Indian Antiquary Vol 40

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 55

FEBRUARY, 1911.]
Prinsep's values
{
Correct values
OLD INDIAN NUMERICAL SYMBOLS
इत्युभवभाषा कविचक्रवर्ति- श्रीमति येन सूरिविरचितपिपटिलक्षणमहापुराण श्रीषमानतीर्थकरपुराणं समाप्तं ॥ याची लहरी मनोमलहरी स्वग्र्गादिसंपत्करी
OLD INDIAN NUMERICAL SYMBOLS. BY G. R. KAYE.
I.
A Good deal of attention has been paid of late years to the history of the origin of our arithmetical notation and a good many so-called discoveries have been announced; but the paths travelled by the discoverers' are marked principally by wrecked hypotheses. The current opinion appears to be that our modern notation has been traced to a Hindu source, and consequently it is thought that an exposition of the Hindu numerical notations is pertinent to the occasion. The subject has been dealt with before, but in most cases from somewhat biassed points of view..
One of the earliest investigators of this subject was J, Prinsep, who, indeed, actually discovered1 the existence of the old Sanskrit or Brahmi numerical symbols; but his discovery was vitiated by an assumption that led him into grievous error. In his time the orthodox view ascribed "the invention of nine figures with the device of places to make them suffice for all values to the beneficent creator of the universe." Prinsep, like other early orientalists, accepted this as testimony of the great antiquity of the system of device of places', and assumed that it applied to the numerical symbols he had discovered: the result is exhibited in the following table:
12
main/traight i det gawet [||] नंदकरी सु (शु)भं शुभकरी कर्जेश्व ( ध्वरं माधुरी farfarafkyfa: StanČNO || + || Wififfe gehfew [ wen: ]! कर्म्मावारशिशिरः भाति संततसद्यशः ॥ ० ॥
20 x 7 yo
20 300
A
R
00 8
26 10 ? 80 90
49
0
12 The metre is faulty and the line yields no sense.
1 Essays on Indian Antiquities, fc., of the late J. Prinsep. Edited by E. Thomas, Vol. II, p. 71.
3 Krishna, 16th cent. A D., quoted by Colebrooke. Algebra, &c., from the Sanskrit, p. 4.
TABLE I.
6
The old symbols given by Prinsep represent the originals with fair accuracy, but his only correct interpretation is possibly the four.' His introduction of the zero' is an error, for it was never used in India in ancient times in connection with these symbols. His false assumption as to place value' accounts for this mistake, and also for the erroneous interpretations of the symbols for twenty, three hundred,' eighty,' and ninety.' The other mistakes are, partly at least, accounted for by a second false assumption. He says: "Upon regarding attentively the forms of
4
4
He found an example with the symbols for '300' and '80' verified by an equivalent expression in words (Vol. II, Pl. XL), but according to his system the symbols without a zero stood for 38,' so the zero was introduced to make the facts' fit his system.
Op. cit. 11, 77.