History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c9.s2.103

c9.s2.103

An attempt made to belittle the value of this datum furnished by the *Lokavibhāga* for the initial date of Simhavarman II requires careful consideration. Mr. H. Krishna Sastriar, relying upon what he interprets as a reference to an eclipse in the Ōmgōḍu plates, lines 31-32, dated in the fourth year of his reign, considers the datum of the *Lokavibhāga* invalidated. The fourth year of Simhavarman II, according to the *Lokavibhāga*, corresponds to the year A.D. 440 in which year there happens to be no solar eclipse during the month of Chaitra. But this objection of Mr. Sastriar is based upon a wrong interpretation of the object of the grant of the Ōmgōḍu plates and of the expression *grahananimittam* in line 31. In the first place the plates are dated in the fifth day of the bright fortnight, of Vaiśāka, whereas if the occasion of the grant had been the solar eclipse the record would have been dated on the new moon day. This difficulty Mr. Krishna Sastriar gets over by supposing that the grant which was actually made on the new moon day of Chaitra, a possible day for the nearest solar eclipse, was actually engraved ‘on the plates five days later.’¹ The explanation does not appear to be at all satisfactory. The expression ‘*grahananimittam*’, appears to convey, as has been pointed out, the meaning of ‘for the sake of acceptance’ rather than ‘on account of the eclipse’, as it looks strange that the copper-plate record should not mention the character of the eclipse and other circumstances connected with it. ‘It is very unusual,’ says Prof. Krishnaswami Aiyangar to indicate an eclipse in this manner, without saying what eclipse it is, and otherwise defining the *Puṇyakāla*. What is worse in the interpretation of the epigraphist is that the date of the grant is actually specified in the concluding portion. “*Sa vijayarājya-Saṃvatsare-Caturthe-Vaiśāka-Śukla-pakṣa-Pañcamyām dattam.*” This is quite unequivocal. In the face of this it would be difficult to prove that the grant was made on an eclipse day from the document. The difficulty and inconsistency are the results of the interpretation, and neither the author nor the scribe could be held responsible for the blunder which is not theirs.’¹