________________
APRIL, 1893.)
NOTES ON TUL'SI DAS.
93
B. S.
(2) Arya Siddhanta KY. 4600
217° 8 0 184° 7' 0 2 82° 0 0 + 4 gb. 10 p. 75 years 238 13 30 67 25 34 - - - - 24 4 4 Vais. 12 11 27 13 3 54 59 81 - 1954
| 467 32 57 264 36 28 282 59 8 19 gh. 3° 51' 37" 4° 8' 14' 18' 44' - 4 2 35 4 20 0
19 37 54 p. 10 58 11 46
53 103 30 22 260 16 28 282 39 31 4° 2 35 40 20 0 37' 19
Mean distance 103° 30' 22' being smaller than found above (3), the final result also will be smaller; we need therefore not go on with our calculation. (8) Brahma Siddh.
(4) Siddh. Sir. 4600 205° 0 b' 172°15 30" 282° 3' 221 +11.14 || 204° 14' 0171° 6' 30" 280° 54'22"
238 7 30 67 27 48 - - -1-22 58 238 6 45 67 26 40 - - - 5th Vais. 24 22 53 26 7 48 158 16 | 24 22 53 26 748 1 58 16
467 30 23 265 51 6 284 1 38 1466 43 38 264 20 58 282 52 38 - 2 23 2 2 33 18 11 33:
2 23 2 2 33 18 11 33 105 7 21 263 27 48 283 50 5
104 20 36 261 47 40 282 41 5 71 gh. 20 14' 6" 2° 23 43 10 50" 44 p. 8 56
9 35
43 2 23 2 2 33 18 11 33.
S. 'S. Sum of 105 7 21
Sum of 104 20 36 Eq. + 2 53 25
Eq. + 2 51 41 108 046
107 12 17 By comparing above (5) and (8) we see that at trae sunrise in Benares was about 12' 1" less than at mean sunrise at Lanka. Accordingly for Brahma Siddhanta the value of (-o is 107° 48' 45" and the end of 9th tithi about 54 palas after true sunrise at Benares. If we had taken Oudh the moment would have occurred 7 palas earlier. For Siddhánta Sirómani the result is still farther off sunrise.
Conclusion. As the ninth tithi ended according to all Siddhantas some time after true sunrise at Benares (or Oudh) of Wednesday, 31st March 1574 A. D., that day was sudi 9. But as religious ceremonies etc. frequently are referred to the running tithi, not to the civil day on which that tithi ended, it may be assumed that Tul'si Das commenced his work on Tuesday while the auspicious oth tithi was running. Probably most ceremonies of the Rama navami were celebrated on that day because the greatest part of the ninth tithi belonged to it. This is also the parport of the precepts in Kálanirnaya on the navami, Calcutta Edition, p. 229,so far as I understand them.
Taking everything into consideration, I believe the date of Tul'si Das to be correct, and I think it impossible to impugn the genuineness of the poem or the verse quoted on the ground that the date is not in the common civil reckoning.
With reference to Prof. Jacobi's final remarks, I may note that some native scholars have impugned the genuineness of Rúm. Bd. ch. xxxiv. on this very ground of date. The difficulty is certainly a serious one. Prof. Jacobi has proposed one solution, and others have been offered by native scholars. I quote here some remarks on the point, kindly communicated to me by Mahảmahôpadhyâya Pandit Sudhakara Dvivêdi, which are valuable not only for the special purpose which elicited them, but also for the general argument on which they are based. He says, I once considered that the recitation of the Ramayana being in the vernacular,
