________________
SEPTEMBER, 1915)
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
193
4th krishna tithi. If (as I have suggested above in my remarks on the date 62 of 1905 under the heading “ Jajavarman Kula iekhara II ") a solar day on which occurs a kabaya tithi is unlucky, that particular day would have been avoided as a favourable time for a royal grant, and the kshaya tithi itself would not have been associated with it in the calendar.
Working the given details for the seventh regnal year as stated in the text I fnd that all the details ace correct for 26th November 1257 except the nakshatra. This is in three places wrong, the moon being in Pushya and not in Mrigasiras: and this defect is so great that it cannot, in my opinion, be passed over safely.
I cannot allow that a date in which the wrong regnal year is quoted and which quotes a kshaya tithi is a satisfactory one. But, accepted or not, it does not affect the known facts of this king's accession.
(No. 218 of 1901). This date in the original quotes the 7th regnal year, the solar month Mesha, the 1st krishna tithi and the nakshatra Ruint. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai admits that the day which he puts forward as corresponding, viz: 27th April 1256 A. D. would have properly boon stated as in the 6th regnal year, the solar month Vpishabha and the lat sukla tithi, so that nothing remains of the original but the nakshatra Röhiqi. A solution slightly better would be 17th April 1257 A. D., which was in Mesha, with the moon in Rahiņi, as given in the text, the regnal year being the 6;h and not the 7th, and the wrong lunar fortnight having been stated. This involves a mistake of three days in the regnal year. The title given to the king certainly seems to show that it belongs to the reign in question, but the date appears to be irregular. At any rate the author's solution is inacceptable.
(No. 278 of 1901). I concur with the author in this case. No other date will suit the description except the one given by him.
(No. 322 of 1911). I also concur with him here. We may accept the correction from “sukla 11" in the original to " sukla 12". The record quotes incidentally the 15th year of the Chôļa King Peruăjingadeva: but if, according to present information obtained from six inscriptions, this king's a scession took place between 9th May and 30th July A. D. 1243, the present date, 23rd May, 1260 actually fell in his 17th or 18th year. Is the reading " 15th ” year quite certain ? This point should be examined, because the result might perhaps very considerably reduca the doubtful period of Peruñjinga's accession.
(No. 677 of 1909). I published this date in Epig. Ind. Vol. XI, (p. 255. No. 101), having been assured that the quoted regnal year was the 11th; and found the rəsult unsatisfactory. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai has now discovered that the original record of the regnal year should be read "13" instead of 11. Accordingly I tested the date again from that standpoint, and agree with him that, granting “Makara ” to be an error for "Mina ", it corresponds to Wednesday, 5th March A. D. 1264.
(No. 125 of 1908). The only available details for this date, setting aside mere conjectures, are the 7th sukla tithi in the 14th regnal year, with the moon in Punarvasu. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai fixes it as 25th March A. D. 1265. This was the day on which the Masha Sankranti occurred. It coincided certainly with the 7th sukla tithi, but the moon was in Ardra (No. 6) not in (No. 7) Punarvasu at man sunrise. She entered Punarvasu about 4h. 50m. later, and the day would have been named after Ardra. Equally suitable. perhape rather more so, would be 4th April A. D. 1264, with which dny, 11 Mesha, the 7th sukla tithi and Ponarvasu wore jointly connected. Here we should certainly have
