The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c5.16.1

c5.16.1

It appears to me that scholars have erred too much on the side of overcautiousness in condemning this method. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties; but sufficient care does not appear to have been taken to always keep in view the main point of the inquiry, by separating it from the mass of irrelevant matter, with which, in some cases, it becomes unavoidably mixed up. Some of Bentley's speculations, for instance, are indeed ingenious and suggestive, but he relies too much upon Purāṇic traditions, mere etymological speculations and his own calculations based thereon, instead of trying to find out whether there is anything in the earlier works to corroborate or support these traditions. On the other hand, Prof. Weber's Essay, which, as a collection of astronomical allusions and references in the Vedic literature, is extremely valuable, is taken up by the controversy as to the origin of the Nakshatras raised by M. Biot; and the same thing may be said of Prof. Whitney's contributions on the subject.[‡] Various other questions, such as whether the Vedic cycle comprised five or six years, how and when the intercalary days or months were inserted to make the lunar correspond with the solar year, have also caused the attention of scholars to be diverted from the broad astronomical facts and observations to be found recorded in the Vedic literature;