Vol. Ill, N'o. 7.] Notes on Indian Mathematics, 48J) 



wrote (Journ. Asiatique, 1863, 69), *' la critique historique fait telle- 

 meut defaut a la plapart des ecrivains arabes, qn'on ne peut 

 accepter qu'avec la pUivS gi-ande reserve leurs assertions, lorsquHl 

 s'agit de faits dont ils ii'out pu avoir une cuiinaissance certaine et 

 immediate. Si douc nous finissons peut-etre par nous decidej-^ 

 pour une origine iudienne des chiffres gobar, ce ne sei'a pas parce 

 qu'elle est explicitement affirmee dans deux des passages que I'ou 

 yient de lire." The first of these passages is an extract from a 

 commentary on the Talkhis of Ibn Albanna, which relates that a 

 Hindu (a man of the nation of Indians) took some fine powder, 

 spread it on a table and made on it certain calculations and then 

 put it away for future refei'ence. This is followed by an interest- 

 ing description in which the foi'ms of the new symbols are likened 

 to certain letters of the Arabic alphabet. Thus the numbers one 



to six, and nine, are likened to the following : — f <-- ^ ^ f * ^ 



The second passage referred to is also an extract from a commen- 

 tary by Husain Bin ^I. Almahalli on a work by Abdul Kadir 

 Alsakhwi and contains practically the same information. As 



Woepcke says, we cannot attach any value to such statements in 

 themselves. 



There is, however, with regard to the use of the adjective 

 Indian, another point to consider, Taylor wrote : " The Ai*abians 

 call the decimal scale of arithmetic Hindasi .... a circum- 

 stance which clearly indicates the source from ^vhich they consi- 

 der this manner of notation to have been derived." Woepcke, 

 however, pointed out (p. 505) that " L'adjectif employe pour 

 designer le calcul inJieUj ou des m^thodes indienncs^ et qui est 

 ordinairement hindi t5*xi.4, se presente .... sous la forme 

 hindaci 4,^**t>i^.'' It is this likeness between t\vo worfs that has led 

 to confusion and erroneous conclusions. One can understand the 

 unlearned being misled by such resemblance, but it is just one 

 of those points that scholars do not generally make a mistake 

 about. Firuz-Abudi (1329-1414 A.D.), the gi^eat philologist, 

 gave the derivation of the word A^ *^4 (hindasah) which he said 

 was derived from the Persian word Ij^*^] { andazah) which 

 means measure. One would think that this was good enough 

 authority, but it appears to be ignored by most of the Indianists ; 

 and whether the derivation given is right or not does not matter 

 at all, for it is absolutely certain that the word *«• oJjfc in the 

 time of Al-Firuz-Abadi was used with a signification altoge- 

 ther different from Indian. Again in an episode of Firdausi's 

 Shah-nama ^ the following passage occurs : " Who among the 

 gi^at will take charge of the son of the King of the world, and 

 form his character? Will it be a Roumi ((^jj), an Indian 

 (^^ txU) or a Persian; an astronomer or a geometer {^^^^)^ etc." 



Woepcke seems to think that this quotation disproves the deriva- 

 tion given by Firuz-Abadi,^ but the significant fact remains that 



1 Firdftusi (941-1020 A.D.). ^ Which, of conrse, it does not. 



