[300] Seneca describes this meteor, ubi supra, i. 14. “Sunt chasmata, cum aliquando cœli spatium discedit, et flammam dehiscens velut in abdito ostentat. Colores quoque horum omnium plurimi sunt. Quidam ruboris acerrimi, quidam evanidæ et levis flammæ, quidam candidæ lucis, quidam micantes, quidam æquabiliter et sine eruptionibus aut radiis fulvi.” Aristotle’s account of chasmata is contained in his Meteor. lib. i. cap. 5. p. 534.
[301] The meteor here referred to is probably a peculiar form of the aurora borealis, which occasionally assumes a red colour. See the remarks of Fouché, in Ajasson, i. 382.
[302] The doctrine of the author appears to be, that the prodigies are not the cause, but only the indication of the events which succeed them. This doctrine is referred to by Seneca; “Videbimus an certus omnium rerum ordo ducatur, et alia aliis ita complexa sint, ut quod antecedit, aut causa sit sequentium aut signum.” Nat. Quæst. i. 1.
[303] It would appear that, in this passage, two phænomena are confounded together; certain brilliant stars, as, for example, Venus, which have been occasionally seen in the day-time, and the formation of different kinds of halos, depending on certain states of the atmosphere, which affect its transparency.
[304] This occurrence is mentioned by Seneca, Nat. Quæst. i. 2; he enters into a detailed explanation of the cause; also by V. Paterculus, ii. 59, and by Jul. Obsequens, cap. 128. We can scarcely doubt of the reality of the occurrence, as these authors would not have ventured to relate what, if not true, might have been so easily contradicted.
[305] The term here employed is “arcus,” which is a portion only of a circle or “orbis.” But if we suppose that the sun was near the horizon, a portion only of the halo would be visible, or the condition of the atmosphere adapted for forming the halo might exist in one part only, so that a portion of the halo only would be obscured.
[306] The dimness or paleness of the sun, which is stated by various writers to have occurred at the time of Cæsar’s death, it is unnecessary to remark, was a phænomenon totally different from an eclipse, and depending on a totally different cause.
[307] Aristotle, Meteor. lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 575, cap. 6. p. 582, 583, and Seneca, Quæst. Nat. lib. i. § 11, describe these appearances under the title which has been retained by the moderns of παρήλια. Aristotle remarks on their cause as depending on the refraction (ἀνάκλασις) of the sun’s rays. He extends the remark to the production of halos (ἅλως) and the rainbow, ubi supra.
[308] This occurrence is referred to by Livy, xli. 21.
[309] This meteor has been named παρασελήνη; they are supposed to depend upon the same cause with the Parhelia. A phænomenon of this description is mentioned by Jul. Obsequens, cap. 92, and by Plutarch, in Marcellus, ii. 360. In Shakspeare’s King John the death of Prince Arthur is said to have been followed by the ominous appearance of five moons.