Contextualizing Playfair and Colebrooke 241
on the Bija-Ganita that contained a clear interpretation of the text with a
concise explication of the arithmetical rules. 58 Th e other important com-
position was Ganesa’s Buddhivilasini ( c. ad 1545), comprising a copious
exposition of the text with demonstration of the rules. However, Ganesa
had not written a commentary on the Bija-Ganita and Colebrooke drew on
the work of Krishna which explained the rules with a number of demon-
strations. In addition to which two other commentaries were used, namely
that of Ramakrishna Deva entitled Manoranjana , a text of uncertain date,
and fi nally the Ganitakaumud , which was known through the works of
Suryadasa and Ranganatha. 59
A brief recapitulation is required before we proceed to the translations
of Colebrooke, for his work certainly marks a departure in the study of the
history of Indian mathematics. Two main historiographic currents in the
eighteenth century oriented the study of the history of the mathematics
and astronomy of India. Th e fi rst approach was that pursued by the Jesuit
savants in India, who were observing the astronomical and computational
procedures circulating among Indian astronomers. Th eir audience did not
merely comprise the devout back in France, but the Académiciens and
astronomers, two of whom transcribed these proto-ethnographic accounts
into a history of Indian astronomy. Administrator–scholars, who studied
texts, collated fragments of texts and published translations with critical
editions and commentaries, while indebted to the fi rst, pursued another
approach. In the late eighteenth century, Sanskrit commentaries and can-
onized astronomical or mathematical works were considered the key to
obscure technical terms and texts. What needs to be examined is whether
by the late nineteenth century commentaries shared the same destiny as
some of the Vedic texts. For it has been pointed out that by the second half
of the nineteenth century some Sanskritists belittled, marginalized and
removed ‘explicit references to the intermediary process of transmission
and exegesis of texts without which they would not have had access to
them’. 60 Th e status of proofs in the Indian tradition is related to how these
commentaries on mathematical texts were read.
58 C1817: xxvi. Th e term explication involves two diff erent tasks when applied to literary texts
and scientifi c texts. In the case of literary texts explication means to unfold; or to off er a
detailed explanation of a story. In the case of a scientifi c text or procedure, explication involves
the transformation of the explicandum by the explicatum. However, explication in Colebrooke
does not possibly conform to the notion that the explicandum is pre-scientifi c and inexact,
while the explicatum is exact. Th e explicandum and explicatum are related to each other in
their diff erence and not in a hierarchy of exact/inexact.
59 C1817: xxvii–xxviii.
60 Vidal 1997 : 25.