SEYFFARTH — ON THE THEORY OF THE MOON S MOTIONS. 439 



2. Plutarch (Rom. 13) reports that Romulus, being iS years 

 old, founded Rome in Ol. 6, 3, on the 9th day of Pharmuthi, be- 

 tween the 2d and 3d hours of the day, and that during the same 

 hour of the same day a partial eclipse of the sun took place 

 {a'jvodo:: ix/.i7rTexTJ), observed also in Teos, Asia Minor. Since 

 Plutarch, as we have seen, counts the Olympiads from —']']$-, the 

 foundation of Rome on the Parilia belongs to _ 753, and Pharmuthi 

 corresponded with March and April. Solinus (Pol. i. iS) says: 

 •' Romulus fundamenta murorum jecit, xviii annus natus, xi. Kal. 

 Majas (Apr. 21 ), hora post secundam ante tertiam plenam" ; and 

 he specifies the planetary configuration, previous to this event, 

 which refers again the foundation of Rome to —753, and to the 

 day of the Roman Parilia. Even Cicero (Divin. ii. 47) certifies 

 to the same eclipse. Since about that time no solar eclipse about 

 the vernal equinox, as Pingre's computations evidence, was possi- 

 ble except that in —752, May 25, i6h., the beginning of the sera 

 urbis conditae is incontrovertibly fixed. This eclipse took place 

 nearlv 4 hours later (p. 439), which corresponds with the ancient 

 reports, according to which the same eclipse was observed nearly 

 2h. 30m. after sunrise in Rome. Moreover, the longitude of ft 

 8°E. was shorter by 7° 11', and hence a small obscuration of the 

 sun was visible both in Rome and Teos. Petavius had reference 

 to the eclipse in _ 753, July 5th, 5h. ; but Rome was founded on 

 the Parilia and not in July, and in _ 753, July 5th, Romulus was 

 17 and not iS years old. Moreover, July 5th belonged to Ol. 6, 4, 

 and not to Ol. 6, 3. Besides, July 5th corresponded by no means 

 with Pharmuthi (March and April). In consequence of this blun- 

 der Petavius antedated by one year all events of Roman history 

 down to Julius Ctesar, and hence his chronology of the Roman 

 eclipses is in general wrong. 



3. Livy (i. 16), in accordance with the Annales Maximi and 

 many other authorities, reports that Romulus, having reigned 37 

 years, disappeared during a total eclipse of the sun. Cicero (De 

 rep. i. 16) writes: "Defectio solis, quae Nonis Quinctilibus fuit 

 regnante Romulo, quibus Romulum tenebris natura ad humanum 

 exitum abripuit " Plutarch (Rom. c. 27) represents this eclipse 

 to have been a total one (joi) fj/J.o'j to fw:; ixh-tiv — vuxra xazaa- 

 /£?v). The same we read in Florus (i. i), Seneca (Ep. xviii. 5, 

 31), Dionysius Hal. (ii. 2)^), Lampridius Com. (Ant. c. 2) ; and 



