﻿XVI. 



ON THE 



ANTIQUITY OF THE INDIAN ZODIAC. 



BY THE PRESIDENT. 



T ENGAGE to support an opinion (which the learned 

 and industrious M. Montucla seems to treat with 

 extreme contempt) that the Indian division of the 

 Zodiac was not borrowed from the Greeks or Arabs, 

 but, having been known in this country from time 

 immemorial, and being the same in part with that used 

 by other nations of the old Hindu race, was probably 

 invented by the first progenitors of that race before 

 their dispersion. lC The Indians," he says, " have two 

 " divisions of the Zodiac ; one, like that of the 

 " Arabs, relating to the moon, and consisting of 

 " twenty-seven equal parts, by which they can teli 

 " very nearly the hour of the night ; another relating 

 " to the syfti, and, like ours, containing twelve signs, 

 " to which they have given as many names, corres- 

 " pending with those which we have borrowed from 

 " the Greeks.*' All that is true; but he adds, " It 

 " is highly probable that they received them at some 

 " time or another by the intervention of the Arabs ; for 

 " no man, surely, can persuade himself, that it is the 

 " ancient division of the Zodiac formed, according 

 " to some anchors, by the forefathers of mankind, 

 " and still preserved among the Hindus." Now I under- 

 take to prove, that the Indian Zodiac was not bor- 

 rowed mediately or directly from the Arabs or Greeks ; 

 and, since the solar division ot it in India is the same 

 in substance with that used in Greece, we may reasona- 

 bly conclude, that both Greeks and Hindus received it 

 from an older nation, who first gave names to the 



4 

 * 



