University of Virginia Library

Appendix II

SOLAR ECLIPSES DURING THE REIGN OF
EMPEROR CHING

During this period of sixteen years, ten eclipses are recorded in the
SC or HS. We consider them in their chronological order.

i. In Ch'ien III (the third year of the first part of the reign), the second
month, on the day jen-tzu, the last day of the month, a solar eclipse is
listed (HS 5: 4a). But, according to P. Hoang, Concordance des chronologies
néoméniques chinoise et européenne, there was no jen-tzu day in the
second month. HS 27 Cb: 13b dates this eclipse "on [the day] jen-wu,
the last day of the month. It was two degrees in [the constellation]
Wei4." This date was Apr. 5, 154 B.C. The Han-chi (ii cent.) 9:5b however
dates this eclipse "in the second month, on [the day] hsin-szu, the
first day of the month," which was Apr. 4, 154 B.C., according to Hoang.

Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse no. 2506 on Apr. 4, 154 B.C.,
which date Hoang calculates as the day before the last day of the month.

Oppolzer calculates the sun as in long. 10.9° = 10.0° R.A.; the stars
of Wei4 were then in 11.2° to 12.8° R.A.

ii. HS 5: 4b says, In Ch'ien IV, "the tenth month, on [the day]
mou-hsü, the last day of the month, there was an eclipse of the sun."
HS ch. 27 and the Han-chi both fail to list this eclipse. The listing in
ch. 5 is moreover peculiar, since here the tenth month, which really
began the year, is noted at the end of the year.

Another eclipse in the tenth month at the end of a year is noted in
Chung IV, on the day mou-wu. Because of the similarity of these two
dates, there is a possibility of conflation between these two recordings.
HS ch. 27 lists neither of them.

P. Hoang, in his Catalogue des éclipses de soleil et de lune dans les
documents chinois ("Variétés sinologiques", n. 56) suggests Oppolzer's
solar eclipse no. 2507, but that was visible only in the southern hemisphere.
Chu Wen-hsin, in his Li-tai Jih-shih K'ao (1934) suggests
Oppolzer's no. 2510, but that eclipse was also invisible in China. Liu
Pin and Chou Shou-ch'ang think that this eclipse is an interpolation,
because of the peculiar month, because HS ch. 27 does not list it, and
because of the similarity to the one listed for Chung IV. Ho Ch'uo
suggests that since the SC lists an "intercalary ninth month" in this

year, this intercalary month is intended. Hoang does not however
put any mou-hsü day in that intercalary month, making such a day the
twenty-fifth of the regular ninth month, Oct. 12, 153 B.C.

In the four years between the preceeding correctly recorded eclipse
in 154 B.C. and the next such a one in 150 B.C., there occurred eight
solar eclipses, of which only two were visible in China.[1] The eclipse of
Aug. 7, 152 B.C. was invisible in Ch'ang-an, but calculation shows that
at the present Peiping it reached a magnitude of 0.08 (totality = 1.00)
at sunrise. This day was in Ch'ien V, the sixth month, on the day
ting-yu, the day before the last day of the month. Calculation shows
also that the eclipse of Feb. 2, 151 B.C. reached a magnitude of 0.03
at Ch'ang-an at 10:08 a.m., local time; at the present Ch'ang-sha it
reached a magnitude of 0.15 at 10:27 a.m., local time. This date was in
Ch'ien VI, the first month, the day ping-shen, the first day of the month.

Ping-shen is two days before mou-hsü and ting-yu is the day before
mou-hsü. Since Hoang's calendar (from which these datings are taken)
might be as much as three days in error, either of these two eclipses
might be the one referred to in this recording, as far as the cyclical days
go. These eclipses were however both quite small and would easily be
missed. Since our other sources do not list this eclipse, it is more probably
an interpolation into the text, possibly a conflation or dittography
for the other peculiar eclipse in Chung IV.

iii. In Ch'ien VII, the eleventh month, on the day keng-yin, the last
day of the month, a third eclipse of the sun is recorded (5:5a). HS
27 Cb: 13b also records it and adds, "It was 9 degrees in [the constellation]
Hsü." The SC (Mh II, 501) mistakenly dates this eclipse on the
last day of the twelfth month.

Hoang gives this date as Jan. 22, 150 B.C.; Oppolzer calculates his
solar eclipse no. 2515 for that date. He calculates the sun's longitude
as 299.1° = 301.2° R.A. The two stars of Hsü were then in 291.8°
and 293.9° R.A.

iv. In Chung I, the twelfth month, on the day chia-yin, the last
day of the month, a fourth solar eclipse is listed in HS 27 Cb: 13b;
ch. 5 and the Han-chi do not mention this eclipse. Hoang gives this
date as Feb. 10, 149 B.C. There was no eclipse on that date.

In the three years between the preceding eclipse and the next correctly

recorded one in 147 B.C., there were 7 solar eclipses, of which only one
was visible in China.[2] This one occurred on June 7, 149 B.C., in Chung I,
the fifth month, on the day jen-tzu, the last day of the month. Oppolzer
charts the moon's umbra as passing into northern Siberia, so that this
eclipse was visible as a small partial eclipse in northern China.

Chia-yin is the second day after jen-tzu; it is likely that Hoang's
calendar is here two days in error and that "fifth" was misread as
"twelfth," so that the eclipse of 149 B.C. is the one intended in this
recording. Then the Han-chi did not list all the eclipses given in the
HS, and missed this one because it is listed only in HS ch. 27.

v. In Chung II, the ninth month, on the day chia-hsü, the last day
of the month, a fifth solar eclipse is recorded (5: 6b; 27 Cb: 13b; Han-chi
9: 14b). Hoang gives this date as Oct. 22, 148 B.C. No eclipse happened
on that day.

If we are correct in identifying the preceeding eclipse with that of
149 B.C., there was no solar eclipse visible in China between the two
eclipses of 150 and 147 B.C.

This listing is probably dittography for the next eclipse. Both were
listed in the ninth month, one on the day chia-hsü and the other on the
day mou-hsü; one in the second year and the other in the third year.
In the list of eclipses in ch. 27 this dittography is quite plain. There
two groups, each of eleven characters, follow each other, differing only
in two characters. If, possibly in copying the original astronomical
records, the word for "three" had been carelessly written "two," and
someone had added the correct notation of the next eclipse and had also
noted that mou-hsü is incorrect for that month of the second year
and had changed mou to chia, the list would stand as it is now. Its
insertion into the Annals would naturally have followed.

vi. In Chung III, the ninth month, on the day mou-hsü, the last day
of the month, a sixth solar eclipse is recorded (5: 6b; 27 Cb: 13b; Han-chi
9: 14b). Ch. 27 adds, "It was almost total. It was nine degrees
in Wei3."

Hoang gives this date as Nov. 10, 147 B.C., for which Oppolzer
calculates his solar eclipse no. 2523. He charts the moon's umbra as
passing approximately through the present Urga, Mongolia, and Shanhai-kuan,
Hopei. Calculation shows that the eclipse reached a magnitude
of 0.77 in Ch'ang-an at 10:58 a.m., local time.

The sun's longitude was 224.9° = 222.4° R.A. The nine stars of
Wei3 ranged in R.A. from 218.2° to 230.7°.

vii. In Chung IV, at the end of the record for the year, there is listed
an eclipse of the sun in the tenth month, on the day mou-wu (5: 7a;
Han-chi 9: 14b). HS ch. 27 does not list this eclipse. There could of
course be no tenth month at the end of the year, for the tenth month
was the first month in a year.

In the three years between the preceeding eclipse and the next correctly
recorded one in 144 B.C., there were six solar eclipses, of which
only one was visible in China.[3] This one occurred on the morning of
Mar. 26, 145 B.C. It was invisible at Ch'ang-an and even in the ancient
Lu, the modern Ch'ü-fou, Shantung. But at Jung-ch'eng, on the
eastern tip of the Shantung peninsula, the eclipse reached a magnitude
of 0.16 at sunrise, according to calculation. This day was in Chung V,
the second month, the day keng-shen, the last day of the month, according
to Hoang.

Mou-wu is the second day before keng-shen. There thus occurred
an eclipse within a few months of the time when this eclipse is said to
have occurred, on a cyclical day which was possibly the same cyclical
day as that for which it was listed (since Hoang's calendar might be two
days in error). At sunrise an eclipse must reach a magnitude of 0.33
to be conspicuous, and an eclipse of 0.16 is visible to the naked eye. It
is possible that some official in eastern Shantung reported this eclipse
to the imperial court and that somehow the record got into the "Imperial
Annals" in a garbled form. Since the list in ch. 27 seems to represent the
records of the court astronomers, it is natural that this eclipse did not
get into that list.

viii. In Chung VI, the seventh month, on the day hsin-hai, the last
day of the month, an eighth eclipse is recorded (5: 8b; 27 Cb: 14a;
Han-chi 9: 15b). Ch. 27 adds, "It was 7 degrees in [the constellation]
Chen3."

Hoang gives this day as Sept. 8, 144 B.C., for which Oppolzer calculates
his solar eclipse no. 2530. He charts the path of totality as passing
near the present Canton.

He calculates the sun in long. 161.6° = 163.2° R.A. The stars of
Chen3 then ranged from 155.7° to 161.4° R.A.

ix. In Hou I, the seventh month, on the day yi-szu, a ninth solar
eclipse is recorded. HS 5: 8b says it was on the last day of the month;
27 Cb: 14a however says it was "one day before the last day of the
month," and adds, "It was 17 degrees in [the constellation] Yi."

Hoang gives this date as Aug. 28, 143 B.C., the day before the last
day of the month, for which day Oppolzer calculates his solar eclipse
no. 2532. He charts the path of totality as passing through Siberia and
the island of Yezo.

He calculates the sun's longitude as 150.8° = 152.9° R.A. The stars
of Yi then ranged from 136.0° to 144.7° R.A.

x. Under Hou III, the tenth month, which was Nov. 16-Dec. 14,
142 B.C., the SC (Mh II, 508) says, "The sun and the moon were both
eclipsed and red for five days." The HS does not mention this matter
either in the Annals or in ch. 27. The only solar eclipse visible in China
between that of 143 B.C. and the next correctly recorded one in 138 B.C.
was that of Aug. 8, 141 B.C., which may have been separately recorded
in ch. 6.[4] This record seems to refer to a dust-storm.