for the origin of that simple astronomical system on which the
calendar of the Vedic festivals is founded. He calls the theories of
others, who have lately tried to claim the first discovery of the
Nakshatras for China, Babylon, or some other Asiatic country, absurd,
and takes no notice of the sanguine expectations of certain scholars,
who imagine they will soon have discovered the very names of the
Indian Nakshatras in Babylonian inscriptions. But does it follow that,
because the ceremonial presupposes an observation of the solstitial
points in about the twelfth century, therefore the theological works
in which that ceremonial is explained, commented upon, and furnished
with all kinds of mysterious meanings, were composed at that early
date? We see no stringency whatever in this argument of Dr. Haug's,
and we think it will be necessary to look for other anchors by which
to fix the drifting wrecks of Vedic literature.

Dr. Haug's two volumes, containing the text of the
Aitareya-brahma_n_a, translation, and notes, would probably never have
been published, if they had not received the patronage of the Bombay
Government. However interesting the Brahma_n_as may be to students of
Indian literature, they are of small interest to the general reader.
The greater portion of them is simply twaddle, and what is worse,
theological twaddle. No person who is not acquainted beforehand with
the place which the Brahma_n_as fill in the history of the Indian
mind, could read more than ten pages without being disgusted. To the
historian, however, and to the philosopher they are of infinite
importance--to the former as a real link between the ancient and
modern literature of India; to the latter as a most important phase
in the growth of the human mind, in its passage from health to
disease. Such books, which no circulating library would touch, are
just the books which Governments, if possible, or Universities and
learned societies, should patronise; and if we congratulate Dr. Haug
on having secured the enlightened patronage of the Bombay Government,
we may congratulate Mr. Howard and the Bombay Government on having, in
this instance, secured the services of a bona fide scholar like Dr.
Haug.[44]

_March, 1864._

[Footnote 44: A few paragraphs in this review, in which allusion was
made to certain charges of what might be called 'literary rattening,'
brought by Dr. Haug against some Sanskrit scholars, and more
particularly against the e