________________
328
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(OCTOBER, 1890.
recent date, in Saka-Samvat 1802 current (1801 expired) the repeated month is given as No. 6, viz. Bhådrapada. This would be repeated if there were no samkranti in it. But in that year the SimhaSarkránti took place on Sråvaņa kfishpa 13, Friday, 15th August, A. D. 1879. The following amå vâsya ended, and consequently the following month Bhadrapada commenced, 47 gh. 45 p. after sunrise on Sunday, 17th August. That same Bhadrapada ended 12 gh. 4 p. after sunrise on Tuesday, 16th September. And the Kanya-Samkranti took place more than 30 ghatis before the end of that Bhadrapada, viz. on Bhadrapada krishna 14, Monday, 15th September, at 40gh. 43 p. We give these details from an ordinary Panchang in our possession, prepared from the Grahalaghava and Chintamani of Ganesa Daivajña. By no authority can the Kanye-Samkranti be made to take place after the end of this Bhadrapada ; and therefore that month cannot be intercalary. Asvina is the intercalary month in that year. We have tried in vain to obtain the clue to the process by which the repeated months in the work under notice, were calculated. We may remark, by the way, that a rule for finding the intercalary months devised by Dr. J. Burgess, and given in Note III. p. 7 e, is wrong and quite useless.
Now as regards "column 7. It is not stated what authority and what rules are followed, in giving the English date of the commencement of the solar year. We know that the authority for the Tamil solar calendar is the first Arya. Siddhanta. And the same is followed in the present work. From Saka-Samvat 400, the apparent samkrantis according to the first Arya-Siddhanta take place before those of the present SdryaSiddhanta, the difference increasing after that year. In Saka-Samvat 1800 expired, it was about 6 gh. 20 p. The solar year may begin astrono. mically at any time of a day; that is, a samkranti can take place at any time. But according to one method, when it takes place before sunset, the year or month is made to begin civilly on the same day, while, if it takes place after sunset, the ycar or month begins civilly on the next day. There is another method (see Note IV. by Dr. Burgess, on p. 7 f.) by which, when the sun entere a sign within 3 of the 5 parts into which the dey-time is divided, the month begins on the same day: otherwise, it begins on the next day. In the work under notice the civil commencement of
the solar year is taken; and it is that which is obtained according to the first of the two methods just mentioned. All these particulars ought to have been distinctly stated by the author. We have discovered the true state of the case, by actually calculating some cases, and comparing the results with the entries in the book before us. The prescribed rules, moreover, do not seem to have been followed strictly. For example, in A. D. 1780 the Mêsha-Samkranti took place on the 9th April, at 34 gh. 13 p. according to the present Sarya-Siddhanta, and at 28 gh. 20 p. according to the first Arya-Siddhanta; both according to Ujjain mean time. In this case, the 9th April is given as the beginning of the solar year; and it is right. But in A. D. 1803, the Mêsha-Samkranti took place on the 10th April, at 31 gh. 18 p. according to the Súrya-Siddhanta, and at 25 gh. 18 p. according to the first Arya-Siddhanta, both according to Ujjain mean time. But here, not the 10th, but the 11th April, is given as the date of the commencement of the solar year. The entries in column 7, however, may be looked upon as generally reliable.
A few words in conclusion, which we hope will not be taken amies. The Preface tells us that these Tables are intended ultimately for use in courts and offices, as well as for historians and archaeologists. In their present form they are only tentative, and a few copies only have been printed; the intention being to publish the work in a final shape, after seeing the results of criticism and examination. As we have shewn, however, these Tables can only give approximate. results, at any rate for the Hindu solar and luni-solar years. And surely, considering the practical interests involved, courts and offices require actual results, just as much as historians and archæologists, if not indeed more 80. Equally good approximate results can be obtained from works already published; e. g. Mr. Cowasjee Patell's and Gen. Sir A. Cunningham's books, and Dr. Schram's Tables. While, with practically no more expenditure of time and trouble, accurate results can be obtained either from Prof. K. L. Chhatre's book, or from Prof. Jacobi's Tables, by any one who will take the trouble to master them. Under these circumstances, then, what real object can be served by finally issuing these Tables, endorsed by Govern. ment authority, for actual use, whether official or otherwise ?
logy, and in Gen. Sir A. Cunningham's Indian Eras, which (p. 91) admittedly follows Mr. Cowagjee Patell's book in this respect, agree throughout with those in Prof. Cahatra's Table, except for only a few mietekee in the
former two. Mr. Cowasjee Patell's Chronology was published fifteen years after Prof. Chhatre's Table, and it is possible that it may have some direct or indirect connectice in this matter with Prof. Chhatres Table
