Back Aa

Story of Eclipses

<h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> ECLIPSES OF THE SUN MENTIONED IN HISTORY—CHINESE. This is the first of several chapters which will be devoted to historical eclipses. Of course the total eclipse of the Sun of August 9, 1896, observed in Norway and elsewhere, is, in a certain sense, an eclipse mentioned in history, but that is not what is intended by the title prefixed to these chapters. By the term “historical eclipses,” as used here, I mean eclipses which have been recorded by ancient historians and chroniclers who were not necessarily astronomers, and who wrote before the invention of the telescope. The date of this may be conveniently taken as a dividing line, so that I shall deal chiefly with eclipses which occurred before, say, the year 1600. There is another reason why some such date as this is a suitable one from which to take a new departure. Without at all avowing that superstition ceased on the[76] Earth in the year 1600 (for there is far too large a residuum still available now, 300 years later), it may yet be said that the Revival of Letters did do a good deal to divest celestial phenomena of those alarming and panic-causing attributes which undoubtedly attached to them during the earlier ages of the world and during the “Dark Ages” in Western Europe quite as much as during any other period of the world’s history. No one can examine the writings of the ancient Greek and Roman historians, and the chronicles kept in the monasteries of Western Europe by their monkish occupiers, without being struck by the influence of terror which such events as eclipses of the Sun and Moon and such celestial visitors as Comets and Shooting Stars exercised far and wide. And this influence overspread, not only the unlettered lower orders, but many of those in far higher stations of life who, one might have hoped, would have been exempt from such feelings of mental distress as they often exhibited. Illustrations of this fact will be adduced in due course. It has always been supposed that the earliest recorded eclipse of the Sun is one thus mentioned in an ancient Chinese classic—the Chou-King (sometimes spelt Shou-Ching). The actual words used may be translated:—“On the first day of the last month of Autumn the Sun and Moon did not meet harmoniously in Fang.” To say the least of it, this is a moderately ambiguous announcement, and Chinese scholars, both astronomers and non-astronomers, have spent a good deal of time in examining the various[77] eclipses which might be thought to be represented by the inharmonious meeting of the Sun and the Moon as above recorded. To cut a long story short, it is generally agreed that we are here considering one or other of two eclipses of the Sun which occurred in the years 2136 or 2128 B.C. respectively, the Sun being then in the sidereal division “Fang,” a locality determined by the stars β, δ, π, and ρ Scorpii, and which includes a few small stars in Libra and Ophiuchus to the N. and in Lupus to the S. How this simple and neat conclusion, which I have stated with such apparent dogmatism, was arrived at is quite another question, and it would hardly be consistent with the purpose of this volume to attempt to work it out in detail, but a few points presented in a summary form may be interesting. In the first place, be it understood, that though it is fashionable to cast ridicule on John Chinaman, especially by way of retaliation for his calling us “Barbarians,” yet it is a sure and certain fact that not only have the Chinese during many centuries been very attentive students of Astronomy, but that we Westerns owe a good deal of our present knowledge in certain departments to the information stored up by Chinese observers during many centuries both before and after the Christian Era. This, however, is a digression. The circumstances of this eclipse as regards its identification having been carefully examined by Mr. R. W. Rothman,[19] in 1839 were further reviewed by[78] Professor S. M. Russell in a paper published in the proceedings of the Pekin Oriental Society.[20] The substance of the case is that in the reign of Chung-K’ang, the fourth Emperor of the Hsia Dynasty, there occurred an eclipse of the Sun, which is interesting not only for its antiquity, but also for the dread fate of the two Astronomers Royal of the period, who were taken by surprise at its occurrence, and were unprepared to perform the customary rites. These rites were the shooting of arrows and the beating of drums, gongs, etc., with the object of delivering the Sun from the monster which threatened to devour it. The two astronomers by virtue of their office should have superintended these rites. They were, however, drunk and incapable of performing their duties, so that great turmoil ensued, and it was considered that the land was exposed to the anger of the gods. By way of appeasing the gods, and of suitably punishing the two State officials for their neglect and personal misconduct, they were forthwith put to death, a punishment which may be said to have been somewhat excessive, in view of the fact that the eclipse was not a total but only a partial one. An anonymous verse runs:— <div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> Here lie the bodies of Ho and Hi, Whose fate though sad was visible— Being hanged because they could not spy Th’ eclipse which was invisible.</div> </div> It appears beyond all reasonable doubt that the eclipse in question occurred on October 22, 2136[79] B.C. The preliminary difficulties to be got over in arriving at the date arose from the fact that there was an uncertainty of 108 years in the date when the Emperor Chung-K’ang ascended the throne; and within these limits of time there were 14 possible years in which an eclipse of the Sun in Fang could have occurred. Then the number was further limited by the necessity of finding an eclipse which could have been seen at the place which was the Emperor’s capital. The site of this, again, was a matter of some uncertainty. However, step by step, by a judicious process of exhaustion, the year 2136 B.C. was arrived at as the alternative to the previously received date of 2128 B.C. Considering that we are dealing with a matter which happened full 4000 years ago, it may fairly be said that this discrepancy is not perhaps much to be wondered at, seeing what disputes often happen nowadays as to the precise date of events which may have occurred but a few years or even a few months before the controversy springs up. Professor Russell says that:—“Some admirers of the Chinese cite this eclipse as a proof of the early proficiency attained by the Chinese in astronomical calculations. I find no ground for that belief in the text. Indeed, for many centuries later, the Chinese were unable to predict the position of the Sun accurately among the stars. They relied wholly on observation to settle their calendar, year by year, and seem to have drawn no conclusions or deductions from their observations. Their calendar was continually falling into confusion. Even at the beginning of this[80] dynasty, when the Jesuits came to China, the Chinese astronomers were unable to calculate accurately the length of the shadow of the Sun at the equinoxes and solstices. It seems to me therefore very improbable that they could have been able to calculate and predict eclipses.” I am not at all sure that this is quite a fair presentation of the case. I do not remember ever to have seen the power to predict eclipses ascribed to the Chinese, but it is a simple matter of fact that we owe to them during many centuries unique records of a vast number of celestial phenomena. Their observations of comets may be singled out as having been of inestimable value to various 19th-century computers, especially E. Biot and J. R. Hind. The second recorded eclipse of the Sun would seem to be also due to the Chinese. Confucius relates that during the reign of the Emperor Yew-Wang an eclipse took place. This Emperor reigned between 781 B.C. and 771 B.C., and it has been generally thought that the eclipse of 775 B.C. is the one referred to, but Johnson doubts this on the ground that this eclipse was chiefly visible in the circumpolar regions, and if seen at all in China must have been of very small dimensions. He leans to the eclipse of June 4, 780 B.C. as the only large one which happened within the limits of time stated above. An ancient Chinese historical work, known as the Chun-Tsew, written by Confucius, makes mention of a large number of solar eclipses which occurred before the Christian Era. This work came under the notice of M. Gaubil, one of the[81] French Jesuit missionaries who laboured in China some century and a half ago, and he first gave an account of it in his Traité de la Chronologie Chinoise, published at Paris in 1770.[21] The Chun-Tsew is said to be the only work really written by Kung-Foo-Tze, commonly known as Confucius, the other treatises attributed to him having been compiled by disciples of his either during his life-time or after his decease. The German chronologist, Ideler, was acquainted with this work, and in a paper of his own, presented to the Berlin Academy, remarked:—“What gives great interest to this work is the account of 36 solar eclipses observed in China, the first of which was on Feb. 22, 720 B.C., and the last on July 22, 495 B.C.” In 1863 Mr. John Williams, then Assistant Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, communicated to the Society in a condensed form the particulars of these eclipses as related in Confucius’s book, together with some remarks on the book itself. The Chun-Tsew treats of a part of the history of the confederated nations into which China was divided during the Chow Dynasty, that is between 1122 B.C. and 255 B.C. The particular period dealt with is that which extended from 722 B.C. to 479 B.C. It was during the latter part of this interval of about 242 years that Confucius flourished. But the book is not quite a general history for it is more particularly[82] devoted to the small State of Loo of which Confucius was a native, where he passed a great portion of his life, and where he was advanced to the highest honours. It contains the history of twelve princes of this State with incidental notices of the other confederated nations. The number of the years of each reign is accurately determined, and the events are classed under the years in which they occurred. Each year is divided into sections according to the four seasons, Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, and the sections are subdivided into months, and often the days are distinguished. The name Chun-Tsew is said to have been given to this work from its having been commenced in Spring and finished in Autumn, but Williams thinks that the name rather refers to the fact that its contents are divided into seasons as stated. The style in which it is written is very concise, being a bare mention of facts without comment, and although on this account it might appear to us dry and uninteresting, it is much valued by the Chinese as a model of the ancient style of writing. It forms one of the Woo-King or Five Classical Books, without a thorough knowledge of which, and of the Sze-Shoo or Four Books, no man can attain to any post of importance in the Chinese Empire. The account of each eclipse is but little more than a brief mention of its occurrence at a certain time. The following is an example of the entries:—“In the 58th year of the 32nd cycle in the 51st year of the Emperor King-Wang, of the Chow Dynasty, the 3rd year of Yin-Kung, Prince of[83] Loo, in the spring, the second moon, on the day called Kea-Tsze, there was an eclipse of the Sun.” This 58th year of the 32nd cycle answers to 720 B.C. Mr. Williams in the year 1863 presented to the Royal Astronomical Society a paper setting out the whole of the eclipses of which I have cited but one example, converting, of course, the very complicated Chinese dates into European dates. These Chinese records of eclipses were in 1864 subjected to examination by the late Sir G. B. Airy,[22] with results which were highly noteworthy, and justify us in reposing much confidence in Chinese astronomical work. Airy remarks:—“The period through which these eclipses extend is included in the time through which calculations of eclipses have been made in the French work entitled L’Art de vérifier les Dates. I have several times had occasion to recalculate with great accuracy eclipses which are noted in that work (edition of 1820), and I have found that, to the limits of accuracy to which it pretends, and which are abundantly sufficient for the present purpose, it is perfectly trustworthy. I have therefore made a comparison of the Chun-Tsew eclipses with those of L’Art de vérifier les Dates. The result is interesting. Of the 36 eclipses, 32 agree with those of the Art de vérifier les Dates, not only in the day, but also in the general track of the eclipse as given in the Art de vérifier, which appears to show sufficiently that the eclipse would be visible in that province of China to which the Chun-Tsew[84] is referred.” Airy then proceeds to point out that, with regard to the four eclipses which he could not confirm, there cannot have been eclipses in April 645 B.C. or in June 592 B.C. It appears, however, from a note by Williams, that the date attached to the eclipse of 645 B.C. is, in reality, an erroneous repetition (in the Chinese mode of expressing it) of that attached to the next following one, and in the absence of correct date it must be rejected. In the record of 592 B.C., June 16, no clerical error is found, and there must be an error of a different class. The eclipses of 552 B.C., September 19, and 549 B.C., July 18, to which there is nothing corresponding in the Art de vérifier, are in a different category. These occur in the lunations immediately succeeding 552 B.C., August 20, and 549 B.C., June 19, respectively, and there is no doubt that those which agree with the Art de vérifier were real eclipses. Now there cannot be eclipses visible at the same place in successive lunations, because the difference of the Moon’s longitudes is about 29°, and the difference of latitudes is therefore nearly 3°, which is greater than the sum of the diameters of the Sun and Moon increased by any possible change of parallax for the same place. These, therefore, were not real eclipses. It seems probable that the nominal days were set down by the observer in his memorandum book as days on which eclipses were to be looked for. Airy conjectured that the eclipses of 552 B.C., August 20, and 549 B.C., June 19, were observed by one and the same person, and that he possessed science enough[85] to make him connect the solar eclipses with the change of the Moon, but not enough to give him any idea of the limitations to the visibility of an eclipse. On a subsequent occasion Mr. Williams laid before the Society a further list of solar eclipses observed in China, and extending from 481 B.C. to the Christian Era. He collected these from a Chinese historical work, entitled Tung-Keen-Kang-Muh. This work, which runs to 101 volumes, contains a summary of Chinese history from the earliest times to the end of the Yuen Dynasty, A.D. 1368, and was first published about 1473. The copy in Mr. Williams’s possession was published in 1808. The text is very briefly worded, and consists merely of an account of the accessions and deaths of the emperors and of the rulers of the minor states, with some of the more remarkable occurrences in each reign. The appointments and deaths of various eminent personages are also noticed, together with special calamities such as earthquakes, inundations, storms, etc. The astronomical allusions include eclipses and comets. Amongst the eclipses are also all, or most of those which are recorded in the Chun-Tsew as having occurred prior to 479 B.C. Though no particular expressions are used to define the exact character of the eclipses, it is to be presumed that some of them must have been total, because it is stated that the stars were visible, albeit that seemingly in only one instance is a word attached which specifically expresses the idea of totality. Here again all the dates were expressed in Chinese style, but,[86] as published by Williams, were rendered, as before, in European style by aid of chronological tables, published about 1860 in Japan. Mr. Williams, in his second paper, from which I have been quoting, states that he brought his published account down to the Christian Era only as a matter of convenience, but that he had in hand a further selection of eclipses from the Tung-Keen-Kang-Muh, the interval from the Christian Era to the 4th century A.D. yielding nearly 100 additional eclipses. This further transcript has not yet been published, but remains in MS. in the Library of the Royal Astronomical Society. Mr. Williams died in 1874 at the age of 77, one of the most experienced Chinese scholars of the century. It is remarkable that none of the Chinese annals to which reference has been made include any mention of eclipses of the Moon; but the records of Comets are exceedingly numerous and, as I have already stated, have proved of the highest value to astronomers who have been called upon to investigate the ancient history of Comets. <div class="footnotes">Footnotes: <div class="footnote">[19] Memoirs, R.A.S., vol. xi. p. 47. </div> <div class="footnote">[20] Republished in the Observatory Magazine, vol. xviii. p. 323, et seq., 1895. </div> <div class="footnote">[21] A good deal of information respecting Chinese eclipse records, so far as known up to the beginning of the 19th-century, will be found in Delambre’s Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne. Paris, 1817. </div> <div class="footnote">[22] Month. Not., R.A.S., vol. xxiv. p. 41. </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.