THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF PROPHECY. “NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD."—1 Coz. Il. 6. SOIANT IGITUR, QUI PROPHETAS NON INTELLIGUNT, NEO SOIRE DESIDERUNT, ASSHRENTES SE TANTUM EVANGELIO ESSE CONTENTOS, CHRISTI NESCTRE MYSTERIUM, ‘Junoue ov Er, a Era, VOL. VIL LONDON: JAMES NISBET AND CO., 21 BERNERS STREET. 1855.44 THE ECLIPSE OF THALES, Ant. VI—THE ECLIPSE OF THALES. Somm time since, we directed the attention of our readers to the interesting question of the date of the Eclipse of Thales, giving a sketch of the attempts made by astronomers to settle it, and in particular, adverting to the latest calculations of Mr Hind. The conclusion to which we came was, that the eclipse of B.c. 610, which is commonly held to be the Eclipse of Thales, could not have been visible in Asia Minor, and that the eclipse of 8.0. 585, while it better answered the conditions ired, was not to be accepted with absolute certainty. correspondent, in the following Number of the Journal, called our attention to an error said to have been discovered by Mr Adams in La Place’s method, and which he supposed might affect the question of the date of the eclipse observed by Thales. To this letter we replied in the Number of the Journal for October, promising to return to the subject if we obtained any additional information worth reporting. We have been even more indebted to our correspondent than we were aware of. He has not only given us a clue to the discovery of the error which he mentions, but, in our in- quiries, we have become acquainted with a paper on the sub- ject of the Eclipses of Thales and of Agathocles, read before the Royal Society, Feb. 3, 1853, by G. B. Airy, Esq., the ‘Astronomer-Royal, and printed in the Transactions for that year. That we were not aware of it before, is owing to the materials for our first article having been collected before that volume of the Transactions was accessible. We propose now to give some account of the contents of this paper, divesting them, as much as possible, of astronomical technicalities. The author commences by observing that, till the beginning of the present century, the lunar tables were so inaccurate, that all calculations of chronological eclipses made before 1810 are absolutely worthless. He then adverts to Baily’s paper, printed in 1811, and confirms, from his own experience, the truth of the remark made by that astronomer, that a total, and only a total eclipse could satisfy the account of Herodotus. But, after observing that Baily’s tables failed when applied to the computation of the eclipse of Agathocles,—a fact which Baily himself was the first to notice,—he goes on to say, that since he first read this Paper, it has always appeared to him that, not the eclipse of Thales, but that of Agathocles, ought to be considered as the true cardinal eclipse for chronology and lunar astronomy.‘THE ECLIPSE OF THALES. 45 It appears that, about the same time in which Mr Baily was engaged in his calculations, Mr Oltmanns was also employed upon the same subject. In his paper, printed in the Berlin Memoirs, 1812-13, he comes to the same conclusion as Mr Baily, and adopts the eclipse of B. c. 610, Sept. 30, as the true eclipse of Thales. Inthe Berliner Jahrbuch, 1824, is another paper by Oltmanns, in which he remarks upon the close ment between Mr Baily’s results and his own, as a proof of the correctness of their calculations : but he goes on to point out a correction necessary in one of the elements, by which, he says, the eclipse of Agathocles is possible under certain conditions. He does not, however, so much as hint that if such a correc- tion be necessary, his former calculations must be erroneous. “Tam wholly unable,” says Mr Airy, “ to account for this ex- traordinary silence.” Mr Airy now proceeds to the calculation of the eclipse of Agathocles. But,-before giving the results to which he comes, it is necessary to explain the astronomical conditions of the question. The position of the moon as affecting at any time the circum- stances of an eclipse will depend on the moon’s mean longitude, the longitude of perigee, and the longitude of node. The value of each of these three elements for any late year is known with very great accuracy ; and the annual motions of mean longitude and longitude of Perigee for a Julian century at the present time are very accurately known; in that of the longitude of the node there is a very minute uncertainty. But the secular motion of each of these elements changes from century to century, and in the case of distant eclipses, this ele- ment requires to be accurately estimated. It is expressed by a certain co-efficient or multiple of the square of the time; and its importance will be apparent from the fact that a change of 1” in the co-efficient for mean longitude, of 9” in that for longi- tude of perigee, or of 11” in that for longitude of node, will alter the place of an eclipse-shadow at the time of Thales not less than 10° on the earth’s surface. La Place was the first to compute these co-efficients, but his values have been amended by subsequent authors, and especially by Damoiseau, who is followed by Mr Airy, with some small corrections. In calculating the eclipse of Agathocles, Mr Airy does not assume that his elements are absolutely correct; he also in- quires into the possible change of elements. And as when the track of an eclipse is not highly inclined to the parallel upon the earth, which is the case with regard to the ecliy now under consideration,—a small change in the moon’s longitude46 ‘THE BCLIPSH OF THALES. produces little effect on the track of the eclipse, he has assumed that any error affecting the result must be in the place of the node, that is, in what astronomers call “ the argument of lati- tude.” . This he conceives not to be yet so precisely fixed from observations as not to be capable of correction from the com- putation of distant eclipses. He therefore makes small varia- tions in this “argument of latitude,” and observes which of the values best accords with the conditions of the eclipse. Thus he first determines, as nearly as possible, the place on the earth’s surface occupied by Agathocles at the time of the eclipse, and then tries by experiment what amount of variation will make the eclipse total at that place; and he comes to the conclusion, that a variation in “the argument of latitude,” between + 0. 68 x 20’ eentesimal, and + 2. 38 x 20° centesimal, brings out the result most likely to be the true one. This acquired experience is carried to the calculation of the apse of Thales, remembering that the factors must in this ease be increased by about one-seventh, corresponding to the greater distance of that epoch from the present time, when the place of the node is well known. We shall follow Mr Airy more closely in his observations on the eclipse of Thales. First, he inquires into the geographical conditions of the problem. He observes that the war between Alyattes and the Medes was one of a very different character from that undertaken by Crosus. The war of Crosus was undertaken to obtain possession of the province of C: ia, which, according to the geography of Herodotus, lay on the east side of the lower part of the Halys, and consequently Croesus passed that river near its mouth. The war of Alyattes was a struggle of some duration between two nations, and the place of the battle would therefore have a referenee to the great lines of military communication between the two coun- tries. These, therefore, he proceeds to consider, acknowledg- ing his obligations to M. Pierre de Tchihateheff, and W. J. Hamilton, Esq., for much of his information. After an examination of the passes leading from the Eu- phrates into Asia Minor, he concludes, we think correctly, that there are only two routes practicable for armies ; the one by Sivas and Guroun to Meliteneh, or Malatieh, on the Ex- phrates; the other by Issus to Antioch, or Aleppo. He men- tions that there is only one instance of Mesopotamia havi been invaded from the Euxine; namely, by an army direct: by the Emperor Heraclius (4. ». 623), which landed at Tnebi- zond, and made its way through the mountains, returning, however, by the way of Issus. And there is only one in-THB ECLIPSE OF THALES. 47 ‘stance of an army marching along the north coast of Asia Minor, namely, the retreat of the ten thousand Greeks, who, however, did not adopt it from choice. We have two instances of engagements in whicli one of the armies may have advanced by the Melitene route, but the great number of marches in both directions have been by Issus. This was the route of the ounger Cyrus; of Alexander; of Valerian and Julian; of Roper, in marching from Armenia to the Cappadocian Cesarea (for which the pass of Melitene would have appeared more direct); of the crusaders in the first and second crusades ; and of many other armies. His conclusion is, that we are limited as to the battle-field to the country within no great distance of a line drawn from Sardis to Melitene; that it may have been anywhere south of that line, especially near Issus, but that it cannot have been far to the north of it, nor far east of Issus. We would add, that if the Median army came by Issus, ay must, in all probability (as we shewed in our former article), have passed through the hills to the north of Tarsus, and taken the road to Icomium, the neighbourhood of which was very possibly the scene of the battle. We now come to the astronomical conditions of the eclipse ; and Mr Airy tells us that he examined every total eelipse in Mr Oltmanns’ table, extending from 8.c. 631, to 8.0. 585, and that he ‘ads only one (namely, that of 3.0. 585, May 28), which can have d near to Asia Minor; thus agreeing with Mr Hind’s caleulation, which appeared in the Atheneum dur- ‘ing the preparation of his memoir. He also states, that the eclipse of 610, September 30, which was adopted by Messrs Baily and Oltmanns, is now thrown north even of the sea of Azoff. He adds, that- he has formed the first approximate elements of the eclipses from 3.0. 630, to 8.0. 576, by the use of M. Largeteau’s very convenient tables, inserted in the addi- tions to tho Oonnaissance des Temps 1846, and is led to the same conclusion. Without going any further, the conclusion is mevitable, that a8 no ‘total eclipse was visible in Asia Minor in the year 3.0. 610, that cannot have been the year of the eclipse of Thales. But Mr Airy gives us also the elements of the eclipse of B.c. 585, and has traced on a map appended to his memoir the ‘path of the shadow under the several conditions of variation which he had proposed for the eclipse of Agathocles. He finds that, using the tables without any variation, the central line of “the shadow would pass to the south of Sardis, amd thence to the sea, nearly a degree south of Tarsus; the path being thus to the north of that mdicated by Mr Hind's lations; and48 ‘THE EOLIPSH OF THALES. further, that, adopting the variation which seemed best to with the eclipse of Agathocles, the shadow of total eclipse would still cover the country about Iconium. Thus the conditions are perfectly fulfilled, and the objections which we made in our for- mer article to Mr Hind’s calculations are completely obviated. It may therefore be considered as settled, that the eclipse of Thales took place in the year 8.0. 585. It only remains to consider the effects of Mr Adams's dis- covery of an error in the calculation of the moon’s motion. His paper on this subject is contained in the same volume of the Transactions as that of Mr Airy, and we learn from it that the error which Mr Adams has discovered is in the de- termination of the amount of the secular acceleration of the moon’s mean motion: that is, the amount which requires to be added to the moon’s mean motion, in order to obtain the moon’s true place at any epoch distant by centuries from the present. This addition requires to be made, in consequence of a gradual acceleration of the moon’s mean motion, which has been, and is still, taking place. Mr Adams has dis- covered that, in estimating the correction to be applied for this secular acceleration, one element has been overlooked, and that the correction therefore is not so large as it ought to be. This error ought to affect the times of distant eclipses more than it appears to do, and by a communication with which Mr Adams has favoured us, we are enabled to state, that he has reason to believe that the present mean motion of the moon (not the secular acceleration of that motion), resulting from Mr Airy’s discussion of the Greenwich observations, also stands in need of correction, and that the two errors probably compen- sated each other about 3.0. 700, and therefore would very slightly affect eclipses in B.c. 585 and 610. : Even if the error had sensibly affected the calculations of these eclipses, it would have been more with regard to the time of their occurrence, than the piace where they were visible. The tract of country over which the shadow of the eclipse may pass, chiefly depends on the position of the moon’s node at the time of the eclipse, the calculations for which are not affected by the error in question, Any uncertainty in regard to the motion of the moon’s node lies within very narrow limits, and has been fully taken into consideration in Mr Airy’s memoir, with the conclusions of which Mr Adams is inclined to agree. This question, therefore, may now be considered to be defi- nitely set at rest. There is no possibility that any future cor- rections of the elements of the moon’s place, can either affect the calculation of the eclipse of 610, so as to make it visible inTHB EOLIPSB OF THALES. 49 Asia Minor, or the calculation of the eclipse of 585, so as to re- move its shadow from the region within which the battle be- tween the Lydians and Medes was probably fought. Onur correspondent “G.” must, we fear, admit that his chro- nological calculations must bow before the superior authority of this astronomical demonstration. It may be worth while to try how the date now ascertained with certain data, furnished by Scripture exclusively. Assuming the birth of Christ to have taken place 3.0. 4, the pro- hecy of the seventy weeks tells us of 69 weeks, or 483 years, ween the going forth of the commandment to rebuild the city, and Messiah the prince. Thus 483+4=487 for the issu- ing of this decree. in, Zechariah tells us that 70 years of desolations had ela) when the temple began to be built. As- suming that the building of the temple followed closely on the decree, we have 487+70=557 for the date of the burning of the temple. As that event took place in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, 557+19=6576 is the first of Nebuchadnezzar. But the scriptural first of Nebuchadnezzar is two years behind the same epoch of profane history, so that we have B.o. 578 for the rise of that monarch’s power. The interval between that date, and 8.0. 585, or seven years, is not too much to be occupied with the siege and fall of Nineveh, and the other events which must have followed the eclipse of Thales, Our ordinary chronology gives four years for this interval ; namely, between 3.c. 610, and 8.0. 606; but this is because the first date is fixed by the eclipse, and the second by the canon of Ptolemy. Seven years appear to be as suitable a moasure of time as four. Of course the foregoing calculations are only intended as rough spproximations, on every step of which discussions might be raised. Nevertheless, we undertake to say, that they are perhaps the most natural conclusions to which a reader of the Beriptare narrative could come. How they are to be re- conciled with profane history is the great question which has hitherto been the crus interpretum ; but it is a great point to have the date of one event at least in the distant past fixed beyond the possibility of cavil.