112 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [March, 1908. 
of the book Karana-khanda-khadyaka represent the doctrines of 
wea and that B rahmagupta wrote a commentary thereon. 
ern published the Aryabhatiya consisting of the 
Dasagitie and the Arydastagata, together with a long comment by 
aramdi¢gvara. Rodet (Journal ay pees 1879) gavea a 
of the mathematical section ry«bhata’s Work’ W ver 
ou 
introduction to the Brhat Samhita (p. 54f.), in Thibaut’s edition of 
the Paichasiddha@ntika, and in Bhau Daji’s notes. We need hardly 
mention Colebrooke and others who knew of Aryabhata only from 
quotations in other works, and whise statements have all to be 
reviewed in the light of later research.! 
Rodet’s contribution is REZ valuable, although he 
ators 
was occasionally a by the comment and so came to 
erroneous conclusions. He was inclined to inogérste the 
mathematical cea: of the Hindus of that age, and to 
it fea: with di discoveries that cannot justly be attributed to 
them. For example, he supposed that the modern (place-valne) 
system of arithmetical notation was their invention. He appears 
to have believed that Aryabhata owed at least some of his 
mathematics to a Greek source, althongh he explicitly defers the 
ein aT of this troublesome question. 
ibaut, the highest authority on Indian astronomy, has 
recently restated his views on Aryabhata as follows: ‘“ About 
twenty or thirty years ago Aryabhata was generally spoken of, 
by modern writers on Indian astronomy, as the earliest ‘scienti- 
c’ Indian astronomer. ... But since that time our ideas as to the 
ees of Indian astromony have toi considerably expanded and 
rae mainly by the publication of that work—a work ind 
mary account of the five most important astronomical Sidd hantas, 
the doctrines of which were in his time current in India. . 
Aryabhata may have been the first, or one of the first, to expound 
the principles of that system in a highly condensed and technical 
form, and he may have improved the general ary 3 in details ; 
but the main body of doctrine existed before him:—he did not 
create it, but merely recast it in a different form. It is with 
regard to this indubitable fact that the editors of the Pancha- 
siddhantika remarked that originality of doctrine cannot, on the 
same view had, indeed, “been previously held by mii Greek 
1 A fuller list of authorities is given in the bibliography annexed. 

