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 Ægean 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 aërolite, 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 aërolite. 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
[= 7½ 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 Thermopylæ 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
Thermopylæ. 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 Platæa 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° and
Jupiter 43° distant from the Sun, so probably these were the "stars"
that were seen. This eclipse nearly prevented the Athenian expedition
against the Lacedæmonians. 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 Republicâ_. 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
Pheræ, 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 Cæsar 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 6½
minutes in Northern Italy.
Arago associates the death of Julius Cæsar 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 Cæsar 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 Cæsar'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 Republicâ_, 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 Republicâ_, Lib. i. c. 16.]
[Footnote 51: _Washington Observations_, 1875, Appendix II., p. 33.]
[Footnote 52: _Hellenics_, Book iv., chap. 3, sec. 10.]
[Footnote 53: _Bibliothecæ Historicæ_, 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.]