Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
CELESTIAL, OR STELLAR
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: CAU-CHA
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:CELESTIAL, OR STELLAR , See also:PHOTOMETRY The earliest records that have come down to us regarding the relative positions of the stars in the heavens have always been accompanied with estimations of their relative brightness. With this brightness was naturally associated the thought of the relative magnitudes of the luminous bodies from whence the See also:light was assumed to proceed. Hence in the See also:grand See also:catalogue of stars published by See also:Ptolemy (c. 150 A.D.), but which had probably been formed three See also:hundred years before his See also:day by See also:Hipparchus, the 1200 stars readily visible to the naked See also:eye at See also:Alexandria were divided into six classes according to their lustre, though instead of that See also:term he uses the word µi'ycOor or " magnitude "; the brightest he designates as being of the first magnitude, and so downwards till he comes to the minimum visible, to which he assigns the See also:sixth. These magnitudes he still further divides each into three. To those stars which, though not ranged in any particular See also:order of brightness, nevertheless exceed the See also:average of that order in lustre he attaches the See also:letter µ, the initial letter in µe4"wv (greater), and to those in the same order which exhibit a lustre inferior to that of the average he affixes the letter e, the initial letter of See also:Alcamo,. With this sort of subdivision he passes through all the six orders of magnitude. He does not, indeed, tell us the precise See also:process by which these divisions were estimated, but the principle involved is obvious. It is one of the many remarkable instances of the acuteness and precision of the See also:Greek mind that for upwards of 1500 years no real improvement was made in these estimations of lustre. J. See also:Flamsteed extended the estimation of magnitude of stars visible only by the See also:telescope, and he improved Ptolemy's notation by See also:writing 4.3 instead of 8, indicating thereby an order of magnitude brighter than the average of a See also:fourth, but inferior to that of a third—and 3.4 for 6, e, and so on; but it was not till the See also:year 1?96 that any real advance was made in stellar photometry. See also:Sir W. See also:Herschel, instead of assigning a particular magnitude to stars, arranged them in small See also:groups of three or four or five, indicating the order in which they differed from each other in lustre at the See also:time of observation. This method was admirably adapted to the See also:discovery of any See also:variations in brightness which might occur in the See also:lapse of time among the members of the See also:group. Sir See also: Moreover, there is an unsatisfactory indefiniteness attending all estimations made by the unaided eye; numerical or quantitative comparisons are out of the question, and hence we find Sir John, in the very midst of establishing his "sequences," adopting also an instrumental method which might See also:lead him to more definite results. In the year when Sir John Herschel concluded his photo-metric work at the Cape (1838) Dr F. W. A. See also:Argelander commenced, and in 1843 completed, his Uranometria nova, in which the magnitudes of all stars visible to the unaided eye in central See also:Europe are catalogued with a precision and completeness previously unknown. It contains 3256 stars, and although it will probably be superseded by instrumental photometry it must ever remain a See also:monument of intelligent See also:patience. Argelander's labours were not confined to stars visible to the naked eye; by the aid of his assistants, Dr E. See also:Schonfeld and Dr A. See also:Kruger, three catalogues of magnitudes and celestial co-ordinates were ultimately published (1859—1862) as the See also:Bonn Durchmusterung, including the enormous number of 324,188 stars, and an additional See also:volume containing 133,659 stars See also:south of the See also:equator was published in 1886. Dr B. A. See also:Gould (1824—1896), in his Uranometria See also:argentina (1879), has done similar work for 7756 stars visible only in the See also:southern hemisphere, and his successor at See also:Cordoba, J. M. Thome, has published (1904) three volumes of the See also:Argentine (Cordoba) Durchmusterung containing 489,662 stars between See also:declination -22° to -52°. There have been other worthy labourers in the same See also: A. Steinheil at See also:Munich had completed for Dr P. L. Seidel an See also:instrument nearly the same in principle but more manageable in form. He divided the small See also:object-See also:glass of a telescope into two halves, one of which was movable in the direction of its See also:axis. The images of two stars whose light he desired to compare were formed by prismatic reflection, nearly in the same line of sight, and one of the lenses was then moved until the light of the two images seemed equal. The distance through which it was necessary to bring the movable lens furnished the data for comparing the relative lustre of the two stars in question. More recently other photometers have been devised, and descriptions of three of them, with which considerable researches have been conducted will now be given. With the first mentioned below Professor Pickering of Harvard has made more than a million See also:measures with his own eyes. The results of his observations, and of those of his assistants, will be found in the Harvard Annals especially in vol. xlv. published in 1901, which contains a See also:general catalogue of about 24,000 stars brighter than magnitude 7.5, See also:north of declination -40°. With the See also:Zollner photometer Drs Gustav See also: The catalogue of Professor C. See also:Pritchard was smaller, containing 2784 stars brighter than magnitude about 6.5 and north of declination -10°; but it was published in 1886, when very little had yet been done towards the systematic measurement of the brightness of the stars (Uranometria nova oxoniensis, vol. ii. of the See also:Oxford University See also:Observatory publications). Pickering's See also:meridian photometer (See also:Ann. Astron. Obs. Harv. vols. xiv. and See also:xxiii.) consists of two telescopes placed See also:side by side pointing due See also:east, the light from the stars on the meridian being reflected into them by two mirrors inclined at an See also:angle of 45° to this direction. If there were a star exactly at the Pole, one of these mkt-ore would be absolutely fixed and would constantly reflect the light of this star down the axis of its telescope; in practice a slight See also:motion can be given to the See also:mirror so as to keep in view Pkkering's the polar star selected, whether Polaris, with which Meridian the brighter stars were compared, or a Ursae Photometer. Minoris, which was used for fainter stars. The second mirror (which projects a little beyond the first so as to get an unobstructed view of the meridian) can be rotated See also:round the axis. of the telescope by means of a toothed-See also:wheel gearing, and can thus be made to reflect any star on the meridian down the second telescope; it is also provided with a small motion in the perpendicular direction, so as to command a degree or two on each side of the meridian. Near the See also:common eyepiece of the telescopes there is a See also:double See also:image prism which separates the light received from each into two pencils; the See also:pencil of See also:ordinary rays from one object-glass is made to coincide with that of extraordinary rays from the other, and the two remaining pencils are excluded by a stop. The two coincident pencils then pass through a See also:Nicol prism to the eye of the observer, who by rotating the prism round its axis can equalize them at a definite See also:reading depending on their relative intensities. This reading gives in fact the difference of magnitude between the two stars selected for comparison. It may be re-marked that the position of the double image prism is important. It should be just within, not at, the common focus: this position prevents any noticeable See also:colour in the images, and gives the ordinary and extraordinary pencils a sufficient separation at the eye-stop to permit the entire exclusion of one without the loss of any See also:part of the other. If the prism were exactly at the focus, and any part of the superfluous images were admitted, the resulting secondary images would coincide with the others and thus lead to errors in observing. But in the actual construction of the instrument the secondary images would appear, if at all, only as additional stars near those under observation, and too faint to produce any inconvenience. It is worthy of See also:note that Professor Pickering has extended his survey into the southern hemisphere, so that the Harvard photometry is the most See also:complete of all. Each observation consists of four comparisons; after the first two the observer reverses the position of the star images in the field, and also reverses the double-image prism. The former precaution is necessary in order to eliminate a curious See also:error depending on the relative position of the images, which may amount to several tenths of a magnitude. Errors of this See also:kind affect all estimations of the relative brightness of two stars in the same field, as has been repeatedly shown; a striking instance is given by A. W. See also:Roberts, of See also:Lovedale, South See also:Africa (Mon. Not. R.A.S. See also:April 1897), who found that his eye-estimations of the brightness of variable stars required a correction depending on the position-angle of the comparison star ranging over nearly two magnitudes. In Zollner's instrument an artificial star is taken as the See also:standard of comparison. There is only one telescope, and inside the See also:tube near the eye end is a See also:plate of glass placed at an angle Zoiiner's of 45° with the axis, so that the rays from a See also:lamp which Photometer. enter the tube from the side are reflected down the tube to the eyepiece, while the light from the star passes through the plate unobstructed. The lamplight passes through a Nicol prism and a plate of See also:rock crystal, which give See also:control over the colour; through two Nicols which can be rotated round the axis of the See also:beam to definite positions read off on a graduated circle; and then through a See also:convex lens which forms an image reflected by the glass plate to focus alongside the star. The whole of this apparatus is carried in a compact form on the eye end of the telescope, it being arranged that the lamp shall always stand upright. The measures are made by rotating the Nicols until the brightness of the artificial star is equal to that of the star viewed through the object glass, and reading the graduated circle. Professor Pritchard's (1808–1893) See also:wedge photometer is See also:con- structed on the principle that the absorption of light in passing The Wedge through a See also:uniform See also:medium depends, caeteris paribus, photometer. upon the thickness. On this principle a thin wedge is constructed of homogeneous and nearly neutral- tinted glass, through which the images of stars formed in the focus of a telescope are viewed. See also:Simple means are contrived for measuring with great exactness the several thicknesses at which the light of these telescopic star-images is extinguished. In this way the light of any star can be readily compared with that of Polaris (or any other selected star) at the moment of observa- tion, and thus a catalogue of star-magnitudes can be formed. Two material improvements suggested by Dr E. J. See also:Spitta are worthy of See also:notice. The first (Proc. See also:Roy. See also:Soc., 1889, 47, 15) corrects a slight defect in the form of the instrument. If a pencil of rays passes through a thin wedge of tinted glass, the rays do not all pass through the same thickness of glass. Dr Spitta proposes to substi- tute a pair of wedges with their thicknesses increasing in opposite directions. By sliding one over the other we obtain a parallel plate of glass of varying thickness, and a uniform beam of light of sensible dimensions can then be extinguished satisfactorily. He has also pointed out a source of error in the method of " evaluating " the wedge and shown how to correct it. The See also:scale value was determined by Professor Pritchard by the use of a doubly refracting prism of See also:quartz and a Nicol prism. Using this method subsequently, Dr Spitta found that internal* reflections within the Nicol prism interfered with the accuracy of the result, but that this error could be eliminated by using a suitable See also:diaphragm (Mon. Not. R.A.S. See also: This is the first instance in which the effect of this phenomenon has been measured in the See also:case of the stars, though it was known to be sensible. But there is a set of numerical results obtained in the laboratory which is of importance for all such See also:works, viz. those obtained by Sir W. Abney (Proc. Roy. Soc. May 1891; and Mon. Not. R.A.S. April 1892), giving the limiting intensity at which each pure colour vanishes. If we start with lights C D E F G of the colours usually denoted by these letters in the spectrum, and each so bright that it appears to the eye as bright as an amyl-acetate lamp at 1 ft., and if then the intensity of each be gradually diminished, the C light will disappear when the See also:original intensity has been reduced to 22,000 ten-millionths of the original value. The other colours will disappear at the following intensities, all expressed in ten-millionths of the original: D at 350, E at 35, F at 17, and G at 15. If then we had a mixture of two lights, one of C colour as bright as before, and the other of G colour woo times fainter (a See also:combination in which the eye would be unable to distinguish the G light at all), and if we continually reduced the combined intensity, the luminosity of the C light would diminish so much more rapidly than that of the G that the latter would begin to assert itself, and when the combined intensities were reduced to 22,000 ten-millionths of the original value, the C light would have all disappeared, while the G light would not. Hence the colour of the light would appear pure See also:violet, though it was originally deep red. This extreme case shows that the " last See also:ray to disappear " when a light is gradually extinguished may be very different in colour from that of the original light, and when more usual light-mixtures are considered, such as those of sunlight and starlight, which appear nearly See also: But before 'considering these different methods, there is one point affecting them all which is of fundamental importance. In photography a new variable comes in which does not affect eye-observations, viz., the time of exposure, and it. is necessary to consider how to make due See also:allowance for it. There is a simple See also:law which is true in the case of bright lights and rapid plates, that by doubling the exposure the same photographic effect is produced as by. increasing the intensity of a source of light twofold, and so far as this law holds it gives us a simple method of comparing magnitudes. Unfortunately this law breaks down for faint lights. Sir W. Abney, who had been a vigorous See also:advocate for the complete accuracy of this law up till 1893, in that year read a See also:paper to the Royal Society on the failure of the law, finding that it fails when exposures to an amyl-acetate lamp at r ft. are reduced to o'.00i, and " signally fails " for feeble intensities of light; indeed, it seems possible that there is a limiting intensity beyond which no length of exposure would produce any sensible effect. This was had See also:news for astronomers who have to See also:deal with faint lights, for a.simple law of this kind would have been of great value in the complex See also:department of photometry. But it seems possible that a certain modification or equivalent of the law may be used in practice. Professor H. H. See also:Turner found that for plates taken at See also:Greenwich, when the time of exposure is prolonged in the ratio of five star magnitudes the photographic gain is four magnitudes (Mon. Not. R.A.S. lxv. 775), and a closely similar result has been obtained by Dr Schwarzschild using the method presently to be mentioned. Stars of different magnitudes impress on the plate images differing both in size and blackness. To determine the magni-Diatneterastude from the character of the image, the easiest Test of quantity to measure is the diameter of the image, magnitude. and when measurements of position are being made with a See also:micrometer, it is a simple See also:matter to See also:record the diameter as well, in spite of the indefiniteness of the border. Accordingly we find that various See also:laws have been proposed for representing the magnitude of a star by the diameter of its image, though these have usually been expressed, as a preliminary, as relations between the diameter and time of exposure. Thus G. P. See also:Bond found the diameter to increase as the square ofthe exposure, Turner as the See also:cube, Pritchard as the fourth See also:power; while W. H. M. See also:Christie has found the law that the diameter varies as the square of the See also:logarithm of the exposure within certain limits. There is clearly no universal law--it varies with the instrument and the plate—but for a given instrument and plate an empirical law may be deduced. Or, without deducing any law at all, a See also:series of images may be produced of stars of known brightness and known exposures, and, using this as a scale of reference, the magnitudes of other images may be inferred by See also:interpolation. A most important piece of systematic work has been carried out by the measurement of diameters in the Cape Photographic Durchmusterung (Ann. Cape Obser. vols, iii., iv. and v.) of stars to the tenth magnitude in the south-ern hemisphere. The measurements were made by Professor J. C. Kapteyn of See also:Groningen, on photographs taken at the Cape of Good Hope Observatory; he adopts as his purely empirical formula magnitude = B/(diameter+ C), where B and C are obtained independently for every plate, from comparison with visual magnitudes. C varies from ro to 28,, and B from 90 to 260. The part of the See also:sky photographed was found to have an important bearing on the value of these constants, and it was in the course of this work that Kapteyn found a systematic difference between stars near the Milky Way and those far from it, which may be briefly expressed in the law, the stars of the Milky Way are in general bluer than the stars in other regions of the sky. It is intended, however, in the See also:present See also:article to discuss methods rather than results, and we cannot here further notice this most interesting discovery. Of methods which choose the blackness of the image rather than the diameter for measurement, the most interesting is that initiated independently by Pickering at Harvard Images out and C. Schwarzschild at See also:Vienna, which consists of Focus. in taking star images considerably out of focus. The result is that these images no longer vary appreciably in size, but only in blackness or See also:density; and that this gradation of density is recognizable through a wide range of magnitudes. On a plate taken in good focus in the ordinary way there is a gradation of the same kind for the faintest stars; the smallest images are all of approximately the same size, but vary in See also:tone from See also:grey to See also:black. But once the image becomes black it increases in size, and the See also:change in density is not easy to follow. The images-out-of-focus method seems very promising, to See also:judge by the published results of Dr Schwarzschild, who used a pre-pared comparison scale of densities, and interpolated for any given star from it. The most satisfactory photographic method would certainly be to take See also:account of both size and blackness, i.e. to measure the See also:total See also:deposit in the film; as, for instance, by interposing the whole image in a given beam of light, and measuring the diminution of the beam caused by the obstruction. But no considerable piece of work has as yet been attempted on these lines. Even in a rapid See also:sketch of so extensive a subject some notice must be taken of the application of photometry to the determination of the relative amount of light received on the Light of the See also:earth from the See also:sun, the moon and the See also:planets. sun, moon The methods by which these ratios have beenanaPPanets. obtained are as simple as they are ingenious; and for them we are mainly indebted to the labours of P. See also:Bouguer and W. C. Bond (1789-1859). The former compared the light received from the sun with that from the moon in the following See also:fashion in 1725. A hole one-twelfth of a See also:Paris See also:inch was made in the shutter of a darkened See also:room; See also:close to it was placed a con-'See also:cave lens, and in this way an image of the sun 9 in. in diameter was received on a See also:screen. Bouguer found that this light was equal to that of a See also:candle viewed at 16 in. from his eye. A similar experiment was repeated with the light of the full moon. The image now formed was only two-thirds of an inch in diameter, and he found that the light of this image was comparable with that of the same candle viewed at a distance of 5o ft. From these data and a very simple calculation it followed that the light of the sun was about 256,289 times that of the moon. Other experiments followed, and the average of all the results was that the light of the sun was about 300,000 times the average light of a full moon, both being viewed in the heavens at the same altitudes. The details will be found in Bouguer's Traite d'optique. W. H. See also:Wollaston in 1829 tried a series of experiments in which the ratio 801,072 was obtained; but the omission of certain necessary precautions vitiates the result (Phil. Trans. 1829). Bond (Mem. Amer. Acad. 1861, p. 295) adopted a different process. He formed the image of the sun on a silvered globe of some 10 in. diameter; the light of this image was reflected on to a small See also:mercurial thermometer bulb; and then this second image was compared with a See also:Bengal light so moved that the lights appeared to be equal. The same process was adopted with the full moon instead of with the sun. The result was that the sun's light was 470,980 times that of the moon. Seidel See also:long before this date had compared the light of the mean full moon with that of See also:Jupiter in mean opposition; his result is 6430. So also this light of Jupiter was found to be •4864 times that of See also:Venus at her brightest; and Jupiter was found to give 8.2 times the light of a Lyrae. If, then, these See also:numbers could be accepted with confidence, we should have the means of comparing the light received from the sun with that received from any of the stars. Adopting these See also:precarious numbers on the authorities of Bond and Seidel we have the following results: Sun's light = 470,980 that of the full moon. = 622,600,000 „ Venus at her brightest. = 302,835,000 ,, Jupiter at mean opposition. = 5,970,500,000 „ Sirius. Lastly, Bouguer, by comparing the light of the full moon viewed at different altitudes with an artificial light, found that the See also:atmosphere absorbs • 1877 of the light incident on it at the See also:zenith of any place. Professor Pritchard, from photo-metric measures taken at See also:Cairo, found this number to be •157. At Oxford it was •209. Thus Bouguer's determination indicates an absorptive capacity in the atmosphere of See also:Brittany just midway between those of Oxford and Cairo. Seidel at Munich expresses " surprise " at finding his own results so nearly accordant with Bouguer's. Although rather outside the domain of photometry in the strict sense, a word or two may be said here about See also:recent attempts to measure the See also:heat received from the stars, the first being made with the " radio-micrometer " of C. V. Boys. (Proc. Roy. Soc. 1890). This is an extremely delicate instrument for Very little measuring radiant heat, and consists of a very light Heat from thermo-electric See also:circuit (two tiny bars of See also:antimony the Stars. and See also:bismuth soldered together at one edge, the outer edges being connected by a hoop of See also:copper See also:wire) suspended by a quartz fibre (a torsion fibre of the very greatest sensitiveness) in a strong magnetic field. A See also:minute quantity of radiant heat falling on one of the junctions of the circuit sets up a current in the circuit, which thus rotates in the magnetic field until brought to See also:rest by the torsion of the fibre. For use on the heavenly bodies the radiant heat is collected to focus by a reflecting telescope (an object-glass would absorb it), and when the telescope is pointed to the moon the varying See also:radiation from different parts of the disk is beautifully shown. No heat comes from the unlit portion, and of the illuminated portion the maximum is obtained from near the See also:limb. But when pointed to the brightest stars no indications were obtained, although the instrument is sensitive enough to detect the heat from a candle more than a mile off. It seems certain that indications of heat from the stars obtained by previous observers must be See also:spurious. It is also See also:manifest that to obtain satisfactory results even more sensitive apparatus must be devised, and by using a See also:radiometer and the powerful resources of the See also:Yerkes Observatory E. F. See also:Nichols succeeded in 1898 and I90o in obtaining indications of heat from See also:Arcturus and See also:Vega, as well as from Jupiter and See also:Saturn (Astrophysical Journ. xiii., rot), the heat received being comparable with that from a candle 6 m. away. We may place alongside this result that obtained by W. J. See also:Dibdin (Proc. Roy. Soc. April 1892), who compared candle-light with twenty-one stars ranging to the sixth magnitude,and found the light of a second magnitude star equal to that of a candle at 126o ft. (H. H. T.) PHRAATES (PHRAHATES; Pers. Frahat, See also:modern Ferhat), the name of five See also:Parthian See also:kings. 1. PHRAATES I., son of Priapatius, reigned c. `175–170 B.C. He subdued the Mardi, a mountainous tribe in the See also:Elburz (See also:Justin xli. 5; Isid. Charac. 7). He died See also:young, and appointed as his successor not one of his sons, but his See also:brother See also:Mithradates I. (Justin xli. 5). 2. PHRAATES II., son of Mithradates I., the conqueror of Babylonia, reigned 138–127. He was attacked in 130 by See also:Antiochus VII. Sidetes, who, however, in 129 was defeated and killed in a great See also:battle in See also:Media, which ended the Seleucid See also:rule east of the See also:Euphrates (see SELEUCID See also:DYNASTY). Meanwhile the See also:kingdom was invaded by the Scythians (the Tochari of See also:Bactria), who had helped Antiochus. Phraates marched against them, but was defeated and killed (Justin xlii. 1; Johannes See also:Antioch, fr. 66). 3. PHRAATES III., " the See also:God " (See also:Phlegon, fr. 12 ap. See also:Photius See also:cod. 97 and on some of his coins), succeeded his father, See also:Sanatruces, in 70 B.C., at the time when See also:Lucullus was preparing to attack See also:Tigranes of See also:Armenia, who was supreme in western See also:Asia and had wrested See also:Mesopotamia and several See also:vassal states from the Parthian kingdom. Naturally, Phraates declined to assist Mithradates of See also:Pontus and Tigranes against the See also:Romans (see TIGRANES). He supported his son-in-law, the younger Tigranes, when he rebelled against his father, and invaded Armenia (65 B.C.) in See also:alliance with See also:Pompey, who abandoned Mesopotamia to the Parthians (Dio. See also:Cass. See also:xxxvi. 45, 51; See also:Appian, Mithr. 104; Liv. Epit. See also:loo). But Pompey soon overrode the treaty; he acknowledged the elder Tigranes, took his son prisoner, occupied the vassal states Gordyene and See also:Osroene for the Romans, and denied the See also:title of " See also: Crass. 33; Dio Cass. xlix. 23). He was attacked in 36 by See also:Antonius (See also:Mark Antony), who marched through Armenia into Media Atropatene, and was defeated and lost the greater part of his See also:army. Believing himself betrayed by Artavasdes, king of Armenia, he invaded his kingdom in 34, took him prisoner, and concluded a treaty with another Artavasdes, king of Atropatene. But when the See also:war with Octavianus See also:Augustus See also:broke out, he could not maintain his conquests; Phraates recovered Atropatene and drove Artaxes, the son of Artavasdes, back into Armenia (Dio. Cass. xlix. 24 sqq., 39 seq., 44; cf. li. 16; Plut. Antonius, 37 seq.). But by his many cruelties Phraates had roused the indignation of his subjects, who raised See also:Tiridates II. to the See also:throne in 32. Phraates was restored by the Scythians, and Tiridates fled into See also:Syria. The Romans hoped that Augustus would avenge the defeat of See also:Crassus on the Parthians, but he contented himself with a treaty, by which Phraates gave back the prisoners and the conquered eagles (20 B.C., Mon. Anc. 5, 40 sqq.; Justin xlii. 5); the kingdom of Armenia also was recognized as a See also:Roman dependency. Soon afterwards Phraates, whose greatest enemies were his own See also:family, sent five of his sons as hostages to Augustus, thus acknowledging his dependence on See also:Rome. This See also:plan he adopted on the See also:advice of an See also:Italian concubine whom he made his legitimate wife under the name of " the goddess Musa "; her son Phraates, commonly called Phraataces (a diminutive form), he appointed successor. About 4 B.C. he was murdered by Musa and her son (See also:Joseph. See also:Ant. xviii. 2, 4). 5. PHRAATES V., or PHRAATACES, the younger son of Phraates IV. and the " goddess Musa," with whom he is associated on his coins. Under him a war threatened to break out with Rome about the supremacy in Armenia and Media. But when Augustus sent his adopted son See also:Gaius See also:Caesar into the east in order to invade See also:Parthia, the Parthians preferred to conclude a treaty (A.D. 1), by which once again Armenia was recognized as in the Roman See also:sphere (Dio. Cass. lv. ro; Velleius ii. rot). Soon after Phraataces and his See also:mother were slain by the Parthians, about A.D. 5 (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 2, 4). (ED. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] CELESTE, MADAME (1815–1882) |
[next] CELESTINA, LA |