1846.] Appearance and Disappearance of Stars. 881 tory of these stars, which have ever excited the particular attention of astronomers. Among these belongs the star discovered by Kepler in the foot of Serpentarius. I make only a single extract, relating to the appearance of a star of special interest. "In the year 1572, on the 11th of November," says Littrow," Tycho, on passing at night from his chemical laboratory to the observatory, through the court of his house, observed in the constellation, Cassiopeia, at a place where before he had only seen very small stars, a new star of uncommon magnitude. It was so bright, that it surpassed even Jupiter and Venus in splendor, and was visible even in the day-time. During the whole time it was visible, Tycho could observe no parallax or change in its position. At the end of one year, however, it gradually diminished, and at length in March, 1574, sixteen months after its discovery, entirely disappeared, since which, all traces of it have been lost. When it first appeared, its light was of a dazzling white color; in January, 1573, two months after its discovery, it became yellowish; in a few months, it assumed a reddish hue, like Mars or Aldebaran; and in the beginning of the year 1574, two or three months before its total disappearance, it glimmered only with a grey or lead colored light, similar to that of Saturn." What now, if the existence of a star like this, not far from the birth of Christ could be historically proved? The conjunction which occurred would then not only appear much more remarkable, but it could hardly be doubted, that the journey of the Magi to Jerusalem should be placed in close connection with the appearance of this new star. For the possibility of this proof, I am indebted to a notice in Münter,' who was only prevented from using it, on account of having placed the year of Christ's birth, chiefly upon other grounds, at the beginning of that conjunction, i. e. in the year 747. I cannot repress my surprise, however, that almost nowhere else, not even in Littrow, is it cited. Münter says: "the Chinese astronomical tables inform us, that a new star appeared at a time which would correspond with the fourth year before the birth of Christ, according to our usual mode of computation. In a note upon this, the work from which this notice is borrowed is mentioned,2 and in that it is stated four years ante aeram vulgarem: Stella nova in coelo per 70 et am 1 S 29. * It is entitled: Tabula chronologica historiae Sinicae, connexa cum cyclo, qui vulgo Kia-tse dicitur, latino Sermone exhibita a Jo. Franc. Fouquet et ad Ann. Chr. 1774, a Stephano Borgia perducta. plius dies. This notice1 was to me the inore striking, from having, long before it came to my knowledge, placed the birth of Christ on the same year, 750. Pingré2 and Mailla3 call the new star a comet. Both maintain two comets, of which one is related to have appeared in the year 5, the other in the year 4 B. C. Still, as Pingré conjectures, it was only a single one, since the descriptions given do not vary from each other. The first, so called, appeared, according to Pingré, in the first and second month in the constellation Nieon (Caput Capricornies); according to Mailla à l'étoile Kien-nieou. The second appeared aux étoiles Ho-Kou (a de l'Aigle et étoiles voisines) au nord de la constellation Kien-nieou (partie du Capricorne). Consequently they appeared in nearly the same place in the firmament, only the second, so called, had then advanced somewhat further towards the north. True, the former appeared in the first two months of the year and the latter in the third month; but, then, the former must also have been visible in the third month, since it is expressly added that it was visible seventy days, and thus more than two months. But if the two comets are identical, this comet must have appeared in the first three months of the Chinese calendar (February to April) in the year 4 B. C. or 750 U. C. The erroneous computation of the time of its appearance, is accounted for by the fact that it is given according to the date of the reign of Gay-ti, the emperor at the time. 1 Manter introduces this notice with the words: Uncertain accounts relate, etc.; but without even a syllable to support this judgment on the historical character of these Chinese tables. On the other hand these tables are regarded, by men at home in this department, as perfectly historical, though not possessing the high degree of accuracy justly expected from the astronomers of the present time. This is the character given to them, e. g. by the astronomer Pingré in his well known work, Cometographie, tom 1. and II. Paris 1783, 84, 4to.; and the Comtes rendus hebdomaires des Séances d l'Académie des Sciences, a Paris, 4to, tom. XV. pp. 895, 96, contain an essay by N. Langier, in which the comet discovered in the observatory at Paris on the 28th of Oct., 1842, is identified with the one observed in the year 1301 at Cambridge and in China. As one of the works of most authority in Chinese chronology, may be named: Traité de la chronologie Chinois, composé par le père Ganbil, missionaire à la Chine, et publié pour servir de suite aux memoires concernant les Chinois, par M. Silvestre de Sacy. A Paris, 1814. 4. A more brief and general account of their astronomical knowledge is given by Stuhr in his work : Untersuchungen über die Ursprünglichkeit und Alterthümlichkeit der Sternkunde unter den Chinesen und Indiern, Berlin, 1831. 8vo. Tom I. p. 281. Histoire genérale de la Chine ou annales de cet empire traduites du TongKien-Kang-Mon, publiées par M. l'abbé Grosier, tom III. p. 214. 1846.] Journey of the Magi to Jerusalem. 183 The comet appeared in the second year of the era Kien-ping, established by this monarch on his accession to the throne. We need only to assume, therefore, that the appearance of the star occurred at the end of this year, in order to understand how a date of two different years is assigned by chronologers.-If now the star of the Magi is identical with this star observed by the Chinese, we obtain for their journey to Jerusalem and their sojourn there the fixed date, February to April, 750 U. C. Combining this Chinese observation of a new star, which could hardly have been borrowed from Christian sources, with the star of the Magi in Matthew, the case stands as follows: Already had the conjunction of the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, which occurred in the constellation Pisces in the years 747 and 748, excited the expectation, among the eastern astrologers, of some great event about to take place. But when afterwards the extraordinary star was added, they immediately commenced their journey in search of the new-born King. This perhaps will best explain, why they did not reach Jerusalem till a considerable time after the first conjunction. Supposing this combination to be correct, we again have the beginning of the year 750, and not the year 747,3 as the date of Christ's birth. In connection with the view now presented, it may be added that the appearance of the star when the Magi were on their way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (Matt. 2: 9, 10) and its going before (zoonyer) them, are in evident accordance, on this theory, with the real facts. Let us commence with the planets Jupiter and Saturn, whose position for the month of February, 750 U. C. I take, because I hold this year and month to be the time at which Jesus was most probably born. According to the astrono 1 Comp. on this era, Couplet tabula chronologica monarchiae Sinicae, Praef. P. 14. ? I would expressly guard, however, against the conclusion, that if this ground should not be found tenable, no other reason can be assigned for the long delay of the Magi.-I would call attention to it, as worthy of notice, that according to Abarbanel's opinion, already cited,—an opinion which must be presumed to have had an existence in the age of Christ,-Moses was born three years after a conjunction, from which it would follow that according to the opinion of the Jews in that age, the Messiah would be born three years after such a conjunction. This would lead us again, since the first conjunction occurred in the year 747, into the year 750 U. C. With special reference to the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn which then occurred, Ideler, Münter, Winer, Ebrard and others have decided in favor of the year 747 as the date of Christ's birth. Kepler, on the other hand, has taken on this ground the year 748 U. C. mer, Dr. Goldschmidt of Göttingen, to whom I beg leave to return very cordial thanks for the calculations which follow, the geocentric longitude of Jupiter on the first of February 750 was 55° 58′; that of Saturn 14° 17'. Both planets were then visible. Jupiter culminated at 6 o'clock and 42 minutes, and set in the latitude of Jerusalem 1 hour and 32 minutes after midnight, 22° 48′ north of west. Saturn culminated at 4 o'clock and 4 minutes, and set at 10 o'clock and 13 minutes P. M., 4° 17′ north of west. Since, therefore, they were now 41° apart, only one of the two could come into the account. Hence, perhaps the most probable view is, that the star which went before the Magi, was the new star mentioned above. In that case they must have made their journey to Bethlehem in the morning; for the constellation, Capricorn, in which it appeared, stood in the south-eastern sky, in the month of February, only in the morning. Nothing is more natural than that the thoughts of the Magi, as, full of expectation they were on the way to Bethlehem, should have been employed upon the celestial body which had brought them to Jerusalem in quest of the Messiah, and that when it again shone upon their path, they should have been filled with joy (Matt. 2: 10). Its appearance at that time, they would naturally regard as a good omen; and the more, from its seeming to move in the same direction with the road as if to be their guide. And when Bethlehem, the object of their search, came in sight on the summit of an eminence, they saw the star standing over it. Joyfully they hastened along, and came into the house, where they found the infant Saviour. [To be continued.] ARTICLE VIII. THE SOURCES OF THE JORDAN, THE LAKE EL-HÛLEH, AND THE ADJACENT COUNTRY. By Rev. W. M. Thomson, Missionary in Syria. Communicated, with Notes, by E. Robinson. THE Dead Sea, the Lake of Tiberias, and the interesting valley of the Jordan, have been so frequently visited and so well described by recent travellers, that the topography of all that region has become familiar to almost every one. The case is different with the Lake Hûleh, the sour 1846.] The Hasbány. 185 ces of the Jordan, and the regions adjacent. Having enjoyed the pleasure of a hasty excursion among these interesting localities, I now throw together some extracts from notes taken at the time, in the hope that they may not be unacceptable to the readers of your valuable publication. I commence my extracts with our departure from Hasbeiya. Sept. 20th, 1843. We left the palace of the Emirs of Hasbeiya, (a Muslim branch of the house of Shehâb, distinct from those who have so long governed in Lebanon,) about sun-rise, and in half an hour reached the fountain of the Hasbany. Our path led us across the bed of a winter torrent, which comes down from the mountains on the east of Hasbeiya, and over a rocky hill covered with lava boulders. The fountain lies nearly N. W. from the town, and boils up from the bottom of a shallow pool, some eight or ten rods in circumference. The water is immediately turned, by a strong stone dam, into a wide mill-race. This is undoubtedly the most distant fountain, and therefore the true source of the Jordan. It at once, even in this dry season, forms a considerable stream. It meanders for the first three miles through a narrow, but very lovely and highly cultivated valley. Its margin is protected and adorned with the green fringe and dense shade of the sycamore, button, and willow trees, while innumerable fish sport in its cool and crystal bosom. It then sinks rapidly down a constantly deepening gorge of dark basalt for about six miles, when it reaches the level of the great volcanic plain extending to the marsh above the Hûleh. Thus far the direction is nearly south; but it now bears a little westward, and in eight or ten miles, falls into the marsh about midway between the eastern and western mountains. Pursuing a southern direction through the middle of the marsh for about ten miles, it enters the Lake Hûleh not far from its N. W. corner, having been immensely enlarged by the waters from the great fountains of Baniâs, Tell el-Kâdy, el-Mellabah, Derakît or Belât, and innumerable other springs. The distance from the fountain of Hasbany to the lake cannot be less than twenty-five miles, and nearly in a straight direction. The Hûleh may be eight miles long; and the river after it issues from the lake preserves the same southerly course, until it falls into the sea of Tiberias. The great fountain of Hasbány, therefore, has an indisputable title to stand at the head of the springs and fountains and lakes of this very celebrated and most sacred river. Although the channel immediately above the fountain of the Hasbany is, during most of the year, dry and dusty, yet during the rainy season a great volume of water rushes down from the heights of Jebel es-Sheikh above Rasheiya, a distance of twenty miles, and unites with the water of this fountain. The stream is then so formidable as to require a good stone bridge, which is thrown across it a few rods below the fountain. |