A History of Sanskrit Literature c35.s2.6

c35.s2.6

The exact mode and date of the introduction of these Greek elements has been disputed, and Whitney¹ suggested that it fell in a period before the *Syntaxis* of Ptolemy, a view supported by the constant difference in detail as in the figures of the epicycles of the planets. The question is rendered specially obscure by the fact that we do not know how Greek astronomy progressed between Hipparchos and Ptolemy. It is true that Hipparchos already settled the theory of the sun and the moon and had discovered the mean periods of the revolutions of the planets, and it is conceivable that the *Romaka Siddhānta* may have contented itself with treating of sun and moon only, in accordance with the necessities of the calendar and the practice of the earlier Indian period. But Ptolemy claims to have been the first to take into account the anomalies in planetary motions dependent on the distance of the planet from the sun and its distance from the apsis. The *Vāsiṣṭha* and *Pauliça Siddhāntas* seem to have taken some note of planetary anomalies, though exactly what is uncertain. But apart from the similarity as regards sine values noted above, which is strongly in favour of use of Ptolemy's results, the position may best be explained on the basis of Thibaut's suggestion as to the means by which Ptolemy's views reached India. It is indeed incredible that Indian astronomers should have deviated so largely and needlessly from his work, if they had real knowledge of it. But they probably learned their views from books of a very inferior type, the sort of manual used by astrologers and calendar makers, works which troubled not at all about the basis of their *résumés*, but simply gave results convenient for practical purposes. The Indian Siddhāntas, then, of the *Sūrya* type would represent not a mere borrowing nor an adaptation, but a combination and development on independent lines of elements borrowed in the shape of practical rules and vague hints of theory from mere manuals. The date of the borrowing cannot be determined with certainty. If, as is probable, the year 505 marks the date of Lāṭa, who commented on the *Romaka Siddhānta*, it is natural to place that text about A. D. 400 at latest, and, if we place the period of reception somewhere in the time between A. D. 300–500, we reach a plausible result, though not one admitting of strict proof. This accords with the period when the Gupta Empire was showing many signs of contact with the Roman Empire in other spheres of activity, and the Sassanian dynasty's rule may have promoted intercourse. But the old *Sūrya Siddhānta* shows us a specifically Indian reaction; it accepts where it thinks fit the new matter, but it fits it in as far as may be with the old; it revels in the theory of Kalpas, restores the pre-eminence of mount Meru at the north pole, finds room for the Nakṣatras, and so forth.