ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY:

COMMUNICATING THE CLASSICS

Current Editor
Terry Papillon, Terry.Papillon@vt.edu
Volume 3, Number 7
May 1997


DLA Ejournal Home | Electronic Antiquity Home | Table of Contents for this issue | Search
ElAnt and other ejournals

HERODOTOS'S REPORT ON THALES' ECLIPSE

Thomas Worthen,
Department of Classics,
University of Arizona,
Tucson,
AZ 85721,
U.S.A.
e-mail: tomwr@ccit.arizona.edu
Controversies surrounding Thales' prediction of a famous eclipse event and its dating stem
from antiquity and continue into the present. The eclipse, Thales prediction of it, and the
historical circumstances for which it was relevant are detailed only by Herodotos (1.74): After
this, because Alyattes refused to surrender the Scythians despite the ongoing pleas of
Kyaxares, a war ensued between the Lydians and Medes over a period of some five years.
During this time on some occasions the Medes won a battle over the Lydians, while on other
occasions the Lydians prevailed over the Medes. They even engaged in a battle by night.
While they were still struggling for the upper hand in this war, during a battle begun in the
sixth year, it happened that when the fighting had been joined, day suddenly became night. A
prediction that this inversion of the day was going to happen, was made publically by Thales
of Miletus in announcements to the Ionian people; he proposed exactly the same period
favorable for it as the one in which the omen actually occurred. When the Lydians and Medes
alike saw that it had become night in place of day, they broke off the battle and hastened on
both sides with even more speed to bring about peace for themselves. (01)
Historians of later antiquity dated the eclipse to the 49th or 50th Olympiad (585-577). Among
these sources, Pliny (N.H. 2.53) gives the date (Ol. 49.1=585). Since nineteenth century
science affirmed that there was a total eclipse visible in the Aegean and Asia Minor on 28
May 585 (a date that corresponds very well with Pliny's date), some modern historians seize
upon this as the solar eclipse which Thales foretold and therefore the date of the battle. Just
how the ancients arrived at these dates is puzzling. Was it done on the basis of the calculated
acme of Thales? Was it by association with the names of dates of the rulers, the Median king
Kyaxares and the Lydian Alyattes who, Herodotos says, quit warring with each other owing
to this portentous apparition that occurred during one of their battles? Did they have a dated
list of eclipse events from which they selected the one most nearly approximating the
historical facts surrounding the battle? These issues are incidental to the purpose of this paper,
which is to offer a novel set of considerations about the eclipse, Thales prediction of it, and
Herodotos's misunderstanding of it . Nonetheless, historical considerations have become so
enmeshed with the discussion of astronomical issues, that some discussion of them will
become necessary during the course of this presentation.
A number of scientists have a-priori doubts about the ability of Thales to predict solar
eclipses. (02) There was no eclipse prediction; hence what Herodotos's reports about Thales a
myth. If the solution is that simple, then the year 585 can be of litte consideration for
historians attempting to set these events into chronological sequence. Other scientists
disregard historical factors altogether in their attempts to save Thales and his prediction. They
speculate that, although Thales could not have used a methodology developed by Chaldean
astronomers (03), he may have learned of some other principles upon which he based his
prediction. Hence they defend this or that eclipse date based on their own view of what
Thales' methodology must have been, without consideration of the problematic chronologies
involved. (04) Herodotos's narrative of these events implies that Kyaxares continued to rule
the Medes through the period of the war and the following negotiations. The historian
confirms our inferences on this point in another place (1.103), declaring that Kyaxares fought
the battle with the Lydians when the day was darkened, and it was he who united Asia beyond
the Halys river. The unification of Asia, including the hegemony formed with Babylon to
administer the coup de grace to the Assyrian empire is indeed attributed to the last two
Median kings by Babylonian Chronicles. Herodotos's Kyaxares is to be associated with
Umakishtar who led the Medes in 612 to join the Babylonians in sacking Nineveh. A later
Chronicle that gives an account of the conquest of the Medes by Kyros II mentions the
Median king's name as Ishtuwigu, clearly Astyages son of Kyaxares as named by Herodotos.
The Median conquest is firmly dated through these records to 550. (05) Using the Babylonian
terminus and Herodotos's length for Astyages' rule of thirty-five years, one can posit that the
date of the king's accessionto ca.585. As was noted above, however, historians of later
antiquity dated the eclipse to the 49th or 50th Olympiad (585- 577). (06) Among these
sources, Pliny (N.H. 2.53) gives a specific year (Ol. 49.1=585).
Since Herodotos takes pains to give the length of rule for each of the Persian and Median
kings, however, one can count the historian's contiguous regnal lengths backward from the
sixth year of Xerxes (07) to Kyaxares. By that method, the death date of the latter must be
about 595. . There is a ten-year discrepancy. Furthermore, there is alternate tradition that
names Astyages as the Median king at the critical battle with Alyattes. (08, 09) These
inconsistent data from antiquity need resolution. Herodotos's own data do not match the date
later antiquity gave to the eclipse he says marks a crucial battle led by the king Kyaxares. The
crux involves the reputations both of Herodotos and of Thales. We may discard Thales'
prediction entirely, thus freeing the chronological debate from any date set by astronomy. At
the other extreme we might completly readjust the Median chronology to suit the eclipse date
of 585.
The speciously broad path to a solution supposes that astronomical dating via an eclipse of
record must correct Herodotos's chronology or even override it. Efforts designed along this
line, however, have been unconvincing. Eduard Meyer, for example, proposed that Kyaxares'
death date could be brought to 585, and thus allow him to have been king at the time of the
date of the eclipse battle supposedly established by sci ence. Meyer accomplished this end
only by manipulating Herodotos's text and discounting the historian's usual procedure. (10) It
would be convenient to Herodotos's credibility if a date could be found for the eclipse that
accords with his Median chronology without correction. If an Anatolian eclipse occurred
between 615 and 586, before Kyaxares' death in 585, we could dispense with the alternate
tradition about Alyattes leading the battle. There are two solar eclipses during the period in
question that were visible from Asia Minor: the morning eclipse of 30 September 610, and the
morning eclipse of 18 May 603. What about Herodotos's description of the battle eclipse
makes it unique and so assignable to one eclipse more than another? Herodotos says that the
event occurred near the onset of the battle. (11) If so, then choosing the eclipse of 585 entails
an anomaly unless the battalions began their skirmish late in the day. That eclipse did not
begin until 4:20 (3:52) p.m. local time. (12) The historian also records that day became night
and that night came about in place of day. If we take this to refer to a solar eclipse, it must
have been a total solar eclipse. As seen from the region of the Halys river (assumed site of the
battle), however, the eclipse of 28 May 585 covered no more than magnitude 0.6 (.9). (13)
Such an eclipse might even go unnoticed should it occur when the sun is high in the sky.
Herodotos's description purports to be true to the occasion, but 'suddenly' could not be true to
observation surrounding the eclipse of 585.
A sudden conversion from day to night is a possible description of very few observed solar
eclipses. First of all, the eclipse would need to be completely total. Conditions approaching
true darkness are rare even so; for when there is an extensive solar corona, it continues
sending down enough light to read by. (14) An unexpected total eclipse, lacking corona,
occurring sometime near noon might be observed to occur suddenly, for in this case the
gradual diminution of the sun's light and heat might go unnoticed until magnitude >0.95; then
it becomes cool and dusky suddenly, as if night were coming on. (15, 16) Many eclipses,
therefore, would match Herodotos's description as well as or better than the eclipse of 585.
Alas, however, neither eclipse mentioned above matches the description any better. The
eclipse of 30 September 610 is more likely than that of 585 only in that the onset of the battle
would have to be placed, as is logical, in the morning instead of late afternoon. This eclipse,
however, darkened the skies over the Halys less than that of 585. The track of totality for the
morning eclipse of 18 May 603 was farther to the South of the supposed battle zone than the
other two were to the North, and therefore it was no more striking. The only advantage these
candidates may have is that they both occurred prior to either date (585, 595) calculated for
Kyaxares' death.
An eclipse of 21 September 582, singled out by some modern commentators, offers some
advantages in visibility; but it occurred after the both the death dates for Kyaxares. (17) At
this point we need to scrutinize antique traditions about the eclipse passage and Thales'
prediction of the event. The historical tradition reports that Thales did predict the eclipse of
585 and celebrated the scientist as a rare genius. (18) It is noteworthy, however, that the
doxographical tradition about Thales makes no such claim for his prediction of a solar eclipse,
only that he understood the phenomenon. (19) Knowing the causes of solar eclipses and being
able to predict them are miles and ages apart. Therefore, the disparity between these two
traditions reveals that Herodotos was likely the sole source of the report that Thales predicted
the solar eclipse marking the war's end. Indeed, from the evidence, the only set of conclusions
which follow are these: 1) Thales was not able to predict solar eclipses; 2) Herodotos reports
falsely that Thales did so on one occasion; 3) this led to confusion among subsequent
historians, some of whom recast Herodotean chronology to suit some recorded (calculated, in
the case of modern historians) eclipse date; 4) scientists, however, were not drawn into this
misinterpretation; having read Thales or his epitomizers, they report only about his knowledge
of the causes for eclipses and nothing about prediction.
Beyond these tentative conclusions, there are indications in the text that allow us further
argument. First, we notice that Herodotos's language describing the effects of this eclipse
sounds like a standard literary formula for the description of a solar eclipse: day suddenly
becomes night. Herodotos expressed this idea twice in the battle passage, using slightly
different language each time:
. . . the day suddenly became night ( hemeron nukta genesthai) (1.74.2)
. . . they saw night coming on in place of day ( nukta anti hemeres genomenen ) (1.74.3)
Furthermore, Herodotos reuses this description (20) at 7.37 to dramatize the portentousness of
a solar eclipse that, in fact, did not take place. First in a long list of unlucky portents
surrounding Xerxes' march into Europe Herodotos mentions a solar eclipse. It occurred the
moment the Persians departed from their winter camp in Sardis, a departure prompted by the
news from Athos that the canal was finished (7.37.1): . . . as he was setting forth the sun,
leaving its seat in the heaven was invisible, though there was not a cloud in the sky but rather
clear for the most part, and night came to be in place of day. This description, with its report
of a cloudless, bright sky above which night replaced the day, seems like an eye- witness
account. (21) Yet, no solar eclipse occurred in the spring of 480. There was, however, a lunar
eclipse. Was this simply a blunder on the part of Herodotos? Once it was determined, a
century ago, that no eclipse occurred, there were many attempts to mitigate the gaffe, most of
them shielding Herodotos from error and laying the burden of fault on his sources. (22) The
error seems to go deeper than this, however; either Herodotos deliberately fabricated the event
of 480, or he was simply ignorant about eclipses and was unable to discriminate between solar
and lunar when he encountered a reference to eclipses in his sources. The language Herodotos
uses to describe the eclipse of 480, which did not occur, is very similar to that he uses in the
passage under discussion. One is tempted to conclude that Herodotos's language about the
battle eclipse is not derived ultimately from any eyewitness's account of the event he records.
(23) Rather, having learned that there was an eclipse, he drew on his imperfect understanding
of such events and invented or borrowed stock language to describe an eclipse as he
conceived one to be.
Despite the similarities between these accounts, however, which point to stock language, there
are several peculiarities in the description at 1.74 that require comment. At 7.37 the historian
personifies the sun as leaving its seat in heaven and becoming invisible; at 1.74 he makes no
mention of the sun at all. Furthermore, in his account of Thales' description is a phrase which
is indicative that Herodotos is following some source--an account of an actual prediction as
reported in some (Milesian?) tradition. The phrase is: ouron prothemenos eniauton which
is not usually translated as I have done above (he proposed . . . the . . .period favorable for it)
but with something like 'proposing the propitious year for it to happen'. This phrase has been
used to 'disprove' any prediction by Thales. Prediction of eclipses never centers about solar
years, but rather complicated cycles that follow the precession of the nodes in the moon's
orbit, the shortest and simplest of which is 177 days long. (24) Hence this phrase involving
the time period of a year is proof the Herodotos and/or his sources knew nothing about
eclipses. (25) This argument is, however, rendered untenable by cursory research into uses of
eniautos using LSJ. From its earliest uses in the Epic, the word is occurs in contexts where it
is contrasted with the usual word 'year', etos; it is clear from such contexts that the word
refers to recurrent, seasonal, time periods of various lengths. (26, 27) Since eclipses occur at
the moment of new moon (solar) or full moon (lunar), any prediction about them by the
ancients would likely not prescribe the day and hour of their occurrence, but the lunar month,
first or fifteenth, when they would occur. Hence 'favorable period' is terminology so perfectly
apt to prediction that Herodotos is likely quoting it from an astronomically sophisticated
source. The adverb suddenly, as we have seen, is inappropriate to the experience of eclipses;
it is not, however, part of his stock language for eclipses, for it is not used at 7.37. Perhaps
Herodotos heard or read an actual report about 'suddenness' associated battle eclipse that he
did not fully comprehend. Therefore, the features of his language dependent upon that report
preserve some features of a remarkable event, while other parts, invented out of Herodotos's
misunderstanding, so garble the account that his successors have been unable to rationalize it.
The invented language has to do with solar eclipse phenomena: the sun disappears and night
replaces day.
Perhaps, however, the event in question was not the total solar eclipse we have assumed it to
be from his description. Short of a solar eclipse, what eclipse event involving a sudden change
could be dramatically portentous? The text gives us a clue in the form of a curious little
sentence that precedes the description of the eclipse: 'In this war they brought about a battle
by night; . . .' ( en de kai nuktomachien tina epoiesanto ). Some editors excise this
sentence from their text. (28) Those who remove it do so on the grounds that it is a blunt
digression, and hence a gloss that has intruded. Why such a gloss would be inserted here,
however, no one can explain. Hude keeps it in the text, but How and Wells feel compelled to
explain, 'This one is not the eclipse battle'. The issue needs revisiting.
If we take the night battle seriously, there may be an explanation. First we must notice in the
text that the night battle is the first mention of a specific battle in this war of five years'
duration; then the so called eclipse battle, carefully excluded by scholars from being the night
battle, is introduced without further adieu. If we were not so certain that there are two battles
mentioned here, the only natural way to take the second mention of the battle, with the
definite article tes maches, is as a reference to the first mention of a battle, namely to the
night battle. The night battle indeed would be the one and only battle in our minds, if we were
not so given to an interpretation which presupposes that Herodotos is talking about an event
set in the daytime by a solar eclipse. If it was possible to come to Herodotos 1.74 without a
prejudice built up by millennia of commentary as to what it all means, one might translate:
After this, when and because Alyattes refused to give up the Skythians to Kyaxares despite
his continual petitions, a war took place between the Lydians and the Medes over a duration
of five years during which often the Medes got the best of the Lydians and often the reverse.
In this war they brought about a battle by night; and the engagement came about in the sixth
year when they were still contending with each other at war on an equal basis, when it
happened, as the battle was beginning, that day suddenly became night. (Thales the Milesian
predicted to the Ionians this change [of day to night] would come about, setting beforehand
the favorable period in which the ominous event did indeed happen.) When the Lydians and
Medes saw it become night instead of day, they quit the battle and rather made haste on both
sides that peace came about.
Interpreting the passage without prejudicing it to refer to a total solar eclipse sets us free to
examine just what other kind of phenomenon could be the subject of the report; it leaves us
the problem, however, of explaining the passage in terms of its astronomy, of dating it within
the regnal years of Kyaxares, and of justifying how Thales may have predicted the reported
phenomenon. Supposing that it was a night battle. Then, at its onset, day became night. The
night battle began in the evening, and day became night. The ordinary exchange of night for
day could not be the issue here, however. The phenomenon must be extraordinary, and
therefore ominous, to justify Herodotos's singling it out. After sunset, day changes to night
more or less gradually depending on the season. The summer campaign season is a time of
long twilight, but even the expectation of a two-hour twilight would not allow a general to
plan to begin a battle at sunset or to extend an ongoing battle into the darkness of night. At the
full of the moon and for a few nights prior, bright moonlight extends visibility from sunset
and beyond sufficiently for some activities to take place all night long. Could battle be one
such activity? Epipolai, a notable night battle reported by Thucydides, took place at the bright
of the moon (7.44). During the waxing moon just before it was full, an army on bivouac
would notice the increasing illumination of the moon during the evening and into the night,
and anticipate its even more glorious rise on the following evening. If one side or the other, or
both, had planned the evening battle, but it grew dark suddenly and contrary to expectation,
the battle would have to be suspended. Herodotos remarks on the suddenness of nightfall that
intervened upon the battle. A nightfall more sudden than usual would have to be one that
arose contrary to the expectation that there would be natural lunar illumination for the planned
battle at night.
The only event that could frustrate such an expectation for a full moon, other than an overcast
sky, is a total lunar eclipse intervening at, or shortly after, sunset-moonrise. Judging from an
unhappy event reported by Thucydides, lunar eclipses were greatly ominous. Since Nikias
called off a battle owing to the lunar eclipse of 27 August 413, we should not be surprised if
such an event caused the Medes and Lydians to interrupt their battle, lay down their arms and
seek peace. Expecting to continue their battle into the night under the light of a full moon, the
Medes and Lydians were surprised when the moon failed to appear, as expected, to light their
ongoing battle. Indeed, the portent was so startling that not only did they break off the battle,
they concluded the war.
This interpretation of Herodotos 1.74 allows us to retain his report of a night battle and of an
eclipse that ended it. Lydian sources about the battle, the omen, and the consequences, we
suppose, must have found their way to Miletus where Thales himself, or a follower, correlated
the timing of the event to a lunar eclipse foretold by the father of astronomy. The report, as
passed on to Herodotos then 1) claimed Thales' prediction of an eclipse which coincided with
the battle eclipse; 2) reported that the light failed unexpectedly, thus abrogating the battle; 3)
recounted the political consequences of the omen. Herodotos then garbled this account owing
to his assumption that the reported eclipse phenomenon was a solar eclipse. He retained the
first and third notices, but misunderstood the notice about the unexpected failed illumination.
Instead, using language he had learned to describe solar eclipses, he interpreted the Lydian
report as an event in which broad day suddenly turned into night.
The year 585 must be forever forgotten as important to Thales and his science. Indeed, we
must declare, with others, that there was no such thing as Thales' prediction of a solar eclipse.
After due consideration of possible heuristic methods (to be reported in a separate paper), this
author concurs that prediction of solar eclipses is beyond the ability of anyone during a single
lifetime of unaided observation. (30, 31) Prediction of lunar eclipses, on the other hand is
quite another matter. Thales may well have developed a heuristic method for prediction of
lunar events. Working with eclipse cycles of 177 days Thales could have predicted that a
lunar eclipse would occur during full moon of the next cycle, thus setting not only the period
during which it occurred but the calendar date of the eclipse within a day. But there were no
striking eclipses of the moon in 585.
If 585 is no longer acceptable as the date for the phenomenon Thales predicted, a search for
the right one seems incumbent upon us. The period 615 BCE to 596 marks the most certain
overlapping reigns of Kyaxares the Mede and the Lydian Alyattes. During this period, we find
three candidates for total lunar eclipses that might have taken place during campaign season
(eliminating eclipses in December, January, and February) : 1) 16 November 613 BC: a
twilight eclipse; the moon rose already eclipsed; 2) 3 September 609: a twilight eclipse
(invisible eclipse, over before local moonrise) (12), the moon rising eclipsed and remaining
obscured through twilight until 10:30PM local time; 3) 4 July 606: late evening eclipse, moon
rising uneclipsed near sunset at 8PM and beginning to be eclipsed near the end of twilight at
10PM and reaching total eclipse at 11:30PM.; These evening events (7/4 606, 9/3 609 and
11/16 613) seem best to fit the circumstances seemingly set forth by Herodotos for the night
battle. Two also occurred during prime campaign season, And one of them ( 9/3 609) provides
an exact match with scenario for a night battle developed above. Some may want to extend
the time frame (615- 585) and so to include an event of 4 July 587: a twilight eclipse; the
moon rose eclipsed with sunset at 8:10PM and remaining eclipsed for one hour to 9:07,
reemerging to become fully illuminated again by 10:30.
In any case, armies fighting at twilight, expecting the full moon to light their continuing
onslaught were astounded not to see the moonrise as expected during the half-hour after
sunset. As the bright sky faded, the growing darkness of night that had been delayed on the
previous three or four nights with its fully splendid presence revealed the moon's face
occulted by a shadow. The men, we imagine, were in a panic and the soothsayers non-plussed.
Their fearsome report led the generals to abort their plan to continue the battle into the night.
On that occasion, indeed, ignorant armies clashed by night. Herodotos, it seems, re ported a
battle from annals for the summer of 587 shrouded in omens; the report was compiled from
accurate sources, but Herodotos did not fully understand the nature of the omen. His confused
report led to a specious date determined from solar eclipse records known in antiquity, and
extended to Thales powers he could not have had. Thales' skill with eclipses became
legendary thereafter, but it was not mythical, as some have alleged, merely misunderstood.

FOOT NOTES
01. All translations are the author's own. Particulars that differ from standard translations will
be justified in the body of the paper.
02. See Thomas-Henri Martin, 'Sur quelques predictions d' eclipses mentionnees par des
auteurs anciens', Revue archeologique, n.s., ix (1864), 170-99 and Otto Neugebauer, The
Exact Sciences in Antiquity (Princeton, 1952), 142 and following.
03. Otto Neugebauer, The exact sciences in Antiquity (Princeton, 1952), 142-end, presents
convincing negatory evidence.
04. Willy Hartner, 'Eclipse Periods and Thales' Prediction of a Solar Eclipse: Historic Truth
and Modern Myth', Centaurus 14, 1 (1969) 60-71; and Dmitri Panchenko, 'Thales's Prediction
of a Solar Eclipse', Journal for the History of Astronomy 25 (1994) 274-87.
05. Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., volume 4, p.17.
06. Cicero De div. 1.49.112, Eusebios Chron. 2, (p. 187 Karst, p. 101 Helm) and Solinus
(15.16).
07. We can date this (Herodotos 7.20) to 480 through correspondence with the date of the
Athenian epony mous archon Kalliades (8.51).
08. A fragmentary commentary on Alkaios (P. Oxy. 2506 fr. 98) refers to a war between
Astyages and Alyattes. Strassburger, H., 'Herodots Zeitrechnung', Historia 5 (1956) 129-61;
Miller, M., 'Herodotus as chronographer', Klio 46 (1965) 121-6; Boer, W. den. 'Herodot und
die Systeme der Chronologie', Mnemosyne ser. iv, 20 (1967) 30-60; Drews, R, 'The fall of
Astyages and Herodotus' chronology of the eastern kingdoms', Historia 18 (1960) 1-11;
Helm, P.R., 'Herodotus' Medikos Logos and Median history', Iran 19(1981) 85-90.
References and argument in Alden Mosshammer, 'Thales' Eclipse', TAPA 111 (1981) 145-
155
09. Eusebios, Chron. 2, one mss. to Ol. 49.2 [583/2], the other to Ol. 50 [580-77]; and
Hieronymos (after Eusebios) mentions the name of the kings as Astyages and Alyattes but
gives the date as Abraham,1432 [585]; Pliny. N.H. 2.53 mentions only Alyattes and gives the
date as Ol. 48.4 [585/4]. References in Alden Mosshammer, 'Thales' Eclipse', TAPA 111
(1981) 145-155.
10. Herodotos's dating of the Median and Persian kings is al ways successive; in the single
case of Kyros, Meyer proposed, we should count the time as if Herodotos's twenty-nine years
for this king includes ten years when he was lord of Persia but still vassal to the Median king
Astyages. This stratagem lowers the whole chronology by ten years and sets Kyaxares' death
to the required earliest possible date, 585. Mosshammer, 'Thales' Eclipse', TAPA 111 (1981),
145-155, rejects Meyer's solution for discounting Herodotos's established procedure as
discussed by H. Strassburger, 'Herodots Zeitrechnung', Historia 5 (1956), 141- 44.
Mosshammer speculates that the chronologer Apollodoros, faced with conflicting accounts
about regnal years in Herodotos and Alkaios (ref. 09), wished to reconcile them. He did so by
supposing that Kyaxares died very soon after the battle and was replaced by Astyages before
the turn of the year (marked by summer solstice). Hence the year of the battle belonged to
both kings, but Kyaxares was still king on the day of the battle. How then did the chronologer
turn this information into a date? Mosshammer alleges that Apollodoros, using reasoning
similar to that used by Meyer (described above), arrived at the year of Kyaxares' death, taking
his information from Herodotos's chronology. On this account, Apollodoros just happened to
pick a year in which indeed there was an eclipse.
11. tes maches sunesteoses (1.74.2).
12. All calculations were done by the program Voyager II by Carina Software, one of whose
originators assures me that the lunar motion is described by more than forty terms in the
Bessell equations. There is, furthermore, a term (van Meeus's algorithm) that describes the
correction to Ephemeris Time based upon estimates of the secular accelerations of the Earth's
rotational speed and the Moon's mean motion. The estimates for the Moon have doubled in
the last half century so that calculations F.K. Ginzel (described in volumes 85, 88, 89 of the
Math and Science section of Sitzungberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschften,
Vienna, under the title 'Astronomische Untersuchungen ber Finsternisse') for inclusion in his
Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse, 1899, are outdated. Furthermore, the
machine has the advantage of not being biased for or against Herodotos's data. The author
confirmed the program's accuracy by subjecting it to tests against U.S. Naval Observatory
predictions for future eclipses (2509 AD), and against verified accounts of Medieval and
Ancient eclipses and other phenomena. Yet, we must be cautious; the developer of Voyager
II (an astrophysicist) admits that we can't know with great accuracy where the moon was
twenty-five centuries ago or where it will be twenty-five centuries from now. The calculated
time for these eclipses may be plus or minus 1.5 hours. The north-south indeterminacy in the
calculated path of totality, however, will be comparatively minor. As a check, in parentheses
will appear data from a competing program Starry Night by Sienna Software when there is a
substantial difference between the two programs.
13. Magnitude is the fraction of the sun's diameter obscured by the encroaching moon; a total
eclipse's magnitude is 1.0.
14. Author's personal experience at Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, 11 July 1991.
15. Robert R. Newton, in his investigations of the credibility of eclipse reports from ancient
and medieval sources, conducted an experiment during an eclipse; his observers' conclusion
on this subject is 'It is unlikely that an observer who was not expecting tan eclipse would
notice one unless the magnitude reached at least 0.9.' Medieval Chronicles and the Rotation of
the Earth (Johns Hopkins, 1970), 80.
16. Newton's eclipse occurred near midday; since, however, attenuation near setting makes
looking at it bearable, the setting sun, obscured that day on the Halys to 0.6 (0.9) of its
diameter, may have been observable, if that degree of obscuration coincided with sunset (no
more than half an hour before). Nonetheless, one could hardly say of such a phenomenon that
day suddenly become night.
17. The eclipse of 19 May 557 may have been a better candidate from the point of view of
striking visibility .75 (.95), but it is out of the required time frame entirely and therefore
would demand a drastic al teration of the chronologies. Nonetheless, this was K.J. Beloch's
candidate, who, for some of the same reasons outlined here, and uneasy about the eclipse of
585, proposed just such a radical change in the chronology to satisfy his search for a likely
eclipse: Griechische Geschichte, I, 2, p. 354.(Berlin, 1926).
18. DK 11A5 (I, 74-5), Clement (Strom. I 65), Eusebius (Chron.), Cicero (De Div. I 49, 112,
Pliny, N.H. II 53), and Diogenes Laertios I 22, 23.
19. DK 11A17, 17a-b (I, 78). Clement (previous note) reports that Eudemos in his
Astrologika says that Thales predicted the happening of the solar eclipse [marking the battle
described by Herodotos]. Derkyllides, however, (apud Theon. Astr. 198, 14H) says only that
Thales found (heure) the eclipse of the sun and that the solar tropics do not recur after equal
intervals. Aetius explains 'found' for us (i.e., 'recognized the causes of'), when he says (II 13,1
and II 27, 5) that Thales was the first person to say that the sun is eclipsed when the moon
covers it from view.
20. The description may stem ultimately from Arkhilokhos's description of the eclipse of 710,
to which he was an eyewitness: ek mesembries etheke nukta. See frag. 74 (Bergk).
21. In his attempt to determine the secular accelerations of the moon and of the earth's
rotation, Robert R. Newton relies on ancient and medieval descriptions of eclipses and other
celestial phenomena. Of the reliability of these reports he says, 'Many ancient and a few
medieval descriptions of solar eclipses belong in a class that I have called 'wrong but
romantic.' Wrong but romantic eclipses include 'literary' eclipses and 'magical' eclipses.'
(Newton, 1972, 84). As an example of a magical eclipse he cites this report by Herodotos.
22. The consensus has been that Herodotos's Persian sources blundered by transferring to the
western capital, Sardis, in the spring of 480 the facts about an eclipse seen at Susa in April of
481. See How and Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, 2 vols. Oxford UP, 1909, 2.145, with
references to Judeich and Meyer. Voyager II, however, makes the argument moot; by its
calculations, the eclipse of 481 was invisible even Susa.
23. Using statistical methods Newton assigns a reliability to each reported phenomenon in
order to weight the report in the sum of reports he uses for estimating the accelerations. To
rate a reliability of 1.0 the reporter has to have been an eyewitness to the phenomenon and
include convincing detail in the report. If the eyewitness criterion is not met, the reliability
factor drops at least to 0.5. Therefore, none of Herodotos's reports about eclipses rate as
reliable. Unreliability, however, does not negate veracity, since the reporter 'may have made a
simple error or he may have misunderstood his source.' (Newton,1972, 86) Of the three
eclipses mentioned by Herodotos, therefore, one (480) seems to be magical and therefore
unreliable as evidence, the one under discussion is moot both for veracity and reliability, and
the other, not mentioned in the argument (479), is both veracious and near the upper limit of
0.5 for reliability allowed for a non-eyewitness account.
24. Readers may consult any primer in astronomy for the facts surrounding eclipses. A propos
of the 177-day cycle see the author's 'Eclipses by the Semester', The Griffith Observer, 57,6,
p. 14-19 (June1993).
25. So argues Neugebauer, 1952, 142 and following.
26. etos elthe periplomenwn eniauton Od. 1.16, etc., and chronious palaion eton
eniautous, Frogs 347.
27. o megas eniautos of the Pythagorean Great Year, and of the Metonic cycle, which is a
recurrent lunisolar period.
28. Herold, as reported in Hude's apparatus.
29. Otto Neugebauer, The exact sciences in Antiquity (Princeton, 1952), 142 ff.
30.See the author's 'Thales' Method for Predicting Lunar Eclipses', forthcoming.
31. Mosshammer (see note 3), 155.
Thomas Worthen
e-mail: tomwr@ccit.arizona.edu
Electronic Antiquity Vol. 3 Issue 7 - May 1997 edited by Peter Toohey and Ian Worthington
antiquity-editor@classics.utas.edu.au ISSN 1320-3606