annular, and could not be central west of the Caspian sea. therefore may at once be set aside. It Again, the eclipse of July 30, 607, was annular, and not total, so that we may also dismiss it, along with the eclipse of 3d December 605, which was also annular, and not at a likely time of the year. In like manner, the eclipse of 18th May 603 fails, for it fell too far to the southward to be total in any part of Asia Minor. As for Usher's eclipse of 20th September 601, it could have been visible only in Siberia and China. Again, the eclipse of 9th July 597 was not total, but annular; and that of 583 happened after sunset in Asia Minor. And, lastly, the eclipse of 28th March 582 was annular, and only visible in the south-east of Asia. There remain, therefore, only two eclipses which can possibly answer to the circumstances related by Herodotus, the first on 30th September 610, and the second on the 28th May 585. The great authority on the subject of the eclipse of Thales, has for a long time been a paper by the famous astronomer Bailly, inserted in the Philosophical Transactions for 1754. He tell us, that all the previous calculations had been made upon tables too inaccurate to be depended upon, but that he had himself made calculations of all these eclipses, according to the Tables Astronomiques of the French Bureau of Longitudes. His result as to the eclipse of 28th May 585, is, that it began in the middle of the Atlantic, crossed Spain, traversed the course of the Mediterranean, and ended on the borders of the Red Sea. He therefore sets it aside as not visible in Asia Minor. The only remaining eclipse is that which happened on the 30th September 610, and, according to his calculations, this eclipse was total, and began about 11 A. M. in Asia Minor, over the greater part of which it was visible. This eclipse he regarded as being certainly that one which Thales predicted; and since his time it has been generally assumed as a fixed point in chronology. In the same paper, however, Mr Bailly, with commendable honesty, mentioned a circumstance which threw some doubt on the correctness of his calculations. He applied the same method to the calculation of an eclipse which took place in August B.C. 310, and which was seen by Agathocles in the Mediterranean; and, according to his calculations, it appeared that Agathocles could not, in any part of his course, have come within a very considerable distance of the moon's umbra. Still, the conclusions of Mr Bailly in regard to the eclipse of Thales were, as we have said, very generally received, until Mr Bosanquet, in a letter to the Athenæum of August 7, 1852, called attention to this discrepancy, and suggested the desirableness of a new calculation of the eclipses in question, with the help of the improved tables of modern times. His suggestion was taken up by Mr G. R. Hind, already famous for the discovery of several planets, and the results of his calculations were published in the Athenæum of August 28, 1852. He made use of Burkhardt's tables of the moon, having corrected them by the results of Mr Airy's discussion of the Greenwich observations, and his conclusion is, that in the eclipse of 610, the moon's shadow did not pass over any part of Asia Minor, but rather over the northern part of the Black Sea; and, consequently, the eclipse was not total at or near the spot where the contest took place, nor was it visible in Ionia. With respect to the eclipse of 585, he finds that the central line would pass a few miles north of Miletus, and terminate in the sea to the north of the island of Cyprus. The eclipse would be total in Ionia, Lydia, Lycia, Pamphylia, and the southern part of Cilicia. Thus it appears to be demonstrably settled that the eclipse of 610 was not the eclipse of Thales, and that our present system of chronology requires to be amended; but there is still another point to be considered, before we can admit that the eclipse of 585 fulfils all the conditions of the question. It is necessary that it should be capable of proof, that the battle between the Lydians and Medes did probably take place within the limits of the eclipse of 585. It has been generally assumed that the scene of conflict was on the banks of the Halys. Mr Bosanquet, however, has correctly remarked, that Herodotus nowhere mentions where the battle occurred. The Halys was the boundary between the Lydian and Median empires, but it does not necessarily follow that the armies might not have met at some other point. Could the collision have taken place in that portion of Asia Minor in which the eclipse was total? Mr Bosanquet thinks it might have occurred in Cilicia, which he says was the most direct and obvious road from Media to Lydia; and supports this hypothesis by remarking that, according to Herodotus, the king of Cilicia became mediator of a peace between the contending parties. Now, if the Medes came through Cilicia, they must have either passed through the famous Syrian gates or pass of Balan, and then skirted the coast of the Bay of Scanderoon, crossing the Jaihan at Misis, the ancient Mopsuestia, or they must have crossed the Jaihan near its source at the modern Marash, and pursued their course in a south-westerly direction till they joined the former route to the north of Tarsus. In either case, we venture to think that their onward march would be prosecuted, not along the shore, but northward by the Cilician gates, or pass of Kolinboghas. For they were in the independent kingdom of Cilicia, into which they must have been permitted to enter, but in which it is by no means likely that the engagement would take place. And the road along the shore of Cilicia, although followed by Alexander the Great, presents too many difficulties for any one to think of preferring it, except to escape the dangers of the Cilician pass. That pass, however, must have been in hands friendly to the Medes, or they would not have been suffered to enter Cilicia. But if they thus turned to the northward, through the pass, they could never have entered into the region in which the eclipse was total. Besides, it must be remembered, that the Cilicia of Herodotus lay so far to the north as that the Halys passed through it in the earlier part of its course (ός ρεει ἐξ Αρμενιου ούρεος δια Κιλικων). So that even if the battle was fought much to the northward, it would still be in the immediate neighbourhood of the king of Cilicia. But, after all, the question does not seem necessarily to involve the question of a march from Ecbatana towards Lydia. The war had been going on for five previous years, and in all probability the Median forces lay not far from their own boundary (the Halys) and their line of communication would probably be through one or other of the two routes from the modern Tokat to the valley of the Euphrates. In this case the battle would probably be fought not very far from the Halys; and, conse quently, far beyond the shadow of the eclipse of 585. It is important to remark, that when Croesus, the son of Alyattes, advanced against Cyrus, who had become master of the Median territories, he proceeded to the Halys, which he crossed, and the battle took place not far from the coast of the Euxine. It is every way likely that the battle, which was interrupted by the eclipse, occurred in the same neighbourhood, and if so, then the eclipse of Thales could not be the eclipse which occurred B. c. 585. One thing, however, is certain, that the eclipse of 610 can no longer be regarded as the eclipse of Thales; and we may point out, in a single sentence, how this must affect the chronology of the period. The first year of Nebuchadnezzar is commonly taken to be the year B. c. 606, but if the battle between Alyattes and Cyaxares did not take place till 585, or even later, the epoch of Nebuchadnezzar, and, by consequence, the date of the destruction of Jerusalem will have to be correspondingly lowered. ART. IV.-SATAN. Or Satan's creation we know nothing. That he was created holy we cannot doubt, for God is not the author of unholiness, but of holiness. Of the time when he was created nothing is revealed; nor of how long he stood; nor of how he fell. For aught that we know, he might not have stood longer than Adam, or he might have done so for ages. This only would we say, that it seems impossible for a creature, standing alone, simply in creature strength, to stand any length of time, however short. What led to his fall we know not. He "kept not his first estate, but left his own habitation; "this is all that we are told, -as if he had become dissatisfied with that estate, and gone in quest of another habitation. How he came to be connected with this earth is wholly unrevealed. Whether this were his "first estate," his realm,and he had become dissatisfied with it, or whether some other planet were his kingdom, and he having become dissatisfied with it, had come in quest of another abode to this earth,these are questions which we may ask, but cannot answer. Certainly his connexion with our world is a mysterious fact. How he should be found here, and found here just at the time of man's creation,-is quite inexplicable. We are so accustomed to consider him as connected with earth and its history, that we lose sight of the mystery of the commencement of this connexion. Why, out of all the millions of stars, should this be the place where he appears? How did he find his way to this orb, if he were not here before? What brought him to it? Was it solely as a tempter that God allowed him to come, or is he wandering about like a dethroned monarch, seeking to regain his lost sceptre, and once more to be sovereign of this his lost planet? We are not concerned to account for his sudden appearance on this globe at the time of man's creation, nor to answer any of the above questions. We are satisfied to take the simple facts of Scripture, and to learn from them his character and actings. He is brought before us under several characters, or rather, we might say, his character is brought before us under several aspects, all of them dark, repulsive, horrid. There is nothing in any of them, of that grandeur and nobleness which Milton has ascribed to him. He tells us that "His form had not yet lost All her original brightness, nor appeared Scripture attributes to him nothing save evil,-unmingled evil, enmity to God and man, special enmity to Christ and to his Church. We find him set forth to us under such names or aspects as the following: 1. The Tempter (1 Thess. iii. 5).—It is under this character that he first appears before us in Paradise,-tempting the woman, and persuading her to disbelieve, to distrust, and to rebel. 2. The Deceiver (1 Tim. ii. 14; Rev. xx. 3, 8, 10).—He is not merely a tempter, but a deceiver. He beguiled Eve with his subtlety, and his object has been, ever since, to practise deceits upon the children of men,-nay, to transform himself into an angel of light,—and by his cunning to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. 3. A Liar (John viii. 44).—He tempted Eve by a lie; he deceived her by a lie; he carries on his temptations and deceptions still by a lie! He has lied from the beginning; he lieth still; he is a liar; he is the father of lies, and with his lies is he seeking to cover the whole earth. 4. A Murderer (John viii. 44).-His whole aim from the beginning has been to slay men, both soul and body. He has delighted to torment men's bodies, as we see in the case of Job and in the case of the demoniacs in the time of our Lord. He bears deadly malice against the whole race, and specially against the woman's seed, which he has been carrying out in persecution and murder, age after age; so that his name is truly Abaddon, or Apollyon, "the destroyer." It is he who has so often unsheathed the sword against the godly, and shed the blood of saints. It was he who entered into Judas, and led him to hand over his Master to his murderers. It is to be he who is to muster the great Armageddon host, to fight against Jehovah in the last days. 5. An Executioner (Heb. ii. 14). He is said to have the "power of death," as if he were God's executioner,—as if it were through him that disease smites us, and death is at last |