5l6 TRANS. ST. LOUIS ACAD. SCIENCE. 



Moreover, the kings of that time, as we have seen (p. 507), reign- 

 ing three years later than Ptolemy made the world believe, this 

 eclipse would belong to — 759. I fear, moreover, that the date 

 of this eclipse was not fixed at all in the inscription, and that its 

 epoch was made out only by the aid of Hansen's Tables. Pur- 

 suant to my approximate corrections of the latter, the longitude 

 of the Lunar nodes was, about that time, shorter by 7° 14'. By 

 the way, this solar eclipse is not all the '''■terminus a quo for 

 researches on the historical eclipses"; for the eclipse observed 

 during the building of Rome is of the same age, and, being fixed 

 both by a planetary configuration and subsequent ascertained 

 eclipses, it is much more reliably ascertained than that of Rawlin- 

 son. Moreover, the Chinese eclipse of — 2192, likewise fixed by 

 a planetary configuration, is 1300 years older than that in — 762. 

 (See page 494 ) 



No. 2. I believe with Hind that the retrogression of the shadow 

 on the dial of Ahaz signifies a solar eclipse. Hind refers it to 



— 688, Jan. loth, 22h. 15m., P. T. ; but, since Hezekiah died in 



— 696, and since 2 Kings xx. 6, reports the phenomenon to have 

 taken place fifteen years prior to the king's death, it is apparent 

 that Hind's eclipse cannot be the true one. (See the author's 

 "Summary," Appendix, the year — 696.) Consequently, the 

 eclipse under consideration may have been that in —715, June 5, 

 2ih. P. T., whilst the corrected place of the ft was nearly 5° W. 

 of the sun. (See the eclipse p. 439, No. 3.) The proper eclipse 

 in — 710, March 13th, 23h., happened likely after sunset in Jeru- 

 salem. 



No. 3. The total eclipse of the sun predicted to the Milesians 

 by Thales, Hind took for the same which terminated the war 

 between the Medians and Lydians, and hence he referred the 

 eclipse to —584, May 28th, 4h. 15m. P. T., ft 2° W. This state- 

 ment, however, stands in opposition to all ancient reports and 

 established facts ; for, in the first place, Herodotus (i. 74) ex- 

 pressly states that this eclipse predicted by Thales coincided with 

 sunrise {zldov u'jxza dvrc ^fxspa^ yevo/jtiur^v), whilst Hind's 

 eclipse took place in the afternoon (4 hours p^m.) Even Euse- 

 bius, who notoriously begins the Olympian years with the preced- 

 ing local newyears day, puts the Thalesian eclipse in Ol. 48, 3, 

 i.e. in — 581, and not in — 584. Further, Pliny (H. N. iL 12, 9) 



