गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 68
In 1884, Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar issued a note on the question in his Early History
of the Dekkan, Appendix A. p. 97 ff.; and announced his acceptance of the theory of A.D.
grant was actually made on the new-moon tithi of Âśvina, because, though the eclipse was not visi-
ble, yet the occurrence of it was known, and therefore the occasion was one of special merit; but
that the actual drafting of the charter was done a month later, on the new-moon tithi of Kârttika,
and the person who drafted it was careless, and omitted to draw a distinction between the two
occasions.—This date has also been discussed by Gen. Cunningham, in his Indian Eras, p. 48 f.
His conclusions were, that the date belongs to Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, not 795; but that the eclipse in-
tended really is that of the (17th or) 18th October, A.D. 738. In order, however, to arrive at these
conflicting results, he assumed that the year commenced, not with the month Kârttika, but with the
month Mârgaśîrsha (November-December), in accordance with a custom which Albêrûnî tells us, was
current among the people of Sindh and Kanauj and other localities, and had been followed at Multân
up to a few years before his own time. By this arrangement, of course, the month Kârttika of Vi-
krama-Saṁvat 794 would belong to the end of the year, and would therefore fall in A.D. 738, not 737.
But, by the southern reckoning, the new-moon day of Kârttika in A.D. 738 would be the 16th Novem-
ber, which was not the day of the eclipse. Accordingly, there remained something still to be ex-
plained; and Gen. Cunningham proposed to complete the arrangement by reading Âśvina, instead of
Kârttika; which would agree with the real eclipse-day, viz. the (17th or) 18th October, A.D. 738.
"But, as that day was a Saturday, a very inauspicious day, the writing of the grant was probably
"made on the following day, or Sunday, which was the first day of Kârttika; and this might have led
"to the substitution of the name of Kârttika, for that of Âśvina, as the actual day of the eclipse."
There was, really, no reason at all for proposing this alteration of the text; for, from the localities
mentioned by Albêrûnî, a year commencing with Mârgaśîrsha could only be coupled with the Pûrṇi-
mânta northern arrangement of the months; and, by that arrangement, the 17th October, A.D. 738,
on which day, as we have seen, the eclipse occurred for India, actually was the new-moon day of
Kârttika. The Pûrṇimânta northern arrangement, however, is barred in the present case by the points
to which I have drawn attention above.—Gen. Cunningham's proposals, therefore, will not do,
Nor will Dr. Bühler's interpretation of the date. For, though it remains to be finally decided whether
the given date in the southern Vikrama-Saṁvat 794, current, or expired, belongs to Śaka-Saṁvat 659
expired, or to 660 expired, yet the eclipse selected by him, as by General Cunningham, was not visible
in India; and the assumption that it is the one referred to, also entails a greater variation between
the facts and the recorded statements than could possibly occur in a genuine charter.—I confess that
from the first, I have thought that the Dhiniki grant is not genuine; partly from the type of the Dê-
vanâgarî characters used in it, which, though they present some apparently antique characteristic,
are much inferior to those used in certain early palm-leaf MSS., and are also rude, even as compared
with the characters of the Sâmângaḍ grant of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Dantidurga, of Śaka-Saṁvat
675 expired (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 108 ff. and Plate), which belongs to just about the alleged period;
and partly from its giving so much earlier an instance than can be found anywhere else, of the use
of the name of Vikrama in connection with the era. My impression has been that the grant was made
spurious by substituting the word Vikrama for Valabhî. This view, I find, cannot be upheld; as the
recorded details are not correct for Valabhî-Saṁvat 794 (A.D. 1113-14), or a year before or after. But,
that the grant really is spurious, is, I think, now certain, from all the results that I have recited above.
And judging by the characters, I should be inclined to refer the fabrication of it to about the eleventh or
twelfth century A.D. As the Jyêshṭhâ nakshatra appears to occur always on, or within two days after, the
new-moon tithi of Kârttika, this detail was probably selected as a fairly safe one; the others being
purely fictitious.