460 TRANS. ST. LOUIS ACAD. SCIENCE. 



nized a.d. 1868, and not in 1S67. Perhaps, however, the next 

 jubilee will take place a.d. 196S. 



41 & 4?. Dio Cass. (lxv. 8, p. 180; lxv. 11, p. 1S4 St.) and 

 Zonaras (An. xi. 16, p. 574 D.) relate that. coss. Snip. Galba 

 and T. Vin Rufinus, two total eclipses of the moon (alpuiTtodirjz 

 ■/at fiekatvrj) occurred, of which one happened "on Oct. 29th." 

 These are the eclipses in a.d. 68, May 6, i2h., ft 2° E. (—3° 25'), 

 and Oct. 29, 6h. 30m. a.m., y 2 W. ( — 3 25') ; for in a.d. 70, 

 to which the said consuls belong, no lunar eclipse at all occurred, 

 and in a.d. 69, to which Petavius referred, both lunar eclipses 

 were partial, and neither coincided with Oct. 29th. The consuls 

 of a.d. 6S, Capito and Rufus, have been confounded with the 

 consuls a.d. 70, Galba and Rufinus, because Rufus and Rufinus 

 were very similar names. 



43 & 44- Pliny (H. N. ii. 13 & 10) narrates, " ut quindecim 

 diebus utrumque sidus quereretur, Vespasianis patre et filio 

 consulibus." The rare phenomenon of two great eclipses within 

 fifteen days occurred, about that time, only a.d. 71, Mar. 4, Sh., 

 13 8° E., obscuration 4^ inches; and March 19, 2ih. 30m., ft 7 

 W., curve 1 6°, 39 , 66°. Since the longitude of the nodes was 

 then 3 25' shorter, both eclipses were great ones, as Pliny says. 

 The words "Vespasianis patre et filio consulibus" obviously 

 mean that year in which Emperor Vespasian was, for the first 

 time, associated with Titus in exercising the consulate. Accord- 

 ingly, these consuls must of necessity be referred to a.d. 71, and 

 not, as Petavius calculated, to a.d. 70; for Pliny was an eye- 

 witness. Since these eclipses were irreconcilable with Petavius's 

 chronology, according to which the consuls Vespasian II. and 

 Titus I. ruled a.d. 70, Petavius would have us to read, " Vespa- 

 siano III. filio iterum consulibus" ; and hence our philologers 

 have been so kind as to transform Pliny's genuine words, as they 

 read in old manuscripts, into " Vespasiano III., filio iterum con- 

 sulibus"; or even into, "Vespasiano IV. filio iterum consulibus. 

 But Vespasian cos. III. was the colleague of Nerva, and not 

 of Titus. The other so-called emendation of Pliny, '-Vespa- 

 siano IV. Tito II. coss." is the worst of all, because these consuls 

 ruled, according to Petavius himself, a.d : 72, during which year 

 Pliny's eclipses were quite impossible. These two eclipses in- 



