________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XIII.
202. It is evident, however, that we can only be secure in our accoptance of, or rejection as irregular of, an inscription-date, if, besides the tables calculated by the apparent Mösha samkrānti, we have others calculated by the mean Mēsha sam kranti ; and furthermore have at hand a table containing the Jovian cycle-name properly (i.e. by Hinda rule) counected with each solar year with refrence to both apparent and mean Mēsha saunkrānti, and by all the Hindu Siddhāntas, s.e. such a table as will shew at a glance whether a cycle-name is properly applicable to a particular solar year by any bystem or by any known Hindu authority. This then is the work partly done in the present paper.
203. Before explaining the method of preparation and the use of the tables which follow a few remarks may not be considered out of place.
204. As mentioned below, the late Mr. S. Balkrishna Dikshit expressed the opinion that the Second Arya Siddhinta, whose date is believed to be about A.D. 950, was in no part of India in use for a long time. The Siddhānta which has obtained most general acceptance, except in the south, is the Present Sürya Siddhanta, wbich dates perhaps from about A.D. 1000, and which in parts was corrected by the author of the Makaranda in A.D. 1478. My Table XLII (below) shews all the years in which suppressions of Jovian samvatsaras took place according to each anthority. These suppressions are marked with asterisks. Now it will be apparent to anyone using that table that in this respect the results afforded by calculation from the elements of the Second Arya Siddhanta are much nearer to those of the Present Sürya Siddhanta with the correction (bija) than to results obtained by the use of any other authority. The position of Jupiter, that is, as calculated by the Second Arya differed considerably from that calculated by the Sürya Siddhanta until the Hindu astronomer in the 15th century introduced the correction to the latter's elements; after which the two come much closer together. If, therefore, the corrected Surya Siddhanta is really the most accurate authority, we must hold that at least in the matter of the motion of Jupiter the Second Arya Siddhanta was unworthily dealt with and received scant justice.
205. Although the Second Arya Siddhānta seems to have been in use for a very short time I was induced to continue the calculations according to its elements through the whole period of over 1,400 years embraced in the general Table XLII below, partly in order to call attention to this peculiarity.
206. In ordinary cases it would suffice, when once the moment of beginning of a saṁvatBara had been calculated with reference to apparent Mēsha samkranti, merely to add to it the time-difference or södhya, between apparent and mean Mesha sankranti in order to arrive at the moment of its beginning with reference to mean Mēsha samkrānti; and in ordinary cases the four decimal points given in my tables would suffice. But in order that there may be no mistake in very close cases I have worked the whole of these tables by nine places of decimals. One instance, and that a very interesting and instructive one, will show how important it is that this should be done, especially with reference to the information afforded by Table XLII.
207. Note the year K. Y. 3710, A.D. 609-10, in which No. 1 Prabhava of a cycle began, according to the First Arya Siddhanta and as tabulated for four decimals of a day, 169-4400 days after mean Mosha samkrānti (Table XXIX B below). We see that during that cycle 41 Plavanga was suppressed because it both began and ended within the limits of the solar rear A.D. 649-50. Turning to the complementary Table XXIX A of the Indian Chronography we see that 41 Plavanga began in its year 169-4400 days prior to the time when No. 1 Prabhava began in its year; which means that in A.D. 649 it began precisely at the moment of mean Mēsha sankranti. Was it or was it not suppressed P Did it begin after or before that moment? If before, it was current at that moment and gave its name to the year; if later, it both began and ended within the limits of the solar year, and did not give its name to the year.
