the Christian public would have been forward to contribute for such an object, it has enabled us, with the help of some private assistance, and the sum realized by the life insurance, to place his bereaved widow and orphans above absolute indigence.

At a meeting of the Earl-street Committee, held Nov. 21, 1831, a series of resolutions were adopted, recording their sense of the loss which the Society had sustained by the death of Mr. Greenfield.

In the subsequent Annual Report, the Committee express their deep regret at the loss which the Society had sustained by the decease of Mr. Greenfield, whose "extraordinary talents, combined with his habits of business, rendered his services peculiarly valuable." His removal, it is added, "has made the Committee more and more sensible of the importance of the office which he held. They can hardly expect to meet in any single individual such extraordinary powers as were possessed by Mr. Greenfield ;" but," they have felt how necessary it is, with as little delay as possible, to fill up the vacancy." The examination and printing of the Persian Version and several others, was for some time suspended altogether; and although doubtless other learned labourers will be found to supply the place of this accomplished man, the loss to society cannot be repaired, till an individual equally gifted shall be raised up, who shall combine with a similar aptitude for the acquisition of languages, equal diligence, sound judgment, accuracy, simplicity of character, modesty, and, to crown all, fervent piety. In illustration of the latter trait of his character, it ought to be mentioned, that he approached all his biblical labours in a devotional spirit. It is stated, that he never sat down to the translation of the New Testament into Hebrew, his last great work, without first imploring the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration the sacred volume was given. Religion was, in him, an ever active principle, the source of his happiness, as well as the mainspring of his conduct. In conversation, he was always the instructive and cheerful companion, ever ready to impart, without ostentation, the information he possessed, and, by the charm of his manners, interesting all who came into communication with him. following anecdote may, perhaps, be thought worthy of preservation: He was once in company, at the house of a friend, with a gentleman of deistical principles, a stranger to him, who put to him the following, among many other questions: "Can you give me the reason why Jesus Christ is called THE Word? What is meant by The Word? It is a curious term." Mr. Greenfield, unconscious of the motive or the sceptical principles of the inquirer, replied, with the mild simplicity and decision by which his character was marked, "I suppose, as words are the medium of communication between us, the term is used in the sacred Scriptures to demonstrate that He is the only medium between God and man. I know no other reason." The deist's mouth was shut; and the friend in whose presence this passed, could not but admire the meekness of wisdom with which a reply was returned, so well adapted to silence the gainsayer.

The

Such was William Greenfield; a man-whom it will always form one of the most gratifying circumstances of my life, to have been instrumental in first drawing from the modest obscurity in which he was contentedly pursuing his handicraft, and in making known to the literary public as a phenomenon in point of philological attainments. But the greatest consolation in reflecting upon the early loss of such a man to society, is afforded by the recollection of his virtues, and of his meetness of character for that world in which tongues shall cease, but love shall abide for ever.

SAMUEL BAGSTER.

73

ON THE ADVANTAGES DERIVABLE FROM THE UNION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE WITH CLASSICAL LITERATURE:

Exemplified in the Discovery of an Error in Burgh's Lunar Tables, from a Statement of Diodorus Siculus; and in the Determination of the Exact Date of a Battle recorded by Herodotus, by means of Astronomical Computation.

By E. W. BRAYLEY, Jun. Esq.

For many years past, the investigations of classical criticism, and the researches of physical science, have been followed, separately, by individuals as well as by learned societies, with great ardour and indefatigable industry; the age has been equally distinguished by Heyne, by Porson, and by Schneider, by Cuvier, and by Davy. The result of these parallel advances in literature and science—a result, however, which has not, perhaps, been so publicly and explicitly announced as its importance demands,—has been, that the writings of the philosophers and historians of Greece and Rome contain evidence of a much more accurate and perfect observation of natural phænomena than had before been suspected. It has been found that many of the objects and operations of nature have been described by the ancients in such a manner, that the resources of modern science may be augmented from the materials which they have furnished, however mingled with inconclusive explanation, or encumbered with unfounded theory.

An interesting example of these facts, in which even the necessity of introducing a correction into the computations of modern astronomy, was shewn by reference to the statements of two ancient historians, was communicated some years since, to the Royal Society. Mr. Francis Baily, one of the most accomplished astronomers of the present day, whose talents, time, and fortune are entirely devoted to the advancement of his favourite science, and who now, with equal honour to himself and advantage to the community, fills the station of President of the Astronomical Society, had entered into an investigation of the history of the Solar Eclipse, stated by Herodotus to have been predicted by Thales. In the course of this inquiry, to the specific object of which we shall have occasion to return in this essay, some curious facts were brought to light respecting another eclipse of the sun which is recorded by Diodorus Siculus.

It is related by Diodorus, that Agathocles, king of Syracuse, when besieged in that city by the Carthaginian general Hamilcar, undertook the bold design of invading the Carthaginian territorities in Africa, and thereby removing the seat of war from Sicily to that continent. He accordingly embarked a numerous army, and set sail for the African coast. The day after he left Syracuse, the historian relates, the fleet was terrified at an eclipse of the sun, which was so great, that, in the words of Diodorus, “it seemed exactly like night, the stars everywhere appearing." Such a degree of darkness as this is never produced either by a partial or by an annular eclipse. This, therefore, was evidently a total eclipse in the place where it was seen by the fleet of Agathocles. Mr. Baily ascertained by computation, that it happened on August the 15th, in the year 310, (B. c.) and he also computed its elements, or the quantities necessary to be known, before its extent in different parts of the earth, and other phænomena, could be determined. He found, from these elements, by a trigonometrical calculation, the place where the sun rose centrally eclipsed, and the path, over the earth, of the centre of the moon's shadow, from that spot to the place where the sun became centrally eclipsed on the meridian. By comparing the results thus obtained, with the fact as related by Diodorus, he found that Agathocles would not, in any part of his course, (and much less at the commencement of it, as stated by the historian,) come within a considerable distance of the moon's umbra, or that portion of her shadow in which no part of the sun could be seen, or, in other words, in which the eclipse would be total.

The account given by Diodorus, of the darkness in which the fleet of Agathocles became enveloped, is confirmed by Justin. It could scarcely be doubted, therefore, that the eclipse was really a total one, at the place where it was witnessed by the fleet. But in order that the phænomenon should accord with the fact as related by those historians, 2D. SERIES, No. 38.-VOL. IV.

K

182.-VOL. XVI.

the centre of the moon's shadow ought to be found to have passed over, or very near to, the island of Malta: that is, the latitude of the moon ought to be, at least, three minutes greater than it was stated to be in the Astronomical Tables published by the French Board of Longitude, which Mr. Baily employed in his computations.

On account of this discordance, Mr. Baily expressed a doubt of the accuracy of the amount of what is called the secular variation of the moon's mean distance from her node (on which distance her latitude depends) as given in those tables, although it had been deduced from the formula of Laplace.

To question the accuracy of some of the most correct tables of astronomical quantities, which had yet been produced, and on a subject possibly involving the skill of the greatest mathematical astronomer of modern times, on the authority of a Greek historian, might have seemed a step very hazardous to Mr. Baily's future reputation. The event, however, justified this apparent presumption, confirming at once the authenticity of the historian, and the accuracy of his astronomical commentator. A few years after the publication of Mr. Baily's researches, the French Board of Longitude printed a Supplement to the Lunar Tables he had employed; in which the quantities termed the mean epoch, and mean motion of the supplement of the moon's node, were considerably altered; so as to bring her latitude within the limits he had suggested. It was thus established by astronomical computation, in agreement with historical authority, that the eclipse in question had in reality been a total one at the place where it had been seen by the fleet of Agathocles. It is unnecessary to offer an extended comment upon this fact: nothing can show in a stronger degree the value of ancient history to the cultivators of certain branches of science: nothing can better evince the utility of scientific knowledge to the cultivators of classical literature.

Similar illustrations might be adduced with respect to many other branches of natural knowledge. The extreme accuracy of many of the anatomical details, and the sagacity and truth of the classification, contained in Aristotle's History of Animals, has been either abundantly shewn, ostensibly, by Cuvier and Macleay, or may be gathered from many passages in their works. On one particular subject I am happy in being able to unite my own testimony to the evidence of these high authorities; a testimony which, however little may be the weight it can add to that of the naturalists I have named, is at least derived from an attentive consideration of the department of science in question. This is, the history and phanomena of those meteors which, under the sensible form of balls of fire, occasionally appear in the atmosphere, and cast down upon the earth masses of ignited iron, or showers of red-hot stones, forming a class of bodies which are termed, collectively, Meteorites. On this interesting subject, which is intimately related both to astronomy and geology, and requires for its complete investigation the application also of considerable knowledge in chemistry and mineralogy, I have had occasion to institute an extensive examination of the relations of the ancients. This examination I have found highly useful in conducting a detailed inquiry on the subject. The ancient and modern relations of the fall of iron and stones from the heavens, mutually illustrate and explain each other; and the former, when scrutinized by our present knowledge of the atmosphere, and the laws of combustion, &c., afford many points of information, which contribute to elucidate the intimate history of modern instances, in which these phænomena have been witnessed.

It is clear, therefore, that we can never become fully acquainted with, and never adequately appreciate, the actual knowledge of the ancients, until profound scholarship shall be united with extensive acquirements in physical science, and both with the knowledge of what may already have been effected, in those departments of either study which bear reciprocally upon the other.

It must be remembered, however, that the scientific knowledge required in the investigation of ancient history, and generally in elucidating the relations of ancient authors, must be as precise and complete as it is extensive. Imperfect and merely popular information on the subjects of science, when applied to critical inquiries, will serve only to

introduce confusion into statements originally clear, and to involve difficult points in still greater obscurity. An instructive example of this is presented by the main object of the researches of Mr. Baily, which have already been cited, with which the history of the eclipse witnessed by Agathocles, became merely incidentally connected. In that history, we have found an example of the benefits which classical literature may confer, in a direct manner, on the physical and mathematical sciences; while in the circumstances we are about to relate, we shall perceive that the reciprocal advantages to be derived from those sciences, in the pursuits of the chronologist, and the historical antiquary, are not less considerable.

"There is probably no fact in ancient history," Mr. Baily observes, "that has given rise to so many discussions, and to such a variety of opinions, as the solar eclipse which (according to Herodotus) is said to have been predicted by Thales, and which, owing to a very singular coincidence, put an end to a furious war that raged between Cyaxares, king of Media, and Alyattes, king of Lydia.

"According to the account given by that celebrated historian, the contest had continued during five years, with alternate advantages to each party in the sixth, there was a sort of nocturnal combat. For, after an equal fortune on both sides, and whilst the two armies were engaging, the day suddenly became night. Thales, the Milesian, had predicted this phenomenon to the Ionians, and had ascertained the time of the year in which it would happen. The Lydians and the Medes, seeing that the night had thus taken the place of the day, desisted from the combat ; and both parties became desirous of making peace!'..'The fact is here very clearly (and probably very justly) related: but, unfortunately, there is nothing, either in the statement itself or in the contiguous passages of the work, that will enable us to determine, with any degree of accuracy, the exact time wherein this singular phenomenon took place. And this is the more to be regretted, because the dates of several other events, recorded by the same historian, might be more easily ascertained, if the era of this eclipse were correctly known, but which are now involved in much obscurity.'

Deprived of all information from the body of the work itself, chronologists have called in the aid of astronomy, to assist them in fixing the date of this remarkable phænomenon, For it must be evident, that if we could ascertain, by this means, that in any solar eclipse, which happened about that period, the centre of the moon's shadow passed over the country bordering on the two contesting empires, where the battle was probably fought, (for Herodotus has likewise omitted to mention the place where the action occurred,) we might reasonably and very fairly conclude, that that eclipse only was the one alluded to by the historian.

In this attempt, however, a great diversity of opinion has arisen; no fewer than seven eclipses having been fixed upon by different writers, as the one in question; giving a distance of no less than forty-three years, from 583 (B. C.) to 626, (B. C.) between the extreme periods assigned to the event related by Herodotus.

We have now arrived at that stage of this curious inquiry, which shows that a full and precise knowledge only of natural phænomena is available in researches of this description; and that a deficiency of such knowledge was the source of these contradictions. The chronologists and commentators upon Herodotus, who engaged in this discussion. among whom were Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, and Larcher, were sufficiently acquainted with astronomy, and in particular with the phænomena of solar eclipses, to perceive that the date of the eclipse in question might be found by calculation. But they do not appear to have been aware that the sudden and complete darkness implied by the expression of Herodotus, that "the day suddenly became night," could have been occasioned only by a total eclipse. While the smallest portion of the sun's disk is uncovered by that of the moon, day-light continues, and though reduced in intensity, much less so than would be imagined by a person previously unacquainted with the phænomenon. But

* Philosophical Transactions for 1811, p. 221.

when the last portion of the sun is covered by the moon, in a total eclipse, darkness instantaneously ensues, as most correctly expressed by the words of the Greek historian, for which, however, (another corroboration of our argument,) he has been ignorantly censured by some of his commentators.

"that an

"It appears to me," resumes Mr. Baily, after stating these circumstances, inattention to these singular facts has been the principal cause of the various opinions that have arisen respecting the time when this eclipse happened. For each chronologist, having a system of his own to support, has satisfied himself merely with ascertaining that a solar eclipse did take place in the year that he had assigned for it; and which eclipse he supposed might be visible in that part of the world bordering on the two hostile countries: but without taking into his account the magnitude of the eclipse at the place where the battle is supposed to have been fought. Now, since the territories of the two belligerent powers were probably separated by the river Halys, (which was the case in the subsequent reign, although we have no authentic information that it was so at the period now under consideration,) and as the battle was probably fought on the confines of these two empires, I think it will be evident from the preceding extracts, [describing the phænomena of the diminution of light in solar eclipses, as mentioned above,] that no solar eclipse could be the one mentioned by Herodotus, unless it was central and total in some part of Asia Minor, that is, the centre of the moon's shadow, in such total eclipse, must have passed over that part of Asia Minor where the contending armies were engaging. Consequently, the fact is capable of being verified or disproved by the present state of our knowledge in astronomy."

The attention of the learned seems first to have been fixed to this point by M. T. S. Bayer. He consulted an astronomical friend, M. Fred. Christ. Mayer, who showed, that none of the five eclipses, which, down to his time, had been fixed upon by chronologists, could possibly be that alluded to by Herodotus. He found, by appropriate calculation, that the eclipse which took place on May 18th, 603 (B. c.) was the only one that was at all likely to be the right. Not many years after, an English astronomer, the Rev. G. Costard, arrived, independently, at nearly the same conclusion; but by introducing an important correction into his computation, allowing for the moon's acceleration, he evinced at the same time, that in this eclipse, her shadow could not pass over any part of Asia Minor. Notwithstanding this circumstance, however, the date assigned by Mayer continued to be received as the true date of the “battle of the eclipse," by all succeeding chronologists; although it must be evident, even from the data furnished by Mr. Cost ird, that the eclipse which then took place could not be total any where near the place where the battle was fought. M. Volney, it is true, in his Chronologie d'Hérodote, published early in the present century, discarded this eclipse and fixed upon that of February 3rd, 626 (B. c.) but without taking any means of ascertaining whether that could have been total at the scene of conflict.

Such was the condition of this inquiry, when it was taken up by Mr. Baily, who brought to its determination all the resources which modern astronomy could furnish. None of the previous calculations, either on the affirmative or negative side, could be regarded as possessing much weight at the time he undertook to set the question at rest; since they had been formed from tables which the subsequent improvements in astronomy had shewn to be exceedingly defective and incorrect. In order, therefore, to leave no part of the inquiry undetermined, he computed the course of the moon's shadow for each of the seven eclipses, which had severally been assigned as the true one; and while he proved, that not one of them could have been central in any part of Asia Minor, three of them, he found, (including that selected by M. Volney, in opposition to all preceding chronologists,) were merely annular, or presented the moon entirely upon the sun's disk, surrounded by its margin like a ring, in which case little diminution of light ensues. thus proved, from the most correct evidence that the present state of astronomical science affords, that not one of the eclipses mentioned by the authors alluded to, could possibly be that which is recorded in so singular a manner by Herodotus.

He