erroneously, called Aryabhatta. The manuscripts in which the name occurs prove nothing; they will in one line write Aryabhata and Aryabhatta, and would, if we had no other means of arriving at the truth, balance each other. Happily the word occurs in verses, and the metre decides the question at once. The Arabic form Arjabhar would, if necessary, have been sufficiënt to show that the MSS. giving Aryabhata are right, and wrong in the opposite case, for a single t may become in the mouth of the people r or something like it, but never tt. AlbïrUni writes the name with t, instead of with r, as other Arabs used to do, because being conversant with Sanskrit he gives not the popular or Prakrit pronunciation, but the approximately more correct one with t, in the same way as he writes the name of Lata with t. It may seem unnecessary to dweil upon a seeming trifle, but erior, be it ever so small, ought not to be sanctioned.
Colebrooke was aware that Varaha-mihira must have been acquainted with Aryabhata's writings, from which he concluded that the latter astronomer was prior to the former (see Alg. XLIV), admitting that atthelatest he must have lived at the commencement of the 6th century. Colebrooke dicl not know that Varaha-mihira actually mentions Aryabhata's name, still less that he quotes one verse in full from his works, neither had the great scholar been able to acquireMSS. of Aryabhata s works. Such MSS. are indeed, it would seem, very rare, and in Hindustan proper unheard of, nevertheless they exist, and hat it not been for a wrong title, two of the works of Aryabhata would have been recognized as such long ago. Ihe title of a certain MS. in the Berlin Library 1 bears: «Aryabhata-Siddhanta vyakhyane Bhatapradïpe Dagagïtibhasyam ». Weber misled, as any other would be, by the title, took the whole for a Dagagïti-bhasyam or commentary on the Dagagïti. Whitney in the Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. 6th Vol., p. 560, sqq. proved that the doctrines in it contained all the peculiar features by which Aryabhata was distinguished, as we know from the many notices about these doctrines to be found in astronomical writings. I have made known 2 that the quotations in Utpala's commentary on theBrhat-Samhita occurred in it, and was rather puzzled that^Utpala simply treats those quotations as if they were the productions of Aryabhata himself, notwithstanding the work from which they were taken is called a commentary. Neither Professor Whitney nor myself took the simple course of saying that the socalled Dagagïti-bhasyam was no bhasyam at all; seeing, we did not see. At last I succeeded in obtaining the Dagagïti and the Aryabhatïyam or
1 Weber's Catalogue, p. 232.
Journ. E. A. S. of Great Br. and Irel. XX (1863).