________________
42
given in pages 208, 213. The real quantities, It will be seen from this that in Kaliyuga-Samvat with extreme accuracy, are:By the present Súrya- days gh, pa. vipalas. Siddhanta, with bija... 361 2 4 44.6298 By the first Arya
Siddhanta
4786 expired, Jupiter's longitude amounted twice to a complete sign (6 and 7); and therefore two samvatsaras, which were Yuvan and Dhâtri (the 9th and 10th), must have commenced in that year; and consequently the former, i. e. Yuvan was expunged in that same year. But in Table XVIII. the year 4785 expired of the Kaliyuga is given as the year for the expunction; and in the first chronological Table, Bhava (the 8th) is given as expunged, which is wrong. Here the mistake is only of one year; but in the first period in that Table, it is of 30 years.
361 1 21 39-1170 If the object of Warren's Table XVIII. (p. 20) is to find only by inspection the year of an expunged samvatsara of the sixty-year cycle, - and I do not find any other practical use of it, - it is quite useless. Warren supposed the years entered in it to be expunged years (see column 3 of Table XIX. p. 23), but he was wrong. None of those years except the last four, are expunged years. He said (p. 207) that "85 years, 363 days, 1 danda (ghat), 13 p., 13-3982 c., &c., of solar time, answer precisely to 87 years of Jupiter's, and the former quantity marks in solar time the period when one of Jupiter's years is to be expunged." The latter part of this assertion is wrong, because by that quantity the expunction may be due, as will also be seen from Table XVIII, at any time of the year; but, only when two samvatsaras begin in the same year, is one of them expunged. And, as the length of the solar and Jupiter years is respectively 365 days, 15 gh. 31 pa..814 vip. and 361 days, 2 gh. 4 pa. 446 vip. according to the Surya-Siddhanta with the bija, the omission takes place when one samvatsara begins within about 4 days, 13 gh., 27 pa., after the commencement of a sólar year. Suppose, for instance, that a samvatsara was current at the beginning of a solar year, and another began within 4 days, 13 gh., after the beginning of that year, then a third must commence before the end of it, and the second sa neatsara will be regarded as omitted. The interval of omission is generally 85, and sometimes 86 years. It cannot be always 86 years. But, as the quantity of 85 years, 363 days, 1 gh., 13 pa.," 13 vi.. which is very near to 86,-"governs Table XVIII.," the Table is quite wrong. This is clear on the face of it; but I will give an example. Jupiter's longitude, corrected with bija, for the commencement of three years, calculated by Tables XI. and XII., is given below:
-
Saks Samvat expired.
1606
1607 1608
***************
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
Kaliyuga
Samvat Signs. Deg. Mín. Seo. expired.
4785 4 4786 5
4787
7
29 29 0
32
53 14
6:0 9.6 13 2
13 The figures are slightly inaccurate; the last quantity should be about 13-7958.
19 There are other circumstances in donnection with an omission, which I intend to consider on a future occasion.
In expounding the periods of the expunged years according to the Jyotishatattva Rule,, Warren first (p. 209) arrived at the equation 86 solar years
17
87- 1875 years of Jupiter, which is correct. But afterwards he substracted the odd fraction of Jupiter's year, from both sides, and thus established the equation, 85
1858
1875 solar years 87 years of Jupiter, which is erroneous. He thus arrived at:
Years of. Jupiter.
[JANUARY, 1891.
Saura time.
85
Years of Jupi
ter.
17
1875'
86 0 57 36 85 0 59 26-48331 87 85 356 44 9-6 85 361 56 49-20659
Solar time.
Palas.
Palas.
And the last equivalents, in solar time, in these two equations, were used in preparing Table XIX. (especially col. 6). Accordingly, the numbers of days &c. in this col. 6 are wrong throughout, except for the year Saka-Samvat 571 (expired). I give below the really accurate equations:
Saura time.
Solar time.
8128
86 85 056 55-9198 &c. 85 057 4549-06431 &c. 87 85 356 46 25-8724 &c. 85 361 59 728-18134 &c.
Vipalas.
1868
14 Warren's remark, "we have 85 1675 and 87 years, which, however, must not be taken to be exactly 87 years of the Planet, as shall be shown presently" (p. 209, lines 5, 6 from the bottom), applies, it appears, to the note on p. 210. The equations in that note also are wrong.