Back Aa

Story of Eclipses

<h2>CHAPTER XI.</h2> 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. [129]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,[130] 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[131] 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[132] 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[133] 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[134] 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[135] 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[136] 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[137] 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[138] 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.[139] 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[140] 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[141] 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. [142]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[143] 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 Cœlestis 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[144] 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[145] 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. <div class="footnotes">Footnotes: <div class="footnote">[61] Hist. Rome, Book lv., chap. 22. </div> <div class="footnote">[62] Letter in the Times, July 19, 1872. </div> <div class="footnote">[63] Hist. Rome, Book lx., chap. 26. </div> <div class="footnote">[64] Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Book viii., c. 23. </div> <div class="footnote">[65] Plut. Opera Mor. et Phil., vol. xix. p. 682 Ed. Lipsiæ, 1778. </div> <div class="footnote">[66] Ast. Nach, No. 1838, vol. lxxvii. p. 223: March 31, 1871. </div> <div class="footnote">[67] Matheseos, Lib. i., cap. 2, p. 5, Basileæ. 1533. </div> <div class="footnote">[68] Historiæ, Lib. xx., cap. 3, sec. 1. </div> <div class="footnote">[69] Epitome Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ, Lib. xii., cap. 8. </div> <div class="footnote">[70] Historia Francorum, Lib. ii., cap. 3 (ad fin.). </div> <div class="footnote">[71] Mrs. D. P. Todd, Total Eclipses of the Sun, p. 101. </div> <div class="footnote">[72] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 14. Ed. B. Thorpe, 1861. </div> <div class="footnote">[73] Prof. S. Ockley, History of the Saracens, vol ii. p. 110. Camb. 1757. </div> <div class="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. </div> <div class="footnote">[75] Letter in the Times, July 19, 1872. </div> <div class="footnote">[76] J. F. J. Schmidt, Ast. Nach., vol. lxxvii. p. 127, Feb. 1, 1871. </div> <div class="footnote">[77] Memoirs, R.A.S., vol. xxvi. p. 131, 1858. </div> <div class="footnote">[78] J. L. E. Dreyer, Nature, vol. xvi. p. 549, Oct. 25, 1877. </div> </div> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.