[909] Sprenger, p. 144.
[910] Wellhausen, Reste, p. 96; Vakidi, pp. 17 ff.
[911] I cannot go further into this, but refer to Ginzel, I, 243 ff., though he has far from exhausted the subject. Wellhausen’s treatment (l. c.) is suggestive but too dogmatic, and he leaves the nasî out of account. More recently Moberg has examined in detail the Arabian traditions: for particulars of his researches I refer to his paper, Den muhammedanska traditionen i fråga om an-nasî, St. Tegn., pp. 465 ff. His conclusion is that originally nasî was partly the term for the insertion of the intercalary month, and also probably the name of the intercalary month itself.
[912] For quotations see Sprenger, pp. 145 ff., also Albiruni, in Ginzel I, 245.
[913] See my Entstehung etc., p. 47.
[914] Sprenger’s hypothesis that the pre-Mohammedan Arabians had the lunar year but that the feast of pilgrims was held before the full moon preceding the spring equinox is also false: for the names of months shew that the feast was connected with a definite month.
[915] I give here the English translation of Sachau, p. 73, which adds rabi I in brackets as an explanation. I am indebted to Prof. Moberg for the literal translation of the passage:—“The first nasî fell in the muharram, and safar was called by this name and rabi I by the name safar, and from this they let the months revolve in the series. The second nasî fell in safar, and the month following that (rabi I: Sachau) was again called safar, and so on, until the nasî had run through all twelve months and came back again to muharram.” As a result of the first intercalation rabi I became safar, therefore rabi II = rabi I, after the second the names are pushed another stage forwards, therefore the original safar = after the first intercalation rabi I, after the second rabi II. I have added a reference to the original situation.
[916] Caussin, p. 349.
[918] Kugler, Erg., p. 153.