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.
The eclipse of Dec. 7, A.D. 671, seems to be associated with a comic
tragedy. The Caliph Moawiyah had a fancy to remove Mahomet's pulpit from
Medina to his own residence at Damascus. "He said that the walking-stick
and pulpit of the Apostle of God should not remain in the hands of the
murderers of Othman. Great search was made for the walking-stick, and at
last they found it. Then they went in obedience to his commands to
remove the pulpit, when immediately, to their great surprise and
astonishment, the Sun was eclipsed to that degree that the stars
appeared."[73] Once again the question of visible stars is in some sense
a source of difficulty. Hind found that the eclipse was annular on the
central line. At Medina the greatest phase occurred at 10h. 43m. a.m.
when 85/100ths of the Sun's diameter was obscured. Hind suggests that in
the clear skies of that part of the world such a degree of eclipse might
be sufficient to bring out the brighter planets or stars. At any rate no
larger eclipse visible at Medina occurred about this epoch. Prof. Ockley
seems to refer to this eclipse in making, on the authority of several
Arabian writers, the mention he does of an eclipse in the quotation just
given.
Perhaps this will be a convenient place to bring in some remarks on
certain Arabian observations of eclipses only made known to the
scientific world in modern times. That the Arabians were very capable
practical astronomers has long been recognised as a well-established
fact, and if it had not been for them there would have been a tremendous
blank in the history of astronomy during at least six centuries from
about the year A.D. 700 onwards. In the year 1804 there was published at
Paris a French translation of an Arabian manuscript preserved at the
University of Leyden of which little was known until near the end of the
last century. The manuscript was then sent to Paris on loan to the
French Government which caused a translation to be made by "Citizen"
Caussin, and this was published under the title of _Le Livre de la
grande Table Hakénate_.[74] Caussin was Professor of Arabic at the
College of France. Newcomb considers this to contain the earliest exact
astronomical observations of eclipses which have reached us. He remarks
that some of the data left us by Ptolemy, Theon, Albategnius and others
may be the results of actual observations, but in no case, so far as is
known, have the figures of the actual observations been handed down. For
example, we cannot regard "midnight" nor "the middle of an eclipse" as
moments capable of direct observation without instruments of precision;
but in the Arabian work under consideration we find definite statements
of the altitudes of the heavenly bodies at the moments of the beginning
and ending of eclipses--data not likely to be tampered with in order to
agree with the results of calculation. The eclipses recorded are 28 in
number and usually the beginning and end of them were observed. The
altitudes are given sometimes only in whole degrees, sometimes in coarse
fractions of a degree. The most serious source of error to be confronted
in turning these observations to account arises from the uncertainty as
to how long after the first contact the eclipse was perceived and the
altitude taken; and how long before the true end was the eclipse lost
sight of. Making the best use he could of the records available Newcomb
found that they could safely be employed in his investigations into the
theory of the Moon.
The observations were taken, some at Bagdad and the remainder at Cairo.
I do not propose to occupy space by transcribing the accounts in detail,
but one extract may be offered as a sample of the rest--"Eclipse of the
Sun observed at Bagdad, August 18, 928 A.D. The Sun rose about
one-fourth eclipsed. We looked at the Sun on a surface of water and saw
it distinctly. At the end when we found no part of the Sun was any
longer eclipsed, and that its disc appeared in the water as a complete
circle, its altitude was 12° in the E., less the one-third of a division
of the instrument, which itself was divided to thirds of a degree. One
must therefore reduce the stated altitude by one-ninth of a degree,
leaving, therefore, the true altitude as 11° 53' 20"." The skill and
care shown in this record shows that the Arab who observed this eclipse
nearly a thousand years ago must have been a man of a different type
from an ordinary resident at Bagdad in the year 1899. No description is
given of the instrument used, but presumably it was some kind of a
quadrant. It does not appear why some of the observations were made at
Bagdad and some at Cairo. The Bagdad observations commence with an
eclipse of the Sun on November 30, 829, and end with an eclipse of the
Moon on November 5, 933. The Cairo observations begin with an eclipse of
the Sun on December 12, 977, and end with an eclipse of the Sun on
January 24, 1004. These statements apply to the 25 observations which
Newcomb considered were trustworthy enough to be employed in his
researches, but he rejected three as imperfect.
I have broken away from the strict thread of chronological sequence in
order to keep together the notes respecting Arabian observations of
eclipses. Let us now revert to the European eclipses.
Under the date of A.D. 733, the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ tells us that,
"In this year Æthelbald captured Somerton; and the Sun was eclipsed, and
all the Sun's disc was like a black shield; and Acca was driven from his
bishopric." Johnston suggests that the reference is to an annular
eclipse which he finds occurred on August 14, at about 8¼ h. in the
morning. In Schnurrer's _Chronik der Seuchen_ (pt. i., § 113, p. 164),
it is stated that, "One year after the Arabs had been driven back across
the Pyrenees after the battle of Tours, the Sun was so much darkened on
the 19th of August as to excite universal terror." It may be that the
English eclipse is here referred to, and a date wrong by five days
assigned to it by Schnurrer. Humboldt (_Cosmos_, vol. iv. p. 384, Bohn's
ed.) reports this eclipse in an enumeration he gives of instances of the
Sun having been darkened.
On May 5, A.D. 840, there happened an eclipse of the Sun which, amongst
other effects, is said to have so greatly frightened Louis Le Debonnaire
(Charlemagne's son) that it contributed to his death. The Emperor was
taken ill at Worms, and having been removed to Ingelheim, an island in
the Rhine, near Mayence, died there on June 20. Hind[75] found that this
was a total eclipse, and that the northern limit of totality passed
about 100 miles south of Worms. The middle of the eclipse occurred at
1h. 15m. p.m. with the Sun at an altitude of 57°. The duration of the
eclipse was unusually long, namely about 5½ minutes. With the Sun so
high and the obscuration lasting so long, this eclipse must have been
an unusually imposing one, and well calculated to inspire special alarm.
On Oct. 29, 878, in the reign of King Alfred, there was a total eclipse
visible at London. The mention of it in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ is
as follows:--"The Sun was eclipsed at 1 hour of the day." No month is
given, and the year is said to have been 879, which is undoubtedly
wrong. Hind found that the central line of the eclipse passed about 20
miles N. of London, and that the totality lasted 1m. 51s. Tycho Brahe in
his _Historia Coelestis_ quotes from the _Annales Fuldenses_ a statement
that the Sun was so much darkened after the 9th hour that the stars
appeared in the heavens.
Thorpe in his edition of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ quotes from Mr.
Richard Price a note which assigns the date of March 14, 880, to this
eclipse, and cites in confirmation a passage from the _Chronicle of
Florence of Worcester_, anno 879. The 880 eclipse is mentioned by Asser
in his _De Vitâ et Rebus gestis Alfredi_ in the words following:--"In the
same year [879] an eclipse of the Sun took place between three o'clock
and the evening, but nearer three o'clock." The confusion of dates is
remarkable.
In the _Chronicon Scotorum_, under the date of 885, we find:--"An eclipse
of the Sun; and stars were seen in the heavens." The reference appears
to be to the total eclipse of June 16, A.D. 885. The totality lasted
more than four minutes, and as the stars are said to have been visible
in the North of Ireland, doubtless that part of Ireland came within the
eclipse limits.
On Dec. 22, 968, there was an eclipse of the Sun, which was almost total
at London at about 8h. 33m. a.m., or soon after sunrise. The central
line passed across the S.-W. of England, and thence through France to
the Mediterranean. One Leon, a deacon at Corfu, observed this eclipse,
and has left behind what probably is the first perfectly explicit
mention of the Corona.[76]
On Aug. 30, 1030, there happened an eclipse visible in Norway, which has
already been alluded to on a previous page under the name of the
"eclipse of Stiklastad." This was one of those eclipses, the
circumstances of which were examined many years ago in detail by Sir
G. B. Airy,[77] because he thought that information of value might be
obtained therefrom with respect to the motions of the Moon. Its
availability for that purpose has, however, been seriously questioned by
Professor Newcomb. Stiklastad is a place where a battle was fought, at
which Olav, King of Norway, is said to have been killed. While the
battle was in progress the Sun was totally eclipsed, and a red light
appeared around it. This is regarded as an early record of the Corona,
though not the first.[78] Johnston found that the eclipse was nearly
total at about 2h. 21m. p.m.
In 1033 there happened on June 29 an eclipse of the Sun, which
evidently had many observers, because it is mentioned by many
contemporary writers. For instance, the French historian, Glaber,[79]
says that "on the 3rd of the Calends of July there was an eclipse from
the sixth to the eighth hour of the day exceedingly terrible. For the
Sun became of a sapphire colour; in its upper part having the likeness
of a fourth part of the Moon." This sufficiently harmonises with
Johnston's calculations that about four-fifths of the Sun on the lower
side was covered at 10h. 50m. in the morning.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 61: _Hist. Rome_, Book lv., chap. 22.]
[Footnote 62: Letter in the _Times_, July 19, 1872.]
[Footnote 63: _Hist. Rome_, Book lx., chap. 26.]
[Footnote 64: _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, Book viii., c. 23.]
[Footnote 65: Plut. _Opera Mor. et Phil._, vol. xix. p. 682 Ed.
Lipsiæ, 1778.]
[Footnote 66: _Ast. Nach_, No. 1838, vol. lxxvii. p. 223: March 31,
1871.]
[Footnote 67: _Matheseos_, Lib. i., cap. 2, p. 5, Basileæ. 1533.]
[Footnote 68: _Historiæ_, Lib. xx., cap. 3, sec. 1.]
[Footnote 69: _Epitome Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ_, Lib. xii., cap. 8.]
[Footnote 70: _Historia Francorum_, Lib. ii., cap. 3 (_ad fin._).]
[Footnote 71: Mrs. D. P. Todd, _Total Eclipses of the Sun_, p. 101.]
[Footnote 72: _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 14. Ed. B.
Thorpe, 1861.]
[Footnote 73: Prof. S. Ockley, _History of the Saracens_, vol ii. p.
110. Camb. 1757.]
[Footnote 74: It should be stated that prior to the publication of
the work in a book form the greater part of the eclipse observations
had been published in the _Mémoires de l'Institut National des
Sciences et Arts: Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques_, tome ii.]
[Footnote 75: Letter in the _Times_, July 19, 1872.]
[Footnote 76: J. F. J. Schmidt, _Ast. Nach._, vol. lxxvii. p. 127,
Feb. 1, 1871.]
[Footnote 77: _Memoirs_, R.A.S., vol. xxvi. p. 131, 1858.]
[Footnote 78: J. L. E. Dreyer, _Nature_, vol. xvi. p. 549, Oct. 25,
1877.]