Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

coveries he boasts of. According to Bentley's view, no Sürya-Siddhanta vvhatever existed before the l lth century, a view controverted by Whitney1 by many arguments, any one of which by itself would be sufficiënt to upset Bentley's theory. Whitney has shown, moreover, that even the fact of the Sürya-Siddhanta in its present shape dating from the 1 lth century admits of serious doubt. Strictly speaking we do not know at all at what time the last recast of the work was made, and whether the undoubted alterations of the text have been made gradually, or whether the work went through a limited number of improved and modernized editions. That our Sürya-Siddhanta, however it may have been modified (and Utpala's quotations go far to prove that the mfodifications exceed all moderation according to European ideas), nevertheless resembles in its features and structure the original Saura- or Sürya-Siddhanta, seems to me very probable. A little higher up, I hinted that the old Sürya-Siddhanta was not emancipated from astrology; we might a priori expect as much, because it must have been one of the first works of the scientific period of Hindu astronomy. In some other Siddhantas we find some few names reminding us of the Samhita-period, in others all traces of astrology are lost. Now, what do we find in our present Sürya-Siddhanta? A much larger portion of astrological or half-astrological matter than in any other Siddhanta, in such as I know at least; see its Ch. VIL, 18-24, the grahayuddham, the very same term we found above; see also Ch. XI. Further, while in some Siddhantas the naksatras are scarcely more than mentioned, in Aryabhata's work not even so much, the present Sürya-Siddhanta treats of them comparatively copiously. Add to this the circumstance that all the Siddhantas since Aryabhata are in the Arya, but the work in question is in Anustubh 2, the same metre in which Utpala's quotations are composed, and it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Sürya-Siddhanta in its present edition is a lineal and legitimate descendant of the work mentioned by Varahamihira as one of his authorities.

The Vasistha- or Vasistha-Siddhanta was known to Albïrünï only as the work of Visnucandra, but his statement is evidently not so exact as Brahmagupta s, who ascribes only the revision to Visnucandra.3 As the latter borrowed from Aryabhata (see Colebrooke 1. c.), and this astronomer was contemporary with Varaha-mihira, the Vasistha-Siddhanta mentioned in the Brhat-Samhita must have been the older one. The metre of the work,

1 Sürya-Siddhanta, transl. p. 21, sqq.

5 Only the decidedly old Siddhantas, like the Vasistha- and Komaka-Siddhantas, and the original Paulicja-Siddhanta, are in Anusfubh.

s Mém. sur 1'Inde, p. 332, and Colebrooke's Algebra, p. XLIV. & XLVII.