Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts c6.s1: II
Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts c6.s1
- Language
- English
II
c6.s1.1
Four of the accounts included in this volume deal with astronomy and two with mathematics. The observatory at Benares described by Sir Robert Barker, after a visit to it in 1772, still exists more or less intact and is at present known as the Man Mandir. It stands only a few hundred yards away from the Dasasvamedha Ghat. Its appearance today seems even more neglected (It is tragic that one of the five celebrated observatories of the world (and in India the most celebrated), though still intact, remains in complete neglect. Its counterparts in Britain, France, etc. are greatly cherished and serve as the repositories and centres of their respective astronomical knowledge. India owes that much to itself and its people that places like the Man Mandir are duly cherished and looked after.) than that described two centuries ago, except that a few plates have been fixed indicating the names of the various *yantras* (instruments) in Hindi and English. Two other plaques indicate the period of the building and the date of the erection of the observatory. While the building is stated to have been built in the late sixteenth century, the relevant plaque states the erection of the observatory in the early eighteenth.
c6.s1.2
Such playing about with the dates of the founding of the observatory has a curious tale to tell. Barker's account was published in the *Transactions* of the British Royal Society in 1777 and it put the erection of the observatory some two centuries previously. In 1792, in conformity with the request of a Fellow of the Royal Society, another report on the observatory was received from one J.L. Williams of Benares. This was published in the *Transactions* in 1793.⁹
c6.s1.3
One of the two main points which this later account, as if in passing, tried to make was that the observatory only came into being some 50-60 years earlier and was not built in the sixteenth century—as stated by the Bengal commander-in-chief in his article published in 1777. To support this contention, it produced what it claimed to be the opinion of the Indian magistrate of Benares (who, incidentally, with his colleagues was in the process of being displaced by British judges and magistrates through the newly enacted ‘Cornwallis’ Judicial Regulations). The magistrate is alleged to have said that though the building was built by ‘Rajah Maunsing, for the repose of holy men and pilgrims’, the ‘observatory was built, by the Rajah Jeysing.’ Further, it was begun in 1794 *sumbut* (A.D. 1737) and finished in two years and that the Rajah died in 1800 *sumbut* (A.D. 1743). To this was added the even ‘weightier’ opinion of the Brahmins of Benares ‘one of whom is professor of astronomy in the new founded college.’ According to him, ‘they all agreed that this observatory never was used, nor did they think it capable of being used, for any nice observations; and believe it was built more for ostentation, than the promotion of useful knowledge.’ Besides these two points, the article gave the measurements of the various instruments but stated that ‘from the want of sufficient knowledge of the science of astronomy, I have not been able to describe the different instruments, and their uses, satisfactorily; however, you may rely on the measurements being taken with the greatest exactness.’
c6.s1.4
The subject of the Benares observatory was again taken up in 1798 by William Hunter, an assistant to the British Resident at the Marhatta capital at Poona, in an article, ‘Some account of the astronomical labours of Jayasinha, Raja of Ambhere, or Jayanagar’. The interest in Raja Jayasinha is explained: ‘Arising superior to the prejudices of education, of national pride and religion’, Jayasinha strove to enrich his country ‘with scientific truth derived from a foreign source’, in this particular instance, Europe. The writer was quite candid and outspoken about his purpose. He said: ‘I have always thought, that after having convinced the eastern nations of our superiority in policy and in arms, nothing can contribute more to the extension of our national glory, than the diffusion among them of a taste for European science. And as the means of promoting so desirable an end, those among the natives who have penetration to see, and ingenuousness to own its superior accuracy and evidence, ought to be cherished.’¹⁰
c6.s1.5
This article made an attempt to provide documentary evidence of the Benares observatory as having been the creation of this early eighteenth century Raja Jayasinha by quoting from what is called the *Zeej Mohammedshahy*. (If it still exists, much more needs to be known about this mid-eighteenth century document: how it came to be written, by whom, under whose patronage and in what year.) According to this document, having ‘assembled the astronomers and geometricians of the faith of Islam and the Brahmins and Pundits, and the astronomers of Europe’ etc., Jayasinha ‘bound the girdle of resolution about the loins of his soul, and constructed (at Dehly) several of the instruments of an observatory.’ And ‘in order to confirm the truth of these observations’ i.e., at Dehly, ‘he constructed instruments of the same kind in Sewai Jeypoor and Matra, and Benares and Oujein.’ With the foregoing statement from the *Zeej Mohammedshahy*, the documentary proof ended. For the rest, he added: ‘The observatory at Benares having been described by Sir Robert Barker and Mr Williams, I have only a few remarks to offer, in addition to the account delivered by those gentlemen’¹¹ and the writer made some more observations on its measurements, etc.
c6.s1.6
Various other Britishers seem to have gone and made reports on the Benares observatory in the early decades of the nineteenth century. But the subject soon disappeared from public discussion. It was re-opened in 1920 by the author of ‘A Guide to the Old Observatories’,¹² originally published by the Archaeological Survey of India. It stated that the Man Mandir i.e., the actual building of the Benares observatory, ‘was built about the beginning of the seventeenth century. The astronomical instruments were added by Jai Singh about A.D. 1737.’ It said further: ‘The date is not certain, and nearly every writer gives a different one.’
c6.s1.7
It further observed, ‘Prinsep wrote: “The building was converted into an observatory by Jaysingh in A.D. 1680” and refers to a supposed description of it by Tavernier.’ Dismissing all these other dates (Prinsep, with a footnote: ‘Tavernier died in 1689, three years after Jai Singh’s birth.’) this author concluded that ‘Williams’ date for the observatory at Benares, 1737, may be accepted’ as the ‘on all points that can be verified, is extremely reliable’, and quoted Hunter as speaking ‘of the accuracy of Mr Williams’ measurements.’¹³
c6.s1.8
The eighteenth century dating of the Benares observatory thus rests on the two articles published in 1793 and 1798 respectively; the first, at the instance of a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the second, in a longer piece wishing to convince the Eastern nations of the superiority of European eighteenth century science with a view to ‘contribute more to the extension of our national glory.’ What Tavernier said in his published, ‘Travels’ was: ‘Near to this great Pagod, upon the summer-west, stands a kind of a college which the Raja Jesseing the most potent of all the idolaters in the Mogul’s empire, built for the education of the youth of the better sort.’¹⁴ Tavernier visited Benares in 1655-6. It may be added that quite a few ‘Jayasinha’ (spelt variously) have been Rajas of ‘Ambhere’ through the centuries. It is possible that this fact has also contributed to different writers claiming widely separate dates for the construction of the Benares observatory.
c6.s1.9
A rather curious point arises here out of this chronology about the dating of the Benares observatory: Barker along with Pearse, and A. Campbell visited the observatory in 1772. If the observatory was actually built in 1737, it was only 35 years old at this date. Both Barker and Pearse specifically state that it had been there for some two centuries. They must have arrived at this statement after meeting and conversing with persons who, if the observatory had been constructed only 35 years previously, must have been eye witnesses to its construction. As there was no controversy in 1772 about the date of the construction of the observatory, it is inconceivable that Barker’s informants misled him on this point. The conversion of two centuries into 35 years is the most fabulous aspect of this later controversy.
c6.s1.10
Next is the long and learned review (Chapter II), ‘Remarks on the Astronomy of the Brahmins’, by John Playfair, read by him in 1789. In this article, the author begins by referring to certain astronomical tables received from the East Indies by European scholars at an early stage in their contact with the East. Some of these tables were received from Siam and their ‘epoch’ corresponded to 21 March 638 A.D. But the point to note was that the ‘meridian’ of these tables was not Siam but Benares!
c6.s1.11
Other tables received from South India had one thing in common. Their ‘epoch’ coincides with the era of *Kaliyuga*, that is, with the beginning of the year 3102 B.C. Prof Playfair begins by enquiring whether the ‘epoch’ was real or fictitious; that is, whether the planetary positions at that time were actually observed or were merely calculated back from the ‘epochs’ of more modern tables to coincide with a mythical *Kaliyuga*.
c6.s1.12
Prof Playfair observes that it is not for astronomy, even in its most perfect state, to go back 46 centuries and to ascertain the situation of the heavenly bodies at so remote a period, except with the help of lately developed Integral Calculus and the Theory of Gravitation. He finds that the positions of the planets as given in these tables is very close to the position as calculated back with the help of modern Integral Calculus and the Theory of Gravitation. All other systems of calculation, whether Chaldean or Egyptian or Greek which the Hindus might have used for their purpose gave very different results.
c6.s1.13
So for him, the inescapable conclusion is that these positions were observed by the Brahmins, and it is rather a wonder that the Brahmins could do so rather precisely at so distant a past. Prof Playfair also observed that the construction of these tables implied a good knowledge of geometry and arithmetic, as well as the possession of a Calculus equal to Trigonometry.
c6.s1.14
The paper (Chapter IV) by Colonel T.D. Pearse, sent by him to the Royal Society, London, and surviving in their archives, refers to the Indian knowledge of the four Satellites of Jupiter and the seven Satellites of Saturn. Pearse further felt that the Indians must have possessed some kind of telescopic instruments to have acquired such detailed knowledge. The author of Pearse’s memoirs, while including a slightly modified version of this piece in the memoirs, states:
c6.s1.15
We cannot pass this interesting communication without offering some reflection upon the subjects it embraces. The circumstances of the four girls dancing round the figure of Jupiter, as they ought to be according to the Brahmin’s statement to Colonel Pearse, is a strong argument in favour of the superior knowledge of the heavenly bodies which the ancient Arabians and Hindus possessed. The four dancing girls evidently represent the four satellites of Jupiter. These circumjovial satellites (as they are styled by modern astronomers from the quirk of their motions in their orbits) were not known in Europe before the year 1609, and the third and fourth only are visible, and this but rarely and in the clearest atmosphere to the naked eye. But it is truly interesting and curious that the figure of Saturn should be represented with seven arms. At the time Colonel Pearse wrote his letter to the Royal Society, the sixth satellite of Saturn had not been discovered: it was first discovered by Herschel on the 28 August 1789; and the seventh satellite, which the seventh arm of the figure, without dispute, must be intended to represent, was not discovered by Herschel until he had completed his grand telescope of 40 feet focal length, when it was first observed by him on the 17 September 1789. All the satellites of Saturn are so small, and the planet is so remote from the earth, that the best telescopes are necessary for observing them. May not the seventh arm *having hold of the ring* denote a circumstance connected with the orbits of these planets, which is that the planes of their orbits so nearly accord with that of the ring, that the difference is not perceptible? Undoubtedly, the ancient astronomers must have possessed the best instruments: probably differing from modern ones, but fully as powerful.
c6.s1.16
The writer added further: ‘We are not aware that the Royal Society in any of its printed papers have noticed Colonel Pearse’s communication, but our imagination, warmly interested as it has been in all that relates to the subject of the present memoir, has pictured the probability that Colonel Pearse’s paper may have met the eye of Herschel, and may have been an additional spur to the indefatigable and wonderful labours of that great man.’¹⁵
c6.s1.17
Reuben Burrow’s unpublished paper (Chapter III) was addressed to the British Governor General Warren Hastings soon after Burrow had come to India to take up his new job at Calcutta. It is highly speculative and in a way is more in line with the contemporary intellectual tradition of the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century. (The tradition has, in fact, continued well into the present time; only as time passed, however, it has become more and more Eurocentric. The late 19th century dictum, ‘Except the blind forces of nature, nothing moves in this world which is not Greek in its origin,’ enunciated by Maine (one-time Law Member of the Governor General’s Council in India) was merely an intellectual and scholarly expression of the mounting Eurocentric character of this speculativeness.) Though in itself it does not provide much factual data, and perhaps comes to even several erroneous conclusions as we would see them today, its very speculativeness seems to have provided inspiration and stimulus to a number of subsequent enquiries about Indian sciences, particularly mathematics. The article ‘A Proof that the Hindus had the Binomial Theorem’ by Burrow himself, and the later dissertation by H.T. Colebrooke on ‘Hindu Algebra’ (given as introduction to his translation of ‘Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration’ of Brahmagupta and Bhascara) decidedly follow such speculativeness. Acknowledging Burrow’s contribution, particularly in bringing Indian Algebra to the notice of Europeans, the article on ‘Algebra’ in the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* (8th edition) stated:
c6.s1.18
We are indebted, we believe, to Mr Reuben Burrow for some of the earliest notices which reached Europe on this very curious subject. His eagerness to illustrate the history of the mathematical sciences led him to collect oriental manuscripts, some of which in the Persian language, with partial translations, were bequeathed to his friend Mr Dalby of the Royal Military College, who communicated them to such as took an interest in the subject, about the year 1800.16
c6.s1.19
The article (Chapter V) on ‘the Binomial Theorem’ was published in 1790 in Calcutta. Till then, and in British reference books like the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* well into the twentieth century, the discovery of this theorem has been credited to Newton.17 Some thirty years later, Burrow’s article was followed by another titled ‘Essay on the Binomial Theorem; as known to the Arabs’.18 This later article was a sequel to the first by R. Burrow, and it concluded: ‘It plainly appears, that whatever may have been the case in Europe, yet long before the time of Briggs the Arabians were acquainted with’ the Binomial Theorem.
c6.s1.20
(Briggs was teaching around 1600, about a century before Newton).
c6.s1.21
This later author quoted Dr Hutton concerning the origin of the Binomial Theorem in Europe. The following, from the longer extract of Hutton’s account, is worth quoting:
c6.s1.22
Lucas De Burgo extracted the cube root by the same coefficients, about the year 1470...Briggs was the first who taught the rule for generating the coefficients of the terms, successively one from another, of any powers of a binomial, independent of those of any other power...This theorem then being thus plainly taught by Briggs about the year 1600, it is surprising how a man of such general reading as Dr Wallis was, could be ignorant of it...and fully ascribe the invention to Newton...But I do not wonder that Briggs remark was unknown to Newton, who owed almost everything to genius and deep meditation, but very little to reading: and I have no doubt that he made the discovery himself, without any light from Briggs.19
c6.s1.23
H.T. Colebrooke’s dissertation on ‘Hindu Algebra’, resulting from all the preceding investigations by men like R. Burrow, F. Wilford, S. Davis, Edward Strachey, John Taylor, etc., and from his own considerable knowledge, is a learned survey and comparison of the developments in Europe and India. But the conclusion that Indian Algebra, etc., may have had an independent development proves difficult for him to digest. Reversing the speculations of Burrow, he comes to the conclusion that the ‘Algebra of the Greeks’, imperfect though he admits it to be, ‘was made known to the Hindus by their Grecian instructors in improved astronomy.’ (The reviewer of ‘Algebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration’, in *The Edinburgh Review* (November 1817) however thought differently and stated that it ‘could not have been derived from Greece.’ Commenting on Colebrooke’s opinion he added: ‘Mr Colebrooke, after demonstrating the excellence of this algebra, and comparing its more perfect algorithm and its superior advancement with the Greek algebra, as explained in the work of Diophantus, seems nevertheless willing to admit, that some communication about the time of the last mentioned author, may have come from Greece to India, on the subject of the Algebraic Analysis. Of this we are inclined to doubt; for this simple reason, that the Greeks had nothing to give on that subject which it was worth the while of the Indians to receive. Mr Colebrooke seems inclined to this concession, by the strength of a philological argument, of the force of which we are perhaps not sufficiently sensible. It seems however certain, that the facts in the history of Algebraic Analysis, taken by themselves, give no countenance to the supposition.’ But wishing to be gracious and charitable, he infers that ‘by the ingenuity of the Hindu scholars, the hint was rendered fruitful and the algebraic method was soon ripened from that slender beginning to the advanced state of a well arranged science.’20
Linked texts (1)
- Bījagaṇita — Bhāskara II, Sanskrit