________________
190
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1888.
formerly, forsooth, (customary to note as) an and gifts are according to the Brahmaņical law instance the reign of (king) Bali, during which highly meritorious, nay absolutely necessary. all men enjoyed prosperity; now, however, On the occurrence of a calculated eclipse of (they name) on earth (that) of this king," the sun which falls in India before sunrise, or The king, to whom this compliment is paid, is of an eclipse of the moon which falls in India Karka I. In the grant of 749 it is inserted before sunset, theso observances are not rein the description of Karka II., the sixth des. quired. The mediæval Nibandhas, known tome, cendant of Karka I. Again, verse 9 of the agree on this point, and some of them adduce grant of 734 is identical with verse 34 of passages of rather doubtful Smritis, such as the grant of 7449. In the former it refers to the Shattrinat*' as their authorities. The resKrishna I., in the latter to Karka II. It has triction of obligatory gifts to visible eclipses, never occurred to any one to declare the Valabhi however, does not preclude the possibility that grant of Samvat 441 and the Rashtrakata kings who wished to make gifts chose intengrant of Saka-Sativat 734 to be forgeries, because tionally, in case no visible eclipse was close at later ones of the same series show better read-hand, the day of an invisible one, and that they ings in the identical passages, or because still believed to have secured for themselves verses, describing an earlier king, refer in a later the great rewards promised for a gift made grant to one of his successors. Thence, it is not grahanaparvani. In such a case the invisible permissible to use these points as arguments eclipse would of course be entered in the grants. against the genuineness of I. and U. and to And there is yet another circumstance, which, assert that they prove these plates to have as Dr. Schram has pointed out to me, would been engraved after Khê. I. and II. On the explain the occasional mention of invisible contrary, if one closely examines the wording eclipses. According to him the methods for of the two sets of documents, it seems to me the calculation of eclipses, known to the older evident that it proves I. and U. to be the Hindu astronomers, were so rough and primiolder ones. For their Vurnsávali has through- tive, that they made it very difficult to deterout the same character. Each of the three mine with certainty whether an eclipse would kings is described by a few epithets, mostly be visible in any given place. He thinks that long B. huvrihi compounds. The Vandvali of errors on this point must have frequently ocKhê. I. and II. on the other hand, shows a curred, and that such errors may have easily curious incongruity. The first Dadda and escaped detection, in case the eclipses were Jayabhata are described in highly artificial partial and occurred during the rainy season, language, by a string of rather common-place when the sky is not rarely clouded for weeks. but extravagant comparisons. With Dadda II. Under such circumstances an invisible eclipse the style changes and the description becomes would of course be treated like a visible one. simple and shorter. This disparity seems to For though an eclipse, believed to be a visible indicate that the court-poet, who composed one, is not actually observed, the sky being the Vannádvali, tired, when he had shown his covered by clouds, the prescribed observances art in praising two kings, and copied the rest are yet obligatory." It would, therefore, seem of his work from the older model form,
that the eclipse, mentioned in the Ilao grant With respect to the eclipse of the sun, I which fell in June, the beginning of the rainy cannot agree with Mr. Fleet in his opinion that season in Western India, may have been cona Hindu astronomer or astrologer would not sidered to be a really visible one and have notice an invisible eclipse." The great majority been treated as such. of the eclipses mentioned in the inscriptions | These remarks will suffice to show that were no doubt visible, and the reason is that on the arguments, brought forward against the occasion of a visible eclipse fasting, bathing the genuineness of I. and U. are by no
** [The opinion is, of course, one which I am quite ready दिवा चन्द्रग्रहस्तथा । तत्र स्नानं न कुर्वीत दद्यादानं च ना to abandon, if good reasons for doing NO are shewn. But it will be necessary to examine the circumstances of
THATTII The Shattriniat-Smriti is one fair number of eclipses in many undoubtedly of those compilations, which, though called Smritis, genuine records as can be referred to.-J. F. F.) .
belong to not very remote times, * Nirnayasindhu, Par. I.fol. 32b, 1. 11. FLUÈ HT trai
16 See the long discussion on this point, Nirnayasindhu, Par. 1. fol. 35, 1. 6-fol. 36b 1. 11.
