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

82 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
of this latter calculation was Wednesday, the 23rd February, corresponding to Chaitra
śukla 1, as the initial day of Gupta-Saṁvat 165 + A.D. 318-19 = A.D. 483-84 = Śaka-
Saṁvat 405 expired ; and the result was derived from the same assumption as regards the
position of the tithi.
In 1880, in the Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. X. p. 115 ff., General Cunningham,—who
had then modified his theory, so as to select A.D. 166-(67) as the epoch,—announced
that the result obtained by Bapu Deva Shastri from the reckoning of the Sûrya-Sid-
dhânta, was a Friday in A.D. 331; but that his own result, obtained from the Ârya-
Siddhânta, was a Thursday in the same year. He did not then give any further
details. But, from the fuller particulars given in his recapitulation of these statements in
1883, in his Book of Indian Eras, p. 55 f., we learn that the dates intended were respec-
tively Friday, the 4th June, and Thursday, the 3rd June, A.D. 331; and that his own
result was arrived at, in the same way, with the basis of Tuesday, the 23rd February, cor-
responding to Chaitra śukla 1, as the initial day of Gupta-Saṁvat 165 + A.D. 166-67 =
A.D. 331-32 = Śaka-Saṁvat 253 expired, and with the same assumption as regards the
position of the tithi. In the former reference, he repeated the same result of Friday
(the 3rd June), A.D. 483, for the epoch of A.D. 318-(19).
In 1882, in the Postscript to his paper on the "Dates on Coins of the Hindu Kings
of Kâbul" which was published in the Numismatic Chronicle, Third Series, Vol. II. p.
128 ff., Sir E. Clive Bayley,—whose theory was that the epoch should be A.D. 190-
(91),—announced that the result was a Thursday in A.D. 355, and that it seemed to
be Thursday, the 17th May, in that year. But he gave no indication of the way in which
this result was obtained; beyond a general reference to Prinsep's Tables in Thomas'
Edition of his Essays, Vol. II. Useful Tables, pp. 180, 181. And, as a matter of fact, this
result was altogether wrong. The 17th May, A.D. 355, was a Wednesday, not a Thurs-
day; and, as closely as can be ascertained by General Cunningham's Tables, it repre-
sents Âshâḍha kṛishṇa 5 of the northern year. Sir E. Clive Bayley seems to have very
soon become aware of the mistake; since, at the end of the copy of the Postscript which,
with a copy of the principal article, reached me from him in May, 1883, there is added, in
manuscript, the remark—"this date is erroneous; but the real date, as calculated by Profes-
sor Jacobi, comes out a Thursday." The real date of Âshâḍha śukla 12 of Gupta-Saṁvat
165 + A.D. 190-91 = A.D. 355-56 = Śaka-Saṁvat 277 expired, is Thursday, the 8th June,
A.D. 355; as obtained by Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit, from Prof. Kero Lakshman Chhatre's
Tables.

when there is no intervening intercalation of a month, the month Kârttika, as the eighth month, is to
contain twenty-nine solar days (see Chronology, Tables IV. and XIII., and Indian Eras, Table X.)
But, as standing first in the southern Vikrama year, the same month Kârttika is to contain thirty
solar days (see Chronology, Table III.) This is an obvious impossibility.