1884.] G. Tliibant —Vardlia Miliira^s Panchasiddhdntihd. 291 
The other manuscript (E. J. H. 1304) which contains parts of the 
Sphiita Siddhanta with the commentary by Prithndaka Svamin reads : 
Comm.: I 
Text: I 
Comm.: Jr<Tm^T§r I litl 
Text: ^ I 
What chiefly concerns ns in the above extract (the text of which 
it is not possible to emendate in all places without the help of further 
manuscripts) is the fact of Aryabhata and Lata being mentioned among 
the predecessors of Srishena. The Romaka Siddhanta, in that shape 
at any rate which was given to it by S'rishena, is therefore later than 
Aryabhata and was as we have remarked above most probably composed 
in 505. It borrowed from Aryabhata, as we see from the line ?f^Ro, 
all those processes which are required for finding the true places of the 
planets. On the other hand it adopted from Lata all those rules by 
means of which the mean places of the planets are calculated.* Lata 
therefore appears to have been that Hindu astronomer who first borrowed 
from the Greeks the tropical year of Hipparchus, the Metonic period, 
etc. This would agree very well with the other notice, quoted above, 
which the Panchasiddhantika furnishes concerning Latacharya, viz., that 
according to him the beginning of the day was to be reckoned from 
the moment of sunset in Yavanapura. It is greatly to be regretted that 
the Panchasiddhantika does not treat of the mean motions of the planets 
other than sun and moon according to the Romaka Siddhanta ; as these 
also were, according to Brahmagupta, borrowed from Lata they would 
most likely correspond with the mean motions as determined by Hippar¬ 
chus more closely than the mean motions resulting from the cycles of 
the Surya Siddhanta and the Aryabhatiya. If the Romaka Siddhanta 
by Shishena was composed in 505 as appears very likely Lata would have 
to be considered at least as a contemporary of Aryabhata; but consider¬ 
ing the specifically Greek character of his astronomy I think it much 
more likely that he preceded him. 
* The readingr of tke B. J. H. maimscript (instead of of the 
other manuscript) is clearly wrong. In the first place Arya could hardly be used 
for Aryabhata ; secondly, the mean motions of the Romaka are not those of Arya¬ 
bhata ; thirdly, the indebtedness of the Romaka to Aryabhata is stated in the later 
line 
