<Previous Section>
<Next Section>

Appendix VI. Eclipses in the Reign of Emperor Wu

i. In Chien-Yüan II (the second year of the period Chien-Yüan), ii (the second month), on the day ping-hsü, the first day of the month, an eclipse of the sun is listed (HS 6: 2b, 27 Cb: 14a; Han-chi 10: 1b) The "Treatise," ch. 27, adds, "It was 14 degrees in [the constellation] K'uei." Hoang, Concordance des chronologies néoméniques chinois et européenne, equates this date with the julian Mar. 21, 139 B.C. But there was no eclipse on that date.

In the five years between the last preceding correctly recorded eclipse in 143 B.C. and the next one in 138 B.C., there were 12 eclipses, of which only one was visible in China. 1 That one occurred on July 8, 141 B.C., which date was, according to Hoang, Emperor Ching, Hou III, v, the last day, yi-ch'ou. The day after yi-ch'ou is ping-yin, which was the first day of the sixth month; Hoang's calendar might have been one day in error; and someone, reading a partly illegible list of eclipses which omitted the year-periods, might have misread "three" as "two," "six" as "two," and misread or corrected "ping-yin" 寅 to "ping-hsü" 戌, thus achieving this listing, so that it quite possibly represents a genuine observation.

The three principal stars of K'uei were then in 344°, 343° and 347° R.A.; Oppolzer calculates the longitude of the sun at the eclipse of 141 B.C. as 101° = 103° R.A. The heavenly location of the eclipse does not thus represent any observation.

ii. On Chien-Yüan III, ix, ping-tzu, the last day of the month, a second solar eclipse is recorded (6: 3b; Han-chi 10: 5a). Hoang equates this date with Nov. 1, 138 B.C., for which Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2545. It must have been quite conspicuous in Ch'ang-an; Oppolzer charts the path of centrality as passing through the present Urga, Mongolia, and Korea.

HS 27 Cb: 14a also records the eclipse and adds, "It was 2 degrees in Wei(3)." The principal star of Wei(3), µ Scr, was then in 219° R.A.; Oppolzer calculates the sun as in 215° long. = 213° R.A.

iii. On Chien-Yüan V, i, chi-szu, the first day of the month, a third eclipse is recorded (HS 27 Cb: 14a; Han-chi 10: 8b). The "Annals," ch. 6, do not list this eclipse. Hoang equates this date with Feb. 16, 136 B.C., but there was no eclipse on that date.

In the four years between the previous eclipse in 138 B.C. and the next correctly recorded one in 134 B.C., there were nine solar eclipses, of which two were visible in China. 2 Oppolzer charts the moon's umbra in the eclipse of Apr. 15, 136 as passing through northern Siberia; calculation by the method in Neugebauer, Astronomische Chronologie, shows that in Ch'ang-an this eclipse was invisible, in the present Peiping it reached a magnitude of 0.07 at 3:26 p.m., local time, and at the present Ning-hsia, the ancient So-fang, it reached a magnitude of 0.15 at 2:44 p.m., local time. Calculation also shows that the eclipse of Apr. 4, 135 was invisible in Ch'ang-an, but reached a magnitude of 0.08 at 6:32 a.m., on Apr. 5, in the present Peiping.

Apr. 15, 136 was, according to Hoang, Chien-Yüan V, iii, the last day, ting-mao. ting-mao is the second day before chi-szu. Since Hoang's calendar may be two days in error, and since "three" in Chinese may easily be misread as " of probability. It seems to have been reported from outside the capital. Yet at the longitude of Ch'ang-an, the southern limit of visibility for this eclipse was 35° N, only a short distance north of Ch'ang-an, according to Neugebauer's elements, so that the eclipse might easily have been reported from somewhere in central Shensi. Since moreover absolute exactness cannot be claimed for even the best astronomical computations concerning events two thousand years ago, it is furthermore possible that this eclipse was actually visible in Ch'ang-an.

iv. In Yüan-kuang I, ii, on the last day of the month, ping-ch'en, a fourth eclipse is recorded (HS 27 Cb: 14a; Han-chi 11: 4b). The "Annals" does not record it. Hoang equates this date with Mar. 25, 134. But there was no eclipse on that day.

In the four years between the last correctly recorded eclipse in 138 B.C. and the next one in 134, only two eclipses were visible in China, the first of which seems definitely to be the one denoted by the preceding recording. The other eclipse visible in China, occurring on Apr. 4, 135, 22h.48m.GCT, and visible in China on the morning of Apr. 5, was on Chien-Yüan VI, iii, the last day, jen-hsü, according to Hoang. jen-hsü 壬戌 may easily be misread as ping-ch'en 丙辰 and "three" may equally easily be mistaken as "two." Year-periods were not inaugurated until 114 or 113 B.C., so that the mistake of one year is equally intelligible. The original record probably read the year "six," which was misread "seven" before it was inserted into the list in the "Treatise," ch. 27. Hence Apr. 5, 135 B.C. was probably the actual date of this eclipse.

Since the list in the "Treatise" seems to be that of the court astronomers in Ch'ang-an, it is peculiar that this and the preceding eclipses must have been entered into that list without having been visible in Ch'ang-an. The previous eclipse may have actually been visible in the capital; the southern limit of visibility for the present eclipse, according to Neugebauer's method, was about 40° N in the longitude of Ch'ang-an; it was visible at sunrise at T'ai-yüan.

v. In Yüan-kuang I, vii , a day before the last day of the month, kuei-wei, a fifth eclipse is recorded (6: 5b; 27 Cb: 14a; Han-chi 11: 4b). The "Treatise" adds, "It was eight degrees in Yi(4)."

Hoang equates this date with Aug. 19, 134 B.C., for which day Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2555. He calculates the sun in long. 142° = 143° R.A. Of the stars in Yi(4), α Hydrae was then in 136° R.A., α and γ Crateris in 139° and 145° R.A. There is thus a fair approximation.

This eclipse must have been quite prominent; Oppolzer charts the path of totality as passing through the modern Irkutsk and southern Manchuria.

vi. In Yüan-so II, a sixth eclipse of the sun is recorded. HS 6: 10b dates it iii, the last day, yi-hai. HS 27: Cb: 14a dates it ii, the last day, yi-szu, and adds, "It was 3 degrees in Wei(4)," Han-chi 12: 3a dates it ii; the last day, yi-hai. Hoang equates the date in the "Annals" with May 6, 127, and that in the "Treatise" with Apr. 6, 127. He gives no yi-hai day in the second month, so that the Han-chi's date is impossible.

Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2570 for Apr. 6, 127, and nothing for the other date, so that the recording in the "Treatise" is correct. It is interesting that the Han-chi gives a dating partly like the incorrect one in the "Annals" and partly like the correct one in the "Treatise." Probably in the second century, when the Han-chi was composed, the text of the "Annals" contained the reading now in the Han-chi (possibly Pan Ku originally had an incorrect record before him), and later someone, who knew that such a date was impossible, corrected the text by changing the month, for the emendation of the month is the easiest one and gives a seemingly correct result.

This eclipse was visible in the Mediterranean world, especially in Babylonia. Oppolzer and Ginzel both calculate that the path of totality passed through northern Sinkiang and just east of Lake Baikal. They calculate the sun in long. 12° = 14° R.A. The principal star of Wei(4), 35 Arietis, was then in 11° R.A.

In the period of 7 years between the preceding eclipse and this one, no eclipses were visible in China. 3

vii. In Yüan-so VI, xi, kuei-ch'ou, the last day of the month, a seventh eclipse is listed (27 Cb: 14a; Han-chi 12: 9a). The "Annals" do not list it; the Han-chi puts it at the end of the year, on the day kuei-yu. Hoang gives no kuei-ch'ou day in the eleventh month of that year, but does give a kuei-yu day as the 19th day of the month, Dec. 14, 124 B.C., at the beginning, not the end of the year.

In the 5 years from the preceding to the next correctly recorded eclipse in 122 B.C., there were 11 eclipses, of which 2 were visible in China. 4 Calculation of the eclipse of Feb. 3, 124 B.C. shows that it was invisible in Ch'ang-an and the present Peiping, but it reached a magnitude of 0.05 at 2:10 p.m. local time in the ancient So-fang, the present Ning-hsia, which had recently been conquered. Such a small eclipse in so remote a spot would hardly have been noticed. The eclipse of Jan. 23, 123 B.C. was visible in Ch'ang-an and places south and east. It occurred in Yüan-so VI, xii, the last day, kuei-ch'ou.

The record plainly points to the eclipse of Jan. 23, 123 B.C.; the error in dating, reading xii as xi, is quite natural.

viii. In Yüan-shou I, v, yi-szu, the last day of the month, an eighth eclipse is recorded (6: 14a; 27 Cb: 14a; Han-chi 12: 13). The "Treatise" adds, "It was 6 degrees in [the constellation] Liu. According to the calculations of Ching Fang [77-37 B.C.] in his Yi-chuan, when, as at this time, the sun is eclipsed from its right side, his rule says that the prince will lose a minister."

Hoang equates this date with July 9, 122 B.C. for which Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2582. He charts the path of this annular-total eclipse as passing through central Shensi, just north of Ch'ang-an. He calculates the sun as in long. 102° = 103° R.A.; the principal star of Liu, δ Hydrae, was then in 101° R.A.

ix. In Yüan-ting V, iv, the last day, ting-ch'ou, a ninth eclipse of the sun is listed (6: 21a; 27 Cb: 14b). The Han-chi does not list this eclipse. The "Treatise" adds, "It was 23 degrees in [the constellation] Tung-ching."

Hoang equates this date with June 18, 112 B.C., for which Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2606. He charts the moon's umbra as passing through SuiYüan and Jehol, and calculates the sun's longitude as 83° = 82° R.A. The principal star of Tung-ch'ing, ν Gemini, was then in 66° R.A.

In the ten years since the preceding eclipse and down to this eclipse, there were 23 solar eclipses, of which only one was visible in China. 5 This eclipse occurred on Aug. 19, 115 B.C. It reached a magnitude of only 0.28 at 11:21 a.m. local time in Ch'ang-an, so might naturally have been missed.

x. In Yüan-feng IV, vi, the first day, chi-yu, a tenth eclipse is listed (27 Cb: 14b). This eclipse is not found in the "Annals" or in the Han-chi. Hoang equates the date with June 24, 107 B.C., but there was no eclipse on that date. Chu Wen-hsin, in his Li-tai Jih-shih K'ao, p. 30, suggests the eclipse of Sept. 19, 107 B.C.

In the six years from the preceding eclipse to the next correctly listed one in 96 B.C., there were 37 solar eclipses, of which five were visible in China. 6 These were the eclipses on (1) Apr. 6, 108 B.C., Yüan-feng III, iii, last day, yi-yu, which reached a magnitude of 0.32 at 3:29 p.m. at Ch'ang-an; (2) Sept. 19, 107, Yüan-feng, IV, viii, last day, ping-tzu, which was invisible in Ch'ang-an but reached a magnitude of 0.34 at the present Peiping at sunrise; (3) July 19, 104 B.C., T'ai-ch'u I, vii, first day, keng-yin; (4) Dec. 3, 103 B.C., T'ai-ch'u II, xi, first day, jen-tzu, which reached a magnitude of 0.12 at 1:42 p.m. at Ch'ang-an; and (5) May 17, 101 B.C., T'ai-ch'u IV, iii, the day before the last, jen-yin, which reached a magnitude of 0.45 at 4:20 p.m. at Ch'ang-an.

Of these eclipses, the one of Apr. 6, 108 is the most plausible one, for chi己-yu may easily be mistaken for yi乙-yu. If Hoang gauged incorrectly the number of days in a month, yi-yu might have been the first day of the fourth month. The eclipse of July 19, 104 was on the right day of the month; chi-ch'ou 丑 (which may easily be misread for chi-yu 酉) is the day before keng-yin; but the year-period, year, and month present difficulties. 7 The day of the eclipse of Sept. 19, 107, ping-tzu, presents insuperable difficulties, and the eclipse was invisible in the capital, which seems to be the locality indicated for the list in the "Treatise." In all probability Apr. 6, 108 B.C. was the actual date of this eclipse.

It is interesting that from the beginning of Emperor Ching's reign in 154 B.C. down to the eclipse of June 18, 112 B.C., every eclipse that could reasonably be expepses seem to have been missed. Why should this failure have occurred just before the calendar was rectified?

xi. In T'ai-shih I, i, yi-szu, the last day of the month, an eleventh eclipse is recorded (HS 27 Cb: 14b; Han-chi 15: 1a). The "Annals" do not list this eclipse.

According to the correction of Hoang's calendar in Chavannes, Documents chinois, p. 71 (cf. n. 35.6), this date was Feb. 22, 96 B.C. Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2644 for Feb. 23, 96 B.C. and charts it as visible in China. This mistake of one day may well have been that of Hoang's calculations.

Chavannes found, on a tablet discovered by Stein in a Han watch-tower in the desert, a record giving the cyclical day for the first day of the twelfth month in T'ai-shih I, which shows that the intercalary month was added at the end of T'ai-shih I, not in T'ien-han IV, as Hoang has it. This change discovered by Chavannes gives a date correct within one day for this eclipse. Neither Hoang, in his Catalogue des éclipses de soleil et de lune nor Chu Wen-hsin, in his Li-tai Jih-shih K'ao, seems to have noticed this necessary correction in Hoang's calendar. Hoang concludes that no eclipse corresponds to this listing! This unexpected tallying shows the essential correctness both of Han recordings and (within a limit of about three days) of Hoang's calendar.

xii. In T'ai-shih IV, x, chia-yin, the last day, a twelfth eclipse is listed (HS 6: 36b; 27 Cb: 14b; Han-chi 15: 3a). The "Treatise" adds, "It was 19 degrees in [the constellation] Tou."

Hoang equates this day with Dec. 12, 93 B.C., for which Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2652 and charts the moon's umbra as passing through SuiYüan and Chahar. He calculates the sun's longitude as 258° = 257° R.A. The principal star of Tou, φ Sagitarii, was then in 249° R.A. This eclipse was also visible in Athens, Memphis, and Babylon.

Hoang lists this day, however, as the first day of the eleventh month, so that one day probably needs to be added to some preceding month.

In the three years since the preceding eclipse, there were 7 solar eclipses, none of which was visible in China. 8

xiii. In Cheng-ho IV, viii, hsin-yu, the last day, a thirteenth eclipse is listed (HS 6: 38a; 27 Cb: 14b; Han-chi 15: 11a. The Han-chi reads, "the seventh month.") The "Treatise" adds, "It was partial, like a hook, 2 degrees in [the constellation] K'ang. In the late afternoon [3-5 p.m.], the lower part of the sun was eclipsed from the northwest. In the late afternoon, the eclipse was [also] over."

Hoang equates this date with Sept. 29, 89 B.C., for which Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2661. Calculation shows that this eclipse reached a magnitude of 0.85 at 3:41 p.m., local time at Ch'ang-an; that it commenced at 2:21 p.m. and ended at 4.53 p.m. The sun's longitude was 183° = 183° R.A.; the principal star of K'ang, κ Virginis, was then in 186° R.A. There was thus a close checking (except in longitude) between the recording and calculation.

In the four years since the preceding eclipse, there were 8 solar eclipses, of which only one, that of Oct. 11, 90 B.C. was visible in China. 9 Calculation shows that this one reached a magnitude of 0.17 at sunrise in Ch'ang-an.

Notes

1. Cf. 4: App. II, ix. The eclipse of June 17, 139 B.C. is the most promising of these eclipses; calculation shows however that it was invisible in all China.

2. In addition to those charted by Oppolzer, there were 4 partial eclipses, two of which, nos. 2550 and 2553, were located near the south polar regions. No. 2552 was calculated from Oppolzer's elements and found plainly invisible in China. The other one was visible in China.

3. Oppolzer lists 14 eclipses, 4 of them partial. Three of these partial eclipses were near the south pole, and the other, upon calculation, was found invisible in China. Of the umbral eclipses, no. 2561, which might appear to be visible, was calculated from Oppolzer's elements and found clearly invisible.

4. Besides those charted by Oppolzer, there were 3 partial eclipses, one of which was visible in China. No. 2577 was located near the south pole; no. 2578 was calculated and found invisible in China.

5. In addition to those charted by Oppolzer, there were 9 partial eclipses; nos. 2586, 2593, 2596, 2603 were near the south pole; the others were calculated from Oppolzer's elements and all found clearly invisible in China.

6. Besides those chartewere near the south pole. Nos. 2610, 2619, 2621, 2627, 2637, 2638 were calculated from Oppolzer's elements and found invisible in China. In addition nos. 2607, 2641, and 2642 were calculated by Neugebauer's elements and found invisible in China. The first and last of these were not quite visible in the present Canton.

7. The eclipse of May 17, 101 has also claims to be the one listed; the number of the year is correct, the number of the month is understandable, for "three" might be misread as "six" and the day jen-yin is the third day before the day yi-szu 乙巳, which might have been misread for chi-yu 己酉. But the day in the month and the year-period are wrong.

8. Besides those charted by Oppolzer, therible in Chinese latitudes. No. 2649 was also calculated from Oppolzer's elements and found invisible.

9. Besides those charted, there were 3 partial eclipses; nos. 2654 and 2655 were near the south pole; no. 2653 was not visible in Chinese latitudes.

<Previous Section>
<Next Section>
IATHPublished by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia