Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:32:31.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Note on the preceding Article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Edward Colebrooke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Having been led from the interest which has attached to Mr. Colebrooke's opinion, on the subjects discussed in Professor Whitney's paper, to examine the very copious memoranda on Hindu astronomy, which are in my possession, I think I am in a position to clear up some of the points which have given rise to this controversy. It seemed to be so improbable that Mr. Colebrooke should have taken such pains to identify the constellations named in the passage of the Jyotish, and have so pointedly referred to the double observation of the solstices as determining the epoch of the observation, while he was really grounding his opinion on the position of another asterism, that I thought the subject merited a closer scrutiny.

Type
Original Communications
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 1865 , pp. 332 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1865

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 332 note 1 Miscellaneous Essays, i. p. 90.Google Scholar

page 333 note 1 Astronomy, 381. Mr. Colebrooke's MS. memoranda gives the following calculation: “Spica in 1800, RA 198° 40′ 1″, whence long. 21° 3΄.” Allowing for the difference of dates this gives the same result as Herschell. I have compared these with several catalogues of stars of the last century, and they agree within a minute when reduced to the same date. It is probable, therefore, that Mr. Davis assumed a different rate of precession than that which is used in the text.

page 335 note 1 The manuscript from which I quote bears the watermark of 1808.

page 336 note 1 Notes F and K appended to the dissertation.

page 337 note 1 Müller, Max, on “Ancient Hindu Astronomy and Chronology,” p. 21.Google Scholar

page 337 note 2 It is to be observed that the mean of Revatî and Chitrâ given above would carry us to the latter part of the thirteenth century b.c.

page 338 note 1 The right ascension of the star was, in 1800, 307° 2′ 3″, according to Zaoh's tables. From this I make the longitude 313° 33′, which was the position of the solstitial colure about the year b.c. 1336.