________________
AUGUST, 1915]
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
171
But in his "Hints to workers in South-Indian Chronology" (p. 18) Mr. Swamikannu Pillai tells us that "it is not necessary that a tithi and nakshatra should be joined at the same moment on a particular day, since we have many cases in which the nakshatra of the moment and the tithi of the day are joined in a citation." I should like some further explanation of his meaning. The "moment "he speaks of certainly does not mean the moment of sunrise, because he will, I am sure, confirm my statement above as to the regular rule. What I understand him to mean is that, supposing an inscription to commemorate some special event which occurred (say) during the afternoon of a certain civil day, then the record-date might legitimately state the day as connected with the tithi current at sunrise, though that had expired long before midday, and might legitimately mention not the nakshatra in which the moon stood at sunrise but the one in which she stood at the moment of the occurrence of the event commemorated. I concur in this view, with the reservation that the event commemorated in such case must have been some special occurrence; for the date was not the almanack-date of the day. There must be a reason for such departure from rule; for by all the pañchângas which the framer of the record might have consulted the day was certainly named according to rule. It is inconceivable that a pañchânga should depart from the rule to the extent of actually calling the day after a nakshatra into which the moon passed perhaps late in the day. The day itself always received the name of the sunrise-nakshatra. I take at random some dates in Prof. Kielhorn's last article on dates of Pandya Kings (Ep. Ind. IX. 224). The civil day 5th July A. D. 1298 was called "Rohini-nal," or " the day of Rôhinî;" the 4th Feb. 1369 was called Uttaraḍattu-nal, or the day of Uttarâshâḍhâ." If an inscription of either of those two days mentioned the nakshatra Mrigasiras as connected with 5th July 1298, or Sravana as connected with 4th Feb. 1369 then there was a departure from the calendarnotation of the day, and such a departure calls for explanation. It may be explained by some ceremonial reason; or the nakshatra of the day may have seen considered unlucky, and the compiler of the record may have desired to make it appear that the grant (if a grant) was made under a more auspicious asterism; or the grant may actually have been made at the time of the latter and therefore it was recorded as having been made "in" though not "on the day of" such an asterism. Otherwise the statement may have been inade through carelessness, or through use of a badly-calculated almanac (These pañchângas are all local.) Mr. Swamikannu Pillai says there are " many cases "of this departure from rule. But how many? Professor Kielhorn published 160 Chôla dates, and in his last paper (referred to above) he comments on a case of this kind, requiring a "special reason " for the exceptional quotation in a date of a nakshatra not current at sunrise (op. cu. p. 211 l. 16-18). In a foot note he points to five dates out of his 160 where he has noticed this departure from rule, and I observe that one of these, No. 66, has been 'included in error; which re laces the number to four. Four out of 160 cannot be called "many."
6 Even so one would not expect to find the date itself altered. The fact might be specially mentioned in the text; but surely the almanac-date would be stated as it was gathered from the almanac (or alculated). We are discussing the name of the day as given in that portion of the reoord which is confined to that purpose.
