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

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; INTRODUCTION. 81
of Budhagupta, from the Sâgar District in the Central Provinces, No. 19, page 88; in
which the date (line 2 f.) runs — śatê pañcha-shashty-adhikê varshâṇâṁ bhûpatau cha
Budhaguptê | Âshâḍha-mâsa-śukla-dvâdaśyâṁ Suragurôr=divasê || Saṁ 100 60 5,—" in
a century of years, increased by sixty-five; and while Budhagupta (is) king; on the
twelfth tithi, or lunar day, of the bright fortnight of the month Âshâḍha; on the day of
Suraguru; (or in figures) the year 100 (and) 60 (and) 5."
As the palæography of this record shews that the year quoted in it belongs to the same
uniform series with the years quoted in the Early Gupta records,—a point, in fact, that
has never been disputed,—this gives us, for calculation, Gupta-Saṁvat 165, current; the
month Âshâḍha (June-July); the bright fortnight; the twelfth tithi; and the day of Sura-
guru, which, — Suraguru, 'the preceptor of the gods,' being another name of Bṛihaspati,
the regent of the planet Jupiter, — is Bṛihaspativâra or Guruvâra, i.e. Thursday.
This date has been constantly the subject of calculation and controversy. Thus, in
1861, in the Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXX. p. 15, note, Dr. F. E. Hall announced, on the
authority of Bapu Deva Shastri of Benares, that, as applied to the epoch of the Vikrama
era, it represented Thursday, the 7th June, A.D. 108, New Style.
Again, in 1879, in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX. p. 17 f., General Cunningham,—
whose theory then was that the epoch should be A.D. 194-(95),—announced as the
result, Thursday, the 24th June, A.D. 359, Old Style.¹ The basis of this calculation was
Tuesday, the 16th March, corresponding to Chaitra śukla 1, as the initial day of Gupta-
Saṁvat 165 + A.D. 194-95 = A.D. 359-60 = Śaka-Saṁvat 281 expired; and the result
was derived from the assumption that the given tithi fell on its theoretical normal place
on the 101st solar day of the year.² And, in the same place, he intimated that, with the
epoch of A.D. 318-(19), the result would be Friday, the 3rd June, A.D. 483. The basis

---

¹ It will be understood that the English equivalents of all Hindu dates anterior to the adoption
of the Gregorian Calendar or New Style, given by me and I believe by Gen. Cunningham, are given
according to the Julian Calendar or Old Style. It is not necessary to complicate matters by using
the New Style for a period anterior to its introduction in England.
² This is on the assumption that the lunar months of the Hindu luni-solar years contain thirty
and twenty-nine solar days alternately, in regular succession; see, for instance, Cowasjee Patell's
Chronology, p. 66 ff., Tables III. to XIII., and Cunningham's Indian Eras, p. 66, Table X. The
arrangement given in those Tables, is convenient enough for obtaining approximate results. But, apart
from the principles involved, an examination of any Pañchâṅgs, for any series of years, will shew that
the assumption is not in accordance with facts; and that no definite rule of this kind can be laid down,
to determine, more closely than within one and occasionally two days, the exact running solar day,
from the commencement of the year, on which a given tithi will fall. As a matter of fact, in the ten
years Śaka-Saṁvat 1809 to 1818 inclusive, the position of the end of the twelfth tithi of the bright
fortnight of Âshâḍha, varied from the 100th to the 102nd solar day of the year; and there is a chance
of the tithi in question ending on a Thursday, in any year of which the initial day is a Monday, a
Tuesday, or a Wednesday.—The theoretical arrangement in question also involves a peculiar anomaly.
The first month of the year is supposed to consist of thirty days; and the result is that, in a Śaka year,
L