292 
G. Thilmiit —Varaha MiJiircCs Fanchasiddlicintiha. [No. 2, 
A doubt concerning Lata’s position might arise from the introduc¬ 
tion of the Pahchasiddhantika in which it is remarked that the Panlisa 
and Romaka Siddhantas were “ vyakhyatan ” by Latadeva. This Lata- 
deva is either to be considered as a writer altogether different from that 
Lata to whom Shishena was indebted for a part of the elements of his 
Siddhanta, or else we must suppose that Srishena’s Romaka Siddhanta 
was only a recast of an older Romaka Siddhanta which was written or 
commented on by Lata. The latter remark perhaps applies to the 
Panlisa Siddhanta also, and we must here remember that, as Prof. Kern 
has shown, Utpala distinguishes between the Panlisa Siddhanta and a 
Mula Panlisa Siddhanta. 
We may in conclusion sum up in a few words the chief results 
following from the consideration of those parts of the Pahchasiddhan¬ 
tika which form the subject of this paper. In the first place it appears 
that the rules of the Surya Siddhanta known to Yaraha Mihira differed 
very considerably from the corresponding rules of the Surya Siddhanta 
which has come down to us while they agreed partly with the Arya- 
bhatiya partly with the Panlisa Siddhanta as represented by Bhattotpala. 
It follows that in any inquiries into the earliest history of modern Indian 
astronomy the existing Surya Siddhanta is not to be referred to, at any 
rate not without great caution. In the second place we are enabled, 
by what we have learned about the Romaka Siddhanta, to go back 
beyond Aryabhata and the Surya Siddhanta, and to gain an insight into 
the very beginning of modern Hindu science when * it still wore the 
unmistakeable impress of its Greek prototype and had not yet hardened 
into its distinctive national form. 
APPENDIX. 
I take this opportunity of showing by some more examples how 
practical Hindu works on astronomy facilitate their calculations by at 
first employing greatly reduced numbers and afterwards making up for 
the resulting errors by applying corrections. In the astronomical tables 
alluded to in the preceding paper which Bailly calls the tables of Narsa- 
pur, a period is employed for the calculation of the moon’s mean place 
which is yet considerably simpler than the one which according to Varaha 
Miliira may be constructed on the elements of the Surya Siddhanta 
We are there directed to multiply the ahargana by 800 and to divide by 
21,857. Eight hundred revolutions of the moon comprising 21,857 
days, one revolution would be equal to 27^ 7^^ 42' 3G'. But a correction 
is stated to the effect that the given ahargana is to be divided by 4,888 
and the quotient, taken as indicating degrees, is to be deducted from 
