Whilst there is so much to look for and look at and think about, one thing must be sought for instantly after totality, or it will be gone for ever, and that is the Moon's shadow on the Earth. We have already seen in the last chapter the startling rapidity and solemnity with which the shadow seems to rush forward to the observer from the horizon on the western side of the Meridian. Passing over him, or even, so to speak, through him, it travels onwards in an easterly direction and very soon vanishes. Its visibility at all depends a good deal upon whether the observer, who is looking for it, is sufficiently raised above the adjacent country to be able to command at least a mile or two of ground. If he is in a hollow, he will have but little chance of seeing the shadow at all: on the other hand, if he is on the top of a considerable hill (or high up on the side of a hill), commanding the horizon for a distance of 10 or 20 miles, he will have a fair chance of seeing the shadow. Sir G. B. Airy states, in 1851, "My eye was caught by a duskiness in the S.E., and I immediately perceived that it was the Eclipse-shadow in the air, travelling away in the direction of the shadow's path. For at least six seconds, this shadow remained in sight, far more conspicuous to the eye than I had anticipated. I was once caught in a very violent hail and thunder-storm on the Table-land of the County of Sutherland called the "Moin," and I at length saw the storm travel away over the North Sea; and this view of the receding Eclipse-shadow, though by no means so dark, reminded me strongly of the receding storm. In ten or twelve seconds all appearance of the shadow had passed away."

Perhaps this may be a convenient place to make a note of what seems to be a fact, partly established at any rate, even if not wholly established, namely—that there seems some connection between eclipses of the Sun and Earthquakes. A German physicist named Ginzel[18] has found a score of coincidences between solar eclipses and earthquakes in California in the years between 1850 and 1888 inclusive. Of course there were eclipses without earthquakes and earthquakes without eclipses, but twenty coincidences in thirty-eight years seems suggestive of something.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 18: Himmel und Erde, vol. ii. pp. 255, 309; 1890.]



CHAPTER VIII.

ECLIPSES OF THE SUN MENTIONED IN HISTORY—CHINESE.

This is the first of several chapters which will be devoted to historical eclipses. Of course the total eclipse of the Sun of August 9, 1896, observed in Norway and elsewhere, is, in a certain sense, an eclipse mentioned in history, but that is not what is intended by the title prefixed to these chapters. By the term "historical eclipses," as used here, I mean eclipses which have been recorded by ancient historians and chroniclers who were not necessarily astronomers, and who wrote before the invention of the telescope. The date of this may be conveniently taken as a dividing line, so that I shall deal chiefly with eclipses which occurred before, say, the year 1600. There is another reason why some such date as this is a suitable one from which to take a new departure. Without at all avowing that superstition ceased on the Earth in the year 1600 (for there is far too large a residuum still available now, 300 years later), it may yet be said that the Revival of Letters did do a good deal to divest celestial phenomena of those alarming and panic-causing attributes which undoubtedly attached to them during the earlier ages of the world and during the "Dark Ages" in Western Europe quite as much as during any other period of the world's history. No one can examine the writings of the ancient Greek and Roman historians, and the chronicles kept in the monasteries of Western Europe by their monkish occupiers, without being struck by the influence of terror which such events as eclipses of the Sun and Moon and such celestial visitors as Comets and Shooting Stars exercised far and wide. And this influence overspread, not only the unlettered lower orders, but many of those in far higher stations of life who, one might have hoped, would have been exempt from such feelings of mental distress as they often exhibited. Illustrations of this fact will be adduced in due course.

It has always been supposed that the earliest recorded eclipse of the Sun is one thus mentioned in an ancient Chinese classic—the Chou-King (sometimes spelt Shou-Ching). The actual words used may be translated:—"On the first day of the last month of Autumn the Sun and Moon did not meet harmoniously in Fang." To say the least of it, this is a moderately ambiguous announcement, and Chinese scholars, both astronomers and non-astronomers, have spent a good deal of time in examining the various eclipses which might be thought to be represented by the inharmonious meeting of the Sun and the Moon as above recorded. To cut a long story short, it is generally agreed that we are here considering one or other of two eclipses of the Sun which occurred in the years 2136 or 2128 B.C. respectively, the Sun being then in the sidereal division "Fang," a locality determined by the stars [Greek: beta], [Greek: delta], [Greek: pi], and [Greek: rho]Scorpii, and which includes a few small stars in Libra and Ophiuchus to the N. and in Lupus to the S. How this simple and neat conclusion, which I have stated with such apparent dogmatism, was arrived at is quite another question, and it would hardly be consistent with the purpose of this volume to attempt to work it out in detail, but a few points presented in a summary form may be interesting.

In the first place, be it understood, that though it is fashionable to cast ridicule on John Chinaman, especially by way of retaliation for his calling us "Barbarians," yet it is a sure and certain fact that not only have the Chinese during many centuries been very attentive students of Astronomy, but that we Westerns owe a good deal of our present knowledge in certain departments to the information stored up by Chinese observers during many centuries both before and after the Christian Era.

This, however, is a digression. The circumstances of this eclipse as regards its identification having been carefully examined by Mr. R. W. Rothman,[19] in 1839 were further reviewed by Professor S. M. Russell in a paper published in the proceedings of the Pekin Oriental Society.[20] The substance of the case is that in the reign of Chung-K'ang, the fourth Emperor of the Hsia Dynasty, there occurred an eclipse of the Sun, which is interesting not only for its antiquity, but also for the dread fate of the two Astronomers Royal of the period, who were taken by surprise at its occurrence, and were unprepared to perform the customary rites. These rites were the shooting of arrows and the beating of drums, gongs, etc., with the object of delivering the Sun from the monster which threatened to devour it. The two astronomers by virtue of their office should have superintended these rites. They were, however, drunk and incapable of performing their duties, so that great turmoil ensued, and it was considered that the land was exposed to the anger of the gods. By way of appeasing the gods, and of suitably punishing the two State officials for their neglect and personal misconduct, they were forthwith put to death, a punishment which may be said to have been somewhat excessive, in view of the fact that the eclipse was not a total but only a partial one. An anonymous verse runs:—

Here lie the bodies of Ho and Hi, Whose fate though sad was visible— Being hanged because they could not spy Th' eclipse which was invisible.

It appears beyond all reasonable doubt that the eclipse in question occurred on October 22, 2136 B.C. The preliminary difficulties to be got over in arriving at the date arose from the fact that there was an uncertainty of 108 years in the date when the Emperor Chung-K'ang ascended the throne; and within these limits of time there were 14 possible years in which an eclipse of the Sun in Fang could have occurred. Then the number was further limited by the necessity of finding an eclipse which could have been seen at the place which was the Emperor's capital. The site of this, again, was a matter of some uncertainty. However, step by step, by a judicious process of exhaustion, the year 2136 B.C. was arrived at as the alternative to the previously received date of 2128 B.C. Considering that we are dealing with a matter which happened full 4000 years ago, it may fairly be said that this discrepancy is not perhaps much to be wondered at, seeing what disputes often happen nowadays as to the precise date of events which may have occurred but a few years or even a few months before the controversy springs up.

Professor Russell says that:—"Some admirers of the Chinese cite this eclipse as a proof of the early proficiency attained by the Chinese in astronomical calculations. I find no ground for that belief in the text. Indeed, for many centuries later, the Chinese were unable to predict the position of the Sun accurately among the stars. They relied wholly on observation to settle their calendar, year by year, and seem to have drawn no conclusions or deductions from their observations. Their calendar was continually falling into confusion. Even at the beginning of this dynasty, when the Jesuits came to China, the Chinese astronomers were unable to calculate accurately the length of the shadow of the Sun at the equinoxes and solstices. It seems to me therefore very improbable that they could have been able to calculate and predict eclipses."

I am not at all sure that this is quite a fair presentation of the case. I do not remember ever to have seen the power to predict eclipses ascribed to the Chinese, but it is a simple matter of fact that we owe to them during many centuries unique records of a vast number of celestial phenomena. Their observations of comets may be singled out as having been of inestimable value to various 19th-century computers, especially E. Biot and J. R. Hind.

The second recorded eclipse of the Sun would seem to be also due to the Chinese. Confucius relates that during the reign of the Emperor Yew-Wang an eclipse took place. This Emperor reigned between 781 B.C. and 771 B.C., and it has been generally thought that the eclipse of 775 B.C. is the one referred to, but Johnson doubts this on the ground that this eclipse was chiefly visible in the circumpolar regions, and if seen at all in China must have been of very small dimensions. He leans to the eclipse of June 4, 780 B.C. as the only large one which happened within the limits of time stated above.

An ancient Chinese historical work, known as the Chun-Tsew, written by Confucius, makes mention of a large number of solar eclipses which occurred before the Christian Era. This work came under the notice of M. Gaubil, one of the French Jesuit missionaries who laboured in China some century and a half ago, and he first gave an account of it in his Traite de la Chronologie Chinoise, published at Paris in 1770.[21]

The Chun-Tsew is said to be the only work really written by Kung-Foo-Tze, commonly known as Confucius, the other treatises attributed to him having been compiled by disciples of his either during his life-time or after his decease. The German chronologist, Ideler, was acquainted with this work, and in a paper of his own, presented to the Berlin Academy, remarked:—"What gives great interest to this work is the account of 36 solar eclipses observed in China, the first of which was on Feb. 22, 720 B.C., and the last on July 22, 495 B.C."

In 1863 Mr. John Williams, then Assistant Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, communicated to the Society in a condensed form the particulars of these eclipses as related in Confucius's book, together with some remarks on the book itself. The Chun-Tsew treats of a part of the history of the confederated nations into which China was divided during the Chow Dynasty, that is between 1122 B.C. and 255 B.C. The particular period dealt with is that which extended from 722 B.C. to 479 B.C. It was during the latter part of this interval of about 242 years that Confucius flourished. But the book is not quite a general history for it is more particularly devoted to the small State of Loo of which Confucius was a native, where he passed a great portion of his life, and where he was advanced to the highest honours. It contains the history of twelve princes of this State with incidental notices of the other confederated nations. The number of the years of each reign is accurately determined, and the events are classed under the years in which they occurred. Each year is divided into sections according to the four seasons, Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, and the sections are subdivided into months, and often the days are distinguished. The name Chun-Tsew is said to have been given to this work from its having been commenced in Spring and finished in Autumn, but Williams thinks that the name rather refers to the fact that its contents are divided into seasons as stated. The style in which it is written is very concise, being a bare mention of facts without comment, and although on this account it might appear to us dry and uninteresting, it is much valued by the Chinese as a model of the ancient style of writing. It forms one of the Woo-King or Five Classical Books, without a thorough knowledge of which, and of the Sze-Shoo or Four Books, no man can attain to any post of importance in the Chinese Empire.

The account of each eclipse is but little more than a brief mention of its occurrence at a certain time. The following is an example of the entries:—"In the 58th year of the 32nd cycle in the 51st year of the Emperor King-Wang, of the Chow Dynasty, the 3rd year of Yin-Kung, Prince of Loo, in the spring, the second moon, on the day called Kea-Tsze, there was an eclipse of the Sun." This 58th year of the 32nd cycle answers to 720 B.C. Mr. Williams in the year 1863 presented to the Royal Astronomical Society a paper setting out the whole of the eclipses of which I have cited but one example, converting, of course, the very complicated Chinese dates into European dates.

These Chinese records of eclipses were in 1864 subjected to examination by the late Sir G. B. Airy,[22] with results which were highly noteworthy, and justify us in reposing much confidence in Chinese astronomical work. Airy remarks:—"The period through which these eclipses extend is included in the time through which calculations of eclipses have been made in the French work entitled L'Art de verifier les Dates. I have several times had occasion to recalculate with great accuracy eclipses which are noted in that work (edition of 1820), and I have found that, to the limits of accuracy to which it pretends, and which are abundantly sufficient for the present purpose, it is perfectly trustworthy. I have therefore made a comparison of the Chun-Tsew eclipses with those of L'Art de verifier les Dates. The result is interesting. Of the 36 eclipses, 32 agree with those of the Art de verifier les Dates, not only in the day, but also in the general track of the eclipse as given in the Art de verifier, which appears to show sufficiently that the eclipse would be visible in that province of China to which the Chun-Tsew is referred." Airy then proceeds to point out that, with regard to the four eclipses which he could not confirm, there cannot have been eclipses in April 645 B.C. or in June 592 B.C. It appears, however, from a note by Williams, that the date attached to the eclipse of 645 B.C. is, in reality, an erroneous repetition (in the Chinese mode of expressing it) of that attached to the next following one, and in the absence of correct date it must be rejected. In the record of 592 B.C., June 16, no clerical error is found, and there must be an error of a different class. The eclipses of 552 B.C., September 19, and 549 B.C., July 18, to which there is nothing corresponding in the Art de verifier, are in a different category. These occur in the lunations immediately succeeding 552 B.C., August 20, and 549 B.C., June 19, respectively, and there is no doubt that those which agree with the Art de verifier were real eclipses. Now there cannot be eclipses visible at the same place in successive lunations, because the difference of the Moon's longitudes is about 29 deg., and the difference of latitudes is therefore nearly 3 deg., which is greater than the sum of the diameters of the Sun and Moon increased by any possible change of parallax for the same place. These, therefore, were not real eclipses. It seems probable that the nominal days were set down by the observer in his memorandum book as days on which eclipses were to be looked for. Airy conjectured that the eclipses of 552 B.C., August 20, and 549 B.C., June 19, were observed by one and the same person, and that he possessed science enough to make him connect the solar eclipses with the change of the Moon, but not enough to give him any idea of the limitations to the visibility of an eclipse.

On a subsequent occasion Mr. Williams laid before the Society a further list of solar eclipses observed in China, and extending from 481 B.C. to the Christian Era. He collected these from a Chinese historical work, entitled Tung-Keen-Kang-Muh. This work, which runs to 101 volumes, contains a summary of Chinese history from the earliest times to the end of the Yuen Dynasty, A.D. 1368, and was first published about 1473. The copy in Mr. Williams's possession was published in 1808. The text is very briefly worded, and consists merely of an account of the accessions and deaths of the emperors and of the rulers of the minor states, with some of the more remarkable occurrences in each reign. The appointments and deaths of various eminent personages are also noticed, together with special calamities such as earthquakes, inundations, storms, etc. The astronomical allusions include eclipses and comets. Amongst the eclipses are also all, or most of those which are recorded in the Chun-Tsew as having occurred prior to 479 B.C. Though no particular expressions are used to define the exact character of the eclipses, it is to be presumed that some of them must have been total, because it is stated that the stars were visible, albeit that seemingly in only one instance is a word attached which specifically expresses the idea of totality. Here again all the dates were expressed in Chinese style, but, as published by Williams, were rendered, as before, in European style by aid of chronological tables, published about 1860 in Japan. Mr. Williams, in his second paper, from which I have been quoting, states that he brought his published account down to the Christian Era only as a matter of convenience, but that he had in hand a further selection of eclipses from the Tung-Keen-Kang-Muh, the interval from the Christian Era to the 4th century A.D. yielding nearly 100 additional eclipses. This further transcript has not yet been published, but remains in MS. in the Library of the Royal Astronomical Society. Mr. Williams died in 1874 at the age of 77, one of the most experienced Chinese scholars of the century.

It is remarkable that none of the Chinese annals to which reference has been made include any mention of eclipses of the Moon; but the records of Comets are exceedingly numerous and, as I have already stated, have proved of the highest value to astronomers who have been called upon to investigate the ancient history of Comets.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 19: Memoirs, R.A.S., vol. xi. p. 47.]

[Footnote 20: Republished in the Observatory Magazine, vol. xviii. p. 323, et seq., 1895.]

[Footnote 21: A good deal of information respecting Chinese eclipse records, so far as known up to the beginning of the 19th-century, will be found in Delambre's Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne. Paris, 1817.]

[Footnote 22: Month. Not., R.A.S., vol. xxiv. p. 41.]



CHAPTER IX.

ARE ECLIPSES ALLUDED TO IN THE BIBLE?

An interesting question has been suggested: Are there any allusions to eclipses to be found in Holy Scripture? It seems safe to assert that there is at least one, and that there may be three or four.

In Amos viii. 9 we read:—"I will cause the Sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the Earth in the clear day." This language is so very explicit and applies so precisely to the circumstances of a solar eclipse that commentators are generally agreed that it can have but one meaning;[23] and accordingly it is considered to refer without doubt to one or other of the following eclipses:—791 B.C., 771 B.C., 770 B.C., or 763 B.C. Archbishop Usher,[24] the well-known chronologist, suggested the first three more than two centuries ago, whilst the eclipse of 763 B.C. was suggested in recent times and is now generally accepted as the one referred to. The circumstances connected with the discovery and identification of the eclipse of 763 B.C. are very interesting.

The date when Amos wrote is set down in the margin of our Bibles as 787 B.C. and if this date is correct it follows that for his statement to have been a prediction he must be alluding to some eclipse of later date than 787 B.C. This obvious assumption not only shuts out the eclipse of 791 B.C., but opens the door to the acceptance of the eclipse of 763 B.C.

Apparently the first modern writer who looked into the matter after Archbishop Usher was the German commentator Hitzig who suggested the eclipse of Feb. 9, 784 B.C. Dr. Pusey was so far taken with this idea that he thought it worth while to secure the co-operation of the Rev. R. Main, F.R.A.S., the Radcliffe Observer at Oxford, for the purpose of a full investigation. Mr. Main had the circumstances of that eclipse calculated, with the result that though the eclipse was indeed total in Africa and Hindostan, yet at Samaria it was only partial and of no considerable magnitude. Dr. Pusey's words, summing up the situation are:—"The eclipse then would hardly have been noticeable at Samaria, certainly very far indeed from being an eclipse of such magnitude, as could in any degree correspond with the expression, 'I will cause the Sun to go down at noon.'" ... "Beforehand, one should not have expected that an eclipse of the Sun, being itself a regular natural phenomenon, and having no connection with the moral government of God, should have been the subject of the prophet's prediction. Still it had a religious impressiveness then, above what it has now, on account of that wide-prevailing idolatry of the Sun. It exhibited the object of their false worship, shorn of its light, and passive."

Dr. Pusey's Commentary from which the above quotation is made[25] bears the date 1873, but he appears not to have been acquainted with the important discovery announced no less than six years previously by the distinguished Oriental scholar, Sir H. C. Rawlinson. The discovery to which I allude is a contemporary record on an Assyrian tablet of a solar eclipse which was seen at Nineveh about 24 years after the reputed date of Amos's prophecy. This tablet had been described by Dr. Hinckes in the British Museum Report for 1854 but its chronological importance had not then been realised. Sir H. Rawlinson[26] speaks of the tablet as a record of or register of the annual archons at Nineveh. He says:—"In the eighteenth year before the accession of Tiglath-Pileser there is a notice to the following effect—'In the month Sivan an eclipse of the Sun took place' and to mark the great importance of the event a line is drawn across the tablet although no interruption takes place in the official order of the Eponymes. Here then we have notice of a solar eclipse which was visible at Nineveh which occurred within 90 days of the (vernal) equinox (taking that as the normal commencement of the year) and which we may presume to have been total from the prominence given to the record, and these are conditions which during a century before and after the era of Nabonassar are alone fulfilled by the eclipse which took place on June 15, 763."

This record was submitted to Sir G. B. Airy and Mr. J. R. Hind, and the circumstances of the eclipse were computed by the latter, by the aid of Hansen's Lunar Tables and Le Verrier's Solar Tables. The result, when plotted on a map, showed that the shadow line just missed the site of Nineveh, but that a very slight and unimportant deviation from the result of the Tables would bring the shadow over the city of Nineveh where the eclipse was observed, and over Samaria where it was predicted. The identification of this eclipse, both as regards its time and place, has also proved a matter of importance in the revision of Scripture chronology, by lowering, to the extent of 25 years, the reigns of the kings of the Jewish monarchy. The need for this revision is further confirmed, if we assume that the celebrated incident in the life of King Hezekiah, described as the retrogradation of the Sun's shadow on the dial of Ahaz, is to be interpreted as connected with a partial eclipse of the Sun.

We will now consider this event, and see what can be made out of it. One Scripture record (2 Kings xx. 11) is as follows:—"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." This passage has greatly exercised commentators of all creeds in different ages of the Church; and the most divergent opinions have been expressed as to what happened. This has been due to two causes jointly. Not only is the occurrence incomprehensible, looked at on the surface of the words, but we are entirely ignorant of the construction of the so-called "dial" of Ahaz, and have little or no material directly available from outside sources to enable us to come to a clear and safe conclusion. No doubt, however, it was a sun-dial, or gnomon of some kind. Bishop Wordsworth lays stress on the apparent assertion that the miracle was not wrought on any other dial at Jerusalem except that of Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, and he treats as a confirmation of this the statement in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31, that ambassadors came from Babylon to Jerusalem, being curious to learn all about "the wonder that had been done in the land" (i.e. in the land of Judah). But there is more taken for granted here than is necessary, or, as we shall presently see, is justifiable. To begin with, how do we know that there was any other dial at Jerusalem like that of Ahaz? But, in point of fact, we must make a new departure altogether, for it has been suggested (I know not exactly by whom, or when for the first time) that an eclipse of the Sun, under certain circumstances, would explain all that happened, and reconcile all that has to be reconciled. What happened to Hezekiah is thought by many to imply clearly a miracle, and it may be said that an eclipse of the Sun cannot be held to be a miracle[27] by the ordinary definition of the word. But, on the other hand, it certainly might count as such in the eyes of ignorant spectators, who know nothing of the theory or practice of eclipses, and who would regard such a thing as quite unforeseen, unexpected, and alarming. Illustrations of this might be multiplied from all parts of the world, in all ages of the world's history.

Let us see now what the argument is, as it was worked out by the late Mr. J. W. Bosanquet, F.R.A.S. Shortly before the invasion of Judaea by Sennacherib—say in the beginning of the year 689 B.C.—Hezekiah was sick unto death. In answer to his fervent prayer for recovery the prophet Isaiah was sent to him with this message:—"Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy Father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years ... and I will defend this city, and this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that He hath spoken. Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz ten degrees backward. So the Sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it had gone down." (Isaiah xxxviii. 5-8).

In these words we evidently have mention of some instrument erected in Hezekiah's palace, in the days of his father Ahaz, for showing the change in the position of the shadow cast by the Sun from day to day. This statement is confirmed by a profane writer, Glycas, who states: "They say that Ahaz, by some contrivance, had erected in his palace certain steps, which showed the hours of the day, and also measured the course of the Sun."

The idea involved in "bringing again," through "ten degrees backward," "the shadow of the degrees" which had gone down, is very noteworthy. We seem intended to learn from these words several things. For one thing (to begin with) that the steps (as we must consider them to have been) on this sun-dial of Ahaz, were turned away from the Sun. For only in that position could they cast their shadow, or could the number of the illuminated steps be varied, upwards or downwards, according to the varying altitude of the sun. The only conceivable use of a fixed instrument so placed would be to show the rise and fall of the shadow from day to day, as the Sun on the meridian gradually rose higher between mid-winter and mid-summer, or descended lower between mid-summer and mid-winter, in passing of course through the winter and summer solstices in turn. No simple motion of the Sun in its ordinary diurnal progress would produce the effect described. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the shadow cast by a gnomon properly adjusted at the head of such a series of steps would travel upwards and downwards upon the steps "with the Sun," from winter to summer and from summer to winter, indicating at each noon the meridian altitude of the Sun from day to day, the latitude of Jerusalem being 31 deg. 47', and the Sun's altitude there on the shortest day being 34 deg. 41'. If the gnomon were raised above the topmost step so as to bring the tip of the gnomon or any aperture in it so much above the step as would be the equivalent of 2 deg. 54' or slightly more, then the top of the shadow of the gnomon (or a spot of light passing through a hole in it) would, on the shortest day of the year, fall just beyond the lowermost step. An instrument constructed on the principle just set forth was known to and used by the Greek astronomers of antiquity under the name of a Sciotheron or shadow-taker. Sometimes, and perhaps more properly, it was called a Heliotropion, that is, an instrument designed to indicate the turning of the Sun at the Tropics.[28] This, be it remembered, was information needed by the ancients for the correct regulation of the seasons of the year, and of special service to the Jews whose greater festivals were fixed in connection with the seasons. There is reason to believe that instruments of this character were of early invention, going back perhaps to the times of Homer, for we find a passage in the Odyssey, (xv. 403) as follows:—

"Above Ortygia lies an isle of fame Far hence remote, and Syria [Syros] is the name; There curious eyes inscrib'd with wonder trace The Sun's diurnal and his summer race."

Pope's rendering of this passage fails, however, to bring out the salient idea involved. Butcher and Lang translate the passage thus:—"There is a certain isle called Syria, if haply thou hast heard tell of it, over above Ortygia, and there are the turning-places of the Sun." Merry[29] calls these island names mere "inventions of the poet." It seems to me a great question whether Homer's words really support the statement I have made just before quoting it.

Diogenes Laertius refers to this same instrument when he speaks of the Heliotropion preserved in the Island of Syra.[30]

According to Laertius, Anaximander[31] was the first Greek to use gnomons, which he placed on the Sciothera of Lacedaemon, for the express purpose of indicating the Tropics and Equinoxes. These Sciothera were pyramidal in form.

An obelisk was the simplest, though an imperfect form of Heliotropion, marking indistinctly the length of a shadow at different times of the year, especially the extremes of length and shortness at mid-winter and mid-summer. It is perhaps interesting to mention that travellers have recorded, in various places, various devices for furnishing information respecting these matters. For instance, in Milan Cathedral the meridian line is marked on the pavement, and along this line, an image of the Sun coming through an aperture in the southern wall travels backwards and forwards during the year according to the seasons. Some Jesuit missionaries who visited China about the middle of the last century, noticed a device of this character in operation at the Observatory at Pekin. A gnomon had been set up in a low room and one of the missionaries, M. Le Comte, describes in the following words what they saw in connection with this gnomon:—"The aperture through which the rays of the Sun came was about 8 ft. above the floor; it is horizontal and formed of two pieces of copper, which may be turned so as to be farther from, or closer to, each other to enlarge or contract the aperture. Lower was a table with a brass plate in the middle on which was traced a meridian line 15 ft. long, divided by transverse lines which are neither finished nor exact. All round the table there are small channels to receive the water, whereby it is to be levelled."[32]

All this may seem rather a digression, and so it is, but I am following Mr. Bosanquet herein in order the better to justify the argument that it was an eclipse of the Sun which marked the important incident in Hezekiah's life which has been handed down to us by the sacred writer. It is evident that if a flight of steps were erected on the principles which were set forth above, the steps sloping upwards and southwards (for the Northern Hemisphere) from the lowest step to within a few inches below an aperture in the gnomon suitably arranged, the ray or image of the Sun, whichever it was, would travel day by day up and down such steps between solstice and solstice. We may conclude, therefore, that the instrument which Hezekiah gazed at, and which is called in Scripture, the "Dial" of Ahaz, was what the Greeks would have termed a Heliotropion.

The historian's record is to the effect that on the day of Hezekiah's recovery an extraordinary motion of the shadow was observed on the "Steps of Ahaz" by the rising of the shadow "ten steps" from the point to which it had "gone down with the Sun." This effect is spoken of not as a miracle but as "a sign." It should also be remembered that the cure of Hezekiah was effected not by a miracle but by a simple application of a lump of figs. The promise of his recovery was confirmed by the motion of the shadow as already stated. We are justified, therefore, in looking for some ordinary natural phenomenon by which to account for this peculiar motion on the dial, and something miraculous is not essential. Dean Milman once suggested that the effect might have been produced "by a cloud refracting the light." No doubt a dark cloud might produce an apparent interference with the shadow, but it is well pointed out by Bosanquet that such a cause as a cloud would have been so manifest to everyone, and the effect so transient, that the phenomenon could hardly have been referred to afterwards as it was in another place as "a wonder that was done in the land." (2 Chron. xxxii. 31).

It becomes, therefore, alike an obvious and a simple explanation that a shadow caused by the Sun might be deflected downwards on such an instrument with a regular and steady motion by the Moon passing slowly over the upper part of the Sun's disc, as Sun and Moon both approached the meridian.

The critical question has now to be raised: "Can astronomers inform us whether a considerable eclipse of the Sun occurred at the beginning of the year 689 B.C. anywhere near noon and which was visible at Jerusalem?" And the answer to this it is interesting to be able to say is a plain and distinct affirmative. There was a large partial eclipse of the Sun on January 11, 689 B.C., about 11.30 A.M., and it was the upper limb which underwent eclipse.

This eclipse fulfils all the requirements of the case, both from the historian's and the astronomer's point of view. It occurred about the year fixed by Demetrius as that of Hezekiah's illness: it occurred while the Sun was approaching and actually passing the meridian; the obscuration was on that part of the Sun's disc (namely the upper part) which would have had the effect of causing the point of light, which would seem to emanate from the Sun, to appear to be depressed downwards; and it was visible at Jerusalem. But there still remains for consideration the final and most important question, "Would a deflection of light proceeding from the Sun, regarded as a moving body, be capable of affecting, to the extent of 'ten steps,' the shadow on such an instrument as has been described?" And arising out of this, there is the subordinate question, "Would January, being the month when this eclipse certainly occurred, also be a month suitable for the exhibition of such a phenomenon?"

It is ascertainable by calculation that the time occupied by the Moon in passing over the Sun, in the way it did during this eclipse, was about 21/2 hours. But from the time of central conjunction, when the obscuration was the greatest and the point of light depressed the most, to the time when the uppermost portion of the Sun's disc was released by the eastward motion of the Moon, and the light from that uppermost portion was again manifest, was about 20 minutes, and this, therefore, was the time during which the phenomenon of retrogression on the "steps" would have been exhibited to the King's eyes. Assuming then that the time when the ascending shadow had travelled upwards to the tenth step coincided, or nearly so, with the time when the Sun had reached its highest altitude for the day, at noon, we infer that the time of central conjunction during this eclipse was not later than from 20 to 15 minutes before noon. It could not have been much earlier, because the phenomenon of the resting of the shadow for a time at its apparently highest point for the day (which preceded the promise that it should rise ten steps) has also to be accounted for, and this cessation of its motion upwards could not have taken place till about 25 minutes before noon, when the decreasing motion of the Sun in altitude (or its slackening motion upwards as it approached mid-day) would have become counteracted by the coming on of the eclipse. Now at 11.35 A.M. the sun's disc would have risen to the altitude of 35 deg. 8'; and the highest visible point of light would, owing to the eclipse, then have been about 35 deg. 4'; and at 11.40 A.M., being the time of greatest obscuration, the extreme cusps of light produced by the intervention of the Moon would still have stood at about 35 deg. 4', just 23' below the highest point of light at noon (Fig. 12). The whole disc of the sun had now risen above the gnomon, yet no motion of the shadow on the steps had been observed for fully five minutes. The time shown by the dial was seemingly mid-day.



Sun's apparent semi-diameter 16' 13" Moon's " " 15' 13" Moon's relative hourly motion in declination 5' 44" northward. Right ascension, 29' 33" eastward. Corrected for Jerusalem, 19' 42" eastward. Altitude of the Gnomon, 34 deg. 41' 13".

SUN'S ALTITUDE BEFORE AND AT NOON.



We have now to consider "to what extent would a staircase rising at an angle of 31 deg. 47' towards the Sun, with a gnomon so placed at the top as to cast a shadow to the foot of the lower step on the shortest day of the year be affected by a movement in a perpendicular direction of the point of light to the extent of 23', or 1/3 of a degree"? The effect would be widely different at different times of the year, being greatest at mid-winter when the shadows are longest, and least at mid-summer when the shadows are shortest. It follows from this that January 13 being a day but three weeks removed from mid-winter day the normal shadow would be not far from its longest possible length, and the effect of a displacement of 23' would be neither more nor less than 1/12th of the whole range of the steps whatever that range might have been. This extent of motion, then, is fully sufficient to satisfy the condition prescribed by the Biblical narrative of there being such a deflection of the Sun's light as would affect the shadow to the extent implied by the words "ten steps" or "ten degrees," which is virtually the same idea. The same extent of motion could not have been produced under the same conditions either a few days earlier or a few days later; that may certainly be taken for granted. And the only point in which we are necessarily in doubt arises from the fact that we are ignorant of the actual number and nature of the graduations of Ahaz's so-called "Dial." If it were permissible to assume that there were 120 graduations on the instrument, be they steps properly so-called on a structure erected in the open air or be they lines on a flat surface on some instrument standing in a room, or what not, then the problem is solved, for 1/12 (as above) of 120 is ten—the "ten degrees" stated in the history.

As to whether the "dial" of Ahaz was a device built up of masonry in the open air or was an instrument for indoor use we know absolutely nothing, and speculation is useless. There is something to be said on both sides. Bosanquet, on abstract grounds, leans to the latter view; on the other hand he calls attention to the present existence in India, at Delhi and Benares, of ruined Hindoo observatories in the form of huge masonry sun-dials many yards in length and breadth and height.[33]

Finally it may be pointed out that there is some incidental confirmation to be found for this Hezekiah incident having happened in winter. That the season of the year was winter seems to be suggested by the word used in the original Hebrew in connection with the return of the shadow.

"Backward" in Isaiah xxxviii. 8 might also be translated, "From the end." It would be very natural to hold that this implied that the motion of the shadow was upwards from the lower end of the group of steps towards which the shadow had gone down. Now the lower end of the steps could only have been the place of the shadow in December or January at or near the time of the winter solstice. Moreover the mention of the "lump of figs" seems to suggest the winter season. A cake of figs means dried figs, not newly gathered summer figs.

Putting all the facts together we may fairly conclude that the astronomical event which happened in connection with Hezekiah's illness was an eclipse of the Sun, and that its date was January 11, 689 B.C.

A few other Scripture passages need a passing mention. In Isaiah xiii. 10 we read:—

"The Sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the Moon shall not cause her light to shine." It has been thought by Johnson that this passage is an allusion to an eclipse of the Sun, and so it might be; but on the other hand, it may be no more than one of those highly figurative phrases which abound in holy Scripture, and of which the well-known passage, "The stars in their courses fought against Sisera" (Judges v. 20), is a familiar example.

In Jeremiah x. 2 we read:—

"Be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them." This is cited as an eclipse allusion by Johnson, who points out that the utterance of this caution preceded by about fifteen years the celebrated eclipse of Thales (585 B.C.). But surely this is far-fetched. I shall be inclined to attach the same criticism to his next citation. Ezekiel employs these expressions:—"When I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the Sun with a cloud, and the Moon shall not give her light" (xxxii. 7). This language resembles, in no small degree, Isaiah's, already quoted, and, like that, might apply to the phenomenon of a solar eclipse, but whether that was actually the prophet's intention is another matter. He may have witnessed the eclipse of 585 B.C. on the banks of the river Chebar, and that spectacle may have put this imagery into his head. Further than this it seems hardly safe to go.

This seems an appropriate place to mention a very interesting matter, to which attention has been called by Oriental scholars in recent times, who have investigated Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, and other monuments of the same type. The story would be a long and interesting one if presented in detail, and would far exceed my limits of space. I must, therefore, be content with such a summary as that which has been worked out by Mr. E. W. Maunder. Briefly the facts are these. There are to be found in many places carvings in stone, symbolic of the Sun-god once worshipped in the East. The general design, with of course variations, is a circle with striated wings extending right and left to two diameters of the wing, more or less, with a lesser extension in a downward direction. Allowing for the roughness of the art, and for the fact that the material was stone, it does not require any very great stretch of imagination to see in these carvings the disc of a totally-eclipsed Sun with, right and left and below it, that form of corona which we have come to associate with total eclipses occurring at periods of Sun-spot minima.[34] This idea should not seem far-fetched if we bear in mind the fact that the ancient Orientals worshipped the Sun, Moon, and Planets; and one of the natural outcomes of this is submitted for our consideration by Maunder in the words following[35]:—

"There can be little doubt that the Sun was regarded partly as a symbol, partly as a manifestation of the unseen, unapproachable Divinity. Its light and heat, its power of calling into active exercise the mysterious forces of germination and ripening, the universality of its influence, all seemed the fit expressions of the yet greater powers which belonged to the Invisible. What happened in a total solar eclipse? For a short time that which seemed so perfect a divine symbol was completely hidden. The light and heat, the two great forms of solar energy, were withdrawn, but something took their place. A mysterious light of mysterious form, unlike any other light, unlike any other single form, was seen in its place. Could they fail to see in this a closer, a more intimate revelation, a more exalted symbolism of the Divine Nature and Presence? Just as in the various Greek 'mysteries' the student was gradually advanced from one set of symbols to another even more abstruse and esoteric, so here, on the broad face of heaven itself, vouchsafed for a brief space of time and at long intervals apart, the Deity revealed Himself to the initiated by a higher and more difficult symbol than ordinarily. The symbol would vary in shape. We may take it for granted that the old Chaldeans, as modern astronomers to-day, had at one time or another presented to them every type of Coronal structure. But there would, no doubt, be a difficulty in grasping or remembering the irregular details of the Corona as seen in most eclipses. It occasionally happens, however, that the Corona shows itself under a form of grand and striking simplicity. It is now widely recognised that the typical Corona of the minimum of the Sun-spot cycle consists chiefly of two great equatorial streamers."

Maunder then goes on to cite certain American pictures by Trouvelot and others of the eclipse of July 29, 1878, in which the great extension of the Corona to the East and the West is specially shown. One drawing in particular, by Miss K. E. Wolcott, exhibits the Sun with a perfect bright ring round it from which the Coronal streamers emanate in the directions mentioned. Maunder then remarks that he has a strong conviction that it was a Corona of this type which was the origin of the "Ring with Wings," the symbol which on Assyrian monuments is always shown as floating over the head of the ring which is designed to indicate the presence and protection of the Deity. In the article cited he gives illustrations of two forms under which the "Ring with Wings" appears on Assyrian and Egyptian monuments respectively, remarking that "Egyptians too were Astronomers and Sun-worshippers and were experts in the language of symbols. Equally with the Chaldeans the Egyptian priests should have regarded the Corona as a symbolical revelation of the Deity whose usual manifestation they recognised in the Sun, and accordingly we find them employing a symbol which is almost as perfect a representation of the Corona of minimum as that which the Assyrians adopted." Another curious point commented upon by Maunder is that the Assyrians frequently insert the figure of their Deity within the ring, and attach thereto a kilt-like dress. Even when they show the ring without the figure the "kilt," as it may be called, is still there, indicating that it is not simply a garment worn by the figure, but an integral part of the symbol. This "kilt" is represented as pleated, and the resemblance of the pleatings to the polar rays shown in Trouvelot's drawing of the Corona, is "practically perfect." On this point Maunder adds:—"If this be a mere chance coincidence, it seems to me a most extraordinary one." He concludes by saying that these symbols, so frequently met with, and so clearly designed to indicate the presence of the Deity, "are, in their origin, drawings of the solar Corona, as seen at the Sun-spot minimum, and as such are the earliest eclipse representations which have been preserved to us."

I give these ideas for what they are worth; they are very ingeniously worked out, and though the argument is not conclusive, yet I do think that there is enough in it to be worth attention.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 23: Less certain is the allusion in Amos v. 8:—"Seek him that ... maketh the day dark with night."]

[Footnote 24: Annales, A.M., 3213, p. 45. Folio Ed.]

[Footnote 25: Minor Prophets, p. 217.]

[Footnote 26: Athenaeum, May 18, 1867.]

[Footnote 27: After all, do the circumstances necessarily presuppose a "miracle"? Hezekiah had only asked for a "sign." In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 the word "wonder" is applied to the event.]

[Footnote 28: Hence the word "Tropic," from [Greek: trepo] (I turn).]

[Footnote 29: Homer, Odyssey, vol. ii. p. 255. Clarendon Press Series.]

[Footnote 30: Life of Pherecydes, sec. 6.]

[Footnote 31: Life of Anaximander, sec. 3.]

[Footnote 32: Du Halde's "China," 3rd edition, 1741, vol. iii. p. 86.]

[Footnote 33: Paper by W. Hunter in Asiatic Researches, vol. v., p. 190. The Benares Observatory is described by Sir R. Barker in Phil. Trans., vol. lxvii., p. 598. 1777.]

[Footnote 34: See p. 70 (ante).]

[Footnote 35: Knowledge, vol. xx., p. 9, January 1897.]



CHAPTER X.

ECLIPSES OF THE SUN MENTIONED IN HISTORY—CLASSICAL.

In this chapter we shall, for the most part, be on firmer ground than hitherto, because several of the most eminent Greek and Latin historians have left on record full and circumstantial accounts of eclipses which have come under their notice, and which have been more or less completely verified by the computations and researches of astronomers in modern times. But these remarks do not, however, quite apply to the first eclipse which will be mentioned.

Plutarch, in his Life of Romulus, refers to some remarkable incident connected, in point of time at any rate, with his death:—"The air on that occasion was suddenly convulsed and altered in a wonderful manner, for the light of the Sun failed, and they were involved in an astonishing darkness, attended on every side with dreadful thunderings and tempestuous winds." This so-called darkness is considered to have been the same as that mentioned by Cicero.[36] There is so much myth about Romulus that it is not safe to write in confident language. Nevertheless it is a fact, according to Johnson, that there was a very large eclipse of the Sun visible at Rome in the afternoon of May 26, 715 B.C., and 715 B.C. is supposed to have been the year, or about the year, of the death of Romulus. Plutarch is also responsible for the statement that a great eclipse of the Sun took place sometime before the birth of Romulus; and if there is anything in this statement Johnson thinks that the annular eclipse of November 28, 771 B.C., might meet the circumstances of the case, but too much romance attaches to the history of Romulus for anyone to write with assurance respecting the circumstances of his career. Much of it is generally considered to be fabulous.

In one of the extant fragments of the Greek poet Archilochus (said to be the first who introduced iambics into his verses), the following sentence occurs:—"Zeus the father of the Olympic Gods turned mid-day into night hiding the light of the dazzling sun; an overwhelming dread fell upon men." The poet's language may evidently apply to a total eclipse of the Sun; and investigations by Oppolzer and Millosevich make it probable that the reference is to the total eclipse of the Sun which happened on April 6, 648 B.C. This was total at about 10 a.m. at Thasos and in the northern part of the AEgean Sea. The acceptance of this date displaces by about half a century the date commonly assigned for the poet's career, but this is not thought to be of much account having regard to the hazy character of Grecian chronology before the Persian wars.[37]

On May 28, 585 B.C. there occurred an eclipse the surrounding circumstances of which present several features of particular interest. One of the most celebrated of the astronomers of antiquity was Thales of Miletus, and his astronomical labours were said to have included a prediction of this eclipse, which moreover has the further interest to us that it has assisted chronologists and historians in fixing the precise date of an important event in ancient history. Herodotus[38] describing a war which had been going on for some years between the Lydians and the Medes gives the following account of the circumstances which led to its premature termination:—"As the balance had not inclined in favour of either nation, another engagement took place in the sixth year of the war, in the course of which, just as the battle was growing warm, day was suddenly turned into night. This event had been foretold to the Ionians by Thales of Miletus, who predicted for it the very year in which it actually took place. When the Lydians and Medes observed the change they ceased fighting, and were alike anxious to conclude peace." Peace was accordingly agreed upon and cemented by a twofold marriage. "For (says the historian) without some strong bond, there is little security to be found in men's covenants." The exact date of this eclipse was long a matter of discussion, and eclipses which occurred in 610 B.C. and 593 B.C. were each thought at one time or another to have been the one referred to. The question was finally settled by the late Sir G. B. Airy, after an exhaustive inquiry, in favour of the eclipse of 585 B.C. This date has the further advantage of harmonising certain statements made by Cicero and Pliny as to its having happened in the 4th year of the 48th Olympiad.

Another word or two may be interesting as regards the share which Thales is supposed to have had in predicting this eclipse, the more so, that very high authorities in the domains of astronomy, and chronology, and antiquities take opposite sides in the matter. Sir G. C. Lewis, Bart., M.P., may be cited first as one of the unbelievers. He says[39] that Thales is "reported to have predicted it to the Ionians. If he had predicted it to the Lydians, in whose country the eclipse was to be total, his conduct would be intelligible, but it seems strange that he should have predicted it to the Ionians who had no direct interest in the event." Bosanquet replies to this by pointing out that Miletus, in Ionia, was the birthplace of Thales, and also that a shadow, covering two degrees of latitude, passing through Ionia, would also necessarily cover Lydia.

Another dissentient is Sir H. C. Rawlinson,[40] who, remembering that Thales is said to have predicted a good olive crop, and Anaxagoras the fall of an aerolite, says:—"The prediction of this eclipse by Thales may fairly be classed with the prediction of a good olive crop, or the fall of an aerolite. Thales, indeed, could only have obtained the requisite knowledge for predicting eclipses from the Chaldeans; and that the science of these astronomers, although sufficient for the investigation of lunar eclipses, did not enable them to calculate solar eclipses—dependent as such a calculation is, not only on the determination of the period of recurrence, but on the true projection also of the track of the Sun's shadow along a particular line over the surface of the earth—may be inferred from our finding that in the astronomical canon of Ptolemy, which was compiled from the Chaldean registers, the observations of the Moon's eclipse are alone entered."

Airy[41] replied to these observations as follows:—"I think it not at all improbable that the eclipse was so predicted, and there is one easy way, and only one of predicting it—namely, by the Saros, or period of 18 years, 10 days, 8 hours nearly. By use of this period an evening eclipse may be predicted from a morning eclipse but a morning eclipse can rarely be predicted from an evening eclipse (as the interval of eight hours after an evening eclipse will generally throw the eclipse at the end of the Saros into the hours of night). The evening eclipse, therefore, of B.C. 585, May 28, which I adopt as being most certainly the eclipse of Thales, might be predicted from the morning eclipse of B.C. 603, May 17.... No other of the eclipses discussed by Baily and Oltmanns present the same facility for prediction."

Xenophon[42] mentions an eclipse as having led to the capture by the Persians of the Median city Larissa. In the retreat of the Greeks on the eastern side of the Tigris, they crossed the river Zapetes and also a ravine, and then reached the Tigris. According to Xenophon, they found at this place a large deserted city formerly inhabited by the Medes. Its wall was 25 feet thick and 100 feet high; its circumference 2 parasangs [= 71/2 miles]. It was built of burnt brick on an under structure of stone 20 feet in height. Xenophon then proceeds to say that "when the Persians obtained the Empire from the Medes, the King of the Persians besieged the city but was unable by any means to take it till a cloud having covered the Sun and caused it to disappear completely, the inhabitants withdrew in alarm, and thus the city was captured. Close to this city was a pyramid of stone, one plethrum in breadth, two plethra in height.... Thence the Greeks proceeded six parasangs to a great deserted castle by a city called Mespila formerly inhabited by the Medes; the substructure of its wall was of squared stone abounding in shells ... the King of the Persians besieged it but could not take it; Zeus terrified the inhabitants with thunderbolts, and so the city was taken."

The minute description here given by Xenophon enabled Sir A. H. Layard, Captain Felix Jones, and others, to identify Larissa with the modern Nimrud and Mespila with Mosul. A suspicion is thrown out in some editions of the Anabasis that the language cited might refer to an eclipse of the Sun. It is to be noted, however, that it is not included by Ricciolus in the list of eclipses mentioned in ancient writers which he gives in his Almagestum Novum. Sir G. B. Airy, having had his attention called to the matter, examined roughly all the eclipses which occurred during a period of 40 years, covering the supposed date implied by Xenophon. Having selected two, he computed them accurately but found them inapplicable. He then tried another (May 19, 557 B.C.) which he had previously passed over because he doubted its totality, and he had the great satisfaction of finding that the eclipse, though giving a small shadow, had been total, and that it had passed so near to Nimrud that there could be no doubt of its being the eclipse sought.

Sir G. B. Airy was such a very careful worker and investigator of eclipses that his conclusions in this matter have met with general acceptance. It must, however, in fairness be stated that a very competent American astronomer, Professor Newcomb, has expressed doubts as to whether after all Xenophon's allusion is to an eclipse, but, judging by his closing words, the learned American does not seem quite satisfied with his own scepticism, for he says—"Notwithstanding my want of confidence, I conceive the possibility of a real eclipse to be greater than in the eclipse of Thales, while we have the great advantages that the point of occurrence is well defined, the shadow narrow, and, if it was an eclipse at all, the circumstance of totality placed beyond serious doubt."[43]

In the same year as that in which, according to the common account, the battle of Salamis was fought (480 B.C.), there occurred a phenomenon which is thus adverted to by Herodotus[44]—"At the first approach of Spring the army quitted Sardis and marched towards Abydos; at the moment of its departure the Sun suddenly quitted its place in the heavens and disappeared though there were no clouds in sight and the day was quite clear; day was thus turned into night." We are told[45] that "As the king was going against Greece, and had come into the region of the Hellespont, there happened an eclipse of the Sun in the East; this sign portended to him his defeat, for the Sun was eclipsed in the region of its rising, and Xerxes was also marching from that quarter." So far as words go these accounts admirably befit a total eclipse of the Sun, but regarded as such it has given great trouble to chronologers, and the identification of the eclipse is still uncertain. Hind's theory is that the allusion is to an eclipse and in particular to the eclipse of February 17, 478 B.C. Though not total at Sardis yet the eclipse was very large, 94/100ths of the Sun being covered. If we accept this, it follows that the usually recognised date for the battle of Salamis must be altered by two years. Airy thought it "extremely probable" that the narrative related to the total eclipse of the Moon, which happened on March 13, 479 B.C., but this is difficult to accept, especially as Plutarch, in his Life of Pelopidas, says—"An army was soon got ready, but as the general was on the point of marching, the Sun began to be eclipsed, and the city was covered with darkness in the daytime." This seems explicit enough, assuming the record to be true and that the same incident is referred to by Plutarch as by Herodotus and Aristides.

Since the time when Airy and Hind examined this question, all the known facts have been again reviewed by Mr. W. T. Lynn, who pronounces, but with some hesitation, in favour of the eclipse of October 2, 480 B.C., as the one associated with the battle of Salamis. He does this by refusing to see in the above quotations from Herodotus any allusion to a solar eclipse at all, but invites us to consider a later statement in Herodotus[46] as relating to an eclipse though the historian only calls it a prodigy.

After the battle of Thermopylae the Peloponnesian Greeks commenced to fortify the isthmus of Corinth with the view of defending it with their small army against the invading host of Xerxes. The Spartan troops were under the command of Cleombrotus, the brother of Leonidas, the hero of Thermopylae. He had been consulting the oracles at Sparta, and Herodotus states that "while he was offering sacrifice to know if he should march out against the Persian, the Sun was suddenly darkened in mid-sky." This occurrence so frightened Cleombrotus that he drew off his forces and returned home. It is uncertain from the narrative of Herodotus whether Cleombrotus returned to Sparta in the autumn of the year of the battle of Salamis, or in the spring of the next following year which was that in which the battle of Plataea was fought. Bishop Thirlwall[47] thinks that it was the latter, but Lynn pronounces for the former, adding that the date may well have been in October, and the solar eclipse of October 2, 480 B.C. may have been the phenomenon which attracted notice, particularly as the Sun would have been high in the heavens, the greatest phase (6/10ths) occurring, according to Hind, at 50 minutes past noon. Here I must leave the matter, merely remarking that this alternative explanation obviates the necessity for disturbing the commonly received date of the battle of Salamis.

Thucydides states that during the Peloponnesian war "things formerly repeated on hearsay, but very rarely confirmed by facts, became not incredible, both about earthquakes and eclipses of the Sun which came to pass more frequently than had been remembered in former times." One such eclipse he assigns to the first year of the war and says[48] that "in the same summer, at the beginning of a new lunar month (at which time alone the phenomenon seems possible) the Sun was eclipsed after mid-day, and became full again after it had assumed a crescent form and after some of the stars had shone out." Aug. 3, 431 B.C. is generally recognised as the date of this event. The eclipse was not total only three-fourths of the Sun's disc being obscured. Venus was 20 deg. and Jupiter 43 deg. distant from the Sun, so probably these were the "stars" that were seen. This eclipse nearly prevented the Athenian expedition against the Lacedaemonians. The sailors were frightened by it, but a happy thought occurred to Pericles, the commander of the Athenian forces. Plutarch, in his Life of Pericles, says:—"The whole fleet was in readiness, and Pericles on board his own galley, when there happened an eclipse of the Sun. The sudden darkness was looked upon as an unfavourable omen, and threw the sailors into the greatest consternation. Pericles observing that the pilot was much astonished and perplexed, took his cloak, and having covered his eyes with it, asked him if he found anything terrible in that, or considered it as a bad presage? Upon his answering in the negative, he said, 'Where is the difference, then between this and the other, except that something bigger than my cloak causes the eclipse?'"

Another eclipse is mentioned by Thucydides[49] in connection with an expedition of the Athenians against Cythera. He says:—"At the very commencement of the following summer there was an eclipse of the Sun at the time of a new moon, and in the early part of the same month an earthquake." This has been identified with the annular eclipse of March 21, 424 B.C., the central line of which passed across Northern Europe. It is not quite clear whether the historian wishes to insinuate that the eclipse caused the earthquake or the earthquake the eclipse.

An eclipse known as that of Ennius is another of the eclipses antecedent to the Christian Era which has been the subject of full modern investigation, and the circumstances of which are such that, in the language of Professor Hansen, "it may be reckoned as one of the most certain and well-established eclipses of antiquity." The record of it has only been brought to light in modern times by the discovery of Cicero's Treatise, De Republica. According to Cicero,[50] Ennius the great Roman poet, who lived in the second century B.C., and who died of gout contracted, it is said, by frequent intoxication, recorded an interesting event in the following words:—Nonis Junii soli luna obstetit et nox, "On the Nones of June the Moon was in opposition to the Sun and night." This singular phrase has long been assumed to allude to an eclipse of the Sun, but the precise interpretation of the words was not for a long time realised. In Cicero's time the Nones of June fell on the 5th, but in the time of Ennius, who lived a century and a half before Cicero, the Nones of June fell between June 5 and July 4 on account of the lunar years and the intercalary month of the Roman Calendar. The date of this eclipse is distinctly known to be June 21, 400 B.C., but the hour was long in dispute. Professor Zech found that the Sun set at Rome eclipsed, and that the maximum phase took place after sun-set. Hansen, however, with his better Tables, found that the eclipse was total at Rome, and that the totality ended at 7.33 p.m., the Sun setting almost immediately afterwards at 7.36. This fact, Hansen considers, explains the otherwise unintelligible passage of Ennius quoted above: instead of saying et nox, he should have said et simul nox, "and immediately it was night." Newcomb questions the totality of this eclipse, but assigns no clear reasons for his doubts.[51]

On August 14, 394 B.C., there was a large eclipse of the Sun visible in the Mediterranean. It occurred in the forenoon, and is mentioned by Xenophon[52] in connection with a naval engagement in which the Persians were defeated by Conon.

Plutarch, in his Life of Pelopidas, relates how one, Alexander of Pherae, had devastated several cities of Thessaly, and that as soon as the oppressed inhabitants had learned that Pelopidas had come back from an embassy on which he had been to the King of Persia, they sent deputies to him to Thebes to beg the favour of armed assistance, with Pelopidas as general. "The Thebans willingly granted their request, and an army was soon got ready, but as the general was on the point of marching, the Sun began to be eclipsed, and the city was covered with darkness in the day-time." This eclipse is generally identified with that of July 13, 364 B.C. If this is correct, Plutarch's language must be incorrect, or at least greatly exaggerated, for no more than about three-fourths of the Sun was obscured.

On February 29, 357 B.C., there happened an eclipse, also visible in or near the Mediterranean. This is supposed to have been the eclipse for the prediction of which Helicon, a friend of Plato, received from Dionysius, King of Syracuse, payment in the shape of a talent.

We have now to consider another ancient eclipse which has a history of peculiar interest as regards the investigations to which it has been subjected. It is commonly known as the "Eclipse of Agathocles," and is recorded by two historians of antiquity in the words following. Diodorus Siculus[53] says:—

"Agathocles also, though closely pursued by the enemy, by the advantage of the night coming on (beyond all hope), got safe off from them. The next day there was such an eclipse of the Sun, that the stars appeared everywhere in the firmament, and the day was turned into night, upon which Agathocles's soldiers (conceiving that God thereby did foretell their destruction) fell into great perplexities and discontents concerning what was like to befall them."

Justin says[54]:—

"By the harangue the hearts of the soldiers were somewhat elevated, but an eclipse of the Sun that had happened during their voyage still possessed them with superstitious fears of a bad omen. The king was at no less pain to satisfy them about this affair than about the war, and therefore he told them that he should have thought this sign an ill presage for them, if it had happened before they set out, but having happened afterwards he could not but think it presaged ill to those against whom they marched. Besides, eclipses of the luminaries always signify a change of affairs, and therefore some change was certainly signified, either to Carthage, which was in such a flourishing condition, or to them whose affairs were in a very ruinous state."

The substance of these statements is that in the year 310 B.C. Agathocles, Tyrant of Syracuse, while conducting his fleet from Syracuse to the Coast of Africa, found himself enveloped in the shadow of an eclipse, which evidently, from the accounts, was total. His fleet had been chased by the Carthaginians on leaving Syracuse the preceding day, but got away under the cover of night. On the following morning about 8 or 9 a.m. a sudden darkness came on which greatly alarmed the sailors. So considerable was the darkness, that numerous stars appeared. It is not at the first easy to localise the position of the fleet, except that we may infer that it could hardly have got more than 80 or at the most 100 miles away from the harbour of Syracuse where it had been closely blockaded by a Carthaginian fleet. Agathocles would not have got away at all but for the fact that a relieving fleet was expected, and the Carthaginians were obliged to relax their blockade in order to go in search of the relieving fleet. Thus it came about not only that Agathocles set himself free, but was able to retaliate on his enemies by landing on the coast of Africa at a point near the modern Cape Bon, and devastating the Carthaginian territories. The voyage thither occupied six days, and the eclipse occurred on the second day. Though we are not informed of the route followed by Agathocles, that is to say whether he passed round the North or the South side of the island of Sicily, yet it has been made clear by astronomers that the southern side was that taken.

Baily, who was the first modern astronomer to investigate the circumstances of this eclipse, found that there was an irreconcilable difference between the path of the shadow found by himself and the historical statement, a gap of about 180 geographical miles seeming to intervene between the most southerly position which could be assigned to the fleet of Agathocles, and the most northerly possible limit of the path of the eclipse shadow. This was the condition of the problem when Sir G. B. Airy took it up in 1853.[55] He, however, was able to throw an entirely new light upon the matter. The tables used by Baily were distinctly inferior to those now in use, and Sir G. B. Airy thought himself justified in saying that to obviate the discordance of 180 miles just referred to "it is only necessary to suppose an error of 3' in the computed distances of the Sun and Moon at conjunction, a very inconsiderable correction for a date anterior to the epoch of the tables by more than twenty-one centuries."

It deserves to be mentioned, though the point cannot here be dwelt upon at much length, that these ancient eclipses all hang together in such a way that it is not sufficient for the man of Astronomy and the man of Chronology to agree on one eclipse, unless they can harmonise the facts of several.

For instance, the eclipse of Thales, the date of which was long and much disputed, has a material bearing on the eclipse of Agathocles, the date of which admits of no dispute; and one of the problems which had to be solved half a century ago was how best to use the eclipse of Agathocles to determine the date of that of Thales. If 610 B.C. were accepted for the Thales eclipse, so as to throw the zone of total darkness anywhere over Asia Minor (where for the sake of history it was essential to put it) the consequence would be that the shadow of the eclipse of 310 B.C. would have been thrown so far on to land, in Africa, as to make it out of the question for Agathocles and his fleet to have been in it, yet we know for a certainty that he was in it in that year, and no other year. Conversely, if 603 B.C. were accepted for the Thales eclipse, then to raise northwards the position of the shadow in that year from the line of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, that it might pass through Asia Minor, would so raise the position of the shadow in 310 B.C. as to throw it far too much to the N. of Sicily for Agathocles, who we know must have gone southwards to Africa, to have entered it. But if we assume 585 B.C. as the date of the eclipse of Thales, we obtain a perfect reconciliation of everything that needs to be reconciled; the shadow of the eclipse of 585 B.C. will be found to have passed where ancient history tells us it did pass—namely, through Ionia, and therefore through the centre of Asia Minor, and on the direct route from Lydia to Media; whilst we also find that the shadow of the 310 B.C. eclipse, that is the one in the time of Agathocles, passed within 100 miles of Syracuse, a fact which is stated almost in those very words by the two historians who have recorded the doings of Agathocles and his fleet in those years.

This is where the matter was left by Airy in 1853. Four years later the new solar and lunar tables of the German astronomer Hansen were published, and having been applied to the eclipse of 585 B.C., the conclusions just stated were amply confirmed. As if to make assurance doubly sure, Airy went over his ground again, testing his former conclusions with regard to the eclipse of Thales by the eclipse of Larissa, in 557 B.C. already referred to, and bringing in the eclipse of Stiklastad in 1030 A.D., to be referred to presently. And as the final result, it may be stated that all the foregoing dates are now known to an absolute certainty, especially confirmed as they were in all essential points by a computer of the eminence of the late Mr. J. R. Hind.

On a date which corresponds to February 11, 218 or 217 B.C., an eclipse of the Sun, which was partial in Italy, is mentioned by Livy.[56] Newcomb found that the central line passed a long way from Italy, to wit, "far down in Africa."

An eclipse of the Sun is mentioned by Dion Cassius[57] as having happened when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, a celebrated event made use of by speakers, political and otherwise, on endless occasions in modern history. There seems no doubt that the passage of the Rubicon took place in 51 B.C., and that the eclipse must have been that of March 7, 51 B.C. The circumstances of this eclipse have been investigated by Hind, who found that the eclipse was an annular one, the annular phase lasting 61/2 minutes in Northern Italy.

Arago associates the death of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. with an annular eclipse of the Sun, but seemingly without sufficient warrant. The actual record is to the effect that about the time of the great warrior's death there was an extraordinary dimness of the Sun. Whatever it was that was noticed, clearly it could not have been an annular eclipse, because no such eclipse then happened. Johnson suggests that Arago confused the record of some meteorological interference with the Sun's light with the annular eclipse that happened seven years previously when Caesar passed the Rubicon, to which eclipse allusion has already been made. That there was for a long while a great deficiency of sunshine in Italy about the time of Caesar's death seems clear from remarks made by Pliny, Plutarch, and Tibullus, and the words of Suetonius seem to imply something of a meteorological character. I should not have mentioned this matter at all, but for Arago's high repute as an astronomer. According to Seneca[58] during an eclipse a comet was also seen.

It is an interesting question to inquire whether any allusions to eclipses are to be found in Homer, and no very certain answer can be given. In the Iliad (book xvii., lines 366-8) the following passage will be found:—"Nor would you say that the Sun was safe, or the Moon, for they were wrapt in dark haze in the course of the combat."

In the Odyssey (book xx., lines 356-7) we find:—"And the Sun has utterly perished from heaven and an evil gloom is overspread." This was considered by old commentators to be an allusion to an eclipse, and in the opinion of W. W. Merry[59] "this is not impossible, as they were celebrating the Festival of the New Moon."

Certainly this language has somewhat the savour of a total eclipse of the Sun, but it is difficult to say whether the allusion is historic, as of a fact that had happened, or only a vague generality. Perhaps the latter is the most justifiable surmise.

I have in the many preceding pages been citing ancient eclipses, for the reason, more or less plainly expressed, that they are of value to astronomers as assisting to define the theory of the Moon's motions in its orbit, and this they should do; but it is not unreasonable to bring this chapter to a close by giving the views of an eminent American astronomer as to the objections to placing too much reliance on ancient accounts of eclipses. Says Prof. S. Newcomb[60]:—"The first difficulty is to be reasonably sure that a total eclipse was really the phenomenon observed. Many of the statements supposed to refer to total eclipses are so vague that they may be referred to other less rare phenomena. It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with an age when accurate observations and descriptions of natural phenomena were unknown, and when mankind was subject to be imposed upon by imaginary wonders and prodigies. The circumstance which we should regard as most unequivocally marking a total eclipse is the visibility of the stars during the darkness. But even this can scarcely be regarded as conclusive, because Venus may be seen when there is no eclipse, and may be quite conspicuous in an annular or a considerable partial eclipse. The exaggeration of a single object into a plural is in general very easy. Another difficulty is to be sure of the locality where the eclipse was total. It is commonly assumed that the description necessarily refers to something seen where the writer flourished, or where he locates his story. It seems to me that this cannot be safely done unless the statement is made in connection with some battle or military movement, in which case we may presume the phenomena to have been seen by the army."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 36: De Republica, Lib. vi., cap. 22.]

[Footnote 37: E. Millosevich, Memorie della Societa Spettroscopisti Italiani, vol. xxii. p. 70. 1893.]

[Footnote 38: Herodotus, Book i., chap. 74. This eclipse is also mentioned by Pliny (Nat. Hist., Book ii., chap. 9) and by Cicero (De Divinatione, cap. 49).]

[Footnote 39: Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 88.]

[Footnote 40: Herodotus, edited by Rev. G. Rawlinson, vol. i. p. 212.]

[Footnote 41: Month. Not., R.A.S., vol. xviii. p. 148; March 1858.]

[Footnote 42: Anabasis, Lib. iii., cap. 4, sec. 7.]

[Footnote 43: Washington Observations, 1875, Appendix II., p. 31.]

[Footnote 44: Book vii., chap. 37. See Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. iv. p. 39.]

[Footnote 45: Scholia, in Aristidis Orationes, Ed. Frommel, p. 222.]

[Footnote 46: Book ix., chap. 10. See Rawlinson's Herodotus, 3rd ed. vol. iv. p. 379.]

[Footnote 47: History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 330.]

[Footnote 48: Book ii., chap. 28.]

[Footnote 49: Book iv., chap. 52.]

[Footnote 50: De Republica, Lib. i. c. 16.]

[Footnote 51: Washington Observations, 1875, Appendix II., p. 33.]

[Footnote 52: Hellenics, Book iv., chap. 3, sec. 10.]

[Footnote 53: Bibliothecae Historicae, Lib. xx., cap. 1, sec. 5.]

[Footnote 54: Historia, Lib. xxii., cap. 6.]

[Footnote 55: Phil. Trans., vol. cxliii. pp. 187-91, 1853.]

[Footnote 56: Hist. Rom., Lib. xxii., cap. 1.]

[Footnote 57: Hist. Rome, Book xli., chap. 14.]

[Footnote 58: Naturalium Questionum, Lib. vii.]

[Footnote 59: Homer, Odyssey, vol. ii. p. 328. Clarendon Press Series.]

[Footnote 60: Washington Observations, 1875, Appendix II., p. 18.]



CHAPTER XI.

ECLIPSES OF THE SUN MENTIONED IN HISTORY.— THE CHRISTIAN ERA TO THE NORMAN CONQUEST.

The Christian Era is, for several reasons, a suitable point of time from which to take a new departure in speaking of historical eclipses, although the First Century, at least, might obviously be regarded as belonging to classical history—but let that pass.

Dion Cassius[61] relates that on a date corresponding to March 28, A.D. 5, the Sun was partly eclipsed. Johnston says that the central line passed over Norway and Sweden. It seems, perhaps, a little strange that a writer who lived in Bithynia in the 3rd Century of the Christian Era should have picked up any information about something that happened in the extreme North of Europe two centuries previously. But probably the eclipse must have been seen in Italy.

On November 24, A.D. 29, there happened an eclipse of the Sun which is sometimes spoken of as the "eclipse of Phlegon." Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, records Phlegon's testimony. Phlegon was a native of Tralles in Lydia, and one of the Emperor Adrian's freedmen. The eclipse in question happened at noon, and the stars were seen. It was total, and the line of totality, according to Hind,[62] passed across the Black Sea from near Odessa to Sinope, thence near the site of Nineveh to the Persian Gulf. A partial eclipse with four-fifths of the Sun's diameter covered was visible at Jerusalem. This is the only solar eclipse which was visible at Jerusalem during the period usually fixed for Christ's public ministry. This eclipse was for a long time, and by various writers, associated with the darkness which prevailed at Jerusalem on the day of our Lord's Crucifixion, but there seems no warrant whatever for associating the two events. The Crucifixion darkness was assuredly a supernatural phenomenon, and there is nothing supernatural in a total eclipse of the Sun. To this it may be added that both Tertullian at the beginning of the 3rd century and Lucian, the martyr of Nicomedia, who died in 312, appealed to the testimony of national archives then in existence, as witnessing to the fact that a supernatural darkness had prevailed at the time of Christ's death. Moreover, the generally recorded date of the Crucifixion, namely, April 3, A.D. 33, would coincide with a full Moon. As it happened, that full Moon suffered eclipse, but she emerged from the Earth's shadow about a quarter of an hour before she rose at Jerusalem (6 h. 36 m. p.m.): the penumbra continued upon her disc for an hour afterwards.

Speaking of the Emperor Claudius, Dion Cassius[63] says:—"There was going to be an eclipse on his birthday. Claudius feared some disturbance, as there had been other prodigies, so he put forth a public notice, not only that the obscuration would take place and about the time and magnitude of it, but also about the causes which produce such events." This is an interesting statement, especially in view of what I have said on a previous page about the indifference of the Romans to Astronomy. It would, likewise, be interesting to know how Claudius acquired his knowledge, and who coached him up in the matter. This eclipse occurred on August 1, A.D. 45. Barely half the Sun's diameter was covered.

Philostratus[64] states that "about this time while he was pursuing his studies in Greece such an omen was observable in the heavens. A crown resembling Iris surrounded the disc of the Sun and darkened its rays." "About this time" is to be understood as referring to some date shortly preceding the death of the Emperor Domitian which occurred on September 18, A.D. 96. This has usually been regarded as the earliest allusion to what we now call the Sun's "Corona"; or, as an alternative idea, that the allusion is simply to an annular eclipse of the Sun. But both these theories have been called in question; by Johnston because he cannot find an eclipse which in his view of things will respond as regards date to the statement of Philostratus, and by Lynn on the same ground and on other grounds, more suo. The question of identification requires looking into more fully. There was a total eclipse on May 21, A.D. 95, but it was only visible as a partial eclipse in Western Asia and not visible at all in Greece. This is given as the conclusion arrived at by the German astronomer Ginzel. But it does not seem to me sufficient to overthrow, without further investigation, the fairly plain language of Philostratus, which is possibly confirmed by a passage in Plutarch[65] in which he discusses certain eclipse phenomena in the light of a recent eclipse. The date of Plutarch's "recent" eclipse is somewhat uncertain, but that fact does not necessarily militate against his testimony respecting the Corona or what is regarded to have been such. The statement of Philostratus, treated as a mention of a total solar eclipse, is accepted as sufficiently conclusive by Sir W. Huggins and the late Professor R. Grant. Johnston, to meet the supposed difficulty of finding an eclipse to accord with the assertion of the historian, suggests that "perhaps some peculiar solar halo or mock Sun, or other meteorological formation" is referred to. But Stockwell has advanced very good reasons for the opinion that the eclipse of Sept. 3, A.D. 118, fully meets the circumstances of the case. Grant's opinion is given in these emphatic words:—"It appears to me that the words here quoted [from Apollonius] refer beyond all doubt to a total eclipse of the Sun, and thus the phenomenon seen encompassing the Sun's disc was, really as well as verbally, identical with the modern Corona."[66]

With the end of the first century of the Christian Era we may be said to quit the realms of classical history and to pass on to eclipse records of a different character, and, so far as regards European observations, of comparatively small scientific value or usefulness. Our information is largely derived from ecclesiastical historians and, later on, from monkish chronicles, which as a rule are meagre in a surprising degree. Perhaps I ought not to say "surprising," because after the times of the Greek astronomers (who in their way may almost be regarded as professionals), and after the epoch of the famous Ptolemy, Astronomy well-nigh ceased to exist for many centuries in Europe, until, say, the 15th century, barring the labours of the Arabians and their kinsmen the Moors in Spain in the 9th and following centuries.

In examining therefore the records of eclipses which have been handed down to us from A.D. 100 forwards through more than 1000 years, I shall not offer my readers a long dry statement of eclipse dates, but only pick out here and there such particular eclipses as seem to present details of interest for some or other reason.

On April 12, 237 A.D., there was, according to Julius Capitolinus, an eclipse of the Sun, so great "that people thought it was night, and nothing could be done without lights." Ricciolus remarked that this eclipse happened about the time of the Sixth Persecution of the Christians, and when the younger Gordian was proclaimed Emperor, after his father had declined the proffered dignity, being 80 years of age. The line of totality crossed Italy about 5 p.m. in the afternoon, to the N. of Rome, and embraced Bologna.

Calvisius records, on the authority of Cedrenus, an eclipse of the Sun on August 6, 324 A.D., which was sufficiently great for the stars to be seen at mid-day. The eclipse was associated with an earthquake, which shattered thirteen cities in Campania. Johnston remarks that no more than three-fourths of the Sun's disc would have been covered, as seen in Campania, but that elsewhere in Italy, at about 3 p.m., the eclipse was much larger, and perhaps one or two of the planets might have been visible.

On July 17, 334 A.D., there was an eclipse, which seems to have been total in Sicily, if we may judge from the description given by Julius Firmicus.[67]

Ammianus Marcellinus[68] describes an eclipse, to which the date of August 28, 360 A.D., has been assigned. Humboldt, quoting this historian, says that the description is quite that of a solar eclipse, but its stated long duration (daybreak to noon), and the word caligo (fog or mist) are awkward factors. Moreover, the historian associates it with events which happened in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire; but Johnston seems in effect to challenge Marcellinus's statement when he says, "It is true that there was an annular eclipse of the Sun in the early morning on the above date, but it could only be seen in countries E. of the Persian Gulf."

About the time that Alaric, King of the Visigoths appeared before Rome, there was a gloom so great that the stars appeared in the daytime. This narrative is considered to apply to an eclipse of the Sun, which occurred on June 18, 410 A.D. The eclipse was an annular one, but as the central line must have crossed far S. of Rome, the stars must have been seen not at Rome but somewhere else.

An eclipse occurred on July 19, 418 A.D., which is remarkable for a twofold reason. People had an opportunity not only of seeing an eclipse, but also a comet. We owe the account of the circumstances to Philostorgius,[69] who tells us that—"On July 19, towards the 8th hour of the day, the Sun was so eclipsed, that even the stars were visible. But at the same time that the Sun was thus hid, a light, in the form of a cone was seen in the sky; some ignorant people called it a comet, but in this light we saw nothing that announced a comet, for it was not terminated by a tail; it resembled the flame of a torch, subsisting by itself, without any star for its base. Its movement too was very different from that of a comet. It was first seen to the E. of the equinoxes; after that, having passed through the last star in the Bear's tail, it continued slowly its journey towards the W. Having thus traversed the heavens, it at length disappeared, having lasted more than four months. It first appeared about the middle of the summer, and remained visible until nearly the end of autumn."

Boillot, a French writer, has suggested that this description is that of the zodiacal light, but this seems out of the question in view of the details given by the Chinese of a comet having been visible in the autumn of this year for 11 weeks, and having passed through the square of Ursa Major. Reverting to the eclipse—Johnston finds that the greatest phase at Constantinople, which was probably the place of observation, occurred at about half an hour after noon, when a thin crescent of light might have been seen on the northern limb of the Sun. From this it would appear that the central line of eclipse must have passed somewhat to the south of Constantinople. To the same effect Hind, who found that 95/100ths of the Sun's diameter was covered at Constantinople.

An eclipse of the Sun seems to be referred to by Gregorius Turonensis, when he says[70] that:—"Then even the Sun appeared hideous, so that scarcely a third part of it gave light, I believe on account of such deeds of wickedness and shedding of innocent blood." This would seem to have been the eclipse which occurred on February 24, 453 A.D., when Attila and the Huns were ravaging Italy, and to them it was doubtless that the writer alluded. At Rome three-fourths of the Sun's disc would have been eclipsed at sunset, a finding which tallies fairly with the statement of Gregorius.

It is not till far into the 6th century that we come upon a native English record of an eclipse of the Sun as having been observed in England. This deficiency in our national annals is thus judiciously explained and commented on by our clever and talented American authoress.[71] Speaking of the eclipse of February 15, 538 A.D., she says:—"The accounts, however, are greatly confused and uncertain, as would perhaps be natural fully 60 years before the advent of St. Augustine, and when Britain was helplessly harassed with its continual struggle in the fierce hands of West Saxons and East Saxons, of Picts and conquering Angles. Men have little time to record celestial happenings clearly, much less to indulge in scientific comment and theorising upon natural phenomena, when the history of a nation sways to and fro with the tide of battle, and what is gained to-day may be fatally lost to-morrow. And so there is little said about this eclipse, and that little is more vague and uncertain even than the monotonous plaints of Gildas—the one writer whom Britain has left us, in his meagre accounts of the conquest of Kent, and the forsaken walls and violated shrines of this early epoch."

The well-known Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[72] is our authority for this eclipse having been noted in England, but the record is bare indeed:—"In this year the Sun was eclipsed 14 days before the Calends of March from early morning till 9 a.m." Tycho Brahe, borrowing from Calvisius, who borrowed from somebody else, says that the eclipse happened "in the 5th year of Henry, King of the West Saxons, at the 1st hour of the day till nearly the 3rd, or immediately after sunrise." Johnson finds that at London nearly three-fourths of the Sun's disc was covered at 7.43 a.m.

The next eclipse recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is somewhat difficult to explain. It is said that in 540 A.D. "The Sun was eclipsed on the 12th of the Calends of July [= June 20], and the stars appeared full nigh half an hour after 9 a.m." Johnson's calculations make the middle of the eclipse to have occurred at about 7.37 a.m. at London, two-thirds of the Sun's diameter being covered. He notes that the Moon's semi-diameter was nearly at its maximum whilst the Sun's semi-diameter was nearly at its minimum—a favourable combination for a long totality. The visibility of the stars seems difficult to explain in connection with this eclipse, and therefore he suggests that the annalist has made a mistake of four years and meant to refer to the eclipse of September 1, 536 A.D., but this does not seem a satisfactory theory.

The year after Pope Martin held a Synod to condemn the Monothelite heresy, an eclipse of the Sun took place. It is mentioned by Tycho Brahe in his catalogue of eclipses as having been seen in England. Johnson gives the date as February 6, 650 A.D., and finds that the Sun was three-fourths obscured at London at 3.30 p.m.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us under the year A.D. 664 that, "In this year the Sun was eclipsed on the 5th of the Nones of May; and Earcenbryht, King of the Kentish people died and Ecgbryht his son succeeded to the Kingdom." Kepler thought this eclipse had been total in England, and Johnson calculating for London found that on May 1, at 5 p.m., there would only have been a very thin crescent of the Sun left uncovered on the southern limb, so that the line of totality would have passed across the country some distance to the N. of London.