The Project Gutenberg eBook of The romance of comets
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The romance of comets
Author: Mary Proctor
Release date: March 6, 2025 [eBook #75545]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Harper & Brothers, 1926
Credits: Richard Tonsing, Tim Lindell, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMANCE OF COMETS ***
THE ROMANCE OF COMETS
[Illustration:
PROFESSOR E. E. BARNARD
]
The Romance of Comets
_By_ MARY PROCTOR, F.R.A.S., F.R.Met.S.
(Daughter of the late Richard A. Proctor)
_Author of “Evenings with the Stars,” “Stories of Starland,” “Giant Sun
and His Family,” “Legends of the Stars,” “The Children’s Book of the
Heavens,” Etc._
ILLUSTRATED
[Illustration: [Logo]]
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK AND LONDON MCMXXVI
THE ROMANCE OF COMETS: MADE IN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY HARPER
AND BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK AND
LONDON
E-A
_Dedicated_
TO THE MEMORY OF
_my kind and helpful friend_
PROFESSOR E. E. BARNARD
_Contents_
PREFACE xi
_Chapter One_: COMETS AS PORTENTS 1
_Chapter Two_: COMET-HUNTING AS A HOBBY 16
_Chapter Three_: THE STORY OF DONATI’S COMET 37
_Chapter Four_: COMETS IN DISTRESS 46
_Chapter Five_: PHOTOGRAPHY AS APPLIED TO COMETS 67
_Chapter Six_: RETURN OF HALLEY’S COMET IN 1910 94
_Chapter Seven_: ORIGIN OF COMETS AND METEORS 133
_Chapter Eight_: METEOR STREAMS 168
_Chapter Nine_: DID LIFE FIRST COME TO THIS EARTH IN A METEOR? 196
_Illustrations_
PROFESSOR E. E. BARNARD _Frontispiece_
_facing page_
DAYLIGHT COMET 1910 A 8
THE COMET-SEEKER ON THE ROOF OF THE YERKES OBSERVATORY,
AT WILLIAMS BAY, WISCONSIN 18
COMET OF DONATI 42
PHOTOGRAPH OF MOREHOUSE COMET, 1908 C 68
JOHN TEBBUTT, NOTED COMET-HUNTER OF WINDSOR, N. S. W. 70
THE GREAT DAYLIGHT COMET, SEPTEMBER, 1882 80
PHOTOGRAPH OF A BRIGHT METEOR, BY DR. W. J. S. LOCKYER 84
COMET 1893 IV BROOKS 92
HALLEY’S COMET AND THE PLANET VENUS 94
HALLEY’S COMET 110
COMET 1861, JULY 2, AS SEEN AND DRAWN BY R. A. PROCTOR 118
HALLEY’S COMET 124
THE ORBIT OF HALLEY’S COMET 126
THE SOUTHERN COMET OF JANUARY, 1887 144
OUTH LODGE, KEITHICK, WHERE THE STRATHMORE METEORITE
FELL THROUGH THE ROOF, DECEMBER 3, 1917 200
STRATHMORE METEORITE, ESSENDY FRAGMENT 202
_Preface_
This book contains an account of some of the quaint ideas entertained
regarding comets, meteors, and shooting stars in the days of long ago,
when they were looked upon with apprehension and fear. Their appearance
was supposed to herald coming disaster, until Science lifted the veil
which obscured their real meaning from view. As soon as it was known
that these visitants from the star-depths were composed of such airy
texture that, as Sir John Herschel once expressed it, they could be
easily packed in a portmanteau, tail and all, the fear of comets was at
an end, and their appearance is nowadays hailed with delight.
Possibly no one appreciated this fact more strongly than the late
Professor Barnard of the Yerkes Observatory, at Williams Bay, Wisconsin;
and as Professor Frost, the director of the observatory, remarks, in a
letter granting the author a permit for the use of several photographs
of comets taken by him, “it is most appropriate that your book should be
dedicated to him, as he certainly had an ardor in observing and studying
comets that has seldom been equaled.”
In the chapter on “Comet-hunting as a Hobby,” after describing how
popular it was some years ago, when cash prizes were offered to
successful finders, an instance is given thereof in the story related by
the late Professor E. E. Barnard, entitled “The House that was Built
with Comets.” As a matter of fact, it was built by means of financial
aid obtained in this way. Shooting stars also come in for their due
share of attention, as well as fireballs which present rather an
alarming aspect until one realizes that the sudden blaze of light
indicates their annihilation.
The book is illustrated with prints, charts, drawings, and photographs,
and permits for their use are gratefully acknowledged to the Astronomer
Royal, in connection with photographs obtained at the Royal Observatory,
Greenwich; and to the directors of the Cape of Good Hope and
Johannesburg Observatories in Africa, and the Yerkes Observatory in U.
S. A. Also for permission kindly given by the director of Harvard
College Observatory, U. S. A., to make a copy from a drawing of Donati’s
comet, made by Professor Bond in the year 1858.
Grateful acknowledgment is made to Mr. W. F. Denning (Bristol) for the
loan of the photograph of the Strathmore meteorite, which fell December
3, 1917, making a hole in the roof of Outh Lodge, Keithwick.
The author is specially indebted to Mr. Denning for his kindness in
looking over the MS. of Chapter VIII, which deals with “Meteor Streams
and Shooting Stars”; and to Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin for a like favor in
connection with the chapters dealing with “Halley’s Comet as Seen in
1910,” and the “Origin of Comets and Meteors,” the most important
chapter in the book. It incorporates the views advanced by my father
some thirty-five years ago, concerning the ejection theory of comets,
stanchly advocated by Dr. Crommelin, as compared with the more modern
capture theory. The chapter is also of special interest, as, in a way,
it partly supplies the missing chapter in my father’s unfinished work,
_Old and New Astronomy_.
MARY PROCTOR.
LONDON, _April, 1926_.
CHAPTER ONE
COMETS AS PORTENTS
“Lo! from the dread immensity of Space,
Returning with accelerated pace,
The rushing comet to the sun descends:
And, as he shrinks below the shading Earth,
With awful train projected o’er the Heavens,
The guilty nations tremble.”
—THOMSON.
Can there be anything more awe-inspiring to the superstitious than the
stealthy approach of a comet as it wends its way among the stars,
finally blazing out with a marvelous train as it draws near to the sun
to pay homage? As a distant relative of that luminary, it comes for an
occasional visit from far-off realms, and after a brief display during
which it adorns itself with a splendor befitting the momentous occasion,
it withdraws into the obscurity from which it emerged. In these
enlightened days a comet is greeted with enthusiasm, and the camera
keeps a faithful record of its varying appearance, but in olden times it
was regarded as a portent of evil.
Comets have sometimes been pictured as dragons, and according to Pliny
the shape of a comet indicated its character as a portent. Thus, some
were shown as arrow heads, sea monsters, swords, lances, and flames. In
A.D. 69, according to Josephus, several signs appeared in the sky
announcing the destruction of Jerusalem.
“Amongst other warnings, a comet, one of the kind called Xiphias,
because their tails appear to represent the blade of a sword, was
seen above the city for the space of a whole year.”
Regarding the comet of A.D. 79, it is said to have preceded the death of
the Roman Emperor Vespasian. When the physicians reproved the emperor
for continuing to live as usual, attending to the business of the state,
although attacked by a serious malady, he replied, “It is fitting that
an emperor should die standing.” Then perceiving some courtiers who were
conversing together in a low tone of voice about the comet, gazing
significantly in his direction meanwhile, he remarked: “This hairy star
does not concern me; it menaces rather the King of the Parthians, for he
is hairy and I am bald.” Feeling his end approach, he observed, “I think
that I am becoming a god.”
Virgil compares a hero in his shining armor to a comet, and makes
another allusion to these objects at the end of the first Georgic (Bk.
I, 487–488) in the couplet thus rendered by the Rev. Canon Newbolt:
“At no other time did more thunderbolts fall in a clear sky, nor so
often did dread comets blaze.”
In the natural history of Pliny we find several passages relating to the
significance attached to comets by the ancients. For instance, when
referring to the comet of 48 B.C., he observes:
“We have in the war between Cæsar and Pompey an example of the
terrible effects which follow the apparition of a comet.... That
fearful star, which overthrows the powers of the earth, showed its
terrible locks.”
The superstitious dread in which comets were held in the Middle Ages is
exemplified in the gloomy forebodings of disaster, such as wars,
pestilence, and the death of kings, when these apparitions were seen in
the heavens. Well known is Shakespeare’s allusion to comets in Act II,
Sc. 2 of “Julius Cæsar”:
“When beggars die, there are no comets seen;
The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.”
In “Henry VI” we find the following passage in Part I, Act I, Sc. 1:
“Comets, importing change of times and states
Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky;
And with them scourge the bad revolting stars
That have consented unto Henry’s death.”
The comet of A.D. 451 or A.D. 453 announced the death of Attila, and the
comet of A.D. 455 that of the Emperor Valentinian. So widely spread was
the belief in the connection between the death of the great, and these
menacing signs in the heavens, that the chroniclers of old appear to
have recorded comets which were never seen, such as the comet of A.D.
814, which was supposed to have presaged the death of Charlemagne.
When the end of the world was expected in A.D. 1000, the most simple
phenomena assumed terrible proportions. We are told of earthquakes, and
a comet visible for nine days.
“The heavens having opened, a kind of burning torch fell upon the
earth, leaving behind it a long train of light similar to a flash of
lightning. Such was its light that it frightened not only those who
were in the open country, but those who were within doors. As this
opening in the heavens closed imperceptibly there became visible the
figure of a dragon, whose feet were blue, and whose head seemed
continually to increase.”
However, this was more likely the momentary appearance of a shooting
star or fireball, than the comet which the chronicler records as
remaining visible for nine days.
A terrible picture accompanies the description, showing a meteor track
so arranged as to resemble the outline of a dragon, and lest the
resemblance might not seem convincing enough, a fearsome looking dragon
to match is set beside the celestial apparition labeled “_Serpens cum
ceruleis pedibus_.”
Fortunately, people were too busy in those “good old times” fighting and
plundering one another to pay much heed to these omens in the sky.
Moreover, with regard to the threatened end of the world, many contented
themselves with the reflection that they could not be much worse off,
even if the world should perish at that period. Consequently, a comet
scare was averted, and we have clear evidence that, as far as the
predicted catastrophe was concerned, everything went on as usual. A.D.
1000 came and went, and still the world endured.
Great importance has been attached to the seeming connection between
Halley’s famous comet and the portent theory, with striking events which
have occurred upon the occasion of its several returns. For instance, at
its return in A.D. 66 it was probably the sword of fire described by
Josephus as suspended over Jerusalem not long before the destruction of
that city by Titus. Its appearance in A.D. 451 coincided with the defeat
of Attila at Châlons, and it was pictured in the _Nuremberg Chronicle_
for A.D. 684.
It is well known in connection with the famous Bayeux tapestry into
which Queen Matilda wove the story of William the Conqueror’s defeat of
Harold on the memorable occasion of the battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.
People are shown pointing to an object in the sky, which is labeled
_Isti Mirant Stellam_, the wonderful so-called “hairy star” which
supposedly heralded the success of the Conqueror.
On an adjoining panel is pictured the dejected Harold about to topple
off his throne, and a solitary attendant expressing alarm at the
defeated monarch’s precarious position, but apparently offering no
assistance of value. Thus the comet on this occasion served the double
purpose, it would seem, of announcing success on the one hand and defeat
on the other. Undoubtedly it caused great alarm on account of its
brightness and rapid motion.
In 1456 it returned at a period of great anxiety, when the Turks, having
taken possession of Constantinople three years before, now turned their
attention to Belgrade, which they were besieging. It happened that the
moon was passing through the crescent phase at the time, and Halley’s
comet presented the appearance of a sword. The crescent moon, resembling
the Turkish emblem, is said to have been considered an evil omen by the
Turks, contributing eventually to their defeat.
Coming to our own times, it is surprising the amount of fear and
distress which was caused at the return of Halley’s comet in 1910.
Insanity and even cases of suicide followed at its approach, and there
is a well-authenticated case of an enthusiastic young lady in New
Jersey, U. S. A., who declared her intention of following the comet
wheresoever it went, but was restrained by her friends, and temporary
seclusion in an asylum, from this perilous pursuit.
As the time drew near for the comet to pass from the morning to the
evening sky, when, according to calculations, it would cross the plane
of the earth’s orbit at a point exactly between the earth and the sun,
fresh alarm was caused lest the earth, in plunging through the débris of
the comet’s train, might come to grief in consequence. A report that we
should be asphyxiated by the poisonous gases, such as cyanogen, of which
the train was said to be partly composed, did not tend to lessen the
alarm. Cautious folk laid in a supply of bottles of oxygen to sustain
life during the fatal night, and one or two of a pessimistic turn of
mind actually forestalled the expected tragedy by committing suicide.
Yet nothing happened, for the simple reason that on the night of the
great adventure the comet obligingly spread its tail so widely apart,
that we passed unharmed between two sections thereof.
[Illustration:
_Drawn by M. Proctor_
DAYLIGHT COMET 1910 A
As seen at Newcastletown Moor, January 28, by the author
]
Nevertheless, despite a few tragedies consequent upon fear at the
comet’s near approach, the lurking dread of evil it might have had in
store for us was considerably less on the occasion of the return of
Halley’s comet in 1910, than was usual in the gloomy, prognosticating
period of the Middle Ages. Yet certain events occurred which made some
people wonder if there was not a kernel of truth in the so-called
portents after all. For instance, during the month of January (in the
eventful year 1910) the so-called Daylight comet—a totally unexpected
visitor to the sun’s domain—blazed out in the evening sky and the people
of Paris saw its reflection in the flood which threatened to destroy
their city. In May, while Londoners were watching for Halley’s comet,
which proved to be a very disappointing spectacle in this part of the
world, the body of King Edward the Seventh lay in state at Westminster.
“What wonder,” as Mr. Arthur R. Hinks observes in his book entitled
_Astronomy_, “that the imagination seizes upon these deplorable
coincidences and the fear of comets dies hard among us?”
Tennyson thus refers to Halley’s comet in his poem “Harold”:
“Lo! there once more—this is the seventh night
You grimly-glaring, treble-brandished scourge of England.
· · · · ·
Look you, there’s a star.
· · · · ·
It glares in heaven, it flares upon the Thames,
The people are as thick as bees below,
They hum like bees—they cannot speak—for awe,
Lord Leodwin, dost thou believe that these
Three rods of blood-red fire up yonder mean
The doom of England and the wrath of Heaven?”
Milton in “Paradise Lost” compares Satan to a comet:
“That fires the length of Ophiuchus huge
In the Arctic sky, and from his horrid hair
Shakes pestilence and war.”
It has been suggested that the poet was doubtless referring to the comet
of 1618, which was held responsible for the great Thirty Years’ War.
Milton was only ten years old at the time, but the impression made on
his mind by this magnificent comet with a train 104° long (or over
twenty times the distance separating the pointers in the constellation
of the Great Bear), “may well have lasted until he wrote the above lines
as a man of fifty.”[1]
Elsewhere, in “Paradise Lost,” Milton refers to a comet as the
brandish’d sword of God:
“... before them blaz’d
Fierce as a Comet: which, with torrid heat,
And vapours as the Lybian air adust,
Began to parch that Temperate clime.”
According to the translation by Longfellow, Dante in his “Paradiso,”
Canto XXIV, refers to comets as “souls beatified.”
“Thus Beatrice: and those souls beatified
Transformed themselves to spheres on steadfast poles
Flaming intensely in the guise of Comets.”
Turning to the _Avesta_ writings, we find that the Parsees of ancient
Persia classified comets as parihs, or fairies. _Pari_ is the Iranian
word for fairy, and is derived from the word “par,” meaning to tempt, to
enchant. The English word “fairy” also comes from a similar root,
“fier,” to enchant.
Nevertheless, these cometary fairies are not the dainty beings of
English folk-lore, but are described in the _Avesta_ as “ill-born
fairies,” their appearance in the sky inspiring terror, since they are
supposed to bring disease, calamity, and death in their wake. In the
picturesque language of the Persian writer, “the distress of the earth
becomes as that of a sheep when a wolf falls upon it.”
The following quaint account of the influence of a comet is given in the
_Avesta_.
“A hairy comet appeared in the year 662, Hijri, and the increase of
the splendour of the world was in Leo. The strange thing was that it
appeared to be of the proportion of the head of a big man and
emitted steam from the front. It passed over the countries of Tibet,
Turkestan, China, Kashgar and remained visible for 85 days. In all
these countries there arose rebellions. In Khorassan calamities of
thunder and lightning and other such phenomena appeared.
“Many years and many months had passed over this event, and then in
803, a tailed comet appeared in the zenith of Constantinople.
Astrologers informed Timur that from what the wise and the
experienced have said, it appears that an army coming from the
direction of the east will be victorious in that country, and a
general from that country will assist him. Timur (literally: the
illuminator of the face of fortune), who was always expecting an
invasion of the country, but whose companions of poor intelligence
did not acquiesce, attended to that prediction and convinced the
great and small of his court, of the truth and insight of the
star-seers. The learned in the mysteries of the heavens are
convinced of this, that if the comet appears within the boundaries
of a country, its king dies. If it is inclined towards the boundary,
the country of the governor passes away from his hands, and plague
and disease add to the afflictions of the country.”[2]
Some of the Pahlavi books refer to a comet as “the thievish Mushpar
provided with tails.” The comet was classified as an evil spirit in
company with planets and meteors which wandered hither and thither;
while the sun, moon, and fixed stars were considered good spirits,
because they were always to be found at appointed times in their places
in the sky.
In the mythology of China and Japan we find that comets were supposed to
be celestial representatives of every country on the earth, and occupied
the important position of ambassadors journeying from one celestial
region to another, and giving forecasts of terrestrial events of
importance. For this reason, careful records were kept of the dates of
their appearance and the paths along which they traveled, thus enabling
astronomers of to-day to trace back the path of Halley’s comet, for
instance, to a very remote era. Whatever the motive that prompted the
accumulation of records, they have proved of the utmost value.
Comets are called “broom stars” in China, a name derived from the form
of their tails, which have the very prosaic name of brooms (sui or
soui). A comet without a tail was referred to as merely a star, or a
guest star, from its visiting the provinces and taking up its abode in
different places, as at an inn.
“Their home was in the vestibule of the celestial palaces; there,
under an invisible form, they awaited the order of departure,” says
Pingré, “the order sent, they became visible and commenced their
journey. If, whilst on their way they put forth a tail, the star was
said to have become a comet.”
The above quotation, remarks the same author, explains:
“the foolish and singular idea that the Chinese formed of the
heavens. According to them, the heavens represented a great empire,
composed of kingdoms and provinces; these provinces were the
constellations; there was decided all that would happen for good or
ill to the great terrestrial empire, that is, to China. The planets
were the administrators or superintendents of the celestial
republic, the stars were their ministers, and the comets their
couriers or messengers. The planets sent their messengers from time
to time to visit the provinces for the purpose of restoring or
maintaining order, but all that was done in the heavens above was
either the cause or the forerunner of what was to happen below.”
The ideas of the Chinese were not more foolish than the extravagant
myths of the ancients, and of the Europeans in the Middle Ages.
Nevertheless, although comets are no longer regarded with superstitious
awe, mystery still clings to them. For those who are unaware of the fact
that astronomers can trace their paths, predict the periodic returns of
these wanderers, and even analyze the substance of which they are
composed, there are many problems concerning them still awaiting
solution.
CHAPTER TWO
COMET-HUNTING AS A HOBBY
“I have the greatest admiration for a man or woman who discovers a
comet, because I know of the hard and thorough work which the success
implies.”
—W. R. BROOKS, the noted American comet-hunter.
To hunt for a comet in the ocean of space is as fascinating a hobby in
its way as angling for a wily fish, requiring in either case an
unlimited supply of perseverance, patience, and spare time. In place of
fishing tackle one requires a telescope with an aperture of four or six
inches, though excellent work has been accomplished with smaller
instruments. It should be erected in a position commanding a clear view
of the horizon either eastward or westward, as comets travel in the wake
of the rising or setting sun. During the daytime a glance at a map
showing the region of the sky to be examined in the evening will save an
endless waste of time, to say nothing of the disappointment when the
suspected object proves to be a nebula and not a comet. On the other
hand, fuzzy-looking objects resembling comets have been mistaken for
nebulæ when in reality they _were_ comets. For instance, in looking over
Sir William Herschel’s list of 1,000 nebulæ and clusters, presented by
him to the Royal Society in 1786, suspicion is aroused by the following
entry: “Some of the shape of a fan, resembling an electric brush,
issuing from a lucid point, others of the cometic shape, with a seeming
nucleus in the center, or like cloudy stars surrounded with a nebulous
atmosphere.” (_Philosophical Transactions_, Vol. LXXIV, p. 442.) As we
shall see later on, the descriptions tally with the appearance of comets
which have been photographed.
Nebulæ and clusters likely to be on the list of “suspects” have been
charted in my father’s _New Star Atlas_, edition 1915, containing maps
of all the stars down to the sixth magnitude (that is, all stars which
can be seen with the naked eye), as well as the positions of nebulæ,
clusters, and fainter stars which become visible with the aid of a small
telescope. It is a compact, handy volume, serving as an excellent guide
for the amateur comet-hunter in his rambles through starland in search
of cometary prey.
Provided with a copy of this book, and allowed the privilege of using
the Brashear (name of the maker), Comet-Seeker, which is stationed on
the main roof of the Yerkes Observatory at Williams Bay, Wisconsin, U.
S. A., the writer spent many a delightful evening during the summer of
1910, scanning the evening sky for celestial wanderers. Unable to resist
the temptation to linger by the way in admiration of double stars,
clusters, and nebulæ strewn along the highways and byways of starland,
comets missed recognition.[3] Nevertheless, the evenings spent with the
little comet-seeker were a source of unqualified delight, though no
comet hove in sight.
The telescope of six inches aperture, easily handled, is inclosed in a
sort of cabin which rolls on wheels. This can be pushed backward a
certain distance, leaving the instrument out in the open air.
Fortunately, the width of the cabin was such that it was just possible
for the writer to catch hold of the rods on each side, drawing them
backward the distance required; while shutting it was an easier matter,
requiring as a rule a gentle push, sending the cabin back on the rollers
provided for this purpose. Before doing so, however, the telescope was
leveled and carefully wrapped up to keep it free from any moisture or
dampness which might penetrate from the outside, and anyone who has
passed a winter in Wisconsin knows something of the deep snowdrifts
which must settle several feet deep in such an exposed site as the main
roof of the Yerkes Observatory building. After the cabin has been
closed, it is hooked at the sides and remains so until the services of
the telescope within are once more required.
[Illustration:
THE COMET-SEEKER ON THE ROOF OF THE YERKES OBSERVATORY, AT WILLIAMS
BAY, WISCONSIN
]
Then the cabin is reopened and the wrappings are removed from the
telescope, which is turned in the direction of a specially selected
star. This is kept in the center of the field of view, which is marked
by the intersection of two threads made from a spider’s web. As there is
no clockwork attachment, the telescope is guided by means of a small
screw like a miniature wheel or helm, enabling the observer to pilot his
or her way through the ocean of space. Then a keen search is made in the
surrounding region, and if nothing in the way of a comet “stands
revealed” to the searching eye of the telescope, another region is
explored, so that a more or less extended expanse of sky comes under
observation during the course of the evening. On one eventful occasion a
supposed comet was glimpsed and its position duly charted with regard to
neighboring stars. However, on reference to the star map the
fuzzy-looking object proved to be a nebula. Supposing by any possibility
the suspected object _had_ been a comet, this could have been proved
beyond doubt by watching it for two or three evenings in succession. The
presence of a comet can be detected as it slowly drifts against a
background composed of the stars, while the nebula is at a distance so
remote that an observer would have to watch for centuries before he
detected any perceptible motion.
Nevertheless, there is a close resemblance between the hazy-looking
objects known as nebulæ and comets when they emerge from obscurity. For
this reason, they gave a great deal of trouble to Messier, a French
astronomer of the eighteenth century. So keen was he on capturing comets
that Louis XV nicknamed him “the Ferret of Comets.” Consequently, we can
imagine his annoyance, after discovering a supposed comet, at finding it
was merely a cloudy-looking object which he termed a nebula. He kept a
careful record of these “embarrassing objects,” so that he might not be
led astray by them again, and labeled them Messier 1, Messier 2, and
Messier 3, in the order of discovery, and these are usually briefly
recorded on star maps as M1, M2, M3, etc. In this way, Messier made a
list of forty-five nebulæ, which he entered in a catalogue published at
Paris in 1771. A century later (1871) the list had been enlarged by one
hundred and three discoveries. For the listing of these “embarrassing
objects,” as Messier termed them, we are greatly indebted, since in
recent years photography has revealed the fact that they are among the
most marvelous objects in the heavens.
With the assistance of a small two-foot telescope of two and a half
inches aperture, magnifying five times, and with a field of view
covering four or five degrees, Messier discovered thirteen comets. His
first comet dates from 1760, and another French astronomer named Pons,
who discovered a comet in 1802, joined him in the pioneer work of making
a systematic search for comets. It is interesting to note that Pons was
a doorkeeper at the Observatory at Marseilles, and, owing to the
teaching and encouragement he received from Thulis, the director, he
achieved phenomenal success as a comet-hunter. A third name must be
added to the list of these enterprising searchers after cometary prey,
_viz._, that of Montaigne, between whom and Messier existed a keen
rivalry. The following story shows the importance attached by the latter
to each comet captured.
It seems that on one occasion Messier, who had discovered twelve comets,
was looking for his thirteenth, when his wife was taken seriously ill
and died. While attending to her he was hindered in his search for the
comet which was found by his rival, Montaigne. When some one sympathized
with him about the loss he had sustained he said, “Alas! Montaigne has
robbed me of my thirteenth comet!” Then realizing that he should be
mourning the loss of his wife, he added the remark, “Ah! poor woman!”
but he continued grieving for his lost comet.
Apparently Messier’s path was beset with difficulties, for in his book
entitled _Planetary Worlds_ Breen tells us that on one occasion while
Messier was walking in President Saron’s garden he was doubtless looking
up at the sky on the chance of detecting a comet, when he fell into an
icehouse, and was temporarily disabled. Later on, we are told in the
same book, the revolution deprived Messier of his little income and
every evening he was wont to repair to the house of the noted astronomer
Lalande to replenish the supply of oil for his midnight lamp. The
political storm made it necessary for him to remove to another
neighborhood, “where he no longer heard the clocks of forty-two churches
sounding the hours during the night watchings.”
Possibly his most trying experience occurred in connection with the
expected return of Halley’s comet in 1758. It was first observed by a
farmer named Palitzsch, living at Prohlis, near Dresden, who saw it on
Christmas Day, 1758, with a telescope of eight-foot focus. He was an
amateur astronomer possessed of keen sight, and was in the habit of
searching the heavens with the naked eye, which seems to have given rise
to the statement that he found Halley’s comet with the naked eye at a
time when the professional astronomers were searching for it in vain
with their telescopes.
Meanwhile, Messier had been carrying on a prolonged watch of the
heavens, extending over the whole of the year 1758, but he did not
actually get a view of Halley’s comet until January 21, 1759, when he
observed it regularly for three weeks. He was the first noted astronomer
to do so, but according to the account given by J. Russell Hind, in his
book on _The Comets_ (page 41):
“Delisle, then director of the Observatory at Paris, would not allow
him to give notice to the astronomers of that city that the
long-expected body was in sight, and Messier remained the only
observer before the comet was lost in the sun’s rays. Such a
discreditable and selfish concealment of an interesting discovery is
not likely to sully again the annals of astronomy. Some members of
the French Academy looked upon Messier’s observations, when
published, as forgeries, but his name stood too high for such
imputations to last long, and the positions were soon received as
authentic, and have been of great service in correcting the orbit of
the comet at this (1835) return.”
The name of J. R. Hind, by the way, is the only English one included in
the list of those who received a gold medal given to the discoverer of
telescopic comets by Frederick VI, King of Denmark, who instituted the
distribution of this award in the year 1835. The gold medal was also won
by an American astronomer, Maria Mitchell, who discovered a comet,
October 1, 1847, while engaged in making observations from the roof of
the Nantucket Athenæum. When eighteen years old she was appointed
librarian at the Athenæum, which position she held for twenty years. The
roof of the building was her observatory. In 1865 she became professor
of astronomy at Vassar College, a position she retained until her health
permitted her to do so no longer.
The grant of the medal by King Frederick VI was discontinued after the
death of his successor, Christian VIII, in 1848. The Vienna Academy of
Sciences formerly gave a gold medal to the discoverer of every new
comet, but this also was discontinued in 1880. Then Mr. H. H. Warner, a
wealthy American, came to the rescue and offered a prize of two hundred
dollars for every unexpected comet found by an observer in Canada or U.
S. A., which brings us to the story told in the autobiography of the
late Professor E. E. Barnard, one of the most successful competitors. He
had nineteen comets to his credit, resulting in the erection of what he
quaintly termed “The house that was built with comets.”
“Times were hard in the last of the ’seventies and the first of the
’eighties, and money was scarce. It had taken all that I could save
to buy my small telescope. I had been searching for comets for
upward of a year with no success, when a prize of two hundred
dollars for the discovery of each new comet was offered (in 1880) by
the founder of the Warner Observatory through the agency of Dr.
Lewis Swift, its director. Soon after this it happened that I found
a new comet and was awarded the prize. Then came the question, ‘What
shall we do with the money?’ After due deliberation it was decided
that we [referring to Mrs. Barnard] would try to get a home of our
own with it. I had always longed for such a home where one could
plant trees and watch them grow up and call them our own. So we
bought a lot with part of the money, which was on what was
afterwards called Belmont Avenue, but which was not then even a
road. It was hard to find the lot after it was bought, for it was
out in the open common. The place was in the midst of a scattered
settlement of negro shanties, where the negroes had ‘squatted’ after
the war, though on beautiful rising ground which I had selected in
part because it gave me a clear horizon with my telescope.
“After some saving and some borrowing, and mainly a mortgage on the
lot, we built a little frame cottage where my mother, my wife, and I
went to live. Those were happy days, though the struggle for a
livelihood was a hard one, with working from early to late for a
bare sustenance (and the hope of paying off the mortgage), and
sitting up all the rest of the twenty-four hours, hunting for
comets.
“We could only look forward with dread to the meeting of the notes
that must come due. However, when the first note was due a faint
comet was discovered wandering along the outskirts of creation, and
the money went to meet the payments, and this continued after we had
gone to other scenes. The faithful comet, like the goose that laid
the golden egg, conveniently timed its appearance to coincide with
the advent of those dreaded notes. And thus it finally came about
that the house was built entirely of comets. This fact goes to prove
the great error of those scientific men who figure out that a comet
is but a flimsy affair after all, infinitely more rare than the
breath of the morning air, for here was a strong compact house,
albeit a small one, built entirely out of them. True, it took
several good-sized comets to do it, but it was done, nevertheless.”
In connection with the prize offered by Dr. H. H. Warner, Professor W.
H. Brooks discovered twenty comets; Barnard, nineteen, as already
stated; Perrine, thirteen; and Swift, eleven. Awarding this prize was
given up after a while, but the idea was again revived by a wealthy
American, the late Mr. J. M. Donohoe, in the year 1890, with the result
that a bronze medal is now presented to the discoverer of any new comet,
on the report of a committee of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
There were two awards for the year 1923. Comet A was discovered
independently by Sr. Dr. Arturo Bernard, Colmenarejo, Madrid, Spain, on
October 11, 1923; and by Alexander D. Dubiago, of Kasan, Russia, on
October 14, 1923. The medal was awarded to each of these two
discoverers. On November 10, 1923, Mr. W. Reid, of Rondebosch, South
Africa, who has been awarded several of the medals for his discoveries
of comets, added another to his list of captures.
Regarding the ease with which comets may be discovered in the clear
skies of America, Professor H. H. Turner, in his lecture on Halley’s
comet, given before the British Association in 1908 at Dublin, referred
to a meeting which took place at Albany, New York, of the Board of
Visitors. A discussion arose as to the value of some desk work which the
director was carrying on, as compared with the discovery of a comet,
which it was suggested would surely add to the reputation of the
observatory. Professor Boss (the director) promptly remarked that
nothing was easier, if they would sanction the outlay of certain sums of
money to be used as salary for a person of average intelligence, while
devoting himself to the search.
“The challenge was accepted on the spot,” remarked Professor Turner,
“the money subscribed, the searcher set to work, and within the
allotted time a fine comet was found. Professor Boss undoubtedly
took a certain risk in undertaking to catch a comet, just as a man
who would undertake to catch a fish within a definite time. But he
was anxious to indicate his views of the relative importance of
different kinds of work, and deserved the success he ventured to
count upon.”
One wonders if this was the occasion referred to when it is said that
the comet-hunter, after a preliminary search for a comet, returned to
the room where the Visitors were awaiting his report, announcing that he
had discovered a comet in such and such a part of the sky. It was
immediately claimed by Professor Barnard, who was present on this
occasion, as one that had already been discovered by him last spring, or
a year or so ago, as the case might be. After this had occurred two or
three times, it is said, the comet-hunter remarked to Professor Barnard,
“Why don’t you keep your comets chained?” However, it may be as well to
take this story _cum grano salis_.
The cloud-laden skies of England are not encouraging, as far as
comet-hunting is concerned. It may be possible, when the moon is absent,
to get a glimpse of a comet low down in the vapors after sunrise or
sunset, if the chances are favorable. Then follows a week of cloud and
misty skies during which period the comet has vanished. For this reason
the discovery of comets in England is rare, but all the more credit to
those who eventually succeed in making a capture.
Our veteran comet-hunter is Mr. W. F. Denning, of Bristol, who has
specialized in the observation of comets and meteors. In his book on
_Telescopic Work on Starlight Evenings_ he gives an instance of two
experiences he had in the year 1881, showing how he missed one comet,
but succeeded in finding another, just before sunrise, when
comet-hunting is not nearly as attractive, one imagines, as in the
evening.
It seems that on July 11, 1881, after a night’s observation of the
stars, Mr. Denning, just before daylight and preparatory to ceasing
work, looked in the direction of the constellation Auriga, the
Charioteer. The idea occurred to him that it might be worth while to
sweep the surrounding region with his comet eyepiece, but he hesitated,
not thinking the prospect sufficiently inviting. There is a well-known
saying that he who hesitates is lost, and on this occasion Mr. Denning
undoubtedly missed an opportunity for finding a comet. Three nights
later a bright comet in Auriga was discovered by Schaeberle, an American
astronomer at Ann Arbor, Michigan!
That same year, on October 4, Mr. Denning had been observing the planet
Jupiter before sunrise, when once more he hesitated as to the
advisability of making an attempt at comet-seeking, but, profiting by
his former experience, he made use of the comet eyepiece with good
results. To quote his own words—
“at almost my first sweep I alighted upon a suspicious object which
afterwards proved itself a comet of short period,”
which means that it is a frequent visitor to the neighborhood of the
sun. These facts are encouraging, and still more so when we remember
that Kepler said, “there are as many comets in the sky as there are
fishes in the sea.”
The first woman to discover a comet was Caroline Herschel, the sister of
the famous astronomer, Sir W. Herschel, and she had eight to her credit.
In her diary, which has been most carefully preserved by Miss Francesca
Herschel at Observatory House, Slough, there is an account of her first
discovery which occurred on August 1, 1786. During the absence of her
brother in Germany she availed herself of the opportunity to make use of
a small Newtonian telescope he had given her, in “sweeping the skies.”
Her “sweeper,” as she termed it, was of 27-inch focal length, a power of
about 20, and a field of view 2° 12′.
Miss Herschel had been observing nebulæ when she saw what she believed
might prove to be a comet. At one o’clock on the morning of August 2 she
made the following brief note in her diary: “The object last night _is_
a comet,” and she wrote to Dr. Blagden of the Royal Astronomical
Society, asking him to take the comet under his protection “in regard to
its right ascension and declination,” which correspond to latitude and
longitude of a place on earth. The right ascension of a heavenly body is
measured eastward along the celestial equator, from the vernal equinox
to the hour circle on which the object lies. Declination of a heavenly
body is its distance north or south of the celestial equator, measured
on a great circle passing through the pole and the celestial body.
Caroline Herschel sent drawings she had made, showing the position of
the suspected object with regard to certain stars in the same field of
view, to Dr. Blagden. He was thus enabled to locate the comet and
confirm her observation. When this discovery of a comet was followed by
seven more, Caroline Herschel succeeded in making for herself a European
reputation for what was called “her eccentric vocation.”
In 1828 she received the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society,
and in 1835 was elected an honorary member thereof. The personal
interest she took in her cometary captures is evidenced by a neat little
packet found among her papers after her death, containing the account of
her discoveries. It was labeled “Bills and Receipts of my Comets.” This
also has been carefully preserved by Miss Francesca Herschel (the
granddaughter of Sir William Herschel) who showed it to the writer
during the summer of 1922.
Searching for comets is not part of the defined programs of
observatories, as it involves an immense amount of time with results
which only present themselves at intervals. However, when an amateur
succeeds in discovering a comet and has made known the fact to a
professional astronomer, the latter completes the work of computing its
orbit and other elements, which is not usually undertaken by the
discoverer, unless he has the requisite mathematical knowledge.
Yet it is advantageous, if he possesses a ring micrometer (an instrument
used for the measurement of small angles), to learn how to make use of
it during the first few observations, which are usually made before the
comet has been seen elsewhere. These observations, if precise, will
prove of the greatest value. The news of the discovery of a comet should
be sent at the first opportunity to the director of the nearest
observatory, who will communicate with the director (Elis Stromgren) of
the Bureau Centrale Astronomique de l’Union Astronomique Internationale,
Observatoire de Copenhagen, from which center it will be sent broadcast
all over the world. The discoverer will then experience the delight of
having a comet named after him, which he can claim forthwith as his own
individual celestial treasure trove. As a matter of fact, newly
discovered comets are now usually referred to by their date and order of
discovery, as Comet 1, 1924, saving much confusion as to the name of the
actual discoverer. This was exemplified in the case of a comet found by
Pons in 1819 (III of that year), which Encke showed to be revolving in
an ellipse with a periodic time of three and one-half years. Hence its
name of Encke’s comet. It was again renamed after Winnecke, who
rediscovered it in 1858, but actually he had no more claim to the title
than Caroline Herschel, who discovered it in 1795—her seventh comet—or
Méchain by whom it had been previously seen in January, 1786.
The majority of comets travel in an ellipse, and those of short period,
like Encke’s comet, make short journeys and may be considered frequent
visitors to the neighborhood of the sun. Others are long-period comets,
such as Donati’s (described in the following chapter), since it requires
nearly two thousand years for the round trip. Finally there is a third
class of adventurous comets which dash in from outer space, swinging
swiftly round the sun in the focus of its curve, and darting off again
with no prospect of returning, since they cannot possibly get round the
other focus. Whence they have come or whither they have gone, no man
knows! They are like the sparrow referred to in a simile used by a
courtier in the days of King Edwin, who compared its fleeting visit to
the life of a man:
“It is as a sparrow’s flight through the hall when you are sitting
at meat in winter tide, with the warm fire lighted on the hearth,
but the icy rain storm without. The sparrow flies in at one door,
and tarries for a moment in the light and heat of the hearth fire,
and then flying forth from the other, vanishes into the wintry
darkness whence it came.”
CHAPTER THREE
THE STORY OF DONATI’S COMET
Hast thou ne’er seen the comet’s flaming flight?
Th’ illustrious stranger, passing terror sheds
On gazing Nations, from his fiery train
Of length enormous, takes his ample round
Thro’ depths of ether; coasts unnumbered Worlds,
Of more than solar glory, doubles wide
Heaven’s mighty cape; and then revisits Earth,
From the long travel of a thousand years.
—YOUNG. “Night Thoughts.”
When a comet draws near to pay its respects to its ruler, the sun, it
usually assumes a splendor befitting this momentous occasion. It adorns
itself with a glittering train millions of miles in length, and composed
of myriads of particles reflecting the sun’s light. The head is often
enveloped in a multiplicity of transparent veils, through which bright
jets may be seen emanating from the star-like nucleus within. Some
comets have been seen with five or six trains, spread out like that of a
peacock, the camera revealing rapid and marvelous changes in their
appearance, during the course of a few hours. No fair débutante, about
to be presented to royalty, could vie with a comet in capriciousness
regarding her raiment, nor could she equal it in splendor, even though
she owned the mystic lamp of Aladdin.
The brief assumption of splendor on the part of a comet is very unlike
its usual humdrum existence when it is as yet so far distant as to be
not only invisible to the comet-hunter, but beyond range of the
far-reaching eye of the telescope or the entrapping power of the camera.
Not the slightest impression is made on the photographic plate, and as
far as an observer on planet earth is concerned the comet might have
ceased to exist. It is only when it begins to draw near to the sun that
we are enabled to obtain a record of the marvelous changes produced in
its appearance, until at its nearest approach it has sometimes been
known to vibrate as though with intense excitement. For instance, in the
case of Biela’s comet, concerning which a special account is given
further on, it was apparently so overcome at its last appearance in
1846, that it split in two and literally went to pieces.
Quite a different story is told concerning the magnificent comet which
greeted us in the summer of 1858, and was first seen at Florence on the
2d of June by Giambattista Donati, after whom it was named. At the time
it was merely a nebulous mass about one-twentieth the diameter of the
moon, and for some weeks it retained about the same brightness except
for a gradual increase in the central star-like point, the only
indication of its coming splendor. At the end of August it had increased
so rapidly in brightness that by September it was visible to the unaided
eye, resembling a hazy-looking star adorned with a small tail.
Gradually, as it drew nearer to the sun, it increased in size and
splendor, reaching its maximum brightness in October. Its train extended
over an arc of forty degrees, or eight times the distance separating
Alpha and Beta—the so-called pointers in the constellation of Ursa
Major, the Great Bear. Its real length was then about forty-five million
miles, with a width of ten million. The nucleus varied in diameter from
five hundred miles to three thousand, or nearly half that of our planet
earth.
The comet was kept under accurate observation for fully nine months, and
during part of that time it was visible to the naked eye. Professor G.
P. Bond, the director of the Harvard College Observatory, availed
himself of the opportunity thus presented, of making a series of
drawings of the comet which convey an excellent idea of its changing
appearance, and the delicate shadings and misty outlines of this
marvelous visitant from the star-depths. These drawings are of all the
more value, since it will be nearly two thousand years before Donati’s
comet visits these realms again.
To go back to the earlier history of the comet, before these drawings
were made, we find that its tail was not observed telescopically until
seventy-three days after Donati’s discovery. It was seen on August 14,
1858, by astronomers at Copenhagen and Vienna, but not at Harvard until
the 20th of that month. The brilliancy of the comet was somewhat
impaired by a strong twilight and its low altitude. This may account for
the fact that it was described as ruddy in hue, and concentrated, and
having a mere suggestion of a tail. On August 23 the tail was still so
faint as to be easily overlooked in the moonlight, the record being:
“Bright, but no trace of a tail; the sky clear, but the moon nearly at
full.” On August 30, according to the record in the _Times_ (London), of
observations made by J. Russell Hind, “The comet was just perceptible to
the naked eye; its nucleus is strongly condensed and brilliant, and the
tail is thrown off in the ordinary form, without bifurcation.”
During the month of September the tail of the comet showed a tendency to
curve, and by September 7 it was recorded as being very conspicuous to
the naked eye. September 12 it had increased wonderfully in brilliancy,
and on September 16 the first sketch was made by G. P. Bond, showing a
view of it with the naked eye. The tail was now estimated as being 7°
long, thus exceeding the distance (of 5°) separating the pointers. A
tangent to the convex edge near the nucleus prolonged would pass through
Delta in Ursa Major, and it was noticeable that this side was the
brightest in all the sketches. A narrow dark channel extending from the
nucleus up the axis of the tail was very remarkable, and its edges were
surprisingly well defined, especially very near the nucleus. In fact,
the comparatively sharp definition of the eastern edge of the tail was
in marked contrast to the softness of outline on the western side. (See
_Monthly Notices_, R. A. S., Vol. XIX, pp. 88–89.)
By September 27 the length of the tail as observed with the naked eye
was about 9° or 10°. It was curved, convex toward the star Cor Caroli,
being much better defined on the side near the star than on the concave
side. The narrow dark stripe in the axis of the tail was still very
marked, and the outline of the tail could be traced from the nucleus
halfway to Delta in Ursa Major, and a degree or so further. It was now
strongly curved and its upper outline well defined and bright as
compared with the inner. A straight ray or secondary tail could be seen
faintly suggested on the eastern side and reaching northward from the
main tail.
By October 3 a marvelous change had taken place in the appearance of the
comet. The train had increased in length and brightness, extending
nearly as far as Eta in Ursa Major, and the straight ray or secondary
train was still very much in evidence. It was supplemented by another
slender ray, as shown in drawings made by Professor Bond on October 4
and 5, but it had vanished by October 6, although its position was
indicated, for that date, in the faint suggestion of a ray between the
main tail and the outer or secondary tail. The bright star to the left
of the nucleus of the comet is Arcturus (in the constellation Boötes),
over which the comet passed without perceptibly diminishing its
brightness, thus showing of what airy texture the train of a comet is
composed. Was it not Sir John Herschel who said that a comet could be
easily packed in a portmanteau, and in the recent edition of _The Vault
of Heaven_ Sir Richard Gregory gives the following unique illustration
of the insignificance of the whole mass of a comet:
[Illustration:
COMET OF DONATI
Photograph taken October 10, 1858, at Harvard College Observatory
]
“Suppose we could take a comet, head, tail and all, and put it in
one pan of a balance, and we could carve out from the air which
surrounds us an object of the same size to put in the other pan, we
should find that our aërial body weighed four or five thousand times
more than the comet. But though a comet as a whole is lighter than
air, it must not be concluded that comets consist solely of gases in
a state of extreme tenuity. The head may be, and very probably is,
composed of a large number of small but solid bodies; nevertheless,
when a comet is taken in its entirety, the mean density is extremely
low.”
By October 10, the comet was receding from the neighborhood of Ursa
Major, drifting across the constellation of Boötes. On this date the
comet made its nearest approach to the earth. Its train now resembled
that of a widely opened fan, but its outline was already growing dim. It
showed strange alterations of dark and bright bands, resembling the
streamers which are sometimes seen to break up the continuous outline of
an auroral arch. The extreme length of the tail was nearly 64°, the
greatest extent observed during the apparition of the comet. The
secondary tail was still visible, but extremely faint.
October 11, the dark stripe in the tail had almost vanished, the
secondary tail was no longer to be seen, and the main tail was curved
like an ostrich plume. Its length was now judged to be about 30°, and
the nucleus had somewhat diminished in brightness. By October 15 the
comet was considerably fainter and smaller, as seen with the naked eye,
and it was bent southward like a sail wafted by a celestial breeze.
After the middle of October, the comet was best seen from the southern
hemisphere, and the last glimpse obtained in the northern hemisphere was
on October 25, when it was at an altitude of 3°, the sky fortunately
being very clear. The nucleus was still bright, but the tail was only 1°
long.
Its course was then followed by Maclear, Royal Astronomer at the Cape of
Good Hope, who reported that on December 23 the comet was merely a faint
nebulous body, about 90″ in diameter, with a slight central condensation
of light and no trace of a tail. Thus, it vanished in the remote depths
of space, in the same undecorated condition as when it first made its
eventful début to gladden the eyes of mortals on planet earth. Its visit
lasted but one hundred and seventy-seven days, from the time of its
first appearance until it took its departure along a track which will
not bring it within our ken again until nearly two thousand years have
rolled away.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.—G. B. Donati, the Italian astronomer, was born at
Pisa, in 1826. At the age of twenty-six, he obtained a post in the
observatory at Florence, and there by his superior abilities,
acquirements, and unwearied application to duty soon gained a high
reputation among the men of science of his native country. He became
known to the world in 1858, by his discovery of the magnificent comet
called by his name. In 1864 he was appointed director of the observatory
in which he had worked so efficiently for twelve years. He then
undertook the arduous task of superintending the erection of a new and
more convenient observatory on the site of Arcetri, near Florence. All
difficulties were conquered, the new observatory was in working
condition, and the director had entered upon a new series of
observations when his labors were suddenly cut short by death. He died
at his home in Arcetri, September 29, 1873.
CHAPTER FOUR
COMETS IN DISTRESS
“Thou comest whence no mortal seer can know,
Thou goest whither nothing human dreams.”
—ANON.
Until the photographic eyes of Science detected the peculiarities of
comets, and mathematicians calculated with unerring accuracy their
comings and goings, they were looked upon, as we have already seen, with
more or less suspicion and dread. Nowadays, we know that these “airy
nothings,” as Sir John Herschel termed them, have been unjustly
maligned. Were they given the power of speech, they could a tale unfold
of adventurous thrills and overwhelming disasters encountered during
their voyages in space, far exceeding in interest any story of
terrestrial adventure. It would take the pen of a Jules Verne and an
author gifted with his vivid imagination to describe the erratic career
of a comet.
Take for instance the tragic fate of the headless comet of 1887, which
was described by Dr. Thomé of the Cordoba University as:
“a beautiful object with a narrow, straight, sharply defined
graceful tail over fifty degrees long. It was shining with a soft
starry light against a dark sky, beginning apparently without a
head, and gradually widening and fading as it extended upwards.”[4]
Now the popular idea of a well-regulated comet is a star with a tail,
but a tail without an accompanying star seems preposterous, yet a
headless comet this object remained as viewed with the naked eye. The
why and the wherefore of the tragedy is unknown, and whether it ever had
a head and what became of it remains one of the many unsolved problems
of the sky.
Still more remarkable is the career of the famous comet of Biela, from
its first appearance as viewed by mortal eyes on March 8, 1772, until
its final disappearance, a century later, in a veritable blaze of
celestial fireworks. Its story reads like a novel, and is far more
fascinating because it is fact and not fiction. The hero is a faint,
insignificant-looking object which was discovered by Montaigne of
Limoges, already referred to as the comet-hunter who so indiscreetly
found the thirteenth comet for which his colleague Messier was
industriously searching. Little did Montaigne guess that this foggy
speck of light which was so faint that it could only be seen with the
aid of his small telescope would one day attract worldwide attention.
Its nondescript appearance, with a tail only one-eighth the diameter of
the moon, made it apparently scarcely worthy of more than passing
notice. Had Montaigne concentrated his efforts on finding out its
peculiarities and tracing its path, his name would have been forever
connected with the little wanderer, instead of being entered in the
annals of astronomy as merely the first to see it.
The introductory chapter in its story is connected with a letter written
by Montaigne to the director of the observatory at Paris, announcing his
discovery. This arrived in time to give the astronomers an opportunity
for seeing the comet three or four times ere it vanished on its way
outward bound. Little more was thought of the celestial visitor until it
was glimpsed again thirty-three years later, in November, 1805, by Pons,
who, as we have already seen, shared honors with Messier and Montaigne
in the “eccentric vocation” of comet-hunting. The comet remained visible
in the northern heavens for only a month, when it sank below the horizon
and was no longer visible to observers in the northern hemisphere.
However, on this occasion the comet came very close to the earth, for we
are told that it was visible to the naked eye, even in the strong
twilight. Then it remained hidden from view until twenty years later,
when it was again rediscovered, this time by an Austrian officer named
Biela, in February, 1826. He was determined that the wily object should
not be lost sight of again, as far as its orbit was concerned, and by
means of careful observations and calculations he was enabled to
announce that it was traveling along the same route as the comet seen by
Montaigne in 1772, and that seen by Pons in 1805. Therefore, he
concluded that it was one and the same comet, and predicted its return
in 1832.
However, when it was announced by the great French astronomer, Arago,
that the comet at this return would cross the orbit of the earth,
widespread was the consternation among those who did not know what an
orbit was. Possibly, imagining that it was something tangible, we can
picture them looking at one another in dismay, and whispering in awed
tones, “Does this mean the comet will hit the earth, and if so what will
happen to us?” A possible collision with the comet was an alarming
thought to the ignorant and superstitious, and the fear caused by
Arago’s announcement was so great that it resulted in the first of the
many comet-scares. People in dread of the threatened calamity sold their
goods and chattels, and thronged the churches as a fit preparation for
the end of the world. There they awaited the expected crash and
doubtless were surprised when nothing unusual happened. The earth still
continued to roll on its appointed path, without jolt or jar to disturb
the “even tenor of its way.” The nervous gave a sigh of relief when the
comet withdrew once more into the obscurity of space, and those who had
parted with their belongings must have felt somewhat annoyed.
The so-called devout astrologers who had made use of Arago’s
announcement to their own advantage, when upbraided by those whom they
had warned, did a skillful kind of “hedging,” by stating that events
announced by a comet might be postponed for one or more periods of forty
years or even as many years as the comet had appeared days.
Consequently, one which had appeared for six months would not produce
any effect, evil or otherwise, for 180 years.[5] Thus these wise
soothsayers allowed a wide margin for possible results.
To give an idea of the filmy structure of the comet, the cause of such
unnecessary alarm, it was described by Sir John Herschel, who observed
it on September 23, 1832, as a round hazy-looking object without a tail.
It was moving in the direction of a small group of faint stars, which
were undimmed when overtaken by the comet, so that it resembled a
fog-like mist sprinkled with stars, this veil of cometary matter being
estimated by Herschel as fifty thousand miles thick. Yet, only a month
later, the remote prospect of a collision with this celestial cobweb
caused a panic in Europe!
The comet was first seen on August 23, 1832, but owing to its excessive
faintness was not generally observed till two months later, when at its
nearest to the sun. This occurred during the month of November, within
twelve hours of the time predicted by an astronomer named Santini. At
its next return, in 1839, the comet was not well placed for observation,
as it was too near the sun, and therefore lost in the glare of its
light. As computations had shown that the comet was traveling in an
orbit requiring six and two-thirds of a year, it was due to return in
1845.
The first to bid it welcome was an astronomer at Rome named De Vico, on
November 28 of that year. Two days later it was observed by Dr. Gallé at
Berlin, but it was not generally seen until December. It appeared as a
single comet on November 28, but on December 19 it was seen distinctly
pear-shaped, and ten days later it amazed all observers by splitting in
two. This marvelous transformation was first detected by two Americans,
Mr. Herrick, then librarian at Yale College, and Mr. Francis Bradley, a
clerk in the New Haven City Bank. The two were watching the comet on
January 29, 1845, taking turns in looking through a telescope which had
been erected in the Athenæum tower.
Suddenly one of the observers exclaimed that he could see a small comet
accompanying the larger one, and we can imagine his friend making some
remark concerning defective eyesight. However, when both saw the
duplicity of the comet, all doubts were dispersed. But what did it mean?
Had the comet a satellite, just as the earth has its accompanying moon,
or had the comet actually split in two? However, the twin comets were
seen two weeks later by Lieutenant Maury and Professor Hubbard at
Washington, D. C., and two days later it came within the ken of European
astronomers. Incidentally, three weeks before the twin comets were
observed, Mr. J. Russell Hind (England) noticed a peculiar lump near the
upper part of the nucleus of the main comet, which may be regarded as
the first symptom indicating that something was amiss.
On January 15, Professor Challis, then director of Cambridge Observatory
(England), had his suspicions aroused when he saw the complete severance
of the little comet from the big one, and the description of his
experience is best given in a letter he wrote to the president of the
Royal Astronomical Society:
“On the evening of January 15, when I sat down to observe it
[Biela’s comet], I said to my assistant, ‘I see _two_ comets.’
However, on altering the focus of the eyeglass and letting in a
little illumination, the smaller of the two comets appeared to
resolve itself into a minute star, with some haze about it. I
observed the comet that evening but a short time, being in a hurry
to proceed to observations of the new planet.”
Presumably he here refers to the search for Neptune. Alas! had he but
given his whole attention to that task, instead of dispersing his
energy—as it were—by pursuing a flimsy comet, England might have been
acknowledged as first in the actual discovery of that planet.
Resuming his observations of the comet on January 23, Professor Challis
again saw two comets, but clouds hid them from view for the next
half-hour, and when they had cleared away he was convinced that the
comets had moved during the interval. This suspicion was afterward
confirmed, and, moreover, Professor Challis found that they had moved in
unison, retaining their relative positions meanwhile. He wondered what
could be the meaning of this strange procedure, and whether they were
two independent comets, a double comet, or that his glass was deceiving
him.
“But I never heard of such a thing,” wrote Professor Challis.
“Kepler supposed that a certain comet separated in two, and for this
Pingré said of him, ‘_Aligreando bonus dormitat Homerus._’ I am
anxious to know whether other observers have seen the same thing.”
In a subsequent letter he shows by his remarks that “the two comets are
not only apparently, but really near each other, and that they are
physically connected.”[6]
The comets continued traveling along in this sociable manner for four
months, at an almost unvarying distance of about 165,000 miles, each
developing meanwhile a very bright nucleus and diminutive tail half a
degree in length, or one tenth the distance separating the pointers in
Ursa Major. Sometimes one comet would be devoid of a tail, sometimes the
other, so that one might almost imagine the tail exchanging owners, for
the comets were rarely both adorned therewith at the same time.
During the latter part of February, Lieutenant Maury, at Washington, D.
C., saw an arc of light extending from the large comet to the small one,
forming a sort of bridge between the two, this occurring when the small
comet was at its brightest. When the large comet had regained its
superiority it threw out new rays, which gave it the appearance of
having three tails, each adjacent tail making an angle of 120 degrees
with its neighbor, one of the tails being the bridge to the new comet.
This produced the effect of an arch in the heavens, through which the
stars were seen to pass.
One can imagine messages passing to and fro along this bridge of light
between the twin comets, and a possible farewell as they drifted further
apart. At their return in August, 1852, they were separated by about one
million five hundred thousand miles, and as so often happens in the case
of twins it was impossible to tell which was which. The comets were not
seen at their next return, in May, 1859, because they were lost in the
glare of sunlight, for the same reason that we are unable to see stars
in the daytime.
At the next expected visit when the comets were looked for, in January,
1866, they were nowhere to be seen. What had happened in the interval no
one knows, but in 1872 the whole astronomical world was startled by a
telegram from an astronomer named Klinkerfues of Göttingen, on November
30, to Pogson, the government astronomer at Madras, which read as
follows:
Biela touched earth on 27th, search near Theta Centauri.
Accordingly, a search was made, with the extraordinary result that a
comet _was_ found, but not _the_ comet. Observations were obtained of it
on December 2 and 3, but bad weather and the advance of twilight made
further search impossible. When the track of the new comet, for such it
proved to be, was eventually followed, it was found to be moving along a
different route from the one previously followed by the comet of Biela.
Nevertheless, by a remarkable coincidence it happened to be passing by
or near the place where this comet was wont to wander, until he took
unto himself a companion comet, which seems to have led him astray.
To be lost is interesting, especially for a comet, when one considers
the vast expanse of highways and byways in starland, but the climax of
the tragedy in connection with this special comet was not reached until
its orbit crossed that of the earth on November 27, 1872. On that
eventful night the sky seemed to be literally ablaze with meteors, which
fell in swarms and showers of dazzling gleams of light, the downpour
lasting from seven o’clock in the evening until one o’clock next
morning, the maximum being attained at nine o’clock. We are told that
the total number observed in England was estimated at a hundred and
sixty thousand. They all came from the same part of the sky, radiating
from a point near the beautiful double star Gamma in the constellation
of Andromeda. But what was the meaning of the display? Had it been
caused by an encounter of the earth with the scattered fragments of the
lost comet? It certainly could not have had any connection with the
comet itself, which, providing it still existed, had passed that way
three months before. It was more likely the débris of its train
scattered along its path after its breaking up in 1846.
There seems to be no doubt of the identity of this swarm of meteors with
the comet of Biela, for on November 27, 1885, a similar encounter took
place, providing a magnificent display of meteors observed all over
Europe, just at the moment when the earth was due at a crossing in the
former path of the comet. On that same evening, a piece of meteoric iron
fell at Mazapil, in northern Mexico, during the course of the shower,
and according to Professor Young, “the coincidence may be accidental,
but is certainly interesting. Some high authorities speak confidently of
this piece of iron _as a piece of Biela’s comet itself_.” (_General
Astronomy_, C. A. Young.)
In 1892 and 1898, when the earth again crossed the former path of the
comet, a similar display occurred, though on a minor scale, and some of
the scattered cometary fragments may still be looked for on the evenings
from November 17 to 27. They are recognizable from their slow motion,
short trains, and from the fact that they all radiate from the
second-magnitude star Gamma in Andromeda. (Incidentally, this is the
star so charmingly dealt with by Dr. Holmes, in the _Poet at the
Breakfast Table_, really the astronomer of the breakfast table, as
suggested by conversations and correspondence between my father and
Oliver Wendell Holmes.)
The star Gamma in Andromeda is easily located, as it is almost overhead
between the dates November 17–27, at a convenient hour in the evening.
It is in a line with Epsilon, the star at the left-hand corner of the
W-shaped group in the constellation, Cassiopeia, and with Polaris, the
Pole Star. The meteors radiating from this point are variously referred
to as the Andromedæ, Andromedids, and the Bielids, on account of their
supposed connection with the Comet of Biela. As a matter of fact it
matters little what they are called, as long as we know their appearance
and when and where to look for them. They may be looked upon as
supplementary to the story of the comet, and possibly some of the
particles may eventually find a resting-place on planet earth.
According to Dr. Crommelin of the Greenwich Observatory:
“the career of a comet may be said to be over when its meteors have
lost all their gas, or when they have been scattered by
perturbations over so wide a space that its unity and visibility are
lost. These disrupting causes are most effective when a comet is
fairly near the sun; therefore the oftener that a comet approaches
the sun, the shorter the period of its existence as a comet. I
think, therefore, that we can ascribe the great prevalence of
long-period comets to the principle of the survival of the fittest.”
Long-period comets are those which sometimes require hundreds of years
before they return sunward, as, for instance, Donati’s comet with its
period of about two thousand years. Others of short period, like Encke’s
comet, are regular visitors to the sun, returning after a short interval
of a few years along a well-known path. Once upon a time they may have
been long-period comets, which have had their paths restricted, owing to
the strong attractive pull of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
and Neptune. As a result of the disturbances (or perturbations, as they
are technically called) thus caused, according to the so-called capture
theory, Jupiter has annexed fifty comets, including the Comet of Biela.
Uranus and Saturn, according to the same theory, own a limited family of
two, while Neptune has four, including Halley’s famous comet. Its least
distance from the sun is 56 million miles at its point of nearest
approach, and 3,200 million miles when at the opposite end of its orbit.
But the great majority of these strange bodies appear to travel in
parabolas, open curves leading from infinite space to and around the
sun, and thence back into the region of the fixed stars.
There is a notable instance of a comet traveling about the sun in an
immense ellipse, but, like the moth, hovering around a flame which
finally causes its destruction, this comet returned once too often to
the neighborhood of the giant planet Jupiter, and in an encounter
between a large and a small body, the latter usually comes to grief. Its
path was curtailed at first, and subsequently it was shunted on to
another line. Jupiter, acting as pointsman on the cometary railway, is
suspected of opening the branch of the ellipse along which the comet had
formerly traveled in peace and quiet, with the result that it was
ignominiously sidetracked and sought for in vain.
The comet was first discovered in June, 1770, by Messier, who described
it as a rather insignificant object without a tail, but resembling a
nebula with a star-like nucleus. Early in July it had greatly increased
in size, the nucleus and surrounding haze extending over a space more
than five times the diameter of the moon. At this time it came very near
the earth, remaining visible until October, when it grew small and
faint, and finally faded away. Meanwhile, astronomers did their best to
determine its path, notably Mr. Lexell, of the Academy of Sciences at
St. Petersburg. He became so interested in clearing up the past history
of this quaint little comet, that it is usually referred to as Lexell’s
comet. He came to the conclusion that the comet of 1770 required five
years and seven months for its elliptic tour, but he was such a long
time in getting at this result, that by the time he obtained it in 1778
the comet was two years overdue. Messier made a careful search for it,
but without success.
Lexell was of the opinion that at the end of May, 1776, the comet came
so close to Jupiter that the attractive pull of that planet was three
times greater than that of the sun. When a comet rushes around the sun
it has to go full speed ahead, so as to resist being drawn upon its
surface, but as it recedes from the danger zone it gradually slackens
its pace, with the result that by the time it is crossing the orbit
along which Jupiter travels, it is going at reduced speed. Probably
Jupiter was not far from the part of its orbit crossed by the comet in
1776, with the result that the unfortunate wanderer was exposed for a
longer period to the powerful attraction of the giant planet. This may
have caused an important change in the comet’s path, with the result
that it escaped from what has been termed the _sphere of activity_ early
in October, 1779.
At this period, according to Lexell, the comet was moving in an ellipse
with a period of more than sixteen years, and at such a distance there
would be no hope of our seeing it again. He finally considered the comet
of 1770 as definitely lost. However, when Brooks, the famous
comet-hunter of Geneva, New York, discovered a comet in 1889, which is
known as Comet 1889 V, as it was the fifth comet discovered that year,
it was supposed to be the long-lost Lexell comet of 1770. For that
reason it is known as the Lexell-Brooks comet.
Previous to 1886, the comet discovered in 1889 was traveling around the
sun in an immense ellipse, taking it out beyond the planet Uranus.
Around and around the sun it went, as a moth flutters around a lamp,
until in the year 1886 it came under the magic spell of Jupiter. Unable
to resist this planet’s persuasive influence, the path of the comet was
reduced to a smaller one requiring only seven years for its completion.
Apparently on this occasion the comet passed too near Jupiter for
safety, and was reduced to four fragments in consequence. When it
approached the sun in 1889, and was discovered by Brooks, it may
probably have been one of the four fragments; at any rate, this is the
opinion of Dr. Charles Lane Poor, of New York, who made a careful and
most exhaustive study of the comet and its eccentricities. It remained
visible with telescopes of ordinary power until March, 1890, after which
date it could only be seen with the great telescope at the Lick
Observatory, at Mount Hamilton, California. With this magnificent
instrument Professor Barnard followed the comet until January, 1891.
The path of its next return was calculated so accurately that when it
was rediscovered on June 20, 1896, by Javelle, it was seen within a
distance less than one quarter the diameter of the moon from its
predicted place. By this time the comet had grown fainter, as though
enfeebled by its long wanderings and the vicissitudes of its career, and
it remained visible for only a few months, finally disappearing in
February, 1897. For a third time the comet came near enough for us to
see it, and this occurred during the summer of 1903, when it remained
visible until the following January. It was then so faint, it could only
be observed with the largest telescopes. The future of the comet seems
as likely to be as interesting as its past.
“Unless it become wholly disintegrated by the pulling and hauling of the
sun and planets, it will be seen again in 1910, and yet again in 1917,”
wrote Dr. Poor in 1908, but as a matter of fact it was not observed on
either occasion. Dr. Poor also predicted that early in 1921 it would
again come into close approach with Jupiter, “and beyond that point its
history cannot be predicted. This collision will probably end its story
as far as the earth is concerned, for it will undoubtedly be still
further broken up, and its orbit may be so changed that it will never
afterwards be seen.” And we must leave it with this unsatisfactory
conclusion, as it did not reappear in 1921, and nothing more has been
seen or heard of this comet. By now (1925) it may be merely a derelict
in space, at the mercy of any disturbing planet it may happen to pass on
the way.
These instances give some idea of the dangers to which comets are
subjected as they drift like frail barks on the ocean of space. Whence
they have come and whither they vanish, no one knows, but it has been
suggested that there is a home of comets. This has been described as a
shell of nebulous matter accompanying the sun and planets, though at a
distance some thousands of times greater than that of the earth from the
sun, yet much closer than the nearest star. “However, we have no direct
evidence of any such comet-dropping envelope,” according to Professor C.
A. Young.
Yet supposing it does exist, we see in imagination baby comets cradled
therein in nebulous mist until they are able to take care of themselves.
Then they are presumably launched forth on their perilous career, as
they make their way towards their ruler, the sun, to pay their respects.
Woe betide them should they cross the path of one of the giant planets
at an inauspicious moment, or approach too near the sun, which would
prove equally disastrous.
CHAPTER FIVE
PHOTOGRAPHY AS APPLIED TO COMETS
“With its three eyes—the eye of keenness, the eye of patient
watchfulness, and the eye of artistic truth, photography promises to
be a Cerberus to the science of the future, whose watchfulness will
prevent the admission of error and detect truths which would otherwise
escape us.”
—R. A. PROCTOR.
These words written by my father, in his book entitled _The Universe of
Suns_, shortly after the appearance of the comet of 1882, have since
been amply confirmed, not only in connection with the sun, moon, and
stars, but still more so regarding the hitherto unknown peculiarities of
comets. So far we have gained some idea of the appearance of a comet as
seen with the naked eye, or with the aid of a telescope, but it now
remains to be shown what can be accomplished by means of photography.
Pictures of the ever-varying transformations, for instance, which took
place in the appearance of the celebrated Morehouse comet of 1908,
opened out new vistas in cometary wonders, hitherto beyond our ken.
Successive photographs taken during the course of a night, pictured for
us the unfolding of the comet’s train, its spreading outward like a
gigantic fan of gauze-like texture, and eventual closing up till it
resembled a sheaf. By means of the revelations thus made by the camera,
we became aware of the marvelous quick-change effects produced in the
appearance of this comet not only from night to night, but sometimes
during the brief interval of less than an hour. Nevertheless, as seen
with a telescope, the Morehouse comet appeared inconspicuous and was
invisible to the naked eye.
The first attempt at taking a photograph of a comet was made by Bond at
Harvard College Observatory in 1858, in connection with the magnificent
comet of that year, but his efforts only met with partial success. The
next venture was made in 1881, by Sir William Huggins, in our country,
and Dr. Henry Draper, of New York, but entirely satisfactory photographs
of a comet were not obtained until 1882, when the great Daylight comet
became a conspicuous object in southern skies.
This comet was first seen on September 3, by some employees of the
railroad in Auckland, New Zealand, and by other persons whose duties
required them to rise before daylight. The names of these fortunate
observers are unknown, but what a privilege to obtain the first glimpse
of the comet.
[Illustration:
PHOTOGRAPH OF MOREHOUSE COMET, 1908 C
Taken on November 19, 6 h. 4 m., at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich
]
Anyone acquainted with the clear, limpid blue of the skies at dawn in
New Zealand, and the brilliancy of the stars despite the near approach
of sunrise, may gain some idea of the vivid appearance of the little
comet in their midst as seen on this occasion. The writer, who spent a
year in New Zealand (1913–14), has vivid recollections of the beauty of
the dawn ushering in daylight during the course of her travels to and
fro, and has almost an envious feeling with regard to those fortunate
people “whose duties required them to rise before daylight,” thus
enabling them to obtain the first view of the comet. As in the case of
the brilliant star in the East, which guided the three wise men of old
to Bethlehem, doubtless they likewise “rejoiced and were exceeding
glad.”
The news of the discovery of a comet was soon made known, for on
September 6 Dr. Gould, director of the Cordoba Observatory in South
America,[7] received information that a bright comet was visible in the
east before sunrise. His informant had seen it on the morning of
September 5, when it was described as being as bright as the planet
Venus. At Reus, near Tarragona, it was bright enough to be seen at one
time through a passing cloud when at a distance of only three times the
diameter of the sun from its edge, or “limb,” as it is technically
termed. According to the report of Dr. Gould regarding the weather
conditions prevailing at Cordoba, the morning of September 7 was cloudy
and the eastern sky overcast on every morning during a whole week.
Nevertheless, on one occasion it was thought that a part of the comet’s
tail could be seen. It was not until September 14 that conditions were
again favorable for observing the comet.
Fortunately the link in the chain of observations was supplied by an
enthusiastic amateur astronomer, Mr. John Tebbutt, who watched the comet
from his observatory at Windsor, New South Wales. On September 8, he
received a telegram from the Government Astronomer at Melbourne, to the
effect that a large comet was reported due east at four o’clock in the
morning. Other messages were received during the day from different
parts of the colony, and from the information thus supplied Mr. Tebbutt
was enabled to observe the comet on the mornings of September 9 and 10.
By this time the nucleus of the comet was large and remarkably
brilliant, and the tail about 3° or 4° in length, not quite the distance
separating the pointers in Ursa Major.
[Illustration:
JOHN TEBBUTT, NOTED COMET-HUNTER OF WINDSOR, N. S. W.
]
Mr. Tebbutt had already distinguished himself as a successful
comet-hunter, and in addition had vainly endeavored to form a society
such as existed for comet-hunting in the northern hemisphere, but his
efforts only ended in disappointment. As he wrote in his _Memoirs_,
“although several astronomers owned telescopes suitable for the work,
there was obviously a distaste for systematic observation.” He took
great pride in his miniature observatory at Windsor, actually his own
handiwork, for he was his own bricklayer, carpenter, and slater
combined. During a visit to the observatory in 1912 the writer was shown
numberless books containing the records of fifty-five observations of
the comet of 1882, extending from September 8 of that year to March 2,
1883. These observations were made by Mr. Tebbutt with his four and a
half inch equatorial, with the exception of four made with the transit
instrument in full sunlight. Moreover, Mr. Tebbutt was the first to see
the comet in full daylight with the unaided eye.
The second series of observations of the comet in full daylight were
made at the Government Observatory, Melbourne, but it was not seen in
Europe, owing to cloudy weather, until September 17, one Sunday morning.
It happened that Dr. A. A. Common, the well-known amateur astronomer at
Ealing, had directed his telescope to the sun for the purpose of
observing sun-spots, when he had a glimpse of the comet. This was at a
quarter to eleven, at which time the comet was rapidly approaching the
sun. Unfortunately, clouds intervened, rendering further observations
for the time being impossible.
Dr. Common sent a telegram to Dunecht (Lord Crawford’s observatory near
Aberdeen) so that the astronomers there might be on the lookout for the
comet, with the result that it was observed by them on the following
day. In England bad weather, as usual, had baffled all attempts at
seeing the comet, and the clouds seemed to be in league with the powers
of darkness in keeping it hidden from view. Those who can recall
watching in vain in England, for Halley’s comet at its return in 1910,
can fully sympathize with the disappointed watchers of the sky in 1882.
(In those days the writer was not nearly so enthusiastic as she should
have been at the brief view of the comet obtained early one chilly
morning. Admiration was slightly tinged with wonder at all the
excitement over “a small white star with a train a yard long” which
scarcely seemed worth the trouble of getting up for during the wee sma’
hours. Nevertheless, there is comfort now in the thought, that this—her
first comet—was one long afterward to be remembered.)
Day after day the comet grew in splendor, until by September 12 it was
almost the cause of a momentary panic on the occasion of the attack at
Tel-el-Kebir. The story is told by Colonel E. Major, somewhat as
follows, in his book entitled _Lord Wolseley_: It seems that each
morning Sir Garnet in the early dawn had reconnoitered the enemy’s
position from the high ground above their lines, and he had noticed that
their pickets only came out beyond the defenses at daybreak. He
therefore decided upon a night attack, which must be sudden and
decisive, so that the enemy might be crushed and scattered early in the
day. This would enable the cavalry to make an immediate dash for Cairo,
while the infantry occupied Zagazig. After making all arrangements, we
are told:
“The troops set off in silence, no smoking or giving of orders aloud
being permitted. The engineers had set up directing posts as guides
in the earlier part of the march, but in the deep darkness of a
moonless night these were not easy to find. Only the North Star and
the Little Bear, shining through the drifting clouds, gave the
leaders some fixed point by which to find the way. Sir Garnet sent
his own naval aide-de-camp, Lieutenant Rawson, R. N., who was
accustomed to steer by the stars, to act as a guide with Sir Edward
Hamley’s division. Even with this help the flanks of the Highland
Brigade in the course of the night march lost their direction after
a short halt, and circled round until a crescent-like formation was
the result.
“A second halt was necessary to remedy the confusion. Soon after, a
strange light appeared upon the horizon, and Sir Garnet feared it
was the first sign of the coming dawn. If so, the night attack had
failed. But no rising sun followed that long streak of light, and
later on they learned that a comet had been observed in the heavens
for the first time on that eve of Tel-el-Kebir.”
On September 27, the comet was seen at Vienna, according to a telegram
received by the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich, but meanwhile it had been
observed continuously at the Cape of Good Hope Observatory since
September 8. It was seen on this date by Mr. Finlay, a member of the
observatory staff, while he was going homeward after working all night
at the dome. Happening to glance eastward, his attention was at once
attracted by the comet. Returning hastily to the observatory, he
proceeded to make the necessary measurements for recording its position
with regard to a small star in its neighborhood. One can imagine the
anxiety with which its reappearance was awaited next morning by Sir
David Gill, the director of the observatory, and by those who may have
heard the good news of a comet in the offing.
The following morning the comet was again observed, and Sir David Gill
sent a telegram to Sir James Anderson, chairman of the Eastern Telegraph
Company:
Kindly tell Astronomer Royal, Greenwich, that bright comet was
observed here yesterday morning by Finlay. Right ascension this
morning, nine hours, forty minutes, increasing hourly, nine minutes.
Declination one degree south, increasing half degree south daily.
Unfortunately, the telegram failed to reach its destination, and was
doubtless delayed or mislaid in the confusion of numberless war
messages. The first news that reached Europe about the comet was
obtained by means of a telegram on September 12, from Dr. Cruls,
director of the observatory of the Emperor of Brazil. Sir David Gill was
anxious to prove Mr. Finlay’s claim to priority in discovering the
comet, but, as we have already seen, he had been forestalled by
astronomers in Australia, and some claim should be allowed for the
“early railroad workers” in Auckland, New Zealand, who were actually the
first to see the comet, though their observation thereof had no
practical value. For a while the comet was known as the Cruls comet, but
now it is generally referred to as the great comet of 1882, or the
Daylight comet. However, later on, as we have already noted, it had a
rival as a Daylight comet in 1910, when a fine comet resembling the
plume-like appearance of the comet of Donati was seen to advantage in
England.
The great comet had another rival in popularity in the year 1882, for on
May 17, when Dr. Schuster was developing photographic plates taken
during a total eclipse of the sun which occurred on that date, he found
a miniature comet seemingly entangled in the outer rays of the corona.
This is the sun’s crown of glory which can be seen only during the time
the glare of sunlight is hidden from view by the moon coming directly
between the sun and the earth. The consequent darkness, or totality, as
it is called, can never exceed a duration of eight minutes, and on this
occasion during a still briefer interval of time the little comet was
captured by means of the camera. Thus, a permanent record was secured of
its presence near the sun, but as it had not been seen before nor was it
seen afterward, its motion must have been extremely rapid, and it may
possibly have been drawn inward and consumed by the intense solar heat.
Despite its small size and brief career, it is distinguished by the name
of Tewfik, after the then Khedive of Egypt. It has been suggested that
the comet may be kin to, or one and the same with, a comet which had its
photograph taken during the total eclipse of the sun, April 16, 1893,
having a period like that of the sun-spots, of about eleven years.
Possibly Sir David Gill may have had the photograph of Comet Tewfik in
mind when he heard of attempts which had been made by Mr. Shoyer of Cape
Town, and Mr. Simpson of Aberdeen, to photograph the comet of 1882. The
results had been so far successful as to prove that the comet was
capable of giving a distinct impression after sufficiently long
exposure. But it was owing to the cordial and enthusiastic assistance of
Mr. Allis, photographer of Mowbray, that the first pictures of the comet
were obtained. When Mr. Allis, under the direction of Sir David Gill,
fastened a simple portrait camera upon the tube of one of the Cape
telescopes, and pointed it at the great comet, little did he dream that
the experiment would eventually lead to such great results in the
future. One can imagine the thrill of triumph as the experimenter
watched the gradual process of development on the photographic plate,
until, as if by magic, a fine comet was revealed outlined against a
starry background. Thus, three or four photographs were obtained, which
excited the greatest interest among astronomers in the northern
hemisphere. Possibilities were suggested with regard to the construction
of a self-recording photographic star chart, thus replacing the
painstaking hand-drawn star charts of the Herschels, Argelander, my
father, and other astronomers at various times engaged in such work.
The gigantic undertaking was ultimately divided among nineteen
observatories situated in northern and southern climes, which will
eventually result in a marvelous collection of star charts. These will
include millions of stars, forming a celestial library which may be
consulted at leisure either now or a century hence when the makers
thereof may have become a mere memory. If a supplementary set is made in
the future, comparisons between the two series may result in important
information with regard to star drift. (It was by comparing star charts
thus made a century apart, that my father originated the star-drift
theory, by his observations in connection with the five stars of Ursa
Major in 1868, a theory confirmed by the spectroscopic investigations of
Dr. Huggins.) Celestial photography, owing to Dr. Gill’s suggestion with
regard to the star-gemmed photographs of the comet of 1882, may add
greatly to our knowledge in connection with such problems, the records
of the past thus becoming the star-lettered volumes for the students of
the future. Undoubtedly this achievement, the result of the photographs
taken of the great comet of 1882, ranks high among those which make
astronomy appeal so vividly to the imagination.
Now let us see how Mr. Allis went to work in obtaining the portrait of
this memorable comet. To secure a perfect picture of its delicate
detail, an exposure of not less than half an hour was required. To
obviate the difficulty caused by the rotation of the earth, Mr. Allis
attached his camera with a rapid portrait lens and sensitive dry plate
to the declination axis of a large equatorial, and then turned both the
telescope of the equatorial and the camera in the direction of the
comet. Matters were so arranged that in whatever direction the telescope
was turned, the small camera would turn exactly with it, and thus by
means of clockwork and proper small motions for delicate adjustment, the
comet was kept accurately in the field of view during the whole time of
exposure. The camera was therefore also pointed during the whole
exposure to precisely the same point of the comet, and in this way,
after one preliminary failure, three very beautiful and quite invaluable
negatives of the comet were obtained. These three negatives will remain
of permanent value as a scientific record of one of the most glorious
comets ever seen.
To follow the progress of the comet as it increased in splendor day by
day, let us return to the record of Dr. Gould, director of the Cordoba
Observatory. On September 16, we are told that the brightness of the
comet was such that it was visible with the finding telescope throughout
the day. The next day it was so bright that it could be easily observed
in full sunlight, and at eleven o’clock that morning the sun and the
comet were in the same field of view. Then the comet was hidden for a
while, as it passed between us and the disk of the sun.
[Illustration:
THE GREAT DAYLIGHT COMET, SEPTEMBER, 1882
Photograph taken at the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope
]
On Monday, September 18, the brilliancy of the comet attracted popular
attention throughout the country, and the “blazing star” near the sun
was the one topic of conversation. In the small telescope it presented
the aspect of a brilliant nebulous mass, having on each side curved
appendages like horns or wings, nearly as large as the central body, and
at their base quite as brilliant, the general form of the whole
reminding one of the winged globes carved on ancient monuments. This
appearance, doubtless due to the outbreak of glowing vapors from the
nucleus, was also exhibited, although to less extent, on the following
two days, during both of which the comet remained visible to the naked
eye.
Observations made of the comet with large telescopes showed that the
nucleus had separated into six or eight star-like knots strung like
pearls along a luminous streak some fifty thousand miles in length. The
largest of these knots was some five thousand miles in diameter, an
interesting fact as compared with the size of the earth, which is 7,925
miles, according to the British Astronomical Association Handbook for
1925.
A faint straight-edged beam of light, or “sheath,” accompanied the
comet, enveloping the head and projecting like a hood three or four
degrees in front. Besides this, three or four irregular shreds of
cometary matter were detected, escorting the comet, as it were, like
airplanes, at a distance of three or four degrees when first seen, but
gradually receding from it, and at the same time growing fainter. The
actual length of the comet’s train at one time exceeded one hundred
million miles, more than the distance of the sun from the earth. (If the
head of the comet had rested on the earth, and its train stretched
outward toward the sun, it would have extended seven million miles
beyond that luminary.)
The trains of comets have been grouped under three types, _viz._, the
long straight rays as shown in the photograph of Halley’s comet, though
this was only one of the many outlines assumed; the second is the
curved, plume-like train resembling that of the comet of Donati; and
thirdly the short stubby brushes violently curved. The great Daylight
comet had a greatly curved train belonging to the second type, and it
was mainly composed of carbon compounds. The curvature of the train was
due to matter for which the repulsive force is only a fraction of the
gravitational force. The pressure of light from the sun was a most
important factor in the formation of its train.
When the fierce pressure of the sun’s light strikes upon the particles
forming the train, it drives the particles which are of the same
relative size as the particles of light along with them, just as when
the waves of the sea break against a beach they tend to drive small
pebbles and sand upward along the beach.
HINTS FOR AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHERS
To an amateur photographer who desires to obtain the picture of a comet
which may appear perchance in the near future, their capricious
appearance at unexpected periods being one of their charms, the
following hints may be most acceptable. For work of this kind an
equatorial telescope is used with a photographic lens and camera
strapped thereon. The telescope is mounted on an axis that is parallel
to the earth’s axis, and is made to rotate westward by what is called a
driving-clock just as fast as the earth turns to the east. It will
follow the motion of the sky (which apparently drifts westward), and
keep every star approximately fixed in the field of view, or on the
photographic plate in the attached camera.
Otherwise, the stars will appear as trails of light, caused by the
rotation of the earth as it moves onward at the rate of nineteen miles a
second, which is rather disturbing to an astronomer who may be desirous
of obtaining a photograph of the stars overhead. What is he to do? Here
is our planet turning eastward and the stars apparently drifting
westward, and unless the telescope is made to keep up with the stars by
means of clockwork the results are disastrous. Consequently, the
telescope is made to follow the star, comet, or whatever the desired
celestial trophy may be, and it is kept in such a position that the
object in view is centrally placed at the intersection of two threads
obtained from a spider’s web. For this reason, spiders are treated with
due respect in observatories, and may explain the expression of dismay
the writer saw on the face of an Indian assistant at the Kodaikanal
observatory in southern India, when she nearly dispatched one of these
noxious insects, which succeeded, however, in deftly eluding
destruction.
[Illustration:
PHOTOGRAPH OF A BRIGHT METEOR BY DR. W. J. S. LOCKYER
]
The star trails shown in the photograph taken by Dr. W. J. S. Lockyer
give an excellent idea of what happens to a photograph of the stars when
the clockwork is allowed to run down. In this instance the telescope,
with the accompanying camera, was stationary during the exposure of a
little over two hours, with the result that the stars photographed are
not points of light, but bright and faint lines in sections of circles,
since the telescope was pointed to the pole of the heavens. The interest
in this photograph is increased by the fact that a meteor dashed across
that part of the sky during the course of the exposure, thus resulting
in one of the finest photographs of a meteor ever obtained.[8] Had the
exposure lasted during twenty-four hours, and the photograph been taken
in Norway some time during the course of their long winter night, the
trails would have been complete circles. By this means we do not get a
picture of the stars, but simply a photograph illustrating the rotation
of the earth. To obtain a picture of the stars, therefore, an equatorial
attachment, as above described, is an absolute necessity.
Some people have an idea that all an astronomer has to do in making
photographs of a comet, or other celestial object, is to turn the
telescope in the direction wanted, strap on the camera, wind up the
clock, and then go homeward for a good night’s rest. Unfortunately, no
driving-clock has yet been devised so perfect as to move the telescope
exactly with the stars. According to Professor E. E. Barnard, who was an
expert on such matters—
“There is always more or less irregularity of motion, all of which
would be recorded on the plate, and the stars, instead of showing as
merely points of light, would be elongated and blurred. The fainter
ones would not show at all, because they could not be still long
enough to have their pictures taken. That is why you see in the
photograph the observer with his eye ‘glued to the telescope,’
watching a star, a guiding star which he constantly keeps behind the
intersection of two illuminated spider threads in the eyepiece, by
the slow-motion rods which are controlled by his hands.”
Thus, every star or comet is kept immovable on the sensitive plate, and
it paints its own portrait as long as the telescope is made to turn
westward as fast as the earth rotates eastward. That is why a driving
clock is absolutely necessary for the amateur comet photographer who is
desirous of obtaining accurate results. Many hours are required in
obtaining a successful photograph of such comets as the Morehouse comet,
the sensitive plate requiring sometimes an exposure of many hours before
it reveals satisfactory results. The observer must sit patiently hour
after hour, guiding the instrument, and the writer has some idea of what
this must mean, from a brief five minutes’ experience at Mount Wilson in
connection with the sixty-inch reflector. As a great favor she was
allowed to hold the bulb in her hand which by the slightest pressure
brought back an erring star which had attempted to stray momentarily
from the center of the field of view of the telescope.
When one considers the hours spent by the late Professor Barnard in this
nerve-racking work, the patient endurance of the astronomers who
specialize in celestial photography becomes evident. It is an arduous
task, and one doubtless subject to many disappointments, to avoid which
Professor Barnard tried to formulate some set of rules that would be
dependent on the local time and position of the comet, but these were
finally rejected.
“So much would depend on the purity of the atmosphere at the time,
the size and light ratio of the lens, the kind of plate used, etc.,
that they would probably lead to the very errors against which we
wish to guide.”
The position of the comet with respect to the point of sunrise or
sunset, and freedom from any form of haze in the sky, are important
factors in the exposure of comet plates. Moreover, it is necessary that
they should not be exposed too early in the evening or too late in the
morning, in either case resulting in unsatisfactory negatives. The best
of all rules is the judgment of the observer at the moment, but only
long experience will warn one by a glance at the sky when there is
danger of failure in this class of work. It is the few moments at the
beginning or end of the exposure that will injure or ruin the plate.
With a small portrait lens (the most useful size is about six inches)
essentially everything about a comet will be shown as quickly as with a
larger one. The main advantage of the large lens would lie in its
greater scale—which of itself is of great importance. Another source of
danger is moonlight, especially in the case of a long exposure.
Nevertheless, according to Professor Barnard, important results may be
obtained in full moonlight, if the comet is not too near the moon. Much,
however, will depend upon the clearness of the atmosphere; the purer it
is the less will the moonlight affect the plate. In this case a dew-cap
helps much. On an ordinary moonlit sky an exposure of half an hour with
a quick portrait lens will not ruin a fast plate if the comet is not too
near the moon. In full moonlight, however, a longer exposure, unless
under exceptional conditions, will seriously injure or ruin the plate.
With the half-hour exposure the plate will be fogged, and of course the
best quality of negatives cannot be obtained therefrom. All plates
should be backed to prevent halation. A backing made of sugar and burnt
sienna is recommended as entirely satisfactory, and can be kept in
stock.
The formula as supplied by the Cramer Dry Plate Company is as follows:
Cook two pounds of granulated sugar in a saucepan, without the addition
of any water, until it is nearly in the caramel or fudge stage. Then
stir in one pound of burnt sienna and cook a little longer, stirring
well. Do not let the backing get sticky, or it will be difficult to
handle and will not soften so readily when removed from the plate.
Finally add about half an ounce of alcohol to each pint as a drier. Put
away in a wide-mouthed stoppered bottle or jar. When needed for use,
dilute a little of this with water to the consistency of a thick but not
too wet paste. Apply (not wet enough to run) to the back of the plate
with a wide camel’s hair brush. It is not necessary to back heavily. A
sheet of soft paper (an old newspaper) pressed on the backed surface
will prevent injury to the plate, which should be freshly backed when
ready for use. If kept in stock a long time after being backed, an
unequal fogging is likely to occur.
Before developing, remove the backing while it is still damp, with a
moist piece of absorbent cotton. Should a small amount remain it will
not affect the developer seriously. The plates should be carefully
dusted with a broad soft camel’s hair brush, after being put in the
plate-holder. The camera tube should be wiped out frequently with a damp
cloth to free it from dust. It should also have a tight-fitting cover at
the plate end to keep it closed when the plate-holder is not in
position. There should be four springs, one at each corner, on the back
of the plate-holders, to press the plate forward in a constant position.
On account of its greater sensitiveness the Lumière Sigma plate is
recommended by Professor Barnard, although he draws attention to the
fact that this plate has frequently been found defective in having
small, round, transparent and opaque spots. It is also more subject to
“chemical fog” than the Cramer or Seed. Otherwise, it is a beautiful and
very rapid plate.
When the comet is at its brightest, the Seed 27 Gilt Edge plates are
recommended on account of their general freedom from defects and finer
grain. With these few suggestions in respect to photographing comets,
made by Professor Barnard in _Popular Astronomy_, No. 170, the amateur
comet-hunter is enabled to make an attempt, at any rate, at
photographing those wonders of the heavens which have proved so
attractive on account of their varying appearance from night to night.
For those who may not have a ready access to astronomical libraries, the
above condensed account from Professor Barnard’s article on the subject
should prove invaluable.
In an account of his life-work given by Professor Barnard during the
course of an after-dinner speech in January, 1907, at Nashville, and
entitled by him, “Some Unastronomical Experiences of a Lecturer,” he
referred to his interest in comets as follows:
“I have always been interested in comets. These remarkable objects,
which sometimes sweep across the heavens with their wonderful trains
of light, and which in all ages have been objects of superstition
and terror, are among the most interesting in the heavens. Little by
little the mystery attached to them is being solved. This has been
done mainly through the aid of photography. Many of the physical
phenomena of the tails of comets are too faint to be seen with the
eye, although it may be aided by a powerful telescope; but the
photographic plate secures a permanent record of these in all their
complexity and beauty. These photographs show that the form and
other peculiarities of a comet’s tail are often utterly transformed
from night to night. It is therefore highly important that a
continuous series of photographs should be obtained of every active
comet that can be observed, for their phenomena are as evanescent as
smoke itself.
“In 1892, at the Lick Observatory, I was engaged in photographing a
comet (Swift’s) then visible in the morning sky just before
daylight. Every morning’s picture increased the interest and
importance of the work. Unfortunately, I had arranged for a lecture
in the Normal School at San José for the night of May 6. I did not
want to disappoint the people, and I certainly could not let the
comet go by unphotographed. San José was nearly a mile below us in
vertical height and twenty-seven miles distant by stage road. The
only possible way for me to secure my photograph and not disappoint
my audience was to return to Mt. Hamilton that night after the
lecture. At ten o’clock I hired a horse and buggy in San José and
drove up that lonely mountain road, the journey taking five hours,
and arrived at the summit at three o’clock in the morning, in time
to make a photograph of the comet.
[Illustration:
COMET 1893 IV BROOKS
Exposures of October 21, 22, and 23, showing probable encounter with
some medium which shattered the tail. Taken at Lick Observatory by
Professor E. E. Barnard
]
“The picture that I got proved to be a very important one, as the
comet was then undergoing the most remarkable changes. I must say
that a good many thrills passed over me during that lonely mountain
ride in the dead of night—some for the chance that I might drive
over into a cañon to death, and others for the possible interruption
of my terrestrial existence through an encounter with some hungry,
roaming mountain lion. In the main, the journey was a most
impressive one. Alone in the mountains, with only the horse in front
and my friends the stars above me, I doubt if my courage had not
failed me entirely if the friendly stars had not encouraged me with
their presence.”
CHAPTER SIX
RETURN OF HALLEY’S COMET IN 1910
“It would have been a gratification to know that everyone who saw this
wonderful object, did so with the same feeling of elation and
wonder—one would almost say veneration—with which the average
astronomer regarded this beautiful and mysterious object stretching
its wonderful stream of light across the sky.”
—E. E. BARNARD.
While Halley’s comet, at its return in 1910, was undoubtedly a marvelous
object as seen in the clear skies of America and in southern climes, yet
it was more or less of a disappointment to watchers of the sky in
England, because the view was impaired by twilight and low altitude. Nor
did it come up to the expectations of those whose hopes had been aroused
by the fine series of ever-varying appearances, recorded by the camera
in connection with the Morehouse comet, referred to in the last chapter.
Nevertheless, according to Professor Barnard, expert in photography of
celestial objects, had it not been for the remarkable phenomena recorded
by the camera in connection with the Brooks comet of 1893 (see
photograph), and the Morehouse comet of 1908, the numerous photographs
obtained of Halley’s comet would have placed it in the first rank among
the records of these bodies. Yet while it lacked much of interest as
seen with the eye of the sensitive plate, it left a lasting impression
on the human eye, adding renewed interest to its long life history of
more than two thousand years. The train of the comet reached the
prodigious length of 140°, owing to its being so near the earth, and its
great curvature was shown by the fact that it remained visible in the
morning sky for two days after the head had become visible in the
evening sky.
[Illustration:
HALLEY’S COMET
From photograph taken at Union Observatory, Johannesburg, May 5, 1910.
Exposure 60 minutes.
]
Halley, by whose name the comet is known, was the first definitely to
establish the fact, suspected before, that certain comets are regular
visitors to the domain of the sun, returning at stated intervals. For
this reason they are termed periodic comets. After Halley had calculated
the paths of twenty-four comets, he found that three were moving in
orbits almost identical. From this he assumed that the three comets must
be one and the same, just as, when a train passes through a station at
regular stated intervals, one is led to infer that it must be the same
train. Naturally allowances must be made for delays due to fog or stormy
weather, but these factors are taken into account should the train
arrive after scheduled time. In the case of a comet it may be delayed by
means of the disturbing effects of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune, but in Halley’s day the presence of the last two
planets in the solar system was as yet unknown (Uranus was discovered in
1781, and Neptune in 1846). Therefore the following prediction made by
Halley, when he was convinced that the paths of the comets which
appeared in 1531, 1607, and 1682 were identical, is all the more
wonderful, since only an approximate allowance had been made for these
disturbing factors. Referring to the comet of 1682, he said: “If it
should return according to our predictions about the year 1758,
impartial posterity will not refuse to acknowledge that this was first
discovered by an Englishman.”
This was certainly the most extraordinary prediction ever made, for
cometary investigations were then in their infancy, and Halley was the
only man living who could have computed the orbit of this comet. Newton
had his doubts regarding the suggestion that a comet seen on one side of
the sun might be identical with another seen on the other side some
weeks later, but Robert Hooke, in a letter addressed to Newton in 1679,
suspected that a comet could reappear after a definite period. He
declared that, if gravity decreased according to the reciprocal of the
square of the distance, the path of a projectile would be an ellipse.
As the year 1758 approached, one can imagine the interest aroused among
astronomers, and the calculations which were made for determining as
accurately as possible the disturbing effects of the larger planets
within the sphere of whose influence the comet might pass. It is
impossible to convey an idea of the labor involved in making the
required computations of the perturbations of this comet throughout a
period of two revolutions, or one hundred and fifty years. It is with a
feeling of pride that the author notes the important part taken in this
work by Madame Lepaute,[9] wife of one of the assistants of the great
mathematician Lalande. Her work proved of inestimable value according to
the following remarks made by her husband on the subject:
“During six months we calculated from morning till night, sometimes
even at meals; the consequence of which was that I contracted an
illness which changed my constitution during the remainder of my
life. The assistance rendered by Madame Lepaute was such that
without her we never should have dared to undertake the enormous
labour with which it was necessary to calculate the distance of each
of the two planets, Jupiter and Saturn, from the comet, separately
for every degree, for one hundred and fifty years.”
Amid all these difficulties, the computers toiled on, and finally, as
the time was drawing near for the return of the comet, Clairaut, who was
working in conjunction with Lalande, announced that the expected comet
would be delayed one hundred days by the influence of Saturn, and five
hundred and eighteen days by the action of Jupiter, and therefore fixed
its nearest approach to the sun for April 13th, 1759. These results were
presented to the Academy of Sciences on November 14, 1758, and as we
have already seen in an earlier chapter of this book, on December 25th
of that year the first glimpse of the long-expected wanderer was
obtained by George Palitzsch, a farmer of Saxony. His telescope was
small, his vision keen, but the enthusiasm of a devoted amateur made up
for his lack of suitable equipment. Observations were made of the comet,
and astronomers were soon able to prove that the perihelion passage
would take place on March 13, 1759, thirty-two days before the epoch
calculated by Clairaut. Such a triumphant success of the theory produced
a deep impression in the scientific world, and, as Lalande
enthusiastically remarked:
“The universe beholds this year the most satisfactory phenomenon
ever presented to us by astronomy; an event which, unique until this
day, changes our doubts to certainty, and our hypotheses to
demonstration.... M. Clairaut asked one month’s grace for the
theory; the month’s grace was just sufficient, and the comet has
appeared after a period of 586 days longer than the previous time of
revolution, and thirty-two days before the time fixed; but what are
thirty-two days to an interval of more than 150 years, during only
one two-hundredth part of which observations were made, the comet
being out of sight all the rest of the time! What are thirty-two
days for all the other attractions of the solar system which have
not been included; for all the comets, the situations and masses of
which are unknown to us; for the resistance of the ethereal medium
which we are unable even to estimate, and for all those quantities
which of necessity have been neglected in the approximations of the
calculation?”
Twenty-five years before the comet was again due, its expected return in
1835 began to arouse the interest of astronomers, and prizes were
offered by two academies for the most accurate forecast of its nearest
approach to the sun. The successful competitors were Baron Damoiseau and
M. Pontecoulant, and several astronomers undertook and completed the
task of computing the planetary perturbations. Although the computers,
as might be expected, differed slightly as to the time when the comet
would make its nearest approach to the sun, yet the difference was not
due to any defects in the methods of computation, but to the
imperfections of the data employed, especially with regard to the
unknown disturbing factor, the planet Neptune.
Not only was the time for the nearest approach of the comet computed,
but its exact path among the stars was worked out with such accuracy
that directions could be given as to the precise point toward which the
telescope must be directed when the comet came within range of
observation. On August 5, 1835, when M. Dumouchel, director of the
observatory of the Roman College, turned his telescope in the direction
indicated and looked through the tube, to his great delight he saw the
comet as a faint and almost invisible stain of light on the deep blue of
the heavens. Thus did science triumph in a most remarkable manner, the
comet making its nearest approach within nine days of the predicted
time. It appeared as a nearly circular misty object near to the
predicted place, and began to develop a tail about the middle of
September, which attained a length of about twenty-four degrees, or
nearly five times the distance between the pointers, Alpha and Beta, in
the constellation of Ursa Major. To the naked eye the head of the comet
resembled a reddish star rather brighter than Antares in the
constellation of the Scorpion. Bessel compared it to a blazing coal, and
called attention to the peculiar fan-like haze of luminous matter
forming the train, which seemed to sway to and fro like a pendulum
across the radius vector, an imaginary line joining the sun and the
nucleus of the comet. This oscillation took place during a period of
four and three-fifths days. He came to the conclusion that a repulsive
force about twice as powerful as the attractive force of gravity was
responsible for the production of these remarkable effects, thus
anticipating the theory according to which the very fine particles
forming the train of a comet may be driven away from the direction of
the sun by radiation pressure.
Meanwhile Halley’s comet was passing through a remarkable series of
transformations, first appearing as a nebula, then as a well-regulated
comet with nucleus and train, next shining as a star, and finally
dilating till it resembled a ball, then assuming paraboloidal form about
May 5, 1836, after which it vanished as if melting into adjacent space
through the excessive diffusion of its light. Moreover, it lost its tail
previous to its arrival at perihelion on November 16, nor did it begin
to recover its elongated shape until more than two months later.
At the return of Halley’s comet in 1910 it was conjectured that it would
probably be greatly disturbed by the influence of the planet Jupiter,
and that of Uranus and the newly discovered planet Neptune. It was
therefore possible for Dr. P. H. Cowell and Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin (both
of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich) to make a prediction so exact that
the comet was found within six minutes of arc in R. A., and four minutes
in declination of its predicted place, as shown on the first photograph
obtained. This was equivalent to an angular distance in the sky less
than one quarter of the diameter of the moon. (Incidentally, a prize of
1,000 marks, which had been offered by Mr. Lindemann for the most
accurate prediction of the comet’s arrival at perihelion, was won and
divided between the two mathematicians.) De Pontecoulant had made
calculations regarding the return of the comet many years earlier which
were fairly near the truth, but one month too late. It was action of
Jupiter about the 1835 perihelion that had such an effect on the 1910
return. The action of Jupiter at any return does not produce a notable
effect till the following return.
One of the first photographs obtained of Halley’s comet at this return
was due to the foresight of Herr Max Wolf of the Heidelberg Observatory,
in exposing a photographic plate for several weeks beforehand, so as to
entrap the wanderer at the first opportunity. It was caught at 2 A.M. in
the morning of September 12, 1909, engraving its image on the
photographic plate, a welcome message announcing its advent to the
astronomical world. (The first photograph obtained of Halley’s comet was
taken at Helwan on August 24, but Herr Wolf was the first to identify
the comet’s image on the plate. There were also many early photographs
taken at Greenwich.) For thirty-two years it had remained beyond the
orbit of the outermost planet Neptune, then, obedient to the attractive
power of its lord and master the sun, it had started on the return trip.
Despite its enormous distance from our planet, and the fact that it was
beyond reach of telescope or camera, it was possible for mathematicians
to trace its path with unerring accuracy. It had approached the orbit of
Neptune after the year 1888, the orbit of Uranus about ten years later,
crossing that of Saturn in 1908. The following year it arrived at the
orbit of Jupiter, thus bringing it within the range of both the
photographic plate and giant telescopes. Its actual return to perihelion
in 1910 differed by two and seven-tenths days from the prediction which
can be explained only by the existence of forces which are not pure
gravitation, or the possibility of another planet beyond Neptune, as yet
undiscovered, acting as a disturbing factor.
When the news of Herr Wolf’s success in obtaining a photograph of the
comet had been announced on September 12, it was followed on September
15 by a message from the Lick Observatory to the effect that a
photograph of the comet had been obtained by Dr. Heber D. Curtis with
the aid of the Crossley reflector. On Wednesday morning, September 15,
Professor S. W. Burnham of the Yerkes Observatory at Williams Bay,
Wisconsin, sighted Halley’s comet by means of the great refractor with
its forty-inch lens, while at the same time it was photographed with the
two-foot reflector in an adjacent dome, by Dr. Oliver J. Lee. The comet
was again detected by Professor Burnham the following morning, September
16, and it was also registered on the photographic plate by Dr. Lee.
Then came the morning of September 17, one of the most eventful in the
life of the writer, who had arrived the previous day as the guest of the
Barnards. That night the great refractor with its forty-inch lens was in
the care of Professor Barnard, who courteously invited the writer to
come to the observatory the next morning at 3 A.M., escorted by his
niece, Miss Calvert, for the purpose of looking through the telescope
and obtaining a view of Halley’s comet. Making a first visit to the
observatory in the darkness preceding dawn was an experience in itself,
but the glimpse of the comet after its absence of seventy-five years is
one never to be forgotten, nor is it easy to describe. For the first
second or so, all seemed darkness as I gazed down the length of that
great tube (63½ feet) into the opening beyond. I saw nothing, and an
intense feeling of disappointment overwhelmed me as I realized and
stated this fact, but Professor Barnard remarked in his whimsical way:
“Surely you did not expect to see the comet with a tail?” Then he
advised me to keep on looking, and even while he spoke I saw a faint,
very misty outline. “Is it exactly in the center of the field of view?”
queried Professor Barnard when I told him that I had seen a
nebulous-looking object, and when I replied in the negative, he informed
me that that faint object I was looking at _was the comet_, which eight
months later I saw in all its splendor from the tower at the top of the
_Times_ Building in New York City.
Meanwhile, the comet had been slowly increasing in size, and by March 4,
1910, it presented the appearance shown in a remarkable photograph
obtained at the Helwan Observatory. It was then suggestive of the
nebulous-looking objects which had been catalogued as such by Herschel
and Messier, but the latter, being more interested in comets, would soon
have recognized, by means of the method already referred to, the
difference as the comet slowly moved against the background of the
stars. This is no reflection on the marvelous sight of Herschel, but
when one reflects on the enthusiasm with which Messier hunted for
comets, we may be sure any suspicious-looking object he came across was
subjected to keen scrutiny before it was catalogued finally as one of
those “embarrassing objects” he named “nebulæ.” During the autumn of
1909 and the early part of the year 1910 the comet was photographed and
observed visually at all the great observatories. At the Royal
Observatory, Greenwich, a fine series of photographs were obtained
despite the trying climate of our country. Up on the heights, at the
Government Observatory at Kodaikanal in southern India, the progress of
the comet was recorded by telescope and camera, so that our planet might
be said on this occasion to have kept its Argus eye constantly directed
toward the celestial visitant.
According to Professor Barnard, who made a special study of the comet,
its first appearance resembled that of a small and rather faint speck of
light, very much like a faint stellar nebula. The increase in brightness
was not very rapid, and as late as the final observations in February,
1910, before the comet passed behind the sun, it gave very little
promise of the splendid display it was destined to make later on in the
month of May. However, its reappearance from behind the sun in the
morning skies of April and May could not have been under more
unfortunate circumstances for observation at the Yerkes Observatory.
According to Professor Barnard:
“that part of the year is always unpropitious here, and it seemed as
if everything combined, on this particular occasion, to hide from us
the growth of the comet and its approach to the earth. Forest fires
in the northern part of the State (Wisconsin) produced a densely
smoky sky, which, even when the clouds were merciful to us and would
have let us see the comet, cut off with a thick yellow veil all but
a glimpse of the bright head.”
The comet was seen for the first time with the naked eye at the Yerkes
Observatory on April 29, the nucleus being bright and of the second
magnitude. The tail was visible for a couple of degrees, but with
field-glasses it could be traced for four or five degrees. On May 3, at
3 h. 40 m. (civil time), the comet was seen for about one minute in a
thin streak of clearer sky, but the next morning at about the same hour
it was a beautiful object with a long tail streaming upward toward the
right, as shown on the magnificent photograph obtained by Professor
Barnard. The photograph facing Chapter VI, taken at the Union
Observatory, Johannesburg, on May 5, 1910, may give some idea of what
was expected but not realized by watchers of the sky in England.
When it was announced on April 29 that the comet had come within range
of naked-eye observations, it occurred to the writer, who was in New
York City at the time, that a desperate attempt must be made to see the
comet, despite the smoke, and electric lights turning night into day.
“When there’s a will there’s a way,” and while walking along Broadway on
the afternoon of April 30, wondering how these difficulties might be
overcome, a glance in the direction of the _Times_ Building solved the
problem. On explaining to Mr. Van Anda, the assistant editor of the
_Times_, what a very desirable spot the summit of the _Times_ Building
would be for observing the comet, a permit was obtained to be handed to
the janitor the next morning at 3 A.M. on May day. It was indeed a case
of “Call me early, mother dear,” but an alarm clock served the purpose
equally well on this momentous occasion.
Promptly at three o’clock the permit was presented to the janitor, and
the writer, ascending in the lift, was transported to the twenty-third
story, and escorted up a spiral staircase leading to the tower. The door
was unlocked by the janitor, and the writer, stepping out on to the
parapet surrounding the tower, gazed eastward for the comet, which
failed to materialize, owing to a dense haze. Awaiting until dawn, the
idea of seeing the comet was given up, but, nothing daunted, the same
program was carried out at the same hour on May 2, and May 3, but
without avail.
[Illustration:
HALLEY’S COMET
Photograph taken on May 4, 1910, by Professor E. E. Barnard at the
Yerkes Observatory, Williams Bay, Wisconsin
]
Then came May 4, a bitterly cold morning; but the stars shone brightly
and there was every hope of the comet being visible from the tower
heights. These hopes were confirmed, for on stepping out on to the
parapet the writer saw the comet in all its splendor. The hazy-looking
object seen on September 17, 1909, had developed into a full-grown comet
with a head shining as a star of about the second magnitude, and
surrounded by a nucleus. Extending outward like the beam of a
searchlight gleamed the tail nearly fifteen degrees in length. Calling
down to the janitor to make known the good news, the balcony was soon
filled with eager members of the _Times_ staff, who were thus enabled to
obtain a view of the comet. By means of a field-glass thoughtfully
provided by Mr. Van Anda, it was possible to see a further extension of
the train, making it in all thirty degrees in length. Spurts of light
like tiny waves seemed to flow out from the nucleus to a distance of two
or three degrees. At twenty minutes to four, the writer, on looking
downward at the horizon, was startled by what appeared to be a streak of
flame, but as it rose higher it proved to be the crescent moon, which
with the comet and the planet Venus, completed a wonderful trio. The
comet remained visible, resembling a bright star with a slender stream
of silvery mist trailing a few degrees after. By four o’clock it had
faded in the light of approaching dawn. A glance at the photograph of
Halley’s comet obtained by Professor Barnard at the Yerkes Observatory
on May 4 will give an idea of its splendor.
For the next few mornings observations of the comet were disappointing,
owing to heavy mists in the eastern skies. The comet was almost
completely hidden from view, except on the morning of May 8, when
occasional glimpses were obtained of it through rifts in the clouds. On
May 10, the nucleus of the comet, from which extended a diminutive train
eight degrees in length and fan-like in appearance, could be seen for a
few brief moments, after which it remained hidden behind clouds until
dawn, making further observations impossible.
It was not until the morning of Friday, May 13, that the comet once more
deigned to reveal itself to the straining eyes of the lonely watcher on
the tower. The first glimpse was obtained at ten minutes past three. The
comet then resembled a faint white streak drifting in the sky. A minute
or so later the planet Venus came into view, gaining in brilliancy as it
rose above the mists near the horizon. At twenty-five minutes past three
the train of the comet was twenty degrees in length, and by half past
three it extended to a distance of thirty-five degrees, or seven times
the distance between the pointers (Alpha and Beta in Ursa Major). It
spread out like a partly opened fan, its greatest width at the extreme
end being about five degrees or more. The nucleus shone brightly as a
star of the second magnitude, but by half past three it began to grow
less distinct, and at twenty minutes past four the comet had faded from
view on the arrival of the first few streaks of dawn.
The comet was barely visible the next few mornings, though watched for
anxiously, since there was always the possibility that it might reveal
itself, but these hopes were not realized. A glance at the cloudy skies
on the morning of May 18 suggested the impossibility of seeing the
comet, and for the first time since the morning of May 1, the writer
missed her vigil at the tower.
Interest was revived, however, on learning that Professor Barnard had
seen that morning
“a narrow twilight (which later proved to be the tail of the comet)
which seemed to extend along the eastern horizon.... The head of the
comet could not be seen when it rose, with either the five-inch or
the forty-inch telescope, because of the thick sky near the
horizon.... The observations show that the tail was at least 109°
long on that date. (_Astrophysical Journal_, vol. XXXIX, no 5, pp.
387–388, June, 1914.)
Now despite the fact that an astronomer at Columbia University had
declared the comet would be in the evening sky, and it was useless
looking for it in the morning sky of May 19, the writer decided,
nevertheless, to watch for the comet at about the usual hour, and with
the most gratifying results.
The parapet surrounding the tower was crowded to its utmost capacity by
a favored few on the eventful evening of May 18, awaiting they knew not
what, for a report had gone forth that we were scheduled to pass through
the train of the comet. Below us we could see comet parties in progress
on the roof gardens of some of the leading hotels. Sounds of merriment
occasionally reached us, but by half past ten we—that is, Miss L., who
had offered to share the lonely vigil with the writer until dawn—were
the only watchers on the tower. The hush of a great silence had
gradually fallen over the city, and in silence, too, we watched the
eastern sky for any further trace of the comet.
Notes made by the writer on this occasion record 11.10, red flash
(auroral); 11.22, flash resembling an arch of glowing white surmounted
by a crest of crimson. The display occurred above a low-lying bank of
mist and rose to about five degrees above the horizon. It was not of any
considerable breadth, and resembled rather a glow of color against the
dark background of the sky than a wide band of light. The moon, which
was shining brightly, interfered seriously with the observations of
auroral displays which appeared faint in its light. About 12.15 a mist
appeared to spread over the city, and the air had become damp and
chilly. By 1.30 the mist had cleared away. At 2 o’clock a meteor flashed
across the eastern sky, downward in the direction of the star Gamma in
the constellation Pegasus. It was bluish-green in color, pear-shaped in
appearance, leaving a streak five degrees in length behind it as it
flashed to within ten degrees above the horizon. It remained visible for
about five seconds, and the display was vivid while it lasted. At 2.30
the moon, low down in the western sky, appeared of a ruddy hue as it
“sank in a sea of gloom.”
Turning eastward, we saw a soft glow in the sky spreading from below
Pegasus and upward as far as the stars of Cassiopeia. At 2.34 a glow of
grayish hue extended over the northeastern sky. At 2.43 a bright meteor
was seen by Miss L., but she made no note of its direction, except that
it was eastward, and a brief glimpse obtained by the writer showed its
color as bluish.
At 2.45 streamers, which later proved to be the comet, were observed
reaching from the eastern horizon, below Gamma Pegasi, and curving
upward through Aquarius as far as Altair, and brighter in appearance
than the Milky Way. At its widest part, just beneath the first-magnitude
star Altair, the width of the band was about ten degrees, and throughout
its length it had a brilliancy equal to that of the Milky Way, near
which it terminated. The path of this band of light was very nearly that
along which the comet was last seen, and the writer was convinced that
it was the outer boundary of the tail through which the earth was
passing. Beneath this streamer, and apparently resting along the
southeastern horizon, was a secondary band resembling a haze-like misty
streamer. This was not as clearly defined as was the upper band, and,
moreover, it merged into the mists of the horizon.
In connection with a sketch made by the writer on this occasion, and
shown to Professor Barnard, he referred to it as follows in his account
of “Visual Observations of Halley’s Comet in 1910,” published in the
_Astrophysical Journal_ for June, 1914:
“With the exception of a sketch by Miss Mary Proctor in New York
City, and a newspaper account by Professor D. P. Todd of Amherst
(whose observation seemed to refer to May 16th), I have seen no
reference from northern observers to the second, fainter and broader
tail shown in my drawings of May 17 and 18, south of the bright beam
and separated from it by a distinct dark space, perhaps ten degrees
wide. The head of the comet was of course invisible, being below the
horizon.”
This was all the more pleasing to the writer, as doubts had been
expressed in no uncertain terms by a well-known authority, according to
the following statement published in an afternoon paper. “Some one
thinks she saw the comet in the eastern sky, when it is really in the
west.” One can imagine the anxious time experienced while awaiting
confirmation of the observation, but it came in due course from Yerkes,
Lick, Argentine Republic, South Africa, and the writer felt rewarded for
the many dreary waits in the tower during the “wee sma’ hours” since May
1.
On the morning of May 20, the writer again watched from the _Times_
tower, in the hope of seeing some straggling streamers trailing along
the sky, denoting the presence of the comet. Between half past two and a
quarter past three a ghostly apparition resembling a slender band of
light was seen extending upward, though almost parallel with the
northeastern horizon. It seemed to rest on a darker band of luminous
haze beneath. Surely this was the last fragment of the train of the
comet, outlined faintly against the dark void of space.
That same morning Professor Barnard at Yerkes detected a hazy luminous
streak about five degrees broad extending from Aquilæ to the east and
onward toward Alpha Pegasi. “This resembled the comet’s tail,” recorded
Professor Barnard,
“but was doubtless a strip of haze. I looked at it several times,
taking it for a strip of haze, but it did not seem to move. There
were masses of moving haze overhead toward the north. To all
appearance it looked like the comet’s tail of the mornings of May 18
and 19. I cannot be certain that it was not haze, but it was a
singular coincidence of position, appearance, etc., if it was. It
remained visible for fully fifteen or twenty minutes.”
[Illustration:
COMET 1861, JULY 2, AS SEEN AND DRAWN BY R. A. PROCTOR
The tail of the comet was near the earth, which passed through it on
this occasion
]
The train may have been fan-like, as in the case of the comet of 1861,
discovered on May 13, by Mr. John Tebbutt of Windsor, New South Wales,
already referred to in the chapter on “Comet-hunting as a Hobby.” In my
father’s book, _Mysteries of Time and Space_, he records as follows his
view of that comet in connection with the drawing here given:
“The first recorded observations (of the comet of 1861, in Europe)
were made on the evening of June 30, nineteen days after it had
passed its point of nearest approach to the sun. I remember well
observing it on the morning of July 2, 1861. For some reason I found
it impossible to sleep that morning, and getting up about three (the
exact hour I do not remember, but it must have been very early), I
saw in the east what looked at first like the rays of an aurora
borealis. But presently I noticed that these rays proceeded (unlike
those of the aurora) from a bright center, which had been hidden by
clouds when my observations began. I used at that time to keep a
four-inch telescope, mounted on a three-legged stand, in my bedroom.
This I had quickly ready for action (noting that the object, owing
to the approach of sunrise, was getting fainter every minute), and
turning it on the comet, I drew a picture of the nucleus and coma,
so closely resembling that which appeared a week or two later in the
_Illustrated London News_, that I might have supposed my picture had
been surreptitiously sent to the office of the _Illustrated_, had I
not found it resting just where I had put it in my scientific
portfolio.”
Returning to the discussion of Halley’s comet, it was seen on May 21, at
4.30 A.M., by Professor Evershed, (then director of the Kodaikanal
Observatory, Southern India), appearing no broader than on May 18, but
fainter. He described it as passing centrally through the square of
Pegasus, which was nearly filled with the faint light. The tail could be
traced, as before, right up to the Milky Way. The star ε Pegasi was
nearly in the center of the band of light, and the star α Aquilæ near
its southern edge. This was the last observation Professor Evershed made
before dawn. He considered it remarkable that the tail of the comet
should have remained visible in the morning sky as a narrow band of
light, nearly two days after the head of the comet had passed to the
other side of the sun. He suggested that this might be due to the fact
that the tail may have been strongly curved and very broad in the
direction of the comet’s motion, although narrow and straight in the
direction at right angles thereto. If so, the passage of the earth
through the tail, if it occurred at all, must have been delayed one or
two days and probably occupied more time than a single day. There is
some doubt whether the tail did actually touch the earth, for
observations of its position in the sky on May 11 and 15 show that its
axis was inclined very considerably northward from the direction of the
radius vector, a straight line drawn from the nucleus of the comet to
the sun of the comet.
In the forenoon of May 19 certain peculiarities observed suggested that
our planet may have been actually immersed in the cometary débris of the
train of Halley’s comet. These consisted of a peculiar iridescence and
unnatural appearance of the clouds near the sun, and a bar of prismatic
colors on the clouds in the south. This, combined with the general
effect of the sky and clouds—for the entire sky had a most unnatural and
wild look—would have attracted marked attention at any other time than
when one was looking, as on this occasion, for something out of the
ordinary. According to the observations made by Professor Barnard at the
Yerkes Observatory, the sky had been watched carefully during the
forenoon of this date, but nothing unusual had appeared until close to
noon, when the conditions became abnormal. Later on in June, and for at
least a year afterward, slowly moving strips and masses of luminous haze
were observed in the sky, which were not confined to any one part.
Reports of like unusual phenomena were received from the Transvaal, and
from elsewhere in southern climes.
On the evening of May 21 the comet made its first appearance in the
west, as seen by watchers on the _Times_ tower, but it failed to be very
impressive. It was to the left and a few degrees north of the star
Betelgeuse in the constellation of Orion, and it resembled a star of the
third magnitude. It was surrounded by a hazy cloud-like mist that made
it appear nearly as large as the space covered by the moon. To the left
of it, and extending outward about three or four degrees, were three or
four fan-like streamers. At 8.25 the nucleus seemed brighter and more
star-like in the center, but the streamers had faded from view and the
mist surrounding the nucleus had become hazy and ill-defined. Five
minutes later only the star-like nucleus could be seen, doubtless owing
to the combination of the glare of moonlight and the haze that reflected
the city lights below.
On May 24 the comet appeared hovering for a brief interval over the
western horizon, resembling a faint star enveloped in mist, and adorned
with a short fan-like tail. On May 25 the comet could not be seen, owing
to the mist and a drizzling rain, but on May 26 it was visible on two
occasions for intervals of about five minutes. It then resembled a
fairly bright star of the third magnitude, surrounded by a misty halo,
but was devoid of a tail. It seemed that our chances of seeing the comet
again under favorable conditions were slight, but on the evening of May
27 we were once more regaled with a fine view, which proved to be final
as far as the writer was concerned.
At a few minutes past eight the nucleus of the comet appeared, as usual,
hazy and ill-defined, but gradually it brightened until it equaled the
glow of the first-magnitude star Regulus, in the constellation of Leo
near by. Only a few degrees of tail were visible at first, but as the
twilight deepened into night more and more came into view. By 8.40 P.M.
it stretched outward about twenty degrees in the direction of the planet
Jupiter. The train was long and slender, and not more than five degrees
at its greatest width. By 9 o’clock it was clearly visible, a dark
streak apparently dividing it just beyond the nucleus; the edges were
more or less sharply defined for a distance of about three or four
degrees. By 10.30 the train of the comet had almost faded from view; at
10.40 it had become invisible and the nucleus was barely perceptible.
Within three minutes the nucleus was almost lost to sight in the haze
and mist near the horizon.
Meanwhile, the moon had risen in the eastern sky, and by eleven o’clock
it was several degrees above the horizon. Its arrival on the scene was
the climax of an evening rich in glory, as far as the celestial display
was concerned. The view of the comet on this occasion was the best that
had been obtained since May 20, and settled beyond doubt the vexed
question that had arisen as to whether the comet had lost its tail or
had divided in two. Nevertheless, a glance at a photograph taken by
Professor Barnard on June 6, shows an apparently smaller comet nestling
to the left of the larger, keeping it company, as it were, in its
celestial voyage outward from the neighborhood of the sun. By this time
the comet had faded sadly, as Professor Barnard expressed it, and,
though a noticeable object, was only the ghost of its former self.
[Illustration:
HALLEY’S COMET
From photograph taken by Professor E. E. Barnard, June 6, 1910, at the
Yerkes Observatory, Williams Bay, Wisconsin
]
Where is it now in its outward journey, at the present time of writing
(1925)? Science can answer the question as definitely as though it were
actually possessed of magic glasses, enabling it to follow the path of
the retreating comet, although it has long since passed beyond our range
of view. It is now approaching the orbit of the planet Neptune, crossing
it in 1933, and reaches its greatest distance outward from the sun in
1943, or 3,200 million miles. In 1964 it draws near to Neptune again,
and will be halfway between Neptune and Uranus in 1974, arriving at the
orbit of Saturn in 1984. Once more it will gladden the eyes of mortals
as it approaches the planet Jupiter, and draws near to pay its respects
to its mighty ruler, the sun.
At its return in 1758 the prediction erred on the side of thirty-two
days; at the return in 1835, by a margin of only two days; and in 1910,
by the amount of two and one-half days. Perchance, ere it makes its next
appearance in 1985,[10] the presence of another planet beyond Neptune
may have been detected, explaining the disturbing factor resulting in
that small discrepancy. The astronomers at that remote date (1984) may
succeed, therefore, in making a prediction so exact that the comet may
“swim into their ken” promptly to scheduled time. Few, if any, of the
present-time readers of this book (unless it falls into the hands of a
very youthful enthusiast) will be here to welcome the comet at its next
return, and even the youthful enthusiast may have the distressing
experience of the American astronomer Dr. Lewis Swift, who saw Halley’s
comet in 1835, and was able to welcome it at its return in 1910, but,
owing to failing eyesight, was unable to see it, much to his regret.
[Illustration:
The orbit of Halley’s Comet, which it passes over in 75 to 77 years,
showing where the comet is to be found now, and during its course
until its next return in 1985.
]
With regard to my first visit to the Yerkes Observatory, the following
facts regarding the great refractor may be of interest, as well as the
incident narrated to me by Miss Calvert while we were awaiting Professor
Barnard’s invitation to look for Halley’s comet, on that momentous
occasion. The story was deferred, in my account, to the final part of
this chapter, so as not to break the thread of the actual account of my
first view of the comet. Following the description of the telescope, the
story of a catastrophe which nearly ended its career is best told in
Professor Barnard’s own words, as quoted from the after-dinner speech,
in January, 1907, at Nashville, already referred to in this book.
“The tube of this instrument is about sixty-four feet long. In the
farther end of this tube is placed the great object glass, forty
inches clear in aperture. When one is looking overhead with this
giant telescope, he must be at a point some thirty feet or more
lower than when the tube is pointed toward the horizon. To avoid the
use of a high ladder to reach the observing end of the telescope in
its various positions, the floor of the dome itself is made into a
giant elevator, sixty-five feet in diameter. The rising and lowering
of this floor—which is done by electric motors—always keeps the
observer in a convenient and safe position with reference to the
eye-end. This floor is suspended by heavy steel cables which go over
wheels at the tops of four towers attached to the inside walls of
the dome. The floor is counterpoised by heavy iron weights at the
other ends of the cables.
“Within a little over a week after the completion of the instrument
and when we had seen through it only once or twice, the two south
cables pulled out of their sockets and the floor fell through fifty
feet to the ground and was destroyed. It was a terrible wreck. This
was on the morning of May 29, 1897, at 6.30 o’clock. Mr. Ellerman
and I had been working all night observing with the telescope. When
we quit at daylight we left the floor at its highest point for the
convenience of some workmen who were to be at work on the tube in
the morning. When the floor fell there was not a soul in the
building, and no one was injured. A couple of hours either way, and
death in all probability would have come to one or the other of us.
Only a few nights before this accident the president of the
University of Chicago and thirty or more trustees and prominent men
of the university had seen through the telescope, and the floor had
been up and down with them on it. If it had fallen then a heavy loss
of life would have been almost certain. A few days before that, Mr.
Clark, who made the great glass, had unpacked the forty-inch disks
on the floor at its highest point, and had put them in the cell
which he finally bolted to the end of the telescope. If the floor
had fallen then, the great lens would have been destroyed, with the
probability that no one would be able to make another, for Mr. Clark
died within a few days after he returned to Cambridge. It was
providential, then, that the floor fell when it did; for the fault
in the attachment of the cables made it certain that it must soon
have fallen.
“But this is not the end of the story. When the floor fell, it
lurched against the great iron pier of the telescope and must have
given it a violent blow. There was some fear that the great glass
might have been injured by the shock. It was nearly a hundred feet
up in the air and could not be reached to see if it was unharmed. By
climbing up on the dome (which is one hundred and ten feet high) and
looking down at the glass, it was seen to be apparently uninjured.
Still, the test could only be made by examining the stars through
it, which was not possible until the floor was replaced by a new
one. Four months were occupied in taking out the wreck and putting
in the new floor.
“There was great anxiety to see the sky through the glass, and the
first night available it was turned to the stars. To our
consternation, there was a great, long flare of light running
through every bright star we examined. This was so strong and
conspicuous that it would make the instrument utterly useless. It
looked as if the lens had been injured by the shock of the floor
against the pier. We examined it in all positions of the instrument,
but we could not get rid of the glaring defect. As I had used the
glass more than anyone else before the accident, my statement that
the defect did not then exist made the matter all the more serious.
It was with heavy hearts that we waited for day to again critically
examine the lens. The next day we all examined the great glass very
carefully, but could see nothing wrong with it. Then Professor Hale
noticed that just back of the glass in the tube was a thick mass of
spider webs stretched across the tube, all running in the same
direction. Upon comparing notes we found that the direction of the
spider webs coincided with that of the flare of light seen the night
before. It seemed that a spider had evidently got in the tube before
the object glass was put on by Clark, and had been unable to get
out; for there was no opening in the tube. During the time the tube
remained at rest, while the new floor was being put in, he had
climbed up to the great glass in the direction of the light; and
when he found his egress barred by the great window, he spun his
web, perhaps as a signal of distress, or maybe in the hope that some
unlucky fly might get in through the glass that he could not get out
of—anyway, with the result that he caused several astronomers the
most uneasy time of their lives. When these webs were swept out by
one of the astronomers climbing up in the tube with a feather
duster, it was found that night, when the stars were examined, that
the flare had vanished and the mighty glass was uninjured.”
CHAPTER SEVEN
ORIGIN OF COMETS AND METEORS
(THEORIES ADVANCED BY THE LATE RICHARD A. PROCTOR.)
Among the author’s most treasured possessions is a clipping from the
Cincinnati _Daily Gazette_ for February 18, 1874, containing a report of
a lecture given by her father, on “Comets and Meteors,” from which the
following is an extract:
“In this lecture on comets and meteors, I promised to give some
account of what is expelled from the sun when great explosions take
place. If I were to say that the comets were shot out from the sun
you might be startled, or if I asserted that they were also thrown
out of Jupiter and Saturn. But the evidence in connection therewith
is very curious. In the first place, we know that matter is shot out
from the sun, with a velocity so great as to be carried away from
him altogether and so would travel into space. That has only been
observed a few times, but the occurrence is probably very frequent.
The matter which was expelled, if it struck the earth at all, would
strike in the daytime. The side of the earth facing the sun will be
the illuminated side. The meteoric matter coming from the sun can
only strike the illuminated part, and this can only happen in the
daytime. You throw a stone at any object, and it must strike the
side of the object you aim at, that is turned toward you. Humboldt
affirmed that the largest number of meteoric masses had fallen in
the daytime. The larger aërolites have been examined and their
microscopic structure studied. Sorby of Sheffield, who examined some
of them, says they consist of a number of small globules and were
originally in a vaporous state before assuming their present
condition. Then came a chemical analysis by Professor Graham and
Chandler Roberts of London. They found in the iron of the meteoric
mass more hydrogen than iron in a natural condition. Professor
Graham said that in his opinion meteors certainly contained iron,
and that probably they had been expelled from one of the stars that
people space. He drew attention to the fact that stars contained
hydrogen in their atmosphere. These are some of the facts concerned
with the larger meteoric masses.
“How shall we account for those meteoric streams which travel close
to the path of Jupiter? All comets of short period have paths
closely approaching some of the large planets. The comet of 1680
went close to Jupiter, long before the explosive power of the sun
was noticed. I call them Jupiter’s family of comets. Sir John
Herschel said that it was very curious that they had that relation.
If we put forward the theory that Jupiter expelled these comets, we
have a very startling theory, but many of the theories which have
been propounded, some of the most important character and which have
been proved to be true, have been the most startling. It is said
that as Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus go along their paths, they draw
in the comets which travel close to them, and capture them.
“I made a calculation about the November meteors to see how close
they must go to the path of Uranus in order to be captured, and
found that they must approach nearly as close as the nearest
satellite. Only those which came almost in contact with the planet
could be captured. Now, if they were shot out when Uranus was in a
sun-like condition, then it would be explained, whereas we find
great difficulty in imagining that a comet coming out of space would
be captured bodily by a planet like Uranus. Let us consider the
matter thus: if comets are expelled from a planet, they will be
carried along with the forward motion. If it could appear that some
of them went backward, then we would have no evidence of the theory
I have been advancing. If most of them travel forward, then we would
have some evidence for the theory. Now there is the curious fact
that among the comets of short period the whole of Jupiter’s family
travel forward. They do not travel in all directions of slope; all
have a very moderate slope to the paths of the planets. They do not
have the slope even of the asteroids. That is precisely what we
notice—that they travel very much with Jupiter. Taking the balance
between the two theories—that of expulsion and that of capture—it
seems to be in favor of the more startling one—that Jupiter has had
the power to expel these objects.”
It is interesting, in connection with this extract from the report of a
lecture given by my father some fifty years ago at present time of
writing (1925), to turn to a passage in the chapter on comets, by Dr. A.
C. D. Crommelin, in the _Splendour of the Heavens_, page 414, where he
refers as follows to the capture theory:
“The fact that the members of the Jupiter family (of comets) have
direct motion in all cases appears to give a fatal blow to the
capture theory. Practically as many comets would approach the planet
with retrograde motion as with direct; there is, indeed, the point
that those travelling in the same direction as the planet would
remain longer in its neighbourhood, and so have more time to be
perturbed, which would have some weight; but that out of some fifty
comets there is not a single retrograde one is too remarkable a fact
to pass over, and it clearly suggests that Jupiter played a
different part from that of a mere enslaver, and was concerned with
the origin of these bodies in a more intimate manner.
“Many of the considerations I have brought forward were stated by
Mr. R. A. Proctor some fifty years ago; they have therefore been
accessible to astronomers, who nevertheless have been, as a rule,
quite unaffected by them, so that it is time to state them afresh.
The consideration that the life of a short-period comet is limited
by the rapid wastage to which it is subject by the joint action of
the sun and Jupiter was not, I think, so fully realised, when
Proctor wrote as it is now. It serves further to invalidate the
capture theory, since it prevents our assigning to these bodies such
extended lives as that theory demands.”
According to my father’s theory, the giant planets are themselves the
parents of their comet-families, and he pictured their birth as having
occurred in a remote past, when the planets were more sun-like than they
are to-day. We have a great amount of evidence as to the energy of the
processes that are at work on Jupiter, as evidenced, for instance, by
the great Red Spot (though some have hinted at the possibility of its
being an early stage in the formation of a new satellite); Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune also indicate vast upheavals, though distance in
their case hinders observation, and even on our own planet we have some
striking instances of the power of volcanic energy, as at the eruption
of Krakatoa in 1883. Sounds of the explosion were heard three thousand
miles away, and a huge volume of dust was blown to the highest regions
of the atmosphere, but we are entitled to expect much vaster convulsions
in Jupiter, which outweighs the earth three hundred times and is in a
much hotter state, judging by the deep envelope of vapours surrounding
it, and the rapid changes that are constantly taking place in its
appearance, on an enormous scale, as shown by the fine series of
photographs which have been obtained of the planet with the giant
telescopes.
Writing in his magazine, _Knowledge_, for January 1, 1887, page 64, my
father states:
“The theory of ejection was adopted as the only theory by which the
chemical, physical, and microscopic structure of meteorites of all
orders—from bolosiderites to asiderites—can be accounted for. They
were certainly once exposed to such conditions as exist only in the
interior of large orbs—suns or planets. And as certainly they have
somehow come forth from such interiors. The expulsive force shown by
observation to reside in the only sun-like body we can examine,
indicates the only way in which such expulsion can conceivably have
been effected. Hence, I infer (for my own part I feel assured of the
weight of evidence) that all orders of meteorites were expelled from
some orbs at some time when such orbs were in the sun-like stage.
Generalizing, I include in this theory all orders of meteors, and
find all their most characteristic peculiarities explained, and all
orders of meteor systems or comets, finding their several orders
thus and thus only explicable (if we include all suns now and in the
past, all planets in all solar systems, in their past sun-like
state, among the sources of meteors and comets). No other general
theory seems to me possible.”
Again, in an article in _Knowledge_ for April, 1887, page 135, my father
makes the following statement regarding his theory concerning comets and
meteors:
“All comets and meteors are sun-born. But it is not to our own sun,
nor to those other suns, the stars, that I attribute all comets and
meteor systems. Many millions have come doubtless from our sun
during the many millions of years he has been a sun, though few of
his cometic children are known to terrestrial astronomers. Millions
of millions have come from the many millions of suns in our galaxy
during the many millions of years of their sun-like existence. But
the giant planets were once suns,[11] and in their sun-like state,
which must have lasted millions of years, they must have ejected
their smaller comets and meteor systems which even now, after
millions of years, have paths passing near the orbits of their
parent orbs. Our earth and her fellow terrestrial planets had their
sun-like stage of life, too, and it must have been while the earth
was a sun that the meteors explained specially by Tschermak’s theory
were expelled.”
According to his theory, Tschermak, noting the resemblance of structure
between meteorites and volcanic products, suggests that meteors of all
orders (which would include meteor streams, and therefore comets) were
shot out from the earth in the days when she was young. But though this
is better than the other theories, in at least suggesting some sort of
an origin for comets and meteors, it will not account for comets which
do not approach within many millions of miles of the earth’s orbit,[12]
and a theory which fails for some among the comets cannot be the true
general theory for meteors either.
Mr. Sorby of Sheffield, the eminent mineralogist already referred to,
deduced from the microscopic structure of certain meteorites the
startling theory that they had once been inside the sun; for there is
evidence that their substance once existed in the form of globules of
molten metal, which aggregated with large masses, which in turn were
exposed to violent friction, indicating conflicting motions of very high
velocities.
“Where else,” wrote Sorby, in 1864, “could such conditions exist, except
first in the interior, and afterwards in the immediate neighborhood of
our sun!” But it is absolutely certain that the theory as thus suggested
cannot possibly be true, either as a general explanation of comets and
meteors, or even as an explanation of any known meteor system or comet,
unless, perhaps, a few of the comets whose orbits pass very near the sun
were sun-born, and subsequently disturbed by planetary attractions so as
not to return to their parent orb.
According to my father’s views on the subject:
“A flight of meteors shot out from the sun, as Sorby suggested,
might have velocity enough to get away from him forever, in which
case we should never see a trace of it again, even though we waited
for millions of years. If, however, it could not get away, then it
must return to its starting-place—that is, back to the sun’s
globe—unless, passing near enough to one of the giant planets, it
were so far disturbed as only to return by grazing past the sun’s
surface. (The comets of 1843, 1880, and 1882, which all traveled in
paths near the sun, almost grazing his surface, may well have been
parts of a single meteor-flight shot out from his interior millions
of years ago.)”
After the appearance of the new comet of 1887 in the southern skies, it
was found to be following along the same track as the comets of 1843,
1880, and 1882, thus confirming my father’s theory that these comets
were parts of one large comet, dissipated, doubtless, some millions of
years ago.
These comets were so bright when near the sun that they could be seen at
noon with the naked eye. As regards the heat experienced by the comet of
1843 when near the sun, Sir John Herschel remarked:
“Imagine a glare 25,000 times fiercer than that of an equatorial
sunshine at noonday. In such a heat there is no solid substance we
know of which would not run like water—boil—and be converted into
smoke or vapor.”
[Illustration:
From _Knowledge_
THE SOUTHERN COMET OF JANUARY, 1887
]
In _Knowledge_ for November 1, 1887, an account is given of the
remarkable southern comet first observed in January of that year, and as
it is the last article on this topic written by my father for his
magazine, giving a more or less detailed account of his views on the
subject, the author of this book has deemed it advisable to quote it in
full. It is of special interest, not only on account of its giving his
theories on the subject, but for the reason that it helps to supply part
of the missing chapter on “Comets and Meteors,” which he had planned for
his final but unfortunately unfinished work, _Old and New Astronomy_.
This work had been in course of preparation for thirty years, and that
the material for such a chapter was partially compiled the writer knows
from the fact that she has a keen recollection of clippings, MSS., and
notes which she saw apparently awaiting classification and arrangement,
a short while before her father’s departure from Florida, September 8,
1888. What became of them after his sudden death in New York a few days
later, it is impossible to conjecture, unless A. C. Ranyard, who
completed the book, found the chapter on comets too difficult to arrange
satisfactorily. Yet even the fragments so arduously arranged and
collected by my father would have been better than a missing chapter on
a subject in which he was so deeply interested and to which he had
devoted so much attention.
To return to my father’s account of the comet of January, 1887:
“The comet was first seen by a farmer and a fisherman of Blauwberg,
near Cape Town, on the night of January 18–19. The same night it was
seen at the Cordoba University by M. Thomé. On the next night Mr.
Todd discovered it independently at the Adelaide Observatory, and
watched it till the 27th. On the 22d Mr. Finlay detected the comet
and was able to watch it till the 29th. At Rio de Janeiro, Mr. Cruls
observed it from the 23d to the 25th, and at Windsor, New South
Wales, Mr. Tebbutt observed the comet on the 28th and 30th.
Moonlight interfered with further observations.
“The comet’s appearance was remarkable. Its tail, long and straight,
extended over an arc of thirty degrees, but there was no appreciable
condensation which could be called the comet’s head. The long train
of light, described as nearly equal in brightness to the Magellanic
clouds, seemed to be simply cut off at that end where in most comets
a nucleus and coma are shown.
“This comet has helped to throw light on one of the most perplexing
of all the puzzles which those most perplexing of all the heavenly
bodies, comets, have presented to astronomers. In the year 1668, a
comet was seen in the southern skies which attracted very little
notice at the time, and would probably have been little thought of
since had not attention been directed to it by the appearance and
behavior of certain comets seen during the last half-century.
Visible for about three weeks, and discovered after it had already
passed the point of its nearest approach to the sun, the comet of
1668 was not observed so satisfactorily that its orbit could be
precisely determined. In fact, two entirely different orbits would
satisfy the observations fairly, though only one could be regarded
as satisfying them well.
“This orbit, however, was so remarkable that astronomers were led to
prefer the other, less satisfactory though it was, in explaining the
observed motions of the comet. For the orbit which best explained
the comet’s movements carried the comet so close to the sun as
actually to graze his visible surface. Moreover, there was this
remarkable and, indeed, absolutely unique peculiarity about the
orbit thus assigned: the comet (whose period of revolution was to be
measured by hundreds of years) actually passed through the whole of
that part of its course during which it was north of our earth’s
orbit plane in less than two hours and a half! though this part of
its course is a half-circuit around the sun, so far as direction
(not distance of travel) is concerned. That comet, when at its
nearest to the sun, was traveling at the rate of about 330 miles per
second. It passed through regions near the sun’s surface commonly
supposed to be occupied by atmospheric matter.
“Now, had the comet been so far checked in its swift rush through
those regions as to lose one-thousandth part of its velocity, it
would have returned in less than a year. But the way in which the
comet retreated showed that nothing of this sort was to be expected.
I am not aware, indeed, that any anticipations were ever suggested
in regard to the return of the comet of 1668 to our neighborhood. It
was not till the time of Halley’s comet, 1682, that modern astronomy
began to consider the question of the possibly periodic character of
cometic motions with attention. (For my own part, I reject as
altogether improbable the statement of Seneca that the ancient
Chaldean astronomers could calculate the return of comets. The comet
of 1680, called Newton’s, was the very first whose orbital motions
were dealt with on the principles of Newtonian astronomy, and
Halley’s was the first whose periodic character was recognized.)
“In 1843, another comet came up from the south, and presently
returned thither. It was, indeed, only seen during its return,
having, like the comet of 1668, been discovered only a day or two
after perihelion passage. Astronomers soon began to notice a curious
resemblance between the orbits of the two comets. Remembering the
comparative roughness of the observations made in 1668, it may be
said that the two comets moved in the same orbit, so far as could be
judged from observation. The comet of 1843 came along a path
inclined at apparently the same angle to the earth’s orbit plane,
crossed that plane ascendingly at appreciably the same point, swept
round in about two hours and a half that part of its angular circuit
which lay north of the earth’s orbit plane, and, crossing that plane
descendingly at the same point as the comet of 1668, passed along
appreciably the same course towards the southern stellar regions!
The close resemblance of two paths, each so strikingly remarkable in
itself, could not well be regarded as a mere accidental coincidence.
“However, at that time no very special attention was directed to the
resemblance between the paths of the comets of 1843 and 1668. It was
not regarded as anything very new or striking that a comet should
return after making a wide excursion round the sun; and those who
noticed that the two comets really had traversed appreciably the
same path around the immediate neighborhood of the sun, simply
concluded that the comet of 1668 had come back in 1843, after 175
years, and not necessarily for the first time.
“It must be noticed, however, before leaving this part of the
record, that the comet of 1843 was suspected of behaving in a rather
strange way when near the sun. For the first observation, made
rather roughly, indeed, with a sextant, by a man who had no idea of
the interest his observations might afterwards have, could not be
reconciled by mathematicians (including the well-known
mathematician, Benjamin Pierce) with the movement of the comet as
subsequently observed. It seemed as though when in the sun’s
neighborhood the comet had undergone some disturbance, possibly
internal, which had in slight degree affected its subsequent career.
“According to some calculations the comet of 1843 seemed to have a
period of about thirty-five years, which accorded well with the idea
that it was the comet of 1668, returned after five circuits. Nor was
it deemed at all surprising that the comet, conspicuous though it
is, had not been detected in 1713, 1748, 1783, and 1818, for its
path would carry it where it would be very apt to escape notice
except in the southern hemisphere, and even there it might quite
readily be missed. The appearance of the comet of 1668 corresponded
well with that of the comet of 1843. Each was remarkable for its
long tail and for the comparative insignificance of its head. In the
northern skies, indeed, the comet of 1843 showed a very straight
tail, and it is usually depicted in that way, whereas the comet of
1668 had a tail showing curvature. But pictures of the comet of
1843, as seen in the southern hemisphere, show it with a curved
tail, and also the tail appeared forked toward the end, during that
part of the comet’s career. However, the best observations, and the
calculations based on them, seemed to show that the period of the
comet of 1843 could not be less than 500 years.
“Astronomers were rather startled, therefore, when, in 1880, a comet
appeared in the southern skies which traversed appreciably the same
course as the comets of 1668 and 1843. When I was in Australia in
1880, a few months after the great comet had passed out of view, I
met several persons who had seen both the comet of that year and the
comet of 1843. They all agreed in saying that the resemblance
between the two comets was very close. Like the comet of 1843, that
of 1880 had a singularly long tail, and both comets were remarkable
for the smallness and dimness of their heads. One observer told me
that at times the head of the comet could barely be discerned.
“Like the comets of 1668 and 1843, the comet of 1880 grazed close
past the sun’s surface. Like them it was but about two hours and a
half north of the earth’s orbit plane. Had it only resembled the
other two in these remarkable characteristics, the coincidence would
have been remarkable. But of course the real evidence by which the
association between the comets was shown was of a more decisive
kind. It was not in general character only, but in details that the
path of the comet of 1880 resembled those on which the other two
comets had traveled. Its path had almost exactly the same slant to
the earth’s orbit plane as theirs, crossed that plane ascendingly
and descendingly at almost exactly the same points, and made its
nearest approach to the sun at very nearly the same place.
“To the astronomer such evidence is decisive. Mr. Hind, the
superintendent of the _Nautical Almanac_, and as sound and cautious
a student of cometic astronomy as any man living, remarked, so soon
as the resemblance of these comets’ paths had been ascertained, that
if it were merely accidental the case was most unusual; nay, it
might be described as unique. And, be it noticed, he was referring
only to the resemblance between the comets of 1880 and 1843. Had he
recalled at the time the comet of 1668, and its closely similar
orbit, he would have admitted that the double coincidence could not
possibly be merely casual.
“But this was by no means the end of the matter. Indeed, thus far,
although the circumstances were striking, there was nothing to
prevent astronomers from interpreting them as other cases of
coincident, or nearly coincident, comet paths, had been interpreted.
Hind and others, myself included, inferred that the comets of 1880,
1843, and 1668 were simply one and the same comet, whose return in
1880 probably followed the return in 1843 after a single revolution.
“In 1882, however, two years and a half after the appearance of the
comet of 1880, another comet came up from the south, which followed
in the sun’s neighborhood almost the same course as the comets of
1668, 1843, and 1880. The path it followed was not quite so close to
those followed by the other three as these had been to each other,
but yet was far too close to indicate possibly a mere casual
resemblance; on the contrary, the resemblance in regard to shape,
slope, and those peculiarities which render this family of comets
unique in the cometary system, was of the closest and most startling
kind.
“Many will remember the startling ideas which were suggested by
Professor Piazzi Smyth respecting the portentous significance of the
comet of 1882. He regarded it as confirming the great pyramid’s
teaching (according to the views of orthodox pyramidalists)
respecting the approaching end of the Christian dispensation. It was
seen under very remarkable circumstances, blazing close by the sun,
within a fortnight or three weeks of the precise date which had been
announced as marking that critical epoch in the history of the
earth.
“Moreover, even viewing the matter from a scientific standpoint,
Professor Smyth (who, outside his pyramidal paradoxes, is an
astronomer of well-deserved repute) could recognize sufficient
reason for regarding the comet as portentous. Many others, indeed,
both in America and in Europe, shared his opinion in this respect. A
very slight retardation of the course of the comet of 1880, during
its passage close to the surface of the sun, would have sufficed to
alter its period of revolution from the thirty-seven years assigned
on the supposition of its identity with the comet of 1843, to the
two and a half years indicated by its apparent return in 1882, and
if this had occurred in 1880, a similar interruption in 1882 would
have caused its return in less than two and a half years.
“Thus, circling in an ever-narrowing (or rather shortening) orbit,
it would presently, within a quarter of a century or so, perhaps,
have become so far entangled among the atmospheric matter around the
sun, that it would have been unable to resist absolute absorption.
What the consequences to the solar system might have been none
ventured to suggest. Newton had expressed his belief that the effect
of such absorption would be disastrous, but the physicists of the
nineteenth century, better acquainted with the laws associating heat
and motion, were not so despondent. Only Professor Smyth seems to
have felt assured (not being despondent but confident) that the
comet portended, in a very decisive way, the beginning of the end.
“However, we were all mistaken. The comet of 1882 retreated on such
a course, and with such variation of velocity as to show that its
real period must be measured not by months, as had been supposed,
nor even by years, but by centuries. Probably it will not return
till 600 or 700 years have passed. Had this not been proved, we
might have been not a little perplexed by the return of apparently
the same comet in this present year (1887). A comet was discovered
in the south early in January, whose course, dealt with by Professor
Kruger, one of the most zealous of our comet calculators, is found
to be partially identical with that of the four remarkable comets we
have been considering. Astronomers have not been moved by this new
visitant on the well-worn track, as we were by the arrival of the
comet of 1882, or as we should have been if either the comet of 1882
had never been seen, or its path had not been shown to be so wide
ranging. Whatever the comet of the present year may be, it was not
the comet of 1882 returned. No one even supposes that it was the
comet of 1880, or 1843, or 1668. Nevertheless, rightly apprehended,
the appearance of a comet traveling on appreciably the same track as
those four other comets is of extreme interest, and indeed
practically decisive as to the interpretation we must place on these
repeated coincidences.
“Observe, we are absolutely certain that the five comets are
associated together in some way; but we are as absolutely certain
that they are not one and the same comet which had traveled along
the same track and returned after a certain number of circuits. We
need not trouble ourselves with the question whether two or more of
the comets may not have been in reality one and the same body at
different returns. It suffices that they all five were not one;
since we deduce precisely the same conclusion whether we regard the
five as in reality but four or three or two. But it may be
mentioned, in passing, as appearing altogether more probable, when
all the evidence is considered, that there were no fewer than five
distinct comets, all traveling on what was practically the selfsame
track when in the neighborhood of the sun.
“There can be but one interpretation of this remarkable fact—a fact
really proved, be it noticed (as I and others have maintained since
the retreat of the comet of 1882), independently of the evidence
supplied by the great southern comet of the present year. These
comets must all originally have been one comet, though now they are
distinct bodies. For there is no reasonable way (indeed no possible
way) of imagining the separate formation of two or more comets at
different times, which should thereafter travel in the same path.
“No theory of the origin of comets ever suggested, none even which
can be imagined, could account for such a peculiarity. Whereas, on
the other hand, we have direct evidence showing how a comet,
originally single, may be transformed into two or more comets
traveling on the same, or nearly the same, track.
“The comet called Biela’s, which had circuited as a single comet up
to the year 1846 (during a period of unknown duration in the
past—probably during millions of years), divided then into two, and
has since broken up into so many parts that each cometic fragment is
separately indiscernible. The two comets into which Biela’s divided,
in 1846, were watched long enough to show that, had their separate
existence continued (visibly), they would have been found, in the
fullness of time, traveling at distances very far apart, though on
nearly the same orbit. The distance between them, which in 1846 had
increased only to about a quarter of a million of miles, had in 1852
increased to five times that space.
“Probably a few thousand years would have sufficed to set these
comets so far apart (owing to some slight difference of velocity,
initiated at the moment of their separation) that when one would
have been at its nearest to the sun, the other would have been at
its farthest from him. If we could now discern the separate
fragments of the comet, we should doubtless recognize a process in
progress by which, in the course of many centuries, the separate
cometic bodies will be disseminated all round the common orbit. We
know, further, that already such a process has been at work on
portions removed from the comet many centuries ago, for as our earth
passes through the track of this comet she encounters millions of
meteoric bodies which are traveling in the comet’s orbit, and once
formed part of the substance of a comet doubtless much more
distinguished in appearance than Biela’s.
“There can be little doubt that this is the true explanation of the
origin of that family of comets, five of whose members returned to
the neighborhood of the sun (possibly their parent) in the years
1668, 1843, 1880, 1882, and 1887. But it is not merely as thus
explaining what had been a most perplexing problem that I have dealt
with the evidence supplied by the practical identity of the orbits
of these five comets. When once we recognize that this, and this
only, can be the explanation of the associated group of five comets,
we perceive that very interesting and important light has been
thrown on the subject of comets generally.
“To begin with, what an amazing comet that must have been from which
these five, and we know not how many more, were formed by
disaggregative processes—probably by the divellent action of
repulsive forces exerted by the sun! Those who remember the comets
of 1843 and 1882 as they appeared when at their full splendor will
be able to imagine how noble an appearance a comet would present
which was formed of these combined together in one. But the comet of
1880 was described by all who saw it in the southern hemisphere as
most remarkable in appearance, despite the faintness of its head.
The great southern comet of the present year (1887) was a striking
object in the skies, though it showed the same weakness about the
head. That of 1668 was probably as remarkable in appearance as even
the comet of 1882. A comet formed by combining all these together
would certainly surpass in magnificence all the comets ever observed
by astronomers.
“And then, what enormous periods of time must have been required to
distribute the fragments of a single comet so widely that one would
be found returning to its perihelion more than two centuries after
another! When I spoke of one member of the Biela group being in
aphelion, when another would be in perihelion, I was speaking of a
difference of only three and one-third years in time; and even that
would require thousands of years. But the scattered cometic bodies
which returned to the sun’s neighborhood in 1668 and 1887 speak
probably of millions of years which have passed since first this
comet was formed. It would be a matter of curious inquiry to
determine what may have been the condition of our sun, what even his
volume, at that remote period in history.”
In view of our present knowledge of the status of the sun as a
comparative dwarf in the stellar system, may it not have been a giant
star at that remote period of its existence above referred to, rivaling
in volume the giant star Betelgeuse with its diameter exceeding two
hundred million miles.[13] At that period of the evolution of the sun,
how terrific must have been the force of the upheavals which rent its
surface, flinging forth cometic material with incalculable speed, to
distances far exceeding any known in connection with the comets with
which we are familiar.
Regarding the solar origin of comets, Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin writes as
follows in _Splendour of the Heavens_, page 407:
“When we note that the orbit of the great comet of 1882 almost
grazes the sun’s surface, there is a natural tendency to attribute a
solar origin to it. We know from the phenomena of the solar
prominences that the sun is continually erupting torrents of matter
with very high speeds; a speed of 270 miles per second would suffice
to send the matter round the sun in a circular orbit; if it rose to
382 miles per second the orbit would be parabolic; while for any
intermediate speed it would be elliptic. By combining the observed
speed of ascent of the prominence matter with the speed of approach
or recession that is indicated by the shift of the lines in the
spectrum, we conclude that speeds of this order are quite common, so
that no difficulty arises on that account. I feel rather more
difficulty from the consideration that the meteoric masses that
compose a comet’s head could not exist in the sun in a solid state;
the heat would suffice to vaporize them. The materials would
solidify in the cold of space, but as they would be under no
pressure, I imagine that the resulting solid particles would be
microscopically small, not of the size required to form reservoirs
for a large amount of gas. All objects ejected by the sun would move
in orbits that intersect the sun, except in so far as their orbits
are modified by planetary action. This latter might readily be large
enough to change the orbit to one just outside the sun (like those
of the sun-grazing comets of 1680, 1843, 1882, etc.). However, the
great majority of known comets have orbits whose least distance from
the sun is so large that we cannot imagine an origin for these by
simple solar eruption.
“The question arises, Can the comets have existed for so long a
period in view of the wastage that they undergo? According to the
geologists the date of the approach of another sun to ours (as
suggested in the planetesimal hypothesis) must be put at least a
thousand million years ago; in such an interval, even the comets of
longest period would have returned thousands of times, and I gravely
doubt whether they could continue to be such compact bodies as they
appear to be; I frankly admit that I have no plausible suggestion to
offer for evading the difficulty; it is one of the numerous cases in
astronomy (the status of the spiral nebulæ is another) in which we
must be content for the present to record observed facts and
suggested interpretations, leaving full understanding to come at a
later date, if at all.”
According to the same authority, in connection with his views on the
subject, as expressed after reading the MSS. prepared for this chapter,
he writes, as follows:
“I have noted a paper by A. A. Newton (see _Observatory_ for 1894,
page 250), in which he says, that out of 1,000 million comets
approaching the sun, 126 comets will have periods reduced to 6
years, 839 to 12 years, 1,701 to 18 years, and 2,670 to 24 years.
Further, of the 839 no less than 203, or a quarter of the whole,
will have retrograde orbits after perturbation. I think these
results go very strongly against the capture hypothesis. There would
only be one short-period comet in something like 2 million years;
whereas the experience of Biela’s, Brorsen’s (and perhaps also
Tempel 1 and Holmes), suggests that several of them have become
extinct in a century, so an equal number of new ones is required to
keep up the supply. It is a matter of surprise to me that the
difficulty is not more generally recognized.”
The following brief abstract, condensed from an article written by
Professor W. W. Payne, for _Popular Astronomy_, April, 1906, page 221,
regarding “Jupiter’s Family of Comets,” with accompanying chart, may be
of interest in connection with the matter under discussion in this
chapter:
“This notable family of comets is more and more of a wonder, the
further its study is pursued. It is remarkable on account of its
size, and—if the capture theory be correct—of the power of Jupiter
to capture comets and make them members of his family, if they, in
their wild flights through space, happen to come too near to him as
they sometimes do in certain parts of his orbital path around the
sun. But a close study of the chart showing the paths of Jupiter’s
family of comets would seem to indicate that nearly all the farthest
points of the comet’s orbits from the sun are on one side of
Jupiter’s orbit. These points are marked by short cross lines. Now
if Jupiter obtained his family by capture, why should he be more
successful on one side of the orbit than the other?
Moreover, the motions of all these bodies about the sun, and about
Jupiter, are direct, that is, contrary to those of the hands of a
watch. Does not this fact of the comets traveling in the same
direction, point to the supposition that they were originally
ejected from the planet rather than that they were captured by
Jupiter?”
CHAPTER EIGHT
METEOR STREAMS
Whence come these uncounted millions of bodies, rushing through space
with inconceivable velocity? What purpose do they fulfill in the
economy of the solar system? Are they the chips in the great workshop
of Nature, the sparks which have flown from the mighty grindstone, the
shreds of clay which the giant potters, Attraction and Repulsion, have
cast aside as useless?
—R. A. PROCTOR.
So far, we have traced the story of comets and meteors, and theories
concerning their origin, but there still remains the fascinating chapter
regarding those meteor streams which cross the earth’s path in uncounted
thousands and at regular intervals. For instance there are the great
November showers unsurpassed by any, except perhaps the August meteor
system. From recent investigations it has been shown that the
independent particles of which these systems are composed form part of a
great throng moving in orderly paths around the sun. They have proved
their right to a place in the “obedient family” which Copernicus
recognized as forming the solar system. In those days meteors were
regarded as a species of exhalation from the earth and consumed during
some processes of change in the upper regions of the atmosphere. Later
on, they had attained to the rank of volcanic missiles ejected from the
moon, and ascending still higher they were said to be stones falling
from the sky, not only on land, but “in the great sea, where they
remained concealed.”
It was not until the impressive meteoric shower of 1833 that suspicions
were aroused concerning a connection between these apparently erratic
wanderers in the sky and comets. When Professors Twining and Olmsted of
New Haven, U. S. A., observed that the paths of all the meteors during
the November shower of 1833 could be traced back to what is termed a
“radiant,” and Olmsted went so far as to call the densest part of the
swarm a “comet,” these objects attained a new interest in the
astronomical world. Olmsted and Twining were the first to show that the
meteors are not terrestrial and atmospheric, but bodies truly cosmical.
Could Kepler and Copernicus have revisited the former scene of their
labors and listened to the discussions concerning the theories advanced
in connection with comets and meteors during the latter part of the
nineteenth century, they would scarcely have recognized the scheme of
the solar system thus unfolded to their view! Not only has the claim of
meteorites to membership in that system been firmly established, but the
definite seasons for their appearance, and the well-known orbits along
which certain meteor streams travel, can now be confidently predicted by
astronomers. It is true, unfortunate circumstances may cause delay, as
in the case of the failure of the expected return of the November
meteor-shower in 1899, November 14–15, but this was undoubtedly due to
the disturbing influence of Jupiter and Saturn.
However, there could be no delay and consequent disappointment at the
return of this meteor swarm in 1833, which was not only totally
unexpected, but furnished a scene of such splendor that words fail to
convey an idea of its impressive character. We are told, by those who
were so fortunate as to witness it, that the meteors fell as thickly as
snowflakes. My father used to relate the following story regarding one
of the planters of South Carolina who gave a most impressive account of
the consternation caused among the negroes on this occasion. To quote
the words of the planter:
“I was suddenly awakened by the most distressing cries that ever
fell on my ears. Shrieks of horror and cries for mercy I could hear
from most of the negroes of the three plantations, amounting in all
to about six or eight hundred. While earnestly listening for the
cause, I heard a faint voice near the door calling my name. I arose
and, taking my sword, stood at the door.
“At this moment I heard the same voice still beseeching me to rise,
assuring me that the world was on fire. I then opened the door, and
it is difficult to say which excited me the most, the awfulness of
the scene or the distressed cries of the negroes. Upward of a
hundred lay prostrate on the ground, some speechless and some giving
utterance to the bitterest cries. With hands upraised, they implored
God to save the world and them. The scene was truly awful, for never
did rain fall much thicker than the meteors fell towards the
earth—east, west, north and south, it was the same.”
Renewed interest was taken in the subject as the year 1866 drew near,
for Professor Newton of New Haven, U. S. A., had found, after a careful
examination of records in 1864, that there had been a number of great
autumnal meteoric star-showers separated by periods of about
thirty-three years. As a result of his investigations, he predicted that
a shower would occur in 1866, and conjectured that the path along which
the meteor stream would travel might have one of five different orbits;
one with a period of thirty-three and a quarter years, two with periods
of one year plus or minus eleven days, and two with periods of half a
year plus or minus five and a half days.
Professor John Couch Adams, with the same patience and accuracy which
had enabled him to discover the planet Neptune, concentrated all his
efforts in tracing by means of the most laborious calculations the
disturbing effects of the planets upon the November meteor stream in
connection with each of the five orbits suggested by Newton. He came to
the conclusion that the true orbit must be the largest, _viz._, the one
having a period of thirty-three and a quarter years. Accordingly, he
confirmed the prediction that the meteoric shower was due to return in
1866, and not only was that prediction confirmed, but the meteor stream
was seen again in 1867, the procession stretching out along the orbit
for such a distance that it required three years to pass a given point.
Unfortunately, as far as Professor Newton and his fellow-countrymen in
America were concerned, they were unable to witness the wonderful
display, for on this occasion it favored our side of the world. In other
words, the encounter between the earth and the dense part of the meteor
stream which had caused such a spectacular display in 1833, preceded the
time predicted for it only by the brief interval separating the
successive passages of England and America across a given rotation
space.
“If we imagine that from some distant orb, a being were watching the
event, knowing the nature of Newton’s prediction and uncertain as to
the result, then this being would have seen the meteor swarm rushing
onwards to the scene of encounter on the one part, and the earth
sweeping towards the same point on the other. He could see that all
over Europe and the western parts of Asia, and in a less degree over
the foreshortened Atlantic, the meteors were already falling, the
display would grow richer and richer, but after a while it would
diminish in splendor. Finally, just as America began to show on the
exposed hemisphere, the encounter would come to an end, the earth
passing onwards to the relatively barren portions lying beyond the
meteor orbit.” (R. A. Proctor, _The Orbs Around Us_, pp. 180–181.)
Such was the occurrence which astonished the world on the nights of
November 13–14, 1866, according to Sir Robert Ball’s experience, which
he has portrayed in such vivid language in _The Story of the Heavens_:
“The night was fine; the moon was absent. The meteors were
distinguished not only by their enormous multitude, but by their
intrinsic magnificence. I shall never forget that night. On the
memorable evening, I was engaged in my usual duty at that time of
observing nebulæ with Lord Rosse’s great reflecting telescope. I was
of course aware that a shower of meteors had been predicted, but
nothing that I had heard prepared me for the splendid spectacle so
soon to be unfolded. It was about ten o’clock at night when an
exclamation from an attendant by my side made me look up from the
telescope, just in time to see a fine meteor dash across the sky. It
was presently followed by another, and then again by others in twos
and in threes, which showed that the prediction of a great shower
was likely to be verified.
“At this time, the Earl of Rosse (then Lord Oxmantown) joined me at
the telescope, and after a brief interval we decided to cease our
observations of the nebulæ and ascend to the top of the wall of the
great telescope, from whence a clear view of the whole hemisphere of
the heavens could be obtained. There, for the next three or four
hours, we witnessed a spectacle which can never fade from my memory.
The shooting stars gradually increased in number until sometimes
several were seen at once. Sometimes they swept over our heads,
sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left, but they all diverged
from the east. All the tracks of the meteors radiated from Leo.
“Sometimes a meteor appeared to come almost directly towards us, and
then its path was so foreshortened that it had hardly any
appreciable length, and looked like an ordinary fixed star swelling
into brilliancy and then as rapidly vanishing. Occasionally luminous
trains would linger on for many minutes after the meteor had flashed
across, but the great majority of the trains in this shower were
evanescent. It would be impossible to say how many thousands of
meteors were seen, each one of which was bright enough to have
elicited a note of admiration on any ordinary night.”
Soon after the remarkable display of meteors in 1866, Schiaparelli of
Milan, whose interest had been aroused by the researches of Newton and
Adams, published a paper upon the Perseids, or August meteors, in which
he drew attention to the fact that they were moving in the same path as
that of the bright comet of 1862, known as Tuttle’s comet. Shortly after
this Leverrier published his orbit of the Leonid meteors derived from
the observed position of the radiant (within the sickle-shaped group of
stars in Leo), in connection with the periodic time assigned by Adams;
and almost simultaneously, but without any idea of a connection between
them, Oppolzer published his orbit of Tempel’s comet of 1866, and the
two orbits were at once seen to be practically identical.
Now a _single_ case of such a coincidence as that pointed out by
Schiaparelli might possibly be accidental, but hardly _two_. Then five
years later in 1872 came the meteoric shower of the Bielids, the
disintegrated particles following in the track of Biela’s comet, and
since then scores of meteor streams have been apparently detected with
“a comet annexed,” firmly establishing the theory regarding the
connection between comets and meteor streams as a well-proved fact.
The longer a comet has been in the solar system, the more widely
scattered will be its accompanying meteor stream. According to this
theory, the Perseids which are scattered more or less uniformly along
their orbit of enormous extent ranging far beyond the orbit of the
outermost planet Neptune, are undoubtedly old inhabitants of the solar
system. The Leonids, on the contrary, are comparatively newcomers
introduced into the solar system (according to the calculations of
Leverrier, and admitting the capture theory, though the ejection theory
is far more plausible), in A.D. 126, when Tempel’s comet, of which they
formed part, passed very near Uranus.
Since the mystery regarding these celestial wanderers has been cleared,
it might almost seem as if every comet of distinction had its own
special host of meteoric attendants following closely in its wake, their
number constantly increased by the addition of discarded fragments
forming the train of the comet at each visit paid by it to the sun. The
following is a list compiled by Mr. W. F. Denning of the chief meteoric
displays of the year.
══════════════╤════════════════╤═══════════╤═══════════════════════════
_Name of │ _Date of │ _Radiant │ _Appearance of meteors_
shower_ │ maximum_ │ point_ │
──────────────┼────────────────┼───────────┼───────────────────────────
│ │ R.A. Dcl. │
Quadrantids │January 3 │ 230° + 52°│Slowish, long paths
Lyrids │April 21 │ 270° + 33°│Swift, streaks
η Aquarids │May 2–6 │ 338° − 2°│Swift, very long paths
Draconids │June 28 │ 228° + 54°│Very slow, short paths
δ Aquarids │July 28–30 │339° − 120°│Slow, long paths
α Capricornids│July 25-August 4│ 303° − 10°│Very slow, brilliant, long
Perseids │August 11 │ 45° + 57°│Swift, streaks
Orionids │October 19 │ 92° + 15°│Swift, streaks
Leonids │November 14–15 │ 151° + 23°│Very swift, streaks
Andromedids │November 17–27 │ 25° + 44°│Very slow, short, trained
Geminids │December 11–12 │ 110° + 33°│Swift, white, short paths
──────────────┴────────────────┴───────────┴───────────────────────────
The _Lyrids_ are connected with Comet 1861 I, having a period of about
415 years.
The _Perseids_ are connected with Comet 1862 III, having a period of
about 120 years.
The _Leonids_ are connected with Comet 1866 I, having a period of 33⅓
years.
The _Bielids_, or _Andromedids_, are connected with Biela’s comet, and
have a period of 6¾ years.
We are now aware of meteor streams which at certain stated intervals,
cross the earth’s orbit. They are regular visitors for which we may
watch with every certainty that a few, if not thousands, will be
captured by too near an approach to the atmospheric net encircling our
planet. The whole of the solar domain may be alive with meteors, but by
no possibility can we become aware of their presence until they take the
fatal plunge which ultimately causes their destruction. The space
actually traversed by the earth in its journey around the sun, is but
the minutest fraction of that vast sphere over which the sun holds sway,
“yet it has been estimated by Professor Newcomb of America, on
grounds which are perfectly reliable, that in including telescopic
meteors (that is, meteors so small as only to be visible when they
happen to pass across the field of view of a telescope), no less
than 146,000 millions of meteoric bodies fall each year upon the
earth. If one in a thousand struck a human being the inhabitants of
the earth would be decimated in a single year.” (R. A. Proctor, _The
Expanse of Heaven_, p. 164.)
Fortunately for us, the earth is protected by the surrounding air, which
offers a most effective resistance to the swift motion of the celestial
missiles with which it is bombarded from above. The swifter their
motion, the more effective the resistance.
When meteors are first seen they are mostly at a height of seventy
miles, vanishing at a height of about fifty miles. But the actual course
they pursue through the air is nearly always much longer, because they
do not descend vertically, but aslant.
Mr. Denning remarks, in his account of meteors for _Splendour of the
Heavens_, “there are comparatively few astronomers, either professional
or amateur, who cultivate the meteoric branch. They evidently do not
regard it as an attractive study. In any case, it does not appeal to
them sufficiently to enlist their sympathies, and so it has been
comparatively neglected in recent years. A few ardent observers have, it
is true, continued to devote themselves to the subject,” and he cites
instances where two English ladies, Miss A. Grace Cook, director of the
Meteoric Section of the B. A. A., in 1922, and the late Mrs. Fiammetta
Wilson, endeavored to arouse more enthusiasm in this field of work by
both practical example and advice. As an instance of the splendid
enthusiasm of the latter, she has to her credit for meteoric
observations carried on during an interval of ten years, the record of
about ten thousand meteors. This is an average of a thousand a year, and
anyone who has attempted to keep a steady watch on a starlit night in
the hope of observing an evanescent meteor will realize what such a
record means. It must have required an immense amount of patience,
endurance, and untiring vigilance, for the wily meteor is so apt to take
us unawares.
The writer has had but one experience of the kind, and it was upon the
occasion of the expected display of Leonids in 1899. The night was
extremely cold, as one might expect during the month of November, when
with two friends, Miss Harpham and Miss Tarbox, I stationed myself on
the roof of an apartment house in New York City, on November 15, at
12.55. The record of our observations, which were continued until 6.00
A.M. at the hour of dawn, was afterward printed in _Popular Astronomy_,
Vol. IX, 1901, pp. 82–83. During that time we observed sixty-eight
meteors, of which, as the account shows, a few were intruders.
Never was dawn so welcome to the weary observers, who were not nearly so
much chilled by the November weather, as by the disappointment at the
meager display. Possibly the bright moonlight in the earlier part of the
watch had dimmed the splendor of many of the Leonids, but where were the
tens of thousands which were said to have fallen in 1833, or even the
thousands which were observed in 1866, for not even one hundred rewarded
us for our vigil in 1899? However, we were told to watch again the
following year, when possibly we might meet with better luck, but our
record as given in _Popular Astronomy_, Vol. IX, 1901, shows that only
forty-four meteors were seen between midnight and dawn, and of these,
seven were intruders. The cause of the failure of the return of the
Leonids in 1899 was due to the fact that the planet Jupiter had so much
disturbed the orbit of the meteor group of 1866, that from calculations
made it was estimated that it would pass about two millions of miles
outside of the earth’s orbit, and thus escape collision with our
atmosphere. For this reason, few meteors were seen in 1899 and 1900,
though in 1901 and 1903 pretty brisk showers of Leonids were visible,
though they were nothing like the magnificent displays of 1799, 1833,
and 1866. A new shower derived from Pons-Winnecke’s periodical comet was
witnessed from Bristol on June 28, 1916. A very brilliant and abundant
return of this display may occur during the last week of June, 1927,
when the earth and comet will be exceedingly near each other.
The following suggestions may be helpful to those who may feel inclined
to make a hobby of recording meteors which are far more plentiful (quite
a number making their appearance on any clear night) than comets, which
are, comparatively speaking, rare visitors. Practically no appliances of
any kind are required. The main essential is a knowledge of the various
constellations and of the stars visible to the naked eye, a knowledge
soon acquired by a study of some good atlas of the heavens, such as my
father’s _Half Hours with the Stars_. This contains twelve charts, one
for each month of the year, with accompanying letter press.
A beginner generally finds great difficulty in locating the beginning
and ending of the course of a meteor, as these seldom occur close to any
well-known star. It will always be found useful to have a straight rod
about four feet long. This should be held up so that it seems to lie
along the path of the meteor. A rapid glance along the rod, backward and
forward, will generally be sufficient to enable one to detect some stars
within the radius of a circle. The beginning and ending of the trail of
the meteors can then be recorded, as the eye easily estimates the length
of the arc between various points of the heavens. In this way one
records the observation made—let us say, at 4.39, for November 15, 1899.
The direction followed by the meteor was from the radiant toward Castor
and Pollux, the streak remaining visible for three seconds. The meteor
was very bright, meaning that it equaled a first-magnitude star, and the
train was 5° in length. Though the color was not recorded at the time,
yet it is possible to make a very sure guess, that it was blue, the
usual color of Leonids.
It is not advisable to look for meteors very far from the radiant, as
that is the main point from which they are seen to emanate. Therefore,
it will be sufficient to confine the attention to a region within 30° to
40° from the radiant. Meteors appearing near the radiant have short
trains, while those at a greater distance have generally longer trains.
When a meteor is observed, the time, magnitude, beginning and ending of
course, duration of flight, and any special characteristics should be
recorded as quickly as possible, using a system of abbreviations.
Possibly the writer, at the next display which is expected in 1933, may
be prepared—with the assistance of a few enthusiasts—to carry out this
elaborate program, but it is impossible for one or even three to make an
accurate record of so many happenings regarding a meteor which may have
remained on view but a second or so.
In judging the time of flight a stop-watch is very useful, but in
the case of slow meteors it is easy to estimate the time
approximately by counting at a certain rate, say 180 to the minute.
The writer was told to recite a nursery rhyme at a certain pace,
such as hickory-dickory-dock, and note the syllable or word uttered
at disappearance of meteor, but in the case of the Leonids the word
“hickory” had scarcely been uttered before the Leonid had vanished,
so that the simpler method of counting “one, two, three,” was
adopted, proving entirely satisfactory, when we remembered to count!
It might be a good idea, before making the observations, to mark off on
the rod, with luminous paint or radium, such as is used with watches,
3°, the distance between the three stars in the belt of Orion; 5°, the
distance between the pointers in Ursa Major; 10°, the distance from
Alpha to Delta in the same group of stars; 15° from Delta through Alpha;
and 26° from Alpha to Eta, at the extremity of the Bear’s tail, or the
Dipper handle, according to the popular nomenclature used in America,
where the seven stars of the Plough, or Charles’s Wain, are usually
referred to as the Great Dipper.
Special attention should be given in recording very bright meteors or
fireballs. In many cases fireballs may be seen by other persons, and the
data supplied by any two observers situated at different places. Their
combined observations are sufficient to determine the real path,
radiant, etc., of the celestial object.
We have a fine illustration of this in the drift of a meteor trail which
was observed by Mr. Denning at 7.33 P.M. on February 22, 1909, passing
in a southwest direction over the northern coast of France. The luminous
trail left in its wake persisted as a visible object for over two hours,
during which time it drifted in a northwest direction at 120 miles an
hour, under the influence of a violent wind in the upper atmosphere. As
usual on every clear starlit night there are a number of enthusiastic
observers keeping close watch of the sky, ready to trap with their
cameras any unwary meteor which may flash into view. On this occasion
there were at least 250 observers in different parts of the country
watching the phenomenon during the whole two hours the meteor trail
remained visible.
There is a branch of the British Astronomical Association which deals
with records and observations of meteors, and it is known as the Meteor
Section. “Mr. Denning has proved a faithful friend,” as Miss A. Grace
Cook remarks in her report of the Section for 1922, “and has encouraged
the Section in every possible way.” Sometime one of the enthusiastic
observers in search of meteors may be rewarded by a discovery of larger
prey, in the form of a comet. Imagine the delight of having a comet one
could thus claim, as it were, as one’s own personal property!
Fireballs differ vastly from shooting stars in exposing a larger surface
to the opposing atmosphere, as they make their downward plunge from
space therein. It is when they suddenly come in contact with the
particles of which the air surrounding our planet is composed, that
their presence is first made known to us. When a shooting star finally
blazes out, owing to the friction caused by the encounter, it is at a
height of from thirty to fifty-five miles above the ground. It is then
dissipated in vapor, and vanishes. No wonder these balls of fire caused
terror among the ignorant and superstitious in the days when their
meaning was unknown. In Mr. Denning’s book, _Telescopic Work for
Starlight Evenings_, page 269, there is a drawing made by J. Plant of
Salford, as an illustration, giving an excellent idea of the imposing
aspect of a fireball, seen by this observer on November 23, 1877, as it
emerged from behind a cloud. Judging from the date, it might have been
one of the Bielids, provided its radiant was in the constellation
Andromeda. It was, however, in Taurus.
Fireballs are usually silent, but sometimes they have been known to
explode with a loud noise. The fireball which was observed (as above) in
November, 1877, is said to have “given a sound like salvos of artillery,
and doors and windows were violently shaken.” As a rule, however, there
is no audible explosion, the bright nucleus fading out until it is
reduced to a mere spark before disappearing.
Occasionally fireballs have been known to give out three or four
brilliant flashes before fading from view. These flashes, often of
startling intensity, have been described as “coming less swiftly than
flashes of lightning.” They remind one forcibly of moonlight breaking
through the clear intervals in passing clouds. There is always something
mysterious about these luminous objects as they emerge so stealthily
from the darkness, vanishing as silently as they came.
During the month of August fine meteoric displays may be looked for,
between the 10th and 13th of that month. They are sometimes referred to
as “the tears of St. Lawrence,” since the 10th of August is dedicated to
the memory of that saint. However, they are more generally known as the
Perseids, their radiant being in the constellation Perseus. As this
group of stars has risen tolerably high about nine o’clock in the
northeastern sky during the month of August, watching for Perseids is an
easier matter than in the case of the Leonids, which do not appear at
their best until “the wee sma’ hours.”
The meteors belonging to the Perseid family are yellow in color, moving
at the rate of thirty-eight miles a second, as compared with the swift
onrush of the November meteors at forty-four miles a second, the latter
flashing into view with the rapidity of a skyrocket, and as swiftly
disappearing. The Bielids, on the contrary, travel with medium velocity,
their stately glide at ten miles per second, being in marked contrast to
the speed of the Perseids or Leonids. The Bielids, also called the
Andromedids, are due November 23–27, and, as already noted, may be seen
to radiate from a point near Gamma in the constellation Andromeda. In
the case of the Perseids, a few brilliant streaks often herald their
approach, usually giving promise of an especially fine display. The
August meteor showers yield the smallest shooting stars and the largest
type of fireballs. Observers startled by the sudden appearance of the
latter are rather apt to give exaggerated accounts of their appearance,
neglecting to note the direction whence they came, the time or duration
of their flight, and other necessary data, rendering the observations,
in consequence, practically useless.
We now come to shooting stars, the kindergarten—as it were—of the
meteoric system. Weighing practically but a few ounces at the most, they
can be easily handled or put into one’s pocket without discomfort.
Analysis of those which have sunk to rest on our planet, as a result of
successfully penetrating right through the atmospheric net surrounding
our domain, has shown that they are composed of iron and many of the
chemical elements, such as sodium and carbon, which are to be found on
the earth.
For vast periods of time they may have been pursuing a seemingly endless
voyage along the highways and byways of the solar system, wending their
way in safety amid the intricate paths traversed by the planets. They
have been traveling at a speed far exceeding that of the swiftest cannon
ball, and doubtless with an average velocity of about twenty-five miles
a second. A shooting star moving at such a rate would pass from the
earth to the moon in a couple of hours, or from London to Edinburgh in
about ten seconds. All goes well with the little traveler as long as it
keeps at a discreet distance from the aërial torpedo net surrounding our
planet, seemingly set for the purpose of entrapping such intruders.
However, should the shooting star venture too near, plunging through the
atmosphere at the pace which kills, it is bound to come to grief.
Rubbing against every particle it meets on the way, friction is caused,
resulting in the blaze of glory which makes its presence known to us,
swiftly followed by its exit when it is reduced to ashes.
Some of the particles, if any are left (for usually they are dissipated
in vapor in the upper regions of the air), sift down upon our planet in
the form of fine dust. From the top of a high mountain Dr. Reichenbach
collected dust which had never been touched by spade or pick-ax; and in
analysis he found this dust to consist of almost identically the same
elements as those of which meteoric stones are composed—nickel, cobalt,
iron, and phosphorus. Dr. Phipson, in his interesting work on _Meteors,
Aërolites, and Shooting Stars_, remarks that
“when a glass covered with pure glycerine is exposed to a strong
wind, late in November, it receives a number of _black angular
particles_, which can be dissolved in strong hydrochloric acid, and
produces yellow chloride of _iron_ upon the glass plate.”
It is a strange thought that the air which sifts in through the window,
and settles on the tables and chairs, nay even the very air we breathe,
may contain particles of matter which have at one time circled in
meteoric form around the sun!
Should this be the case, and if, as Professor Newcomb, the American
astronomer, tells us, no less than 146,000 million meteoric particles
fall on the earth during the course of a year, may we not infer that
this means an increase in its mass? In my father’s book, _The Orbs
Around Us_ (page 195), he writes:
“If we assign a single grain as the weight of each meteor visible to
the naked eye, we deduce fifteen millions of grains as the earth’s
daily increase of weight. This is rather less than a ton. So that in
the course of about three years the earth’s weight must increase
(even on the very low value here assigned to a meteor’s weight) by a
thousand tons; and in the course of the three thousand years during
which astronomy has been a science the earth’s weight must have
increased a million tons. This is a mere trifle compared with the
earth’s own weight, which is 6,000 millions of millions of times
greater. Indeed, it may easily be shown that the actual increase of
the earth’s radius in this interval of 3,000 years, would be about
the 70,000,000th part of an inch.”
From time immemorial legend and superstition have interwoven themselves
around these small members of the solar system as they silently and
swiftly sweep across the vault of heaven, vanishing mysteriously as
though extinguished by some invisible hand. Dante describes them:
“As oft along the still and pure serene
At nightfall glides a sudden trail of fire,
Attracting with involuntary heed
The eye to follow it, erewhile it rest
And seems some star that shifted place in heaven.”
For the Oriental believer, the shooting stars are the fiery darts hurled
by the angels at the evil spirits or genii when the latter are caught
eavesdropping at the gates of heaven. This legend is to be found in the
Koran, and is referred to by Moore in his “Paradise and the Peri,” in
the lines:
“Fleeter than the starry brands
Flung at night from angel hands,
At those dark and daring sprites
Who would climb th’ empyreal heights.”
According to a Lithuanian myth as told by Grimm in his _Deutsche
Mythologie_, the spinstress Werpega spins the thread of a child’s life
at birth, and each thread ends in a star. When death approaches, the
thread breaks and the star falls to earth, quenching its light.
In Galicia, the province northeast of Hungary, the peasants believe that
when a star falls to earth it is at once transformed into a rarely
beautiful maiden with long, glittering, golden hair. She is supposed to
exert a magical influence on all who come in contact with her, but the
effect is evil unless certain words are uttered ere the star falls to
earth. From this superstition doubtless springs the custom of “wishing”
while a shooting star is seen gliding swiftly eastwards. The wish will
surely come true, it is said, if fully expressed before the star fades
from view. Finally, we have the fanciful idea suggested in the following
lines by Fiona Macleod:
“A star was loosed from heaven;
All saw it fall, in wonder,
Where universe clashed universe
With solar thunder.”
CHAPTER NINE
DID LIFE FIRST COME TO THIS EARTH IN A METEOR?
Among the most startling suggestions recently thrown out by men of
science, not one, perhaps, has seemed more amazing to the general
public than the idea put forward by Sir William Thomson in the able
address with which he inaugurated the meeting of the British
Association (1871)—that life on the earth may have had its origin from
seeds borne to our planet by meteors, the remnants of former worlds.
—R. A. PROCTOR.
The quaint suggestion thus advanced by Lord Kelvin regarding the
possibility of the first germs of life reaching our planet in the form
of “a fragment of an exploded world,” was taken seriously at the time by
some, but was undoubtedly merely a jest on the part of the able speaker.
As my father remarked in the book from which the above quotation is made
(_The Orbs Around Us_): “I can scarcely bring myself to believe that the
eminent professor was serious in urging his hypothesis of seed-bearing
meteors. Englishmen speak sometimes of the slowness with which a
Scotsman apprehends a jest; but the Scotsman may return the compliment,
so far, at least, as the southern estimate of Scottish humor is
concerned. For a true Scot makes his jest with a gravity and _aplomb_
unequaled among Sassenach humorists. It is far from improbable that the
seriousness with which the seed-bearing meteorites have been discussed
proved infinitely amusing to the gathering of the clans in Edinburgh.”
Nevertheless, that there were some believers who were convinced that
Lord Kelvin would not have advanced such a theory without some solid
basis for its foundation, was shown by the fact that the great Swedish
scientist, Svante Arrhenius, considered it worth while, in his book
entitled _The Life of the Universe_, to refer to the various
difficulties which have made it next to impossible to establish the
theory, which he compares (from the standpoint of arousing popular
interest) with the problem of perpetual motion. He concluded his remarks
on the subject by the statement (which has already been confirmed) that
the problem of spontaneous generation in the actual form of a meteor
will, “it is to be expected, be eliminated from the scientific program,
just as the problem of perpetual motion has been discarded.”
Nevertheless, there is something fascinating about this myth which
appealed strongly, at the time it was advanced, to the imagination,
though it led to queries which when answered led nowhere. If the worlds
by bursting supplied space with seed-bearing meteors, how were they
themselves peopled with living beings? “This circumstance of itself
throws an air of doubt over the new hypothesis,” according to my
father’s views on the subject, “as a seriously intended account of the
origin of life on our earth.”
It recalls the cumbersome way in which the Hindu accounted for the
support of our planet in space, supposing it rested upon the back of a
tortoise, but the Hindu student of science might well ask how is the
tortoise itself supported? Or again, supposing life-bearing meteorites
reached our planet from exploded worlds, what would be their condition
by the time they were deposited on a soil favorable for their
development?
According to Flammarion regarding the possibility of meteoric fragments
coming to our planet from an ancient satellite of the earth which was
shattered to pieces, the germs shut up in the interior of the meteorite
would remain in a kind of lethargic sleep without losing any of their
germinative qualities during their plunge through interplanetary space.
In fact, the author lends a seductive air of plausibility to the myth,
suggesting that the fragments would reach our planet fresh and cold, to
be again rejuvenated and come to life, but even Flammarion is compelled
to acknowledge that we have found nothing to prove such a theory true.
But if this new theory should be accepted, as my father wrote in 1871,
“we have reason to regard with apprehension the too close approach of
one of these visitants; because, if one meteor supplied the seeds of the
living things now existing on the world, another may supply myriads of
seeds of undesirable living things; and perhaps the sequent struggle for
life may result in the survival of the fittest.”
It may seem superfluous to add that, in a collision by which a world was
shivered into fragments, the seeds of life would have what may be
described as a warm time, since the collision could hardly fail to
vaporize the destroyed world. The fiery heat generated by the collision,
followed by a voyage during myriads of millions of ages through the
inconceivable cold of space, and the effect of the fierce heat which
accompanies the fall of meteoric masses upon our earth, would seem so
unfavorable to the germs of life that we may accept with confidence the
belief that all such germs had been completely destroyed before reaching
this planet.
Arrhenius reversing the seed-bearing-meteor theory in connection with a
meteorite bringing the seeds of life to our planet, makes a neat
calculation showing the time which would be required for a tiny
particle, drawn from our planet and hurled into space, to arrive at the
surface of a planet circling around the star Alpha in the constellation
of the Centaur. It would be twenty days on its way to Mars (traveling at
the usual rate of speed assigned to meteors, _viz._, some twenty-six
miles a second.) A year would elapse before it reached the outermost
planet Neptune, which travels on the confines of the solar system, and
some nine thousand years ere it plunged through the atmosphere
surrounding a planet circling round the nearest star, and finally
crashed on its surface. Endless are the speculations which might thus be
indulged in regarding the celestial voyages of meteors through
interplanetary space, but though the misguided ones which have rashly
ventured too near our planet have been trapped in its atmosphere,
landing on its surface before suffering complete annihilation, have been
weighed, measured, and tested by chemical analysis, the past history of
their excursions into space is enshrouded in a mysterious silence as
unbroken as that of the Sphinx.[14]
[Illustration:
OUTH LODGE, KEITHICK, WHERE THE STRATHMORE METEORITE FELL THROUGH THE
ROOF, DECEMBER 3, 1917
Photograph of the lodge and Mr. and Mrs. Hill taken by H. Coates
]
The writer at one time had a paper weight to which she attached great
value, despite the fact that it was an apparently insignificant metallic
stone weighing a few ounces, but there was a fascination in the
conjecture as to where it had come from. That was the query which could
never be answered, for all that was actually known of the past history
of this celestial visitor dated from one eventful evening when it was
seen for a few brief seconds as a momentary streak of light, revealing
the course of its descent, so that a fortunate mortal here below was
enabled to locate it after its swift plunge to earth. After it had
cooled sufficiently to bear handling, it was carefully examined and its
substance was found to be thickly interspersed with carbon particles,
revealing, like so many telltale imps, that this inert mass had once
known better days when its life was filled with activity until it took
the fatal plunge which ended so disastrously. “If you only knew what I
have seen, and where I have been during my wanderings in space,” one
could imagine the meteorite saying in reply to the numerous queries,
regarding its origin, in the mind of the writer; until this fascinating
little visitor in space vanished as mysteriously as it had come, through
too great a confidence placed in an audience in the Far West, where the
meteorite was passed round for inspection and never returned.
However, the writer was enabled to resume her study of the subject on a
larger scale while visiting the famous Foyer collection of meteorites at
the American Museum of Natural History, New York, where the specimens
are a little too hefty for transportation. No one, for instance, would
be able to depart with the Ahnighito, the great Cape York meteorite,
which was found on the north coast of Melville Bay near Cape York,
Greenland, by Commander Robert E. Peary, in 1894, without attracting a
considerable amount of attention. It is the largest and heaviest
meteorite known, weighing over thirty-six tons. It possibly weighed more
up to the date of its fall, as the guide Tallakoteah, who enabled Peary
to discover the meteorite, informed him that up to the early part of the
nineteenth century, members of the Eskimo tribe had found it very useful
in providing them with material for knives and hatchets.
[Illustration:
STRATHMORE METEORITE, ESSENDY FRAGMENT
Photograph taken December 3, 1917, by H. Coates
]
There are really three masses, the largest already referred to being ten
feet eleven inches long, six feet nine inches high, and five feet two
inches thick. It was called Ahnighito after the name of the daughter of
the explorer. The next larger mass weighing about three tons was named
“The Woman,” because the shape suggested the idea of a woman seated on
the ground with a babe in her arms and a shawl around her shoulders. The
third and smallest mass weighing about 1,000 pounds, was called “The
Dog,” and the three meteorites were known as a group to the Eskimo under
the name of “Saviksue,” or “The Great Irons.”
The Woman and The Dog were visited by Peary in 1894, and were obtained
the following year after much difficulty and exciting work, an incident
of which was the breaking up of the cake of ice on which The Woman had
been ferried from the shore to the ship, just as the mass was about to
be hoisted aboard. Fortunately there was enough tackle around the
meteorite to prevent its loss. In 1895 Commander Peary visited
Ahnighito, which lay on an island only four miles from the two smaller
masses, but he could do little toward its removal. The next year he made
another voyage for the purpose of getting the Great Iron, but was again
unsuccessful. This third attempt was made in 1897, when the meteorite
was brought in safety to New York in the ship _Hope_.
In the Foyer collection is also the famous Willamette meteorite, which
weighs more than fifteen tons. Its height is over six feet, its width
four feet, and its length ten feet. It is one of the most interesting
meteoric fragments in the collection, though not the largest.
Nevertheless, its appearance tells a wondrous story of the experience it
must have had during its swift rush through the air. The deep hollows in
its surface were probably caused by friction with the particles
encountered during its swift flight through the atmosphere surrounding
our planet. This resulted in the melting of part of the metallic
substance of which it is composed, chemical analysis showing that it
contains an admixture of iron, nickel, a small amount of cobalt, and in
addition some phosphorus and sulphur. To give an idea of the depth of
the hollows, the curator of the Museum showed the writer a photograph of
two boys seated in two of the largest.
The Willamette was discovered in the autumn of 1902, in the forest about
nineteen miles south of Portland, by a Welsh miner named Ellis Hughes.
At first he thought he had discovered an iron mine, but on digging away
the earth surrounding it, he found that it was a meteorite.
The miner, who was well acquainted with the handling of such masses,
constructed a low wooden truck, on to which he managed to overturn the
fifteen-ton mass, and then, with no other motive power than an old horse
windlassing a rope round a capstan as a winch, which had to be moved and
reanchored as the truck with its load was drawn up to it, he and his
fifteen-year-old son, working so quietly during the winter that not even
the nearest neighbor suspected what they were doing, dragged the mass
three-quarters of a mile on to his own land.
Apparently this mass of iron was known before the discovery above
related, as an Indian relic, revered from time immemorial by the Siwash
Indians. When the Portland Land Company, who owned the land on which the
meteorite was found, instituted legal proceedings in the matter,
claiming the right of possession, the lawyer engaged by Ellis Hughes to
plead his cause was of the opinion that the meteorite was not “real
estate,” but “discarded personal property,” belonging to whoever might
find it. In support of this statement he called a very old Siwash Indian
as a witness, who testified that the mass of iron had long been known to
members of his tribe, who attributed to it magic virtue. As a youth, he
said, he had been conducted to it by one of the medicine-men, and
informed that if arrows were dipped in the water which collected in the
hollows they would always wing their way to the heart of the game shot
at. However, the judge ruled that the meteorite went with the land, and
an order was issued giving possession thereof to the Portland Land
Company. It was purchased later on by Mrs. William E. Dodge, and
presented to the Museum of Natural History in New York City.
Near the Willamette meteorite is one called the Canyon Diablo, famous
chiefly on account of the fact that it contains diamonds. It was found
in 1891, near Coon Butte, Arizona, in the neighborhood of the town of
Canyon Diablo. The original size of the mass is not known, but thousands
of fragments have been collected, varying in weight from a fraction of
an ounce up to 1,087 pounds. More than sixteen tons of this material are
said to have been found within a radius of two and a half miles of Coon
Butte, a conical hill rising from 130 to 160 feet above the surrounding
plain, and containing a crater-like hollow about three-quarters of a
mile in diameter and probably originally 1,460 feet deep. The appearance
of this region seems at first sight, to the casual visitor, far more
suggestive of a terrific explosion at a remote period of the past,
resulting in an upheaval causing the vast crater from which the
meteoritic-looking masses scattered over the surrounding plain had been
ejected, but Dr. Hovey is of the opinion that their presence has been
caused by the downfall of an immense meteorite from above. According to
his investigations of the scene, “there is no lava of any kind in Coon
Butte or in its immediate vicinity, such as is found in volcanic
regions.” He also asserts that the main part of the mass has not yet
been discovered, the fragments so far found being only the portions
separated from the original mass during its passage through the
atmosphere and at the time of its impact with the earth. There are two
fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite in the Foyer collection, and
the largest piece discovered is the one weighing 1,087 pounds, to which
reference has already been made. A slice of the meteorite, in which a
diamond was found, undoubtedly attracts the greatest amount of attention
from visitors to the museum. “Diamonds falling from the sky,” they have
been heard to remark, “then why not make a search for the missing
fragment which may be a depository of unknown wealth?” However, the
possibilities are that it has buried itself to such a depth in its crash
to earth, that a search for it would be a stupendous undertaking, with
possibly no results as far as diamonds are concerned.
The importance attached to the discovery of diamonds in the Canyon
Diablo meteorite hinges upon the well-known fact that the diamond is the
purest carbon in nature. Charcoal is almost pure carbon, and, as
everyone knows, common charcoal is the product of combustion, the
residue from the burning of a piece of woody tissue excluded from the
air. This is the everyday teaching of chemistry in the college
laboratory. According to Dr. Hovey, regarding the fact that the Canyon
Diablo meteorite contains diamonds, “This gem-stone diamond has been
definitely proved to occur in only two meteorites, the other being a
Russian fall, although many masses are known to contain carbon in the
form of a soft, black powder.” The discovery of diamonds in Canyon
Diablo was made in 1891, by Professor G. A. Koenig of Philadelphia, and
was afterward confirmed by Dr. George F. Kunz of New York, Professor
Moissau of Paris, and other investigators. In 1905, Moissau dissolved a
fragment of Canyon Diablo weighing several pounds, and obtained not only
recognizable crystals of the diamond, but also crystals of a mineral
corresponding exactly in composition to the extremely hard artificial
silicide of carbon known as carborundum. The new mineral has been named
Moissauite, and this is the first time that it has been found in nature.
Geology teaches us not only that charcoal and the mineral coals are
different forms of that wonderful element we call carbon, but also that
bituminous and anthracite coals are the transformed products of ancient
vegetation, through the combined agencies of heat, enormous pressure,
and the slow transmuting effect of ages. This talismanic element is ever
found associated in some form with organic substance, and organic
substance is life substance, animal as well as vegetable.
Hence comes the all-engrossing conclusion that wherever carbon exists
there organic matter exists or has existed; and, if organic matter, then
its essential companion life! Does the meteoric fragment Canyon Diablo,
which fell from the sky upon our planet, come from a world now or at one
time the abode of life? Seemingly, we have drifted back to the original
argument, Did life first come to this earth in a meteor? and we are no
nearer a solution of the problem unless—as some one facetiously
remarked, an enterprising individual inclosed a message within a meteor
ere it took its departure for our planet from some distant world. As
Flammarion says in his book on _The Plurality of Worlds_: “The problem
remains the same. We want to know how life first appeared, and this
problem has not been advanced in the slightest degree by the theory
adopted by Lord Kelvin and Arrhenius.” But, as already stated, no one
dreamed of taking the suggestion made by Lord Kelvin, seriously.
THE END
-----
Footnote 1:
Chambers’s _Story of the Comets_, pp. 211–212.
Footnote 2:
_Journal_ of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.
xxiii. Account of comets given by Mohammedan historians.
Footnote 3:
This disposes of the story according to which, when the reporter of a
Sydney newspaper asked the writer if she had discovered any comets,
she modestly replied, “Yes, a few.”
Footnote 4:
_Nature_, June 16, 1887.
Footnote 5:
See Flammarion’s _History of the Heavens_, p. 348.
Footnote 6:
_Monthly Notices_, R.A.S., vol. vii, p. 73, March, 1846.
Footnote 7:
See _Astronomische Nachrichten_, vol. 104, p. 129.
Footnote 8:
The camera with which the meteor was photographed by Dr. W. J. S.
Lockyer is placed specially for recording meteors. It is orientated to
the polar stars simply for the purpose of being able to identify the
stars to deduce the path of the meteor, should one be recorded.
Otherwise, no interest is attached to the polar star trails, as such.
Footnote 9:
In Rebièrés’ _Les Femmes dans la Science_ he writes as follows about
Madame Lepaute: “A little girl of six years when taunted one day by
her sister with the remark, ‘I am prettier than you,’ made the ready
rejoinder, ‘But I am wiser.’ The future career of Nicole Rêine Étable
de la Briére, afterwards wife of the famous clock-maker, Jean André
Lepaute, proved the truthfulness of her boast.”
Footnote 10:
Perihelion about February, 1986. The comet probably will be first seen
during the spring of 1965.
Footnote 11:
It is now thought that the temperature of such small bodies will never
have been high enough to call them suns. Eddington says a mass
one-eighth of that of the sun would be required for this.
Footnote 12:
Perturbations will make very great changes in the orbits. The
perihelion distance of Pons-Winnecke has increased twenty million
miles or more in the past sixty years.
Footnote 13:
Recent papers tend to the conclusion that the transformation from
giants to dwarfs is very slow. Jeans and Jeffreys both think that the
change in the sun in 1,000 million years has been slight.
Footnote 14:
On rare occasions meteors have fallen on houses, as in the case of the
Strathmore meteorite, photographed by H. Coates. He also took a
photograph of Outh Lodge, Keithick, on which the meteorite fell,
December 3, 1917. It made a hole in the roof of the house. The owners
thereof, Mr. and Mrs. Hill, are included in the photograph, which was
sent to the writer by Mr. W. E. Denning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Page Changed from Changed to
137 would approach the comet with would approach the planet with
retrograde retrograde
● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMANCE OF COMETS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
