The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8.4

c8.4

But why should the Chitrâ and the Phalguni full-moon be called the beginnings of the year? Sâyaṇa thinks that they were so described because they occurred during Vasanta or the first of the seasons.‡ But the explanation does not appear satisfactory. I have previously shown that according to all astronomical works Shishira commenced with the winter solstice, and that the three seasons of Shishira, Vasanta and Grīshma were comprised in the Uttarâyaṇa as it was then understood. Now in the days of the Taittirīya Sanhitâ the winter solstice, as shown in the last chapter, fell in the month of Mâgha; and Mâgha and Phâlguna were therefore comprised in Shishira, and Chaitra and Vaishâkha in Vasanta. But in order that Sâyaṇa's explanation might be correct Phâlguna must fall in the Vasanta season which, as a matter of fact, it did not. In his commentary on the Baudhâyana Sûtras* and also in the Kâlamâdhavat Sâyaṇa tries to get over this difficulty by proposing a double Vasanta—lunar and solar, the lunar to include the months of Phâlguna and Chaitra, and the solar those of Chaitra and Vaishâkha, quoting amongst others, Rig. x., 85, 18, as an authority to show that the seasons were regulated by the moon. The authorities, however, are not explicit and therefore sufficient to maintain the two-fold character of the seasons; nor do I see the necessity of the two-fold character. It is true that the months in the calendar were all lunar, but the concurrence of the lunar and the solar year was always secured by inserting an intercalary month whenever necessary. Under such a system lunar seasons can have no permanent place. Now and then lunar months ceased, as they now do, to correspond with the seasons they represented, but this was at once set aright by the introduction of an intercalary month. If we, therefore, exclude the correction due to the precession of the equinoxes, which was too minute to be noticed till after hundreds of years, there was thus no reason why the lunar seasons should come to be regarded as a permanent institution. But even accepting Sâyaṇa's two-fold character of the seasons, it can be easily shewn that it does not support his conclusions. A lunar year is shorter than a solar year by 11 days. If the solar Vasanta, therefore, commences on the 1st day of the lunar Chaitra month this year, it will commence on the 12th day of Chaitra (lunar) next year and 11 days later still in the third year when by the introduction of an intercalary month the commencement of Vasanta will be again brought back to the 1st day of Chaitra. The two-fold character of the seasons may thus delay the beginning of Vasanta to Vaishâkha (lunar), but the season cannot be accelerated and brought back to Phâlguna. It is true that in the day of Sâyaṇa (14th century) Vasanta commenced, as it does now, in the month of Phâlguna; but it was so because the winter solstice had receded by over full one month by that time. Sâyaṇa does not appear to have fully realised the reason of this change and combining the occurrence of Vasanta in Phâlguna in his time with the occurrence of the same season in Chaitra in the days of the Taittirîyâ Sanhitâ and other works he attempted to reconcile the difference on the theory of the two-fold character of the seasons. But we can now better understand the change as due to the precession of the equinoxes, and must, in consequence, reject Sâyaṇa's explanation as unsatisfactory.