of Wandsbeck near Hamburg. He spent the following winter at Wittenberg, and reached Prague in June 1599, well assured of favour and protection from the emperor Rudolph II. That monarch, accordingly, assigned him the castle of Benatky for his residence, with a pension of 3000 florins; his great instruments were moved thither from Hveen, and Johannes Kepler joined him there in January 1600. But this phase of renewed prosperity was brief. After eleven days’ illness, Tycho Brahe died on the 24th of October 1601, at Benatky, and was buried in the Teynkirche, Prague.
Tycho’s principal work, entitled Astronomiae Instauratae Progymnasmata (2 vols., Prague, 1602–1603) was edited by Kepler. The first volume treated of the motions of the sun and moon, and gave the places of 777 fixed stars (this number was increased to 1005 by Kepler in 1627 in the “Rudolphine Tables”). The second, which had been privately printed at Uraniborg in 1588 with the heading De Mundi Aetherei recentioribus Phaenomenis, was mainly concerned with the comet of 1577, demonstrated by Tycho from its insensible parallax to be no terrestrial exhalation, as commonly supposed, but a body traversing planetary space. It included, besides, an account of the Tychonic plan of the cosmos, in which a via media was sought between the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. The earth retained its immobility; but the five planets were made to revolve round the sun, which, with its entire cortège, annually circuited the earth, the sphere of the fixed stars performing meanwhile, as of old, its all-inclusive diurnal rotation (see Astronomy: History). Under the heading Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica, Tycho published at Wandsbeck, in 1598, a description of his instruments, together with an autobiographical account of his career and discoveries, including the memorable one of the moon’s “variation” (see Moon). The book was reprinted at Nuremberg in 1602 (cf. Hasselberg, Vierteljahrsschrift Astr. Ges. xxxix. iii. 180). His Epistolae Astronomicae, printed at Uraniborg in 1596 with a portrait engraved by Geyn of Amsterdam in 1586, were embodied in a complete edition of his works issued at Frankfort in 1648. Tycho vastly improved the art of astronomical observation. He constructed a table of refractions, allowed for instrumental inaccuracies, and eliminated by averaging accidental errors. He, moreover, corrected the received value of nearly every astronomical quantity; but the theoretical purpose towards which his practical reform was directed, was foiled by his premature death.
See J. L. E. Dreyer’s Tycho Brahe (Edinburgh, 1890), which gives full and authentic information regarding his life and work. Also Gassendi’s Vita (Paris, 1654); Lebensbeschreibung, collected from various Danish sources, and translated into German by Philander von der Weistritz (Copenhagen and Leipzig, 1756); Tyge Brahe, by F. R. Friis (Copenhagen, 1871); Prager Tychoniana, collected by Dr F. I. Studnicka (Prague, 1901), a description of the scanty Tychonian relics which survived the Thirty Years’ War and are still preserved at Prague. (A. M. C.)
BRAHMAN, a Sanskrit noun-stem which, differently accented, yields in the two nominatives Brahmă (neut.) and Brahmā (masc.), the names of two deities which occupy prominent places in the orthodox system of Hindu belief. Brahmă (n.) is the designation generally applied to the Supreme Soul (paramātman), or impersonal, all-embracing divine essence, the original source and ultimate goal of all that exists; Brahmā (m.), on the other hand, is only one of the three hypostases of that divinity whose creative activity he represents, as distinguished from its preservative and destructive aspects, ever apparent in life and nature, and represented by the gods Vishṇu and Śiva respectively. The history of the two cognate names reflects in some measure the development of Indian religious speculation generally.
The neuter term brahmă is used in the Rigveda both in the abstract sense of “devotion, worship,” and in the concrete sense of “devotional rite, prayer, hymn.” The spirit of Vedic worship is pervaded by a devout belief in the efficacy of invocation and sacrificial offering. The earnest and well-expressed prayer or hymn of praise cannot fail to draw the divine power to the worshipper and make it yield to his supplication; whilst offerings, so far from being mere acts of devotion calculated to give pleasure to the god, constitute the very food and drink which render him vigorous and capable of battling with the enemies of his mortal friend. It is this intrinsic power of fervent invocation and worship which found an early expression in the term brahmă; and its independent existence as an active moral principle in shaping the destinies of man became recognized in the Vedic pantheon in the conception of a god Bṛihaspati or Brahmaṇaspati, “lord of prayer or devotion,” the divine priest and the guardian of the pious worshipper. By a natural extension of the original meaning, the term brahmă, in the sense of sacred utterance, was subsequently likewise applied to the whole body of sacred writ, the tri-vidyā or “triple lore” of the Veda; whilst it also came to be commonly used as the abstract designation of the priestly function and the Brāhmanical order generally, in the same way as the term kshatra, “sway, rule,” came to denote the aggregate of functions and individuals of the Kshatriyas or Rājanyas, the nobility or military class.
The universal belief in the efficacy of invocation as an indispensable adjunct to sacrifices and religious rites generally, could not fail to engender and maintain in the minds of the people feelings of profound esteem and reverence towards those who possessed the divine gift of inspired utterance, as well as for those who had acquired an intimate knowledge of the approved forms of ritual worship. A common designation of the priest is brahman (nom. brahma), originally denoting, it would seem, “one who prays, a worshipper,” perhaps also “the composer of a hymn” (brahman, n.); and the same term came subsequently to be used not only for one of the sacerdotal order generally, but also, and more commonly, as the designation of a special class of priests who officiated as superintendents during sacrificial performances, the complicated nature of which required the co-operation of a whole staff of priests, and who accordingly were expected to possess a competent knowledge of the entire course of ritual procedure, including the correct form and mystic import of the sacred texts to be repeated or chanted by the several priests. The Brahman priest (brahmā) being thus the recognized head of the sacerdotal order (brahmă), which itself is the visible embodiment of sacred writ and the devotional spirit pervading it (brahmă), the complete realization of theocratic aspirations required but a single step, which was indeed taken in the theosophic speculations of the later Vedic poets and the authors of the Brāhmanas (q.v.), viz. the recognition of this abstract notion of the Brahma as the highest cosmic principle and its identification with the pantheistic conception of an all-pervading, self-existent spiritual substance, the primary source of the universe; and subsequently coupled therewith the personification of its creative energy in the form of Brahmā, the divine representative of the earthly priest, who was made to take the place of the earlier conception of Prajāpati, “the lord of creatures” (see Brahmanism). By this means the very name of this god expressed the essential oneness of his nature with that of the divine spirit as whose manifestation he was to be considered. In the later Vedic writings, especially the Brāhmanas, however, Prajāpati still maintains throughout his position as the paramount personal deity; and Brahma, in his divine capacity, is rather identified with Bṛihaspati, the priest of the gods. Moreover, the exact relationship between Prajāpati and the Brahmă (n.) is hardly as yet defined with sufficient precision; it is rather one of simple identification: in the beginning the Brahma was the All, and Prajapati is the Brahma. It is only in the institutes of Manu, where we find the system of castes propounded in its complete development, that Brahmā has his definite place assigned to him in the cosmogony. According to this work, the universe, before undiscerned, was made discernible in the beginning by the sole, self-existent lord Brahmă (n.). He, desirous of producing different beings from his own self, created the waters by his own thought, and placed in them a seed which developed into a golden egg; therein was born Brahmā (m.), the parent of all the worlds; and thus “that which is the undiscrete Cause, eternal, which is and is not, from it issued that male who is called in the world Brahmā.” Having dwelt in that egg for a year, that lord spontaneously by his own
