652 Sitzung der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 



remote parts of the earth. Very possibly, the lost portions of 

 the tablet may have recorded solar eclipses. We cannot but 

 deeply regret tbe absence of tbese, and earnestly bope tbat they 

 may in course of time be recovered. In tbe mean time, bowever, 

 let us make the best use we can of tbe fragments that are 

 available for study. 



It is certain that while no particulars are given as to the 

 first and third of the eclipses, a Statement is added to the second, 

 indicating something which happened while the sun rose. Now, 

 there is no phenomenon connected with a lunar eclipse which 

 can happen at sunrise except the termination of the eclipse; and 

 it is so very unusual tbat this should be Seen, that if it were 

 Seen it would naturally be mentioned in such a record as this 

 appears to be. Now, there can be no doubt that on the mor- 

 ning of the 13' h September — 701, this phenomenon was visible 

 somewhere under the parallel of Nineveh. According to Han- 

 sen's tables, bowever, the moon would be very far, perhaps half 

 a degree, beyond the place which would allow the phenomenon 

 to appear in the longitude of Nineveh. If then it be a fact 

 that it was observed there, it furnishes astronomers with a most 

 important datum for correcting the lunar tables. It is remarkable 

 that Ptolemy has preserved to us a record of the lunar eclipse 

 which preceded this by 223 lunations, when the moon must have 

 occupied nearly the same position with respect to its perigee and 

 nodes. He says that the eclipse began after the moon rose 

 at Babylon. In quoting the Babylonian record, he does not say 

 how long after the moon's rising the eclipse began; but he as- 

 sumes in his calculations that it began half an hour after. The 

 calculations I believe to have been taken from Hipparchus, and 

 it is very probable that he possessed a fuller record than 

 Ptolemy quotes. Now, it is certain that by Hansen's tables the 

 moon would begin to be eclipsed a quarter of an hour before 

 she rose. Here then is an error in the tables of about nine 

 minutes at the least, and probably three times that amount, 

 and in the same direction as the error in the eclipse of Sen- 

 nacherib. Another eclipse, in which a similar error exists, is 

 that of — 719 March 8. The middle of this was, according to 

 Hansen's tables, at ll h 14 m PM mean Babylonian time. I quote 



