Indian Antiquary Vol 20

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

Page 12

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
JANUARY, 1891
Saka-Samvat 546 current ; on the 17th July, A. D. 623. This eclipse was visible all over India. Saka-Samvat 555 current ; on the 7th July, A. D. 632. This eclipse was visible all over
India. Saka-Samvat 564 current ; on the 27th July, A. D. 641. This eclipse was visible all over India. Saka-Samvat 573 current ; on the 18th July, A. D. 650. This eclipse was visible all over India. Saka-Samvat 574 current ; on the 8th July, A. D. 651. This eclipse was visible all over India.
In this year Sravana was an intercalary month; and the eclipse
took place on the full-moon day of the first Sravana. The first point to be noted is, that there was no eclipse of the moon in Sråvana in the eighteenth year of Pulikesin II. ; when the month in question would fall in Saka-Samvat 550 or 551 current, according to what may be the exact date of the commencement of his reign. The date, therefore, must belong to the eighteenth year of Vishnuvardhana I. himself. And the next point is, to determine which of the eclipses, noted above, is the one referred to.
Of these eclipses, the first two have been considered before, by Dr. Borrell, and by Dr. Burgess. Dr. Burnell's opinion (South Indian Palcography, p. 137, note 2) was that the only possible date is one or other of these two. And, while mentioning Dr. Burgess' preference, because it was fully visible, for the eclipse of the 17th July, A. D. 623, he rejected it because, " as this occurred in the evening, it seems, astrologically, inadmissible (conf. Hêmachandra's Danakhanda, pp. 61-62, 79);" and he expressed his own opinion that the eclipse of the 28th July, A. D. 622, "appears to satisfy all the necessary conditions." On the other hand, in some notes on the Eastern Chalukya chronology which he made over to me in 1878, Dr. Burgess, who had examined all the lunar eclipses in Srâvana from A. D. 600 to 663, repeated his conclusion that the eclipse in question must be that of the 17th July, A. D. 623. Both of these eclipses, however, equally fail to meet the requirements of the case. On Dr. Burgess' view of the matter, - if the full-moon of 'Sravana, Saka-Samvat 546 current, fell in the eighteenth year of Vishnuvardhana I., then the full-moon of Sråvaņa, Saka-Samvat 529 current, fell in his first year; and his reign commenced on some day from the púrņimánta Bhadrapada.krishna 1 of Saka-Samvat 528 current, up to Sravana sukla 15 of Saka-Samvat 529 current. But, that Vishnuvardhana I. should ascend the throne of Vengi three fall years at least, - or, on Dr. Burnell's view of the equivalent of the date in question, fully four years, 5 - before the accession of his elder brother Pulikesin II. to the throne of the Western Branch of the family, is out of the question. Anterior to Saka-Samvat 532 or 533 current, he could be Yuvarája only on behalf of his uncle Mangalêsa. But the contemporaneous Aihole inscription tells us (ante, Vol. VIII. p. 244), that Mangalêsa sought to secure the succession for his own son; and, with such an object in view, he certainly would not entrust any share of the sovereign power to either of his nephews, even in the eastern part of the country, if it then formed a portion of the Chalukya dominions. This reason, alone, is quite sufficient to lead to the rejection of both the above eclipses. And on this account, and on other grounds which will be shewn further on, I select, instead, the next, - the eclipse of the 7th
• Nor was there any such eclipse in the sixteenth year of his reign, when the month in question would fall in Saka-San.vat 548 or 549. I note this, because I originally read the year of the date, now under consideration, as the sixteenth year; see page 17 below, note 8.
Or respectively one and two years, if the date in question were really in the sixteenth year of his reign.-In his genealogical Table (South Indian Palmography, Second Edition, p. 21), Dr. Burnell gave "about 620 A. D." for the date of Vishņuyardhana I., and apparently as his initial date. This must have been repeated from the first edition of his book, without allowing for the intermediate recognition by me of the date in the Chipurapallo reoord. Taking the latter into consideration, with his date of the 28th July, A. D. 622, for the lunar eclipee, the initial point would lie in Saka-Samvat 528 current, in A. D. 605. And Dr. Burnell himself, following my reading of the bixteenth year, gave "about 606-7 A. D.” (loc. cit. p. 138, note 3).
. I would note hero, that I find that I allowed a careless mistake to remain uncorrected in Vol. XIX. p. 10, line 13 from the bottom, in connection with the accession of Mangalèss; the words" A. D. 497 or 498" should be "A.D. 697 or 598."