________________
Mar, 1887.]
THE YEARS OF THE GUPTA ERA.
151
241 = A.D. 819-20; and that the true and Friday, the 3rd June, A D. 483. The basis of original reckoning of the era was preserved, in this latter calculation was Wednesday, the Kåthiâwâd, up to, at any rate; A.D. 1264. 23rd February, corresponding to Chaitra sukla
1, as the initial day of Gupta-Samvat 165+ The Eran Inscription of Gupta
A.D. 318-19 = A.D. 483-84 = Saka-Samvat Samvat 165.
405; and the result was derived from the same
assumption as regards the position of the tithi. I will notice next the Eran pillar inscription In 1880, in the Archeol. Suru. Ind. Vol. X. of Budhagupta, in the Sagar District of the p. 115ff., Gen. Cunningham, who had then Central Provinces; the date in which runs modified his theory so as to select'as the epoch Śatê pascha-bhashty-adhikê varshâşâm bhupatau Gupta-Samvat 0 = A D. 166-(67),-'announced cha Budhagupte | AshAdhamasa-sukla-dvâda- that the result obtained by Bapu Deva Shastri śyam Suragarôr-divasê | Sań. 100 60 5,- of Benares, from the reckoning of the Surya"in a century of years, increased by sixty- Siddhanta, was a Friday in A.D. 331 ; but five; and while Budhagupta (is) kirg; on the that his own result, obtained from the Aryatwelfth tithi, or lunar day, of the bright fort- Siddhanta, was a Thursday in the same year. night of the month Ashadha; on the day of He did not then give any further details. Suraguru; (or in figures) the year 100 (and) But, from the fuller particulars given in his 60 (and) 5."
recapitulation of these statements in 1883, in This gives us, for calculation, Gupta-Samvat his Book of Indian Eras, p. 55f., we learn 165, current, the month Ashâdha (June-July); that the dates intended were respectively the bright fortnight; the twelfth tithi ; and the Friday, the 4th June, and Thursday, the day of Saraguru, which, -Suragaru, 'the pre- the 3rd June, A.D. 331 ; and that his own ceptor of the gods, being another name of
result was arrived at, in the same way, with Brihaspati, the regent of the planet Jupiter, -is the basis of Tuesday, the 23rd February, corBrihaspativara or Guruvára, i.e. Thursday.
responding to Chaitra sukla 1, as the initial This date has been constantly the subject of day of Gupta-Samvat 165+ A D. 166-67 = calculation and controversy. Thus, in 1861, in A.D. 331-32 = Saka-Samvat 253, and with the the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXX. p. 15, note,
same assumption as regards the position of the Dr. F. E. Hall announced, on the authority of tithó. In the former reference, he repeated the Bapu Deva Shastri of Benares, that, as applied same result of Friday (the 3rd June), A.D. to the epoch of the Vikrama era, it represented 483, for the epoch Gupta-Sanhvat 0 = A.D. Thursday, the 7th June, A.D. 108, New Style. 318-(19).
Again, in 1879, in the Archæol. Suru. Ind. In 1882, in the Postscript to his paper on Vol. IX. p. 17£., Gen. Cunningham,-whose the “ Dates on Coins of the Hindu Kings of theory then was that the epoch is Gupta- Kabul" which was published in the Numis. Sanvat 0= A.D. 194-(95), -announced, as the matic Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. II. result, Thursday, the 24th June, A.D. 359. p. 128ff., Sir E. Clive Bayley, -whose theory The basis of this calculation was Tuesday, the was that the epoch is Gupta-Samvat 0= A.D. 16th March, corresponding to Chaitra sukla 1, 190-(91),-announced that the result was a as the initial day of Gapta-Samvat 165+ A.D. Thursday in A.D. 355, and that it seemed to be 194-95 = A.D. 359-60 = Saka-Samvat 281; and Thursday, the 17th May, in that year. But he the result was derived from the assumption, gave no indication of the way in which this which may or may not be sustainable in this result was obtained; beyond a general referand any other particular instance, that the tithi ence to Prinsep's Tables in Thomas' Edition of fell on its theoretical normal place on the 101st his Essays, Vol. II. Useful Tables, pp. 180, 181. solar day of the year. And, in the same place, And, as a matter of fact, this result was altogether he intimated that, with the epoch Gupta- wrong." The 17th May, A.D. 355, was a Samvat 0= A.D. 318-(19), the result would be Wednesday, not a Thursday; and, as closely
» Corp. Inscr. Indic. Vol. II. No. 19, p. 83ff., takes the saihvatsara of the Bhumard pillar inscription line 2f."
of the Mahordjas Hastin and Sarvanatha to be Mah. * This is not the only radical and essential error in Margafira, instead of MahA-MAgha ; # mistake, the Sir E. Clive Bayley's Postsoript. In the first place, he importance of which will be pbvious to any Sanskritist.
