236 dhruv raina
right-angled triangle given the hypotenuse and sides without recourse to a
table of sines, etc.
Th e urgency of the moment was then to discover those texts before they
perished. Burrow thus emphasized the need for the collection of available
astronomical and mathematical texts that till then had not been the
focus of attention of the French Académiciens. Th e idea that the existing
tradition was probably algebraic was being insinuated: ‘Th at many of their
books are depraved and lost is evident, because there is now not a single
book of geometrical elements to be met and yet that they had elements not
long ago, and apparently more extensive than those of Euclid is obvious
from some of their works of no great antiquity.’ 39 At this liminal moment it
appears as if the issue whether the geometric tradition prevailed over the
algebraic or vice versa in India had not been settled. It cannot be decisively
be said that Burrow had a fi xed view on the subject. But certainly the texts
he encountered were not of a ‘geometric’ nature. But the trigonometrical
calculations gave cause for belief that the semblance of such a system
was in existence. And while Burrow promised to publish translations
of Lilavati and the Bija-Ganita , the promise was not fulfi lled during his
life. Inspired by Burrow‘s research, Colebrooke embarked on a study of
Sanskrit in order to probe some of the issues raised by Burrow more
deeply.
It was left to Samuel Davis to publish the fi rst translation and analysis of
an Indian scientifi c work from the Sanskrit into a European language, this
being a translation of the Surya Siddhanta. 40 Th is translation was based
on the reading of an original version of the text procured by Sir Robert
Chambers in 1788. Davis encountered a number of obscure technical
terms and had to rely upon a teeka or commentary procured by Jonathan
Duncan.^41 In fact, if you examine the structure of Davis’ paper, it appears as
a teeka on the Surya Siddhanta , with passages translated from the text and
Davis’ explanation intercalated between the translated passages.
Davis begins by contesting the portrait of Indian astronomy and astrono-
mers projected by Le Gentil and Bailly, 42 without naming either of them.39 Ibid.
40 Davis 1789.
41 Ibid.
42 More than Bailly and Le Gentil, Davis was refuting Sonnerat’s constructions of Indian
astronomy:... my present intention, which is to give a general account only of the method by which
the Hindus compute eclipses, and thereby to show, that a late French author was too hasty
in asserting generally that they determine by set forms couched in enigmatical verses &c. So
far are they from deserving the reproach of ignorance, which Mons. Sonnerat has implied,