________________
142
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1890.
Paulisa-Siddhanta, and which is 42 palas in excess of the year of the Romaka-Siddhanta. It is clear, therefore, that these two Siddhântas differ much from each other in the most fundamental principle; and it is impossible that they can have been written by one and the same Lâța. They were, therefore, only commented on by Lâța, and are evidently much older than him and than Varâhamihira.
On reading the Pañchasiddhantikd and Brahmagupta's Brahma-Siddhanta, anyone will see at once that both of them make a clear distinction between the five Siddhântas, - Paulisa, Romaka, Vasishtha, Saura, and Paitâmaha, on the one hand, and on the other, the works of Aryabhata and others. Neither of them gives the names of the authors of the five Siddhântas, but they treat them as of divine origin. Such is not the case with other works. I have given above (page 138) seven names of human authors as occurring in the Brahma-Siddhanta. But Brahmagupta mentions them all, only to find fault with them. The same may be said of Varâhamihira. He mentions five of the above seven who preceded him, and does not hesitate to censure them, though he is much less severe than Brahmagupta in his attacks. On the other hand, the very fact that the chief object of the Pañchasiddhántiká is to give the purport of the five Siddhântas, and that Brahmagupta mentions them, as is seen from passages (b) and (c) above, to support his own statement, shows in what respect and reverence they were held in those times. The very names Saura and Paitâmaha, the works which have come from the Sun (as a god) and Brahman,' show the belief of their divine origin. And it could not be the effect of few years. Some centuries must have elapsed before their real authors were forgotten, and they came to be regarded as divine works.
The length of the year of the original Rómaka-Siddhanta is certainly that of Hipparchus. And there is reason to believe that this Romaka-Siddhanta was based on his theories and tables of the sun and moon. It was Ptolemy who " established the theory of the planets/in accordance with the principles of that astronomer (Hipparchus)." And the fact that the original Rômaka-Siddhanta, as represented in the Pañchasiddhantiká, contains calculations of only the sun and the moon, and not of the planets, greatly tends to show that its author did not know Ptolemy's work on astronomy; an inference that could, I believe, be proved also by comparing the elements of the original Rómaka-Siddhanta with those of Ptolemy, though at present I am not able to make the comparison. Ptolemy's work cannot have come into existence in the time of the author of the original Rômaka-Siddhanta; otherwise, instead of the work of Hipparchus, that of Ptolemy would have come to India, and would have become the basis of the original Rómaka-Siddhanta. It may even be said that probably Ptolemy's work never came to India at all in early times. At any rate Hipparchus's length of the year, and his principles of calculating the places of the sun and the moon, must have come to India before the time of Ptolemy. And my present conclusion is that the latest possible date for the original RómakaSiddhanta, which itself, as shown by some indications, is the latest of the five Siddhântas, - is A.D. 150.
--
▲ Rômaka or Rômasa Siddhânta is extant in the present day. But I cannot say at present whether it is the same as, or different from, Srishêņa's work. I have a copy of it. It contains about 375 verses in the Anushṭubh metre, divided into 11 chapters called Adhikaras. In almost all its elements it agrees with the present Surya-Siddhantu.
SANSKRIT AND OLD-KANARESE INSCRIPTIONS.
BY J. F. FLEET, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.
No. 186.-BALAGAMVE STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF VINAYADITYA.
This inscription was originally brought to notice by Colonel Henry Dixon, H. M.'s 22nd Regiment M. N. I., in his photographic collection, published in 1865, of inscriptions on stone and
15 See Grant's History of Physical Astronomy, Introduction, p. iii.; also p. 439.
