Indian Antiquary Vol 20

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 10

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JANUARY, 1891.
cecessary now to dispose of it finally. On the first occasion on which I dealt with it (ante, Vol. XVI. p. 109 f.), I brought to notice that it had been calculated some years ago by Mr. D. B. Hutcheon for Dr. Burgess, who passed the notes on to me, and also had been considered by Sir George Airy, with the result that the corresponding English date must be the 23rd July, A. D. 613; on that day there was a total or almost total eclipse of the sun ; it was total probably at Badâmi, or certainly close to that place; and the totality occurred when the sun was very near the zenith of Bidami; so that the eclipse was a very marked and memorable one for that locality. And I expressed the opinion that there could be no doubt that this eclipse is the one referred to. This opinion, however, was the result of a misconception. In the record, the given year, 'Saka-Samvat 534, is distinctly specified as an expired year; so that the details of the month and the eclipse belong to 'Saka-Sarvat 535 current. In the published Tables, e. g. those of Mr. Cowasjee Patell and of General Sir Alexander Cunningham, which contain no distinct intimation that they are arranged for the expired years of the Hindu eras, Saka-Samvat 535 is shewn as commencing in A. D. 613. I was then under a mistakon impression, -- which was by no means confined to myself; and which, I think, musi in fact have had something to do with the case that was laid for consideration before Mr. Hutcheon and Sir George Airy, — which led me to suppose that A. D. 613-14 was the equivalent of Saka-Samvat 535 as a current year. And, as the 23rd July, A. D. 613, corresponds to the new-moon tithi of the first piriminta Bhadrapada, – the month being in that year an intercalary month, - I entertained no suspicion as to the correctness of the result which I then published. Subsequently, however, I had occasion to consider specially the subject of the epoch and reckoning of the Saka era (see Gupta Inscriptions, Introd., Appendix I. pp. 137 to 144; and ante, Vol. XVII. pp. 205 to 210). And, as a result of what I established in that inquiry, the above date, the 23rd July, A. D. 613, is, as a matter of fact, later by one year than the date given in the original record; being in reality the equivalent of the new-moon itthi of the first purņi manta Bhadrapada of Saka-Samvat 536 current (535 expired). On this point, there is now no possibility of any doubt. And, on the second occasion on which I dealt with the date now under consideration (ante, Vol. XVII. p. 141), I brought to notice that the real equivalent of the new-moon tithi of the purnimanta Bhadrapada of Saka-Samvat 535 current (534 expired) was the 2nd August, A. D. 612. On this date, also, there was a total eclipse of the sun. But it was not visible in or anywhere near India; because the line of centrality, commencing at sunrise in the North Pacific Ocean, ran across North America and the Atlantic, and ended at sunset about halfway across Africa, towards the north. And I left the inatter then with an expression of doubt, as to whether the record really refers to the eclipse of the 2nd August, A. D. 612, or whether the eclipse intended being that of the 23rd July, A. D. 613, we have in this record a genuine mistake in respect of the year that is quoted; the ques. tion being one for settlement when we should be in a position to determine whether invisible eclipses were, or were not, to be occasions of ceremonies and public acts. This latter point is one that has not yet been disposed of. But, whatever may be the strict custom of later times, uther instances are accumulating, in which eclipses of the sun, at any rate, which we know to have been not visible in India, are quoted in genuine early records as occasions of ceremonies. And though, looking back from the present time, and comparing the circumstances of the two eclipses, it does seem likely that a person in India would seleet for celebration that of A, D. 613, in preference to that of the year before, still there is in reality no option of the kind. We must, if it is found in any way possible, adhere to the details of the contemporaneous record,
1 See von Oppolzer's Canon der Pinaterniane, pp. 174, 175, and Plate 87; w also for the details of the eclipse of the 23rd July, A. D. 613.
A noteworthy instance is the solar eclipse of the 2nd January, A. D. 987, which is referred to in Prof. Kiel horn's Vikrama date No. 83 (ante, Vol. XIX. p. 166). It was a total eclipeo. But it was visible only over a com paratively small aren in North America and the Pacific Ocean. And yet it in the eclipse that answers to the other details of the given date. - Another instance is the solar eclipae of the 17th February, A. D. 668, which is the only one that answers to the solar eclipse in PLAlguna in the fifth year of Vishnuvardhana II. (800 page 8 C. below).
See also a note on Wrong Predictions of Kolipsos, ante, Vol. XIX. p. 328.