Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/511

 one civil day and end on the next but one, and so cover two sunrises; and it is then treated as a repeated tithi, in the sense that its number is repeated: for instance, if the seventh tithi so begins and ends, the civil day on which it begins is numbered 6, from the tithi which is current at the sunrise of that day and ends on it; the day covered entirely by the seventh tithi is numbered 7, because that tithi is current at its sunrise; the next day, at the sunrise of which the seventh tithi is still current and during which it ends, is again numbered 7; and the number 8 falls to the next day after that, when the eighth tithi is current at sunrise. On the other hand, a tithi may begin and end during one and the same civil day, so as not to touch a sunrise at all: in this case, it exists for any practical purposes for which it may be wanted (it is, however, to be avoided if possible, as being an unlucky occasion), but it is suppressed or expunged for the numbering of the civil day, in the sense that its number is omitted; for instance, if the seventh tithi begins and ends during one civil day, that day is numbered 6 from, as before, the tithi which is current at its sunrise and ends when the seventh tithi begins; the next day is numbered 8, because the eighth tithi is current at its sunrise; and there is, in this case, no civil day bearing the number seven. In consequence of this method of numbering, it sometimes happens, as the result of the suppression of a tithi, that the day of a full-moon is numbered 14 instead of 15; that the day of a new-moon is numbered 14 instead of 30; and that the first day of a fortnight, and even the first day of a lunar year, is numbered 2 instead of 1.

There are, on an average, thirteen suppressed tithis and seven repeated tithis in twelve lunar months; and so the lunar year averages 354 days, rising to about 384 when a month is intercalated. It occasionally happens that there are two suppressions of tithis in one and the same fortnight; and the almanacs show such a case in the bright fortnight of Jyaishṭha, 1878: but this occurs only after very long intervals.

The tithi is divided into two karanas; each karana being the time in which the moon increases her distance from the sun by six degrees. But this is a detail of astrological rather than chronological interest. So, also, are two other details to which a prominent place is given in the lunar calendars;

to yōga, or time in which the joint motion in longitude, the sum of the motions of the sun and the moon, is increased by 13 degrees 20 minutes; and the nakshatra, the position of the moon as referred to the ecliptic by means of the stars and groups of stars which have been mentioned above under the lunar month.

In the Indian calendar everything depends upon exact times, which differ, of course, on every different meridian; and (to cite what is perhaps the most frequent and generally important occurrence) suppression and repetition may affect one tithi and civil day in one locality, and another tithi and civil day in another locality not very far distant. Consequently, neither for the lunar nor for the solar calendar is there any almanac which is applicable to even the whole area in which any particular length of the astronomical solar year prevails; much less, for the whole of India. Different almanacs are prepared and published for places of leading importance; details for minor places, when wanted, have to be worked out by the local astrologer, the modern representative of an ancient official known as Sāṁmvatsara, the “clerk of the year.”

As far as the available evidence goes (and we have no reason to expect to discover anything opposed to it), any use of eras, in the sense of continuous reckonings which originated in historical occurrences or astronomical epochs and were employed for official and other public chronological purposes, did not prevail in India before the 1st century Prior to that time, there existed, indeed, in connexion with the sacrificial calendar, a five-years lunisolar cycle, and possibly some extended cycles of the same nature; and there was in Buddhist circles a record of the years elapsed since the death of Buddha, which we shall mention again further on. But, as is gathered from books and is well illustrated by the edicts of Aśōka (reigned 264–227 ) and the inscriptions of other rulers, the years of the reign of each successive king were found sufficient for the public dating of proclamations and the record of events. There is no known case in which any Indian king, of really ancient times, deliberately applied himself to the foundation of an era: and we have no reason for thinking that such a thing was ever done, or that any Hindu reckoning at all owes its existence to a recognition of historical requirements. The eras which came into existence from the 1st century onwards mostly had their origin in the fortuitous extension of regnal reckonings. The usual course has been that, under the influence of filial piety, pride in ancestry, loyalty to a paramount sovereign, or some other such motive, the successor of some king continued the regnal reckoning of his predecessor, who was not necessarily the first king in the dynasty, and perhaps did not even reign for any long time, instead of starting a new reckoning, beginning again with the year 1, according to the years of his own reign. Having thus run for two reigns, the reckoning was sufficiently well established to continue in the same form, and to eventually develop into a generally accepted local era, which might or might not be taken over by subsequent dynasties ruling afterwards over the same territory. In these circumstances, we find the establisher of any particular era in that king who first continued his predecessor’s regnal reckoning, instead of replacing it by his own; but we regard as the founder of the era that king whose regnal reckoning was so continued. We may add here that it was only in advanced stages that any of the Hindu eras assumed specific names: during the earlier period of each of them, the years were simply cited by the term saṁvatsara or varsha, “the year (bearing such-and-such a number),” or by the abbreviations saṁvat and sam, without any appellative designation.

The Hindus have had two religious reckonings, which it will be convenient to notice first. Certain, statements in the Ceylonese chronicles, the Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, endorsed by an entry in a record of Aśōka, show that in the 3rd century there existed among the Buddhists

a record of the time elapsed since the death of Buddha in 483, from which it was known that Aśōka was anointed to the sovereignty 218 years after the death. The reckoning, however, was confined to esoteric Buddhist circles, and did not commend itself for any public use; and the only known inscriptional use of it, which also furnishes the latest known date recorded in it, is found in the Last Edict of Aśōka, which presents his dying speech delivered in 226, 256 years after the death of Buddha. In Ceylon, where, also the original reckoning was not maintained, there was devised in the 12th century a reckoning styled Buddhavarsha, “the years of Buddha,” which still exists, and which purports to run from the death of Buddha, but has set up an erroneous date for that event in 544 This later reckoning spread from Ceylon to Burma and Siam, where, also, it is still used. It did not obtain any general recognition in India, because, when it was devised, Buddhism had practically died out there, except at Bōdh-Gayā. But, as there seems to have been constant intercourse between Bōdh-Gayā and Ceylon as well as other foreign Buddhist countries, we should not be surprised to find an occasional instance of its use at Bōdh-Gayā: and it is believed that one such instance, belonging to 1270, has been obtained.

The Jains have had, and still maintain, a reckoning from the death of the founder of their faith, Vīra, Mahāvīra, Vardhamāna, which event is placed by them in 528 This reckoning figures largely in the Jain books, which put forward dates in it for very early times. But the earliest known synchronous date in it—by which we mean a date given by a writer who recorded the year in which he himself was writing—is one of the year 980, or, according to a different view mentioned in the passage itself, of the year 993. This reckoning, again, did not commend itself for any official or other public use. And the only known inscriptional instances of the use of it are modern ones, of the 19th century. While it is certain that the Jain reckoning, as it exists, has its initial point in 528 it has not yet been determined whether that is actually the year in which Vīra died. All that can be said on this point is that the date is not inconsistent with certain statements in Buddhist books, which mention, by a Prākrit name of which the Sanskṛit form is Nirgrantha-Jñāta-putra, a contemporary of Buddha, in whom there is recognized the original of the Jain Vīra, Mahāvīra, or Vardhamāna, and who, the same books say, died while Buddha was still alive. But there are some indications that Nirgrantha-Jñātaputra may have died only a short time before Buddha himself; and the event may