4. METHOD TO BE PURSUED. 5 Brāhmaṇas is, moreover, explicit. Thus Prajapati is said to be the All (SB. 1, 3, 5¹°) or the All and everything (SB. 1, 6, 4²; 4, 5, 7²). The gods having lost their distinctive features, there is apparent a tend- ency to divide them into groups. Thus it is characteristic of the period that the supernatural powers form the two hostile camps of the Devas or gods on the one hand and the Asuras or demons on the other. The gods are further divided into the three classes of the terrestrial Vasus, the aerial Rudras, and the celestial Adityas ($ 45). The most significant group is the repre- sentative triad of Fire, Wind, and Sun. The formalism of these works further shows itself in the subdivision of individual deities by the personification of their various attributes. Thus they speak of an 'Agni, lord of food', 'Agni, lord of prayer' and so forth ². The Brāhmaṇas relate numerous myths in illustration of their main subject-matter. Some of these are not referred to in the Samhitas. But where they do occur in the earlier literature, they appear in the Brāhmaṇas only as developments of their older forms, and cannot be said to shed light on their original forms, but only serve as a link between the mythological creations of the oldest Vedic and of the post-Vedic periods. 1 HRI. 153. 2 BRI. 42; HRI. 182. - S4. Method to be pursued. Vedic mythology is the product of an age and a country, of social and climatic conditions far removed and widely differing from our own. We have, moreover, here to deal not with direct statements of fact, but with the imaginative creations of poets whose mental attitude towards nature was vastly different from that of the men of to-day. The difficulty involved in dealing with material so complex and re- presenting so early a stage of thought, is further increased by the character of the poetry in which this thought is imbedded. There is thus perhaps no subject capable of scientific treatment, which, in addition to requiring a certain share of poetical insight, demands caution and sobriety of judgment more urgently. Yet the stringency of method which is clearly so necessary, has largely been lacking in the investigation of Vedic mythology. To this defect, no less than to the inherent obscurity of the material, are doubtless in con- siderable measure due the many and great divergences of opinion prevailing among Vedic scholars on a large number of important mythological questions. In the earlier period of Vedic studies there was a tendency to begin research at the wrong end. The etymological equations of comparative mythology were then made the starting point. These identifications, though now mostly rejected, have continued to influence unduly the inter- pretation of the mythological creations of the Veda. But even apart from etymological considerations, theories have frequently been based on general impressions rather than on the careful sifting of evidence, isolated and second- ary traits thus sometimes receiving coördinate weight with what is primary. An unmistakable bias has at the same time shown itself in favour of some one particular principle of interpretation. Thus an unduly large number of mythological figures have been explained as derived from dawn, lightning, sun, or moon respectively. An à priori bias of this kind leads to an un- consciously partial utilization of the evidence. Such being the case, it may pove useful to suggest some hints with a view to encourage the student in following more cautious methods. On the principle that scientific investigations should proceed from the better known to the less known, researches which aim at presenting a true picture of the character and actions of the Vedic gods, ought to begin not with the meagre prove
