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 Judæa 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° 47', and the Sun's
altitude there on the shortest day being 34° 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° 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 Laërtius refers to this same instrument when he speaks of the
Heliotropion preserved in the Island of Syra.[30]
According to Laërtius, Anaximander[31] was the first Greek to use
gnomons, which he placed on the Sciothera of Lacedæmon, 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
2½ 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° 8'; and the highest
visible point of light would, owing to the eclipse, then have been about
35° 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° 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._
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--ECLIPSE OF THE SUN, JANUARY 11, 689 B.C., AT
JERUSALEM.]
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° 41' 13".
SUN'S ALTITUDE BEFORE AND AT NOON.
[Illustration: Phase at 20 minutes before noon.]
[Illustration: Phase at noon.]
We have now to consider "to what extent would a staircase rising at an
angle of 31° 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: _Athenæum_, 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: trepô] (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.]