' Bahadoor from the time of his birth till his death, during a life of about 250 years, would smile in unbelief at the absurdity of the story. Yet there is nothing absurd, nay more, the story is strictly truc, provided one substitute a personification for a person. The whole of religious and nonreligious mythology (for mytlis are by no means exclusively religious) would be perfectly true, if we had the key to them. But this is not the case as yet. The key to mythology in general lias been found long ago, but not to every myth, because they were exposed to the modifications and corruptions by more or less rationalizing influences. A curious example of a palpably corrupted myth, struck me in Cardwell's excellent Dravidian Grammar, p. 80, where it is stated that Agastya (Canopus) is believed by the majority of orthodox Hindus to be still alive, «although invisible to ordinary eyesn. The first part is a true myth, Canopus does exist, but the second part of the myth is adulterated, it ought to be: «although not always visible», i. e. during the time of its heliacal setting Agastya is invisible.
I here are many who are in the liabit of calling the natural explanation of myths an