514 TRANS. ST. LOUIS ACAD. SCIENCE. 



could not have been seen in Babylonia at all. And yet, on occa- 

 sion of the total eclipse in 1851, it turned out that Buerg's Tables 

 were more correct than those of Burckhardt and Damoiseau, based 

 on the Almagest. 



In one word, the Babylonian eclipses are by no means con- 

 firmed by Hansen's and other Tables. It is Ptolemy who, a.d. 

 140, determined the times and magnitudes of the Babylonian 

 eclipses, having referred them to wrong years. 



4. The present theory of the moon's motions, especially Han- 

 sen's Lunar Tables, principally derived from the Babylonian 

 eclipses, have been ratified by eminent astronomers. It is true, 

 Prof. Airy determined the dates of three famous eclipses of the 

 sun by means of Hansen's Tables. (See Phil. Transac. of the R. 

 Astron. Soc. of London, vol. 8, p. 92 ; Monthly Not. of the Lon- 

 don Astr. Soc. 1S57, pp. 233-355.) First, he referred the total 

 eclipse of the sun of Agathocles, Arch. Hieromnemon (p. 472, 

 No. 24), to — 309, Aug. 14th, 2ih. 15m., 0, 4 W. ; but, unfortu- 

 nately, this eclipse belonged to yzifi(bv, and not, as history reports, 

 to d-epoQ (p. 418), and the archons of this time ruled, as we have 

 seen, two years later. Consequently, this eclipse ought to have 

 been referred to — 306, June 13, 22h., £1 o° 45', correctly 4 W. 

 of the sun. Accordingly, this eclipse does not confirm, but con- 

 futes, the present theory of the moon. — The second eclipse 

 by which Prof. Airy intended to assure the present lunar theory, 

 especially Hansen's Tables, is that observed on occasion of the 

 expugnation of Nineveh and the destruction of the Medo-Babylo- 

 nian supremacy in Asia, which eclipse he referred to — 556, May 

 19th, 2h. 15m. P. T. ; but this eclipse is refuted by a great many 

 of the most reliably ascertained historical events, as we have seen 

 (p. 483). For instance, the Babylonian Captivity, it is universally 

 known, commenced in — 601, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar 

 (P.49S), and hence, had Cyrus destroyed Nineveh in — 556, the 

 captivity would have lasted 45 years only. Who is able to believe 

 that the coeval Prophets and chroniclers did not know the dura- 

 tion of the Babylonian captivity, which lasted, as they narrate, 

 seventy years and some months? And yet Airy persists that 

 about that time, and during a period of forty years, only one total 

 eclipse of the sun was, according to the present lunar theory and 

 Hansen's Tables, possible in Nineveh, viz. that in — 556. The 



