31 whether the Beakhxganita in an original work or a bramation. The next question that suggests itself for consideration is whether the Rekhagaita is an original work or a translation. The subjects treated in the different booksthe number of pro positions in each of them, the very order in which they are given, the method of proof adopted in them, and bhe fact Bhat the author fourished, as we shall see further on, in the eight• eenhh centuryleave not a shadow of doubt that the ork is not original, but a translationNay, if there is any doubt on the matter, it is removed by one of the Mss, in my possession which says ‘अथोदशस्यं रेखागणितं लिख्यते I must also be noted that if the work were original, the letters in the diagrams illustrat thing its propositions would be in the order of the Sanskrit al. phabet, either , इ, e &c or क, ख, ग &c. But the lettering is Greek or Arabicboth being Phoenician in character It is bhus unquestionably settled on the above grounds that the work is not original, but a branslation But if it be not an original work, how are the following intro• ductory stanzas to be explained:-- अपूर्वं विहितं शाख यत्र कोणावबोधनात् । क्षेत्रञ्च जायते सम्यप्युत्पतिर्गणिते यथा ॥ शिल्पशास्त्रमिदं प्रो ब्रह्मणा विश्वकर्मणे पारम्पयवशदेतदागतं धरणीतले तद्विच्छिां महाराजजयसिंहाशया पुनः । प्रकाशितं संग सम्यग् गणानवहेतवे ॥ These verses would lead the reader to either of the two conclusions, that bhe Rekhagaita was an original work or that the autohor was a plagiarist, That the work is not original is clear from the above causes. That it is not easy to charge bhe author with plagiarism is evident from the fact that in the introductory stanzas to his other work, SiddhAnta-samraj’ he clearly says that it is a branslation of an Arabic work, Mijasti
