C 168 3 
BHa (the Sum or Difference of the Angles BEI and 
IE*)-; therefore the Sides Ei and ai may be found. 
But Ei is the Diftance of the Moon from the Sun 
in the Ecliptic, and eti £ aG the Moon's Latitude at 
the Time when the Centre of the Shade is at 0 j 
which may be compared with the Computation from 
the Tables for that Time. 
By this Means I compared the aforefaid Solar 
Eclipfes with the Tables, and found the Difference 
in Longitude and Latitude, as follows. 
A.D. 
Apparent Time 
at Greenwich. 
Dilt. j) a 0 
from E t. 
Lat. D 
from 9 /. 
D a O 
byTab. 
Lat. j) 
by Tab. 
Diff. fromObfer. 
Diff. in Lat. 
from Digit! 
obfer ved. 
nLong 
in Lat. 
364 
977 
978 
h. , „ 
Julie 16. 2 4 20 
Dec. 12. 19 12 30 
June 8. 1 r6 10 
39 41 inconfeq. 
43 39 in antec. 
29 3 inconfeq. 
34 37 Nor 
30 23 Nor. 
8 24 Sou. 
35 25 
36 3 
l37 48 
37 a6Nor. 
31 50 Nor. 
1 3 21 Sou. 
-4 16 
,+7 3 6 
4-8 45 
+ 2 49 
-(-i 27 
-5 3 - 
— 2 36 
+ 3 38 
The Agreement there is between the two laft of 
thefc Differences in Longitude, fhews that the Ta- 
bles reprefent the mean Motion of the Moon’s Apo- 
gee very well for above 700 Years, the Moon being 
very near her Perigee at the Time of one of rhofe 
Eclipfes, and near her Apogee at the Time of the 
other. 
By the fame Method I alfo compared the Sun’s 
Eclipfe, July 29, 14.78. (which appears, from what 
is related of it, to have been carefully obfcrved by 
Bernard VValther at Nuremberg ), with the Tables, 
and found the Difference in Longirude to be -f- 10' 
29 " and in Latitude -]- 9' \z" . This wide Dif- 
ference in Latitude, from the Tables, that agree fo 
well with the former ancient Obfervations, con- 
firmed me in the Opinion, that the Nuremberg 
• Obfer- 
