Olbers, as already stated, originated in 1812 the view that the tails of comets are made up of particles subject to a force of electrical repulsion proceeding from the sun. It was developed and enforced by Bessel's discussion of the appearances presented by Halley's comet in 1835. He, moreover, provided a formula for computing the movement of a particle under the influence of a repulsive force of any given intensity, and thus laid firmly the foundation of a mathematical theory of cometary emanations. Professor W. A. Norton, of Yale College, considerably improved this by inquiries begun in 1844, and resumed on the apparition of Donati's comet; and Dr. C. F. Pape at Altona[1267] gave numerical values for the impulses outward from the sun, which must have actuated the materials respectively of the curved and straight tails adorning the same beautiful and surprising object.
The physical theory of repulsion, however, was, it might be said, still in the air. Nor did it even begin to assume consistency until Zöllner took it in hand in 1871.[1268] It is perfectly well ascertained that the energy of the push or pull produced by electricity depends (other things being the same) upon the surface of the body acted on; that of gravity upon its mass. The efficacy of solar electrical repulsion relatively to solar gravitational attraction grows, consequently, as the size of the particle diminishes. Make this small enough, and it[Pg 346] will virtually cease to gravitate, and will unconditionally obey the impulse to recession.
This principle Zöllner was the first to realise in its application to comets. It gives the key to their constitution. Admitting that the sun and they are similarly electrified, their more substantially aggregated parts will still follow the solicitations of his gravity, while the finely divided particles escaping from them will, simply by reason of their minuteness, fall under the sway of his repellent electric power. They will, in other words, form "tails." Nor is any extravagant assumption called for as to the intensity of the electrical charge concerned in producing these effects. Zöllner, in fact, showed[1269] that it need not be higher than that attributed by the best authorities to the terrestrial surface.
Forty years have elapsed since M. Brédikhine, director successively of the Moscow and of the Pulkowa Observatories, turned his attention to these curious phenomena. His persistent inquiries on the subject, however, date from the appearance of Coggia's comet in 1874. On computing the value of the repulsive force exerted in the formation of its tail, and comparing it with values of the same force arrived at by him in 1862 for some other conspicuous comets, it struck him that the numbers representing them fell into three well-defined classes. "I suspect," he wrote in 1877, "that comets are divisible into groups, for each of which the repulsive force is perhaps the same."[1270] This idea was confirmed on fuller investigation. In 1882 the appendages of thirty-six well-observed comets had been reconstructed theoretically, without a single exception being met with to the rule of the three types. A further study of forty comets led, in 1885, only to a modification of the numerical results previously arrived at.
In the first of these, the repellent energy of the sun is fourteen times stronger than his attractive energy;[1271] the particles forming the enormously long straight rays projected outward from this kind of comet leave the nucleus with a mean velocity of just seven kilometres per second, which, becoming constantly accelerated, carries them in a few days to the limit of visibility. The great comets of 1811, 1843, and 1861, that of 1744 (so far as its principal tail was concerned), and Halley's comet at its various apparitions, belonged to this class. Less narrow limits were assigned to the values of the repulsive force employed to produce the second type. For the axis of the tail, it exceeds by one-tenth (= 1·1) the power of solar[Pg 347] gravity; for the anterior edge, it is more than twice (2·2), for the posterior only half as strong. The corresponding initial velocity (for the axis) is 1,500 metres a second, and the resulting appendage a scimitar-like or plumy tail, such as Donati's and Coggia's comets furnished splendid examples of. Tails of the third type are constructed with forces of repulsion from the sun ranging from one-tenth to three-tenths that of his gravity, producing an accelerated movement of attenuated matter from the nucleus, beginning at the leisurely rate of 300 to 600 metres a second. They are short, strongly bent, brush-like emanations, and in bright comets seem to be only found in combination with tails of the higher classes. Multiple tails, indeed—that is, tails of different types emitted simultaneously by one comet—are perceived, as experience advances and observation becomes closer, to be rather the rule than the exception.[1272]
Now what is the meaning of these three types? Is any translation of them into physical fact possible? To this question Brédikhine supplied, in 1879, a plausible answer.[1273] It was already a current surmise that multiple tails are composed of different kinds of matter, differently acted on by the sun. Both Olbers and Bessel had suggested this explanation of the straight and curved emanations from the comet of 1807; Norton had applied it to the faint light tracks proceeding from that of Donati;[1274] Winnecke to the varying deviations of its more brilliant plumage. Brédikhine defined and ratified the conjecture. He undertook to determine (provisionally as yet) the several kinds of matter appropriated severally to the three classes of tails. These he found to be hydrogen for the first, hydro-carbons for the second, and iron for the third. The ground of this apportionment is that the atomic weights of these substances bear to each other the same inverse proportion as the repulsive forces employed in producing the appendages they are supposed to form; and Zöllner had pointed out in 1875 that the "heliofugal" power by which comets' tails are developed would, in fact, be effective just in that ratio.[1275] Hydrogen, as the lightest known element—that is, the least under the influence of gravity—was naturally selected as that which yielded most readily to the counter-persuasions of electricity. Hydro-carbons had been shown by the spectroscope to be present in comets, and were fitted by their specific weight, as compared with that of hydrogen, to form tails of the second type; while the atoms of iron were just heavy enough to compose those of the third, and, from the plentifulness of their presence in meteorites, might be presumed to enter, in no inconsiderable proportion, into the mass of comets.[Pg 348] These three substances, however, were by no means supposed to be the sole constituents of the appendages in question. On the contrary, the great breadth of what, for the present, were taken to be characteristically "iron" tails was attributed to the presence of many kinds of matter of high and slightly different specific weights;[1276] while the expanded plume of Donati was shown to be, in reality, a whole system of tails, made up of many substances, each spreading into a separate hollow cone, more or less deviating from, and partially superposed upon the others.
Yet these felicities of explanation must not make us forget that the chemical composition attributed to the first type of cometary trains has, so far, received no countenance from the spectroscope. The emission lines of free, incandescent hydrogen have never been derived from any part of these bodies. Dissentient opinions, accordingly, were expressed as to the cause of their structural peculiarities. Ranyard,[1277] Zenker, and others advocated the agency of heat repulsion in producing them; Kiaer somewhat obscurely explains them through the evolution of gases by colliding particles;[1278] Herz of Vienna concludes tails to be mere illusory appendages produced by electrical discharges through the rare medium assumed to fill space.[1279] But Hirn[1280] conclusively showed that no such medium could possibly exist without promptly bringing ruin upon our "dædal earth" and its revolving companions.
On the whole, modern researches tend to render superfluous the chemical diversities postulated by Brédikhine. Electricity alone seems competent to produce the varieties of cometary emanation they were designed to account for. The distinction of types rests on a solid basis of fact, but probably depends upon differences rather in the mode of action than in the kind of substance acted upon. Suggestive sketches of electrical and "light-pressure" theories of comets have been published respectively by Mr. Fessenden of Alleghany,[1281] and by M. Arrhenius at Stockholm.[1282] Although evidently of a tentative character, they possess great interest.
Brédikhine's hypothesis was promptly and profusely illustrated. Within three years of its promulgation, five bright comets made their appearance, each presenting some distinctive peculiarity by which knowledge of these curious objects was materially helped forward. The first of these is remembered as the "Great Southern[Pg 349] Comet." It was never visible in these latitudes, but made a short though stately progress through southern skies. Its earliest detection was at Cordoba on the last evening of January, 1880; and it was seen on February 1, as a luminous streak, extending just after sunset from the south-west horizon towards the pole, in New South Wales, at Monte Video, and the Cape of Good Hope. The head was lost in the solar rays until February 4, when Dr. Gould, then director of the National Observatory of the Argentine Republic at Cordoba, caught a glimpse of it very low in the west; and on the following evening, Mr. Eddie, at Graham's Town, discovered a faint nucleus, of a straw-coloured tinge, about the size of the annular nebula in Lyra. Its condensation, however, was very imperfect, and the whole apparition showed an exceedingly filmy texture. The tail was enormously long. On February 5 it extended—large perspective retrenchment notwithstanding—over an arc of 50°; but its brightness nowhere exceeded that of the Milky Way in Taurus. There was little curvature perceptible; the edges of the appendage ran parallel, forming a nebulous causeway from star to star; and the comparison to an auroral beam was appropriately used. The aspect of the famous comet of 1843 was forcibly recalled to the memory of Mr. Janisch, Governor of St. Helena; and the resemblance proved not merely superficial. But the comet of 1880 was less brilliant, and even more evanescent. After only eight days of visibility, it had faded so much as no longer to strike, though still discoverable by the unaided eye; and on February 20 it was invisible with the great Cordoba equatoreal pointed to its known place.
But the most astonishing circumstance connected with this body is the identity of its path with that of its predecessor in 1843. This is undeniable. Dr. Gould,[1283] Mr. Hind, and Dr. Copeland,[1284] each computed a separate set of elements from the first rough observations, and each was struck with an agreement between the two orbits so close as to render them virtually indistinguishable. "Can it be possible," Mr. Hind wrote to Sir George Airy, "that there is such a comet in the system, almost grazing the sun's surface in perihelion, and revolving in less than thirty-seven years. I confess I feel a difficulty in admitting it, notwithstanding the above extraordinary resemblance of orbits."[1285]
Mr. Hind's difficulty was shared by other astronomers. It would, indeed, be a violation of common-sense to suppose that a celestial visitant so striking in appearance had been for centuries back an unnoticed frequenter of our skies. Various expedients, accordingly, were resorted to for getting rid of the anomaly. The most promising[Pg 350] at first sight was that of the resisting medium. It was hard to believe that a body, largely vaporous, shooting past the sun at a distance of less than a hundred thousand miles from his surface, should have escaped powerful retardation. It must have passed through the very midst of the corona. It might easily have had an actual encounter with a prominence. Escape from such proximity might, indeed, very well have been judged beforehand to be impossible. Even admitting no other kind of opposition than that dubiously supposed to have affected Encke's comet, the result in shortening the period ought to be of the most marked kind. It was proved by Oppolzer[1286] that if the comet of 1843 had entered our system from stellar space with parabolic velocity it would, by the action of a medium such as Encke postulated (varying in density inversely as the square of the distance from the sun), have been brought down, by its first perihelion passage, to elliptic movement in a period of twenty-four years, with such rapid diminution that its next return would be in about ten. But such restricted observations as were available on either occasion of its visibility gave no sign of such a rapid progress towards engulfment.
Another form of the theory was advocated by Klinkerfues.[1287] He supposed that four returns of the same body had been witnessed within historical memory—the first in 371 b.c., the next in 1668, besides those of 1843 and 1880; an original period of 2,039 years being successively reduced by the withdrawal at each perihelion passage of 1/1320 of the velocity acquired by falling from the far extremity of its orbit towards the sun, to 175 and 37 years. A continuance of the process would bring the comet of 1880 back in 1897.
Unfortunately, the earliest of these apparitions cannot be identified with the recent ones unless by doing violence to the plain meaning of Aristotle's words in describing it. He states that the comet was first seen "during the frosts and in the clear skies of winter," setting due west nearly at the same time as the sun.[1288] This implies some considerable north latitude. But the objects lately observed had practically no north latitude. They accomplished their entire course above the ecliptic in two hours and a quarter, during which space they were barely separated a hand's-breadth (one might say) from the sun's surface. For the purposes of the desired assimilation, Aristotle's comet should have appeared in March. It is not credible, however, that even a native of Thrace should have termed March "winter."
With the comet of 1668 the case seemed more dubious. The circumstances of its appearance are barely reconcilable with the identity attributed to it, although too vaguely known to render certainty one way or the other attainable. It might however, be expected that recent observations would at least decide the questions whether the comet of 1843 could have returned in less than thirty-seven, and whether the comet of 1880 was to be looked for at the end of 17-1/2 years. But the truth is that both these objects were observed over so small an arc—8° and 3° respectively—that their periods remained virtually undetermined. For while the shape and position of their orbits could be and were fixed with a very close approach to accuracy, the length of those orbits might vary enormously without any very sensible difference being produced in the small part of the curves traced out near the sun. Dr. Wilhelm Meyer, however, arrived, by an elaborate discussion, at a period of thirty-seven years for the comet of 1880,[1289] while the observations of 1843 were admittedly best fitted by Hubbard's ellipse of 533 years; but these Dr. Meyer supposed to be affected by some constant source of error, such as would be produced by a mistaken estimate of the position of the comet's centre of gravity. He inferred finally that, in spite of previous non-appearances, the two comets represented a single regular denizen of our system, returning once in thirty-seven years along an orbit of such extreme eccentricity that its movement might be described as one of precipitation towards and rapid escape from the sun, rather than of sedate circulation round it.
The geometrical test of identity has hitherto been the only one which it was possible to apply to comets, and in the case before us it may fairly be said to have broken down. We may, then, tentatively, and with much hesitation, try a physical test, though scarcely yet, properly speaking, available. We have seen that the comets of 1843 and 1880 were strikingly alike in general appearance, though the absence of a formed nucleus in the latter, and its inferior brilliancy, detracted from the convincing effect of the resemblance. Nor was it maintained when tried by exact methods of inquiry. M. Brédikhine found that the gigantic ray emitted in 1843 belonged to his type No. 1; that of 1880 to type No. 2.[1290] The particles forming the one were actuated by a repulsive force ten times as powerful as those forming the other. It is true that a second noticeably curved tail was seen in Chili, March 1, and at Madras, March 11, 1843; and the conjecture was accordingly hazarded that the materials composing on that occasion the principal appendage having become exhausted, those of the secondary one remained predominant, and[Pg 352] reappeared alone in the "hydro-carbon" train of 1880. But the one known instance in point is against such a supposition. Halley's comet, the only great comet of which the returns have been securely authenticated and carefully observed, has preserved its "type" unchanged through many successive revolutions. The dilemma presented to astronomers by the Great Southern Comet of 1880 was unexpectedly renewed in the following year.
On the 22nd of May, 1881, Mr. John Tebbutt of Windsor, New South Wales, scanning the western sky, discerned a hazy-looking object which he felt sure was a strange one. A marine telescope at once resolved it into two small stars and a comet, the latter of which quickly attracted the keen attention of astronomers; for Dr. Gould, computing its orbit from his first observations at Cordoba, found it to agree so closely with that arrived at by Bessel for the comet of 1807 that he telegraphed to Europe, June 1, announcing the unexpected return of that body. So unexpected that theoretically it was not possible before the year 3346; and Bessel's investigation was one which inspired and eminently deserved confidence. Here, then, once more the perplexing choice had to be made between a premature and unaccountable reappearance and the admission of a plurality of comets moving nearly in the same path. But in this case facts proved decisive.
Tebbutt's comet passed the sun, June 16, at a distance of sixty-eight millions of miles, and became visible in Europe six days later. It was, in the opinion of some, the finest object of the kind since 1861. In traversing the constellation Auriga on its début in these latitudes, it outshone Capella. On June 24 and some subsequent nights, it was unmatched in brilliancy by any star in the heavens. In the telescope, the "two interlacing arcs of light" which had adorned the head of Coggia's comet were reproduced; while a curious dorsal spine of strong illumination formed the axis of the tail, which extended in clear skies over an arc of 20°. It belonged to the same "type" as Donati's great plume; the particles composing it being driven from the sun by a force twice as powerful as that urging them towards it.[1291] But the appendage was, for a few nights, and by two observers perceived to be double. Tempel, on June 27, and Lewis Boss, at Albany (N.Y.), June 26 and 28, saw a long straight ray corresponding to a far higher rate of emission than the curved train, and shown by Brédikhine to be a member of the (so-called) hydrogen class. It had vanished by July 1, but made a temporary reappearance July 22.[1292]
The appendages of this comet were of remarkable transparency. [Pg 353] Small stars shone wholly undimmed across the tail, and a very nearly central transit of the head over one of the seventh magnitude on the night of June 29, produced—if any change—an increase of brilliancy in the object of this spontaneous experiment.[1293] Dr. Meyer, indeed, at the Geneva Observatory, detected apparent signs of refractive action upon rays thus transmitted;[1294] but his observations remain isolated, and were presumably illusory.
The track pursued by this comet gave peculiar advantages for its observation. Ascending from Auriga through Camelopardus, it stood, July 19, on a line between the Pointers and the Pole, within 8° of the latter, and thus remained for a lengthened period constantly above the horizon of northern observers. Its brightness, too, was no transient blaze, but had a lasting quality which enabled it to be kept steadily in view during nearly nine months. Visible to the naked eye until the end of August, the last telescopic observation of it was made February 14, 1882, when its distance from the earth considerably exceeded 300 million miles. Under these circumstances, the knowledge acquired of its orbit was of more than usual accuracy, and showed conclusively that the comet was not a simple return of Bessel's; for this would involve a period of seventy-four years, whereas Tebbutt's comet cannot revisit the sun until after the lapse of two and a half millenniums.[1295] Nevertheless, the twin bodies move so nearly in the same path that an original connection of some kind is obvious; and the recent example of Biela readily suggested a conjecture as to what the nature of that connection might have been. The comets of 1807 and 1881 are, then, regarded with much probability as fragments of a primitive disrupted body, one following in the wake of the other at an interval of seventy-four years.
Imperfect photographs were taken of Donati's comet both in England and America;[1296] but Tebbutt's comet was the first to which the process was satisfactorily applied. The difficulties to be overcome were very great. The chemical intensity of cometary light is, to begin with, extraordinarily small. Janssen estimated it at 1/300000 of moonlight.[1297] Hence, if the ordinary process by which lunar photographs are taken had been applied to the comet of 1881, an exposure of at least three days would have been required in order to get an impression of the head with about a tenth part of the tail. But[Pg 354] by that time a new method of vastly increased sensitiveness had been rendered available, by which dry gelatine-plates were substituted for the wet collodion-plates hitherto in use; and this improvement alone reduced the necessary time of exposure to two hours. It was brought down to half an hour by Janssen's employment of a reflector specially adapted to give an image illuminated eight or ten times as strongly as that produced in the focus of an ordinary telescope.[1298]
The photographic feebleness of cometary rays was not the only obstacle in the way of success. The proper motion of these bodies is so rapid as to render the usual devices for keeping a heavenly body steadily in view quite inapplicable. The machinery by which the diurnal movement of the sphere is followed, must be especially modified to suit each eccentric career. This, too, was done, and on June 30, 1881, Janssen secured a perfect photograph of the brilliant object then visible, showing the structure of the tail with beautiful distinctness to a distance of 2-1/2° from the head. An impression to nearly 10° was obtained about the same time by Dr. Henry Draper at New York, with an exposure of 162 minutes.[1299]
Tebbutt's (or comet 1881 iii.) was also the first comet of which the spectrum was so much as attempted to be chemically recorded. Both Huggins and Draper were successful in this respect, but Huggins was more completely so.[1300] The importance of the feat consisted in its throwing open to investigation a part of the spectrum invisible to the eye, and so affording an additional test of cometary constitution. The result was fully to confirm the origin from carbon-compounds assigned to the visible rays, by disclosing additional bands belonging to the same series in the ultra-violet; as well as to establish unmistakably the presence of a not inconsiderable proportion of reflected solar light by the clear impression of some of the principal Fraunhofer lines. Thus the polariscope was found to have told the truth, though not the whole truth.
The photograph so satisfactorily communicative was taken by Sir William Huggins on the night of June 24; and on the 29th, at Greenwich, the tell-tale Fraunhofer lines were perceived to interrupt the visible range of the spectrum. This was at first so vividly continuous, that the characteristic cometary bands could scarcely be detached from their bright background. But as the nucleus faded towards the end of June, they came out strongly, and were more and more clearly seen, both at Greenwich and at Princeton, to agree, not with the spectrum of hydro-carbons glowing in a vacuum tube, but with that of the same substances burning in a Bunsen flame.[Pg 355][1301] It need not, however, be inferred that cometary materials are really in a state of combustion. This, from all that we know, may be called an impossibility. The additional clue furnished was rather to the manner of their electrical illumination.[1302]
The spectrum of the tail was, in this comet, found to be not essentially different from that of the head. Professor Wright of Yale College ascertained a large percentage of its light to be polarized in a plane passing through the sun, and hence to be reflected sunlight.[1303] A faint continuous spectrum corresponded to this portion of its radiance; but gaseous emissions were also present. At Potsdam, on June 30, the hydro-carbon bands were indeed traced by Vogel to the very end of the tail;[1304] and they were kept in sight by Young at a greater distance from the nucleus than the more equably dispersed light. There seems little doubt that, as in the solar corona, the relative strength of the two orders of spectra is subject to fluctuations.
The comet of 1881 iii. was thus of signal service to science. It afforded, when compared with the comet of 1807, the first undeniable example of two such bodies travelling so nearly in the same orbit as to leave absolutely no doubt of the existence of a genetic tie between them. Cometary photography came to its earliest fruition with it; and cometary spectroscopy made a notable advance by means of it. Before it was yet out of sight, it was provided with a successor.
At Ann Arbor Observatory, Michigan, on July 14, a comet was discovered by Dr. Schaeberle, which, as his claim to priority is undisputed, is often allowed to bear his name, although designated, in strict scientific parlance, comet 1881 iv. It was observed in Europe after three days, became just discernible by the naked eye at the end of July, and brightened consistently up to its perihelion passage, August 22, when it was still about fifty million miles from the sun. During many days of that month, the uncommon spectacle was presented of two bright comets circling together, though at widely different distances, round the North pole of the heavens. The newcomer, however, never approached the pristine lustre of its predecessor. Its nucleus, when brightest, was comparable to the star Cor Caroli, a narrow, perfectly straight ray proceeding from it to a distance of 10°. This was easily shown by Brédikhine to belong to the hydrogen type of tails;[1305] while a "strange, faint second tail, or bifurcation of the first one," observed by Captain Noble, August 24,[1306] fell into the hydro-carbon class of emanations. It was seen, August 22 and 24, by Dr. F. Terby of Louvain,[1307] as a short nebulous brush,[Pg 356] like the abortive beginning of a congeries of curving trains; but appeared no more. Its well-attested presence was significant of the complex constitution of such bodies, and the manifold kinds of action progressing in them.
The only peculiarity in the spectrum of Schaeberle's comet consisted in the almost total absence of continuous light. The carbon-bands were nearly isolated and very bright. Barely from the nucleus proceeded a rainbow-tinted streak, indicative of solid or liquid matter, which, in this comet, must have been of very scanty amount. Its visit to the sun in 1881 was, so far as is known, the first. The elements of its orbit showed no resemblance to those of any previous comet, nor any marked signs of periodicity. So that, although it may be considered probable, we do not know that it is moving in a closed curve, or will ever again penetrate the precincts of the solar system. It was last seen from the southern hemisphere, October 19, 1881.
The third of a quartette of lucid comets visible within sixteen months, was discovered by Mr. C. S. Wells at the Dudley Observatory, Albany, March 17, 1882. Two days later it was described by Mr. Lewis Boss as "a great comet in miniature," so well defined and regularly developed were its various parts and appendages. Discernible with optical aid early in May, it was on June 5 observed on the meridian at Albany just before noon—an astronomical event of extreme rarity. Comet Wells, however, never became an object so conspicuous as to attract general attention, owing to its immersion in the evening twilight of our northern June.
But the study of its spectrum revealed new facts of the utmost interest. All the comets till then examined had been found (with the two transiently observed exceptions already mentioned) to conform to one invariable type of luminous emission. Individual distinctions there had been, but no specific differences. Now all these bodies had kept at a respectful distance from the sun; for of the great comet of 1880 no spectroscopic inquiries had been made. Comet Wells, on the other hand, approached its surface within little more than five million miles on June 10, 1882; and the vicinity had the effect of developing a novel feature in its incandescence.
During the first half of April its spectrum was of the normal type, though the carbon bands were unusually weak; but with approach to the sun they died out, and the entire light seemed to become concentrated into a narrow, unbroken, brilliant streak, hardly to be distinguished from the spectrum of a star. This unusual behaviour excited attention, and a strict watch was kept. It was rewarded at the Dunecht Observatory, May 27, by the discernment of what had never before been seen in a comet—the[Pg 357] yellow ray of sodium.[1308] By June 1, this had kindled into a blaze overpowering all other emissions. The light of the comet was practically monochromatic; and the image of the entire head, with the root of the tail, could be observed, like a solar prominence, depicted, in its new saffron vesture of vivid illumination, within the jaws of an open slit.
At Potsdam, the bright yellow line was perceived with astonishment by Vogel on May 31, and was next evening identified with Fraunhofer's "D." Its character led him to infer a very considerable density in the glowing vapour emitting it.[1309] Hasselberg founded an additional argument in favour of the electrical origin of cometary light on the changes in the spectrum of comet Wells.[1310] For they were closely paralleled by some earlier experiments of Wiedemann, in which the gaseous spectra of vacuum tubes were at once effaced on the introduction of metallic vapours. It seemed as if the metal had no sooner been rendered volatile by heat, than it usurped the entire office of carrying the discharge, the resulting light being thus exclusively of its production. Had simple incandescence by heat been in question, the effect would have been different; the two spectra would have been superposed without prejudice to either. Similarly, the replacement of the hydro-carbon bands in the spectrum of the comet by the sodium line proved electricity to be the exciting agent. For the increasing thermal power of the sun might, indeed, have ignited the sodium, but it could not have extinguished the hydro-carbons.
Sir William Huggins succeeded in photographing the spectrum of comet Wells by an exposure of one hour and a quarter.[1311] The result was to confirm the novelty of its character. None of the ultra-violet carbon groups were apparent; but certain bright rays, as yet unidentified, had imprinted themselves. Otherwise the spectrum was strongly continuous, uninterrupted even by the Fraunhofer lines detected in the spectrum of Tebbutt's comet. Hence it was concluded that a smaller proportion of reflected light was mingled with the native emissions of the later arrival.
All that is certainly known about the extent of the orbit traversed by the first comet of 1882 is that it came from, and is now retreating towards, vastly remote depths of space. An American computer[1312] found a period indicated for it of no less than 400,000 years; A. Thraen of Dingelstädt arrived at one of 3617.[1313] Both are perhaps equally insecure.
We have now to give some brief account of one of the most remarkable cometary apparitions on record, and—with the single exception of that identified with the name of Halley—the most instructive to astronomers. The lessons learned from it were as varied and significant as its aspect was splendid; although from the circumstance of its being visible in general only before sunrise, the spectators of its splendour were comparatively few.
The discovery of a great comet at Rio Janeiro, September 11, 1882, became known in Europe through a telegram from M. Cruls, director of the observatory at that place. It had, however (as appeared subsequently), been already seen on the 8th by Mr. Finlay of the Cape Observatory, and at Auckland as early as September 3. A later, but very singularly conditioned detection, quite unconnected with any of the preceding, was effected by Dr. Common at Ealing. Since the eclipse of May 17, when a comet—named "Tewfik" in honour of the Khedive of Egypt—was caught on Dr. Schuster's photographs, entangled, one might almost say, in the outer rays of the corona, he had scrutinized the neighbourhood of the sun on the infinitesimal chance of intercepting another such body on its rapid journey thence or thither. We record with wonder that, after an interval of exactly four months, that infinitesimal chance turned up in his favour.
On the forenoon of Sunday, September 17, he saw a great comet close to, and rapidly approaching the sun. It was, in fact, then within a few hours of perihelion. Some measures of position were promptly taken; but a cloud-veil covered the interesting spectacle before mid-day was long past. Mr. Finlay at the Cape was more completely fortunate. Divided from his fellow-observer by half the world, he unconsciously finished, under a clearer sky, his interrupted observation. The comet, of which the silvery radiance contrasted strikingly with the reddish-yellow glare of the sun's margin it drew near to, was followed "continuously right into the boiling of the limb"—a circumstance without precedent in cometary history.[1314] Dr. Elkin, who watched the progress of the event with another instrument, thought the intrinsic brilliancy of the nucleus scarcely surpassed by that of the sun's surface. Nevertheless it had no sooner touched it than it vanished as if annihilated. So sudden was the disappearance (at 4h. 50m. 58s., Cape mean time), that the comet was at first believed to have passed behind the sun. But this proved not to have been the case. The observers at the Cape had witnessed a genuine transit. Nor could non-visibility be explained PLATE III.
The Great Comet of September, 1882.
Photographed at the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope
by equality of lustre. For the gradations of light on the sun's disc are amply sufficient to bring out against the dusky background of the limb any object matching the brilliancy of the centre; while an object just equally luminous with the limb must inevitably show dark at the centre. The only admissible view, then, is that the bulk of the comet was of too filmy a texture, and its presumably solid nucleus too small, to intercept any noticeable part of the solar rays—a piece of information worth remembering.
On the following morning, the object of this unique observation showed (in Sir David Gill's words) "an astonishing brilliancy as it rose behind the mountains on the east of Table Bay, and seemed in no way diminished in brightness when the sun rose a few minutes afterward. It was only necessary to shade the eye from direct sunlight with the hand at arm's length, to see the comet, with its brilliant white nucleus and dense white, sharply bordered tail of quite half a degree in length."[1315] All over the world, wherever the sky was clear during that day, September 18, it was obvious to ordinary vision. Since 1843 nothing had been seen like it. From Spain, Italy, Algeria, Southern France, despatches came in announcing the extraordinary appearance. At Cordoba, in South America, the "blazing star near the sun" was the one topic of discourse.[1316] Moreover—and this is altogether extraordinary—the records of its daylight visibility to the naked eye extend over three days. At Reus, near Tarragona, it showed bright enough to be seen through a passing cloud when only three of the sun's diameters from his limb, just before its final rush past perihelion on September 17; while at Carthagena in Spain, on September 19, it was kept in view during two hours before and two hours after noon, and was similarly visible in Algeria on the same day.[1317]
But still more surprising than the appearance of the body itself were the nature and relations of the path it moved in. The first rough elements computed for it by Mr. Tebbutt, Dr. Chandler, and Mr. White, assistant at the Melbourne Observatory, showed at once a striking resemblance to those of the twin comets of 1843 and 1880. This suggestive fact became known in this country, September 27, through the medium of a Dunecht circular. It was fully confirmed by subsequent inquiries, for which ample opportunities were luckily provided. The likeness was not, indeed, so absolutely perfect as in the previous case; it included some slight, though real differences; but it bore a strong and unmistakable stamp, broadly challenging explanation.
Two hypotheses only were really available. Either the comet of[Pg 360] 1882 was an accelerated return of those of 1843 and 1880, or it was a fragment of an original mass to which they also had belonged. For the purposes of the first view the "resisting medium" was brought into full play; the opinion of its efficacy was for some time both prevalent and popular, and formed the basis, moreover, of something of a sensational panic. For a comet which, at a single passage through the sun's atmosphere, encountered sufficient resistance to shorten its period from thirty-seven to two years and eight months, must, in the immediate future, be brought to rest on his surface; and the solar conflagration thence ensuing was represented in some quarters, with more licence of imagination than countenance from science, as likely to be of catastrophic import to the inhabitants of our little planet.
But there was a test available in 1882 which it had not been possible to apply either in 1843 or in 1880. The two bodies visible in those years had been observed only after they had already passed perihelion;[1318] the third member of the group, on the other hand, was accurately followed for a week before that event, as well as during many months after it. Finlay's and Elkin's observation of its disappearance at the sun's edge formed, besides, a peculiarly delicate test of its motion. The opportunity was thus afforded, by directly comparing the comet's velocity before and after its critical plunge through the solar surroundings, of ascertaining with approximate certainty whether any considerable retardation had been experienced in the course of that plunge. The answer distinctly given was that there had not. The computed and observed places on both sides of the sun fitted harmoniously together. The effect, if any were produced, was too small to be perceptible.
This result is, in itself, a memorable one. It seems to give the coup de grâce to Encke's theory—discredited, in addition, by Backlund's investigation—of a resisting medium growing rapidly denser inwards. For the perihelion distance of the comet of 1882, though somewhat greater than that of its predecessors, was nevertheless extremely small. It passed at less than 300,000 miles of the sun's surface. But the ethereal substance long supposed to obstruct the movement of Encke's comet would there be nearly 2,000 times denser than at the perihelion of the smaller body, and must have exerted a conspicuous retarding influence. That none such could be detected seems to argue that no such medium exists.
Further evidence of a decisive kind was not wanting on the question of identity. The "Great September Comet" of 1882 was in no hurry to withdraw itself from curious terrestrial scrutiny. It[Pg 361] was discerned with the naked eye at Cordoba as late as March 7, 1883, and still showed in the field of the great equatoreal on June 1 as an "excessively faint whiteness."[1319] It was then about 480 millions of miles from the earth—a distance to which no other comet—not even excepting the peculiar one of 1729—had been pursued.[1320] Moreover, an arc of 340 out of the entire 360 degrees of its circuit had been described under the eyes of astronomers; so that its course came to be very well known. That its movement is in a very eccentric ellipse, traversed in several hundred years, was ascertained.[1321] The later inquiries of Dr. Kreutz,[1322] completed in a volume published in 1901,[1323] demonstrated the period to be of about 800 years, while that of its predecessor in 1843 might possibly agree with it, but is much more probably estimated at 512 years. The hypothesis that they, or any of the comets associated with them, were returns of an individual body is peremptorily excluded. They may all, however, have been separated from one original mass by the divellent action of the sun at close quarters. Each has doubtless its own period, since each has most likely suffered retardations or accelerations special to itself, which, though trifling in amount, would avail materially to alter the length of the major axis, while leaving the remaining elements of the common orbit virtually unchanged.[1324]
A fifth member was added to the family in 1887. On the 18th of January in that year, M. Thome discovered at Cordoba a comet reproducing with curious fidelity the lineaments of that observed in the same latitudes seven years previously. The narrow ribbon of light, contracting towards the sun, and running outward from it to a distance of thirty-five degrees; the unsubstantial head—a veiled nothingness, as it appeared, since no distinct nucleus could be made out; the quick fading into invisibility, were all accordant peculiarities, and they were confirmed by some rough calculations of its orbit, showing geometrical affinity to be no less unmistakable than physical likeness. The observations secured were indeed, from the nature of the apparition, neither numerous nor over-reliable; and the earliest of them dated from a week after perihelion, passed, almost by a touch-and-go escape, January 11. On January 27, this mysterious object could barely be discerned telescopically at Cordoba.[1325] That it belonged to the series of "southern comets" can scarcely be[Pg 362] doubted; but the inference that it was an actual return of the comet of 1880, improbable in itself, was negatived by its non-appearance in 1894. Meyer's incorporation with this extraordinary group of the "eclipse-comet" of 1882[1326] has been approved by Kreutz, after searching examination.
The idea of cometary systems was first suggested by Thomas Clausen in 1831.[1327] It was developed by the late M. Hoek, director of the Utrecht Observatory, in 1865 and some following years.[1328] He found that in quite a considerable number of cases, the paths of two or three comets had a common point of intersection far out in space, indicating with much likelihood a community of origin. This consisted, according to his surmise, in the disruption of a parent mass during its sweep round the star latest visited. Be this as it may, the fact is undoubted that numerous comets fall into groups, in which similar conditions of motion betray a pre-existent physical connection. Never before, however, had geometrical relationship been so notorious as between the comets now under consideration; and never before, in a comet still, it might be said, in the prime of life, had physical peculiarities tending to account for that affinity been so obvious as in the chief member of the group.
Observation of a granular structure in cometary nuclei dates far back into the seventeenth century, when Cysatus and Hevelius described the central parts of the comets of 1618 and 1652 respectively as made up of a congeries of minute stars. Analogous symptoms of a loose state of aggregation have of late been not unfrequently detected in telescopic comets, besides the instances of actual division offered by those connected with the names of Biela and Liais. The forces concerned in producing these effects seem to have been peculiarly energetic in the great comet of 1882.
The segmentation of the nucleus was first noticed in the United States and at the Cape of Good Hope, September 30. It proceeded rapidly. At Kiel, on October 5 and 7, Professor Krüger perceived two centres of condensation. A definite and progressive separation into three masses was observed by Professor Holden, October 13 and 17.[1329] A few days later, M. Tempel found the head to consist of four lucid aggregations, ranged nearly along the prolongation of the caudal axis;[1330] and Dr. Common, January 27, 1883, saw five nuclei in a line "like pearls on a string."[1331] This remarkable character was preserved to the last moment of the comet's distinct visibility. It[Pg 363] was a consequence, according to Dr. Kreutz, of violent interior action in the comet itself While close to the sun.
There were, however, other curious proofs of a disaggregative tendency in this body. On October 9, Schmidt discovered at Athens a nebulous object 4° south-west of the great comet, and travelling in the same direction. It remained visible for a few days, and, from Oppenheim's and Hind's calculations, there can be little doubt that it was really the offspring by fission of the body it accompanied.[1332] This is rendered more probable by the unexampled spectacle offered, October 14, to Professor Barnard, then of Nashville, Tennessee, of six or eight distinct cometary masses within 6° south by west of the comet's head, none of which reappeared on the next opportunity for a search.[1333] A week later, however, one similar object was discerned by Mr. W. R. Brooks, in the opposite direction from the comet. Thus space appeared to be strewn with the filmy débris of this beautiful but fragile structure all along the track of its retreat from the sun.
Its tail was only equalled (if it were equalled) in length by that of the comet of 1843. It extended in space to the vast distance of 200 millions of miles from the head; but, so imperfectly were its proportions displayed to terrestrial observers, that it at no time covered an arc of the sky of more than 30°. This apparent extent was attained, during a few days previous to September 25, by a faint, thin, rigid streak, noticed only by a few observers—by Elkin at the Cape Observatory, Eddie at Grahamstown, and Cruls at Rio Janeiro. It diverged at a low angle from the denser curved train, and was produced, according to Brédikhine,[1334] by the action of a repulsive force twelve times as strong as the counter-pull of gravity. It belonged, that is, to type 1; while the great bifurcate appendage, obvious to all eyes, corresponded to the lower rate of emission characteristic of type 2. This was remarkable for the perfect definiteness of its termination, for its strongly-forked shape, and for its unusual permanence. Down to the end of January, 1883, its length, according to Schmidt's observations, was still 93 million miles; and a week later it remained visible to the naked eye, without notable abridgment.
Most singular of all was an anomalous extension of the appendage towards the sun. During the greater part of October and November, a luminous "tube" or "sheath," of prodigious dimensions, seemed to surround the head, and project in a direction nearly opposite to that of the usual outpourings of attentuated matter. (See Plate III.) Its diameter was computed by Schmidt to be, October 15, no less[Pg 364] than four million miles, and it was described by Cruls as a "truncated cone of nebulosity," stretching 3° or 4° sunwards.[1335] This, and the entire anterior part of the comet, were again surrounded by a thin, but enormously voluminous paraboloidal envelope, observed by Schiaparelli for a full month from October 19.[1336] There can be little doubt that these abnormal effluxes were a consequence of the tremendous physical disturbance suffered at perihelion; and it is worth remembering that something analogous was observed in the comet of 1680 (Newton's), also noted for its excessively close approach to the sun, and possibly moving in a related orbit. The only plausible hypothesis as to the mode of their production is that of an opposite state of electrification in the particles composing the ordinary and extraordinary appendages.
The spectrum of the great comet of 1882 was, in part, a repetition of that of its immediate predecessor, thus confirming the inference that the previously unexampled sodium-blaze was in both a direct result of the intense solar action to which they were exposed. But the D line was, this time, not seen alone. At Dunecht, on the morning of September 18, Drs. Copeland and J. G. Lohse succeeded in identifying six brilliant rays in the green and yellow with as many prominent iron-lines;[1337] a very significant addition to our knowledge of cometary constitution, and one which lent countenance to Brédikhine's assumption of various kinds of matter issuing from the nucleus with velocities inversely as their atomic weights. All the lines equally showed a slight displacement, indicating a recession from the earth of the radiating body at the rate of 37 to 46 miles a second. A similar observation, made by M. Thollon at Nice on the same day, gave emphatic sanction to the spectroscopic method of estimating movement in the line of sight. Before anything was as yet known of the comet's path or velocity, he announced, from the position of the double sodium-line alone, that at 3 p.m. on September 18 it was increasing its distance from our planet by from 61 to 76 kilometres per second.[1338] M. Bigourdan's subsequent calculations showed that its actual swiftness of recession was at that moment 73 kilometres.
Changes in the inverse order to those seen in the spectrum of comet Wells soon became apparent. In the earlier body, carbon bands had died out with approach to perihelion, and had been replaced by sodium emissions; in its successor, sodium emissions became weakened and disappeared with retreat from perihelion, and found their substitute in carbon bands. Professor Riccò was, in fact, able to infer, from the sequence of prismatic phenomena,[Pg 365] that the comet had already passed the sun; thus establishing a novel criterion for determining the position of a comet in its orbit by the varying quality of its radiations.
Recapitulating what was learnt from the five conspicuous comets of 1880-82, we find that the leading facts acquired to science were these three. First, that comets may be met with pursuing each other, after intervals of many years, in the same, or nearly the same, track; so that identity of orbit can no longer be regarded as a sure test of individual identity. Secondly, that at least the outer corona may be traversed by such bodies with perfect apparent impunity. Finally, that their chemical constitution is highly complex, and that they possess, in some cases at least, a metallic core resembling the meteoric masses which occasionally reach the earth from planetary space.
A group of five comets, including Halley's, own a sort of cliental dependence upon the planet Neptune. They travel out from the sun just to about his distance from it, as if to pay homage to a powerful protector, who gets the credit of their establishment as periodical visitors to the solar system. The second of these bodies to affect a looked-for return was a comet—the sixteenth within ten years—discovered by Pons, July 20, 1812, and found by Encke to revolve in an elliptic orbit, with a period of nearly 71 years. It was not, however, until September 1, 1883, that Mr. Brooks caught its reappearance; it passed perihelion January 25, and was last seen June 2, 1884. At its brightest, it had the appearance of a second magnitude star, furnished with a poorly developed double tail, and was fairly conspicuous to the naked eye in Southern Europe, from December to March. One exceptional feature distinguished it. Its fluctuations in form and luminosity were unprecedented in rapidity and extent. On September 21, Dr. Chandler[1339] observed it at Harvard as a very faint, diffused nebulosity, with slight central condensation. On the next night, there was found in its place a bright star of the eighth magnitude, scarcely marked out, by a bare trace of environing haze, from the genuine stars it counterfeited. The change was attended by an eight-fold augmentation of light, and was proved by Schiaparelli's confirmatory observations[1340] to have been accomplished within a few hours. The stellar disguise was quickly cast aside. The comet appeared on September 23 as a wide nebulous disc, and soon after faded down to its original dimness. Its distance from the sun was then no less than 200 million miles, and its spectrum showed nothing unusual. These strange variations recurred slightly on October 15, and with marked emphasis on January 1, when they were witnessed with amazement,[Pg 366] and photometrically studied by Müller of Potsdam.[1341] The entire cycle this time was run through in less than four hours—the comet having, in that brief space, condensed, with a vivid outburst of light, into a seeming star, and the seeming star having expanded back again into a comet. Scarcely less transient, though not altogether similar, changes of aspect were noted by M. Perrotin,[1342] January 13 and 19, 1884. On the latter date, the continuous spectrum given by a reddish-yellow disc surrounding the true nucleus seemed intensified by bright knots corresponding to the rays of sodium.
A comet discovered by Mr. Sawerthal at the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope, February 19, 1888, distinguished itself by blazing up, on May 19, to four or five times its normal brilliancy, at the same time throwing out from the head two lustrous lateral branches.[1343] These had, on June 1, spread backward so as to join the tail, with an effect like the playing of a fountain; ten or eleven days later, they had completely disappeared, leaving the comet in its former shape and insignificance. Its abrupt display of vitality occurred two full months after perihelion.
On the morning of July 7, 1889, Mr. W. R. Brooks, of Geneva, New York, eminent as a successful comet-hunter, secured one of his customary trophies. The faint object in question was moving through the constellation Cetus, and turned out to be a member of Jupiter's numerous family of comets, revolving round the sun in a period of seven years. Its past history came then, to a certain extent, within the scope of investigation, and proved to have been singularly eventful; nor had the body escaped scatheless from the vicissitudes to which it had been exposed. Observing from Mount Hamilton, August 2 and 5, Professor Barnard noticed this comet (1889, v.) to be attended in its progress through space by four outriders, "The two brighter companions" (the fainter pair survived a very short time) "were perfect miniatures," Professor Barnard tells us,[1344] "of the larger comet, each having a small, fairly defined head and nucleus, with a faint, hazy tail, the more distant one being the larger and less developed. The three comets were in a straight line, nearly east and west, their tails lying along this line. There was no connecting nebulosity between these objects, the tails of the two smaller not reaching each other, or the large comet. To all appearance they were absolutely independent comets." Nevertheless, Spitaler, at Vienna,[Pg 367] in the early days of August, perceived, as it were, a thin cocoon of nebulosity woven round the entire trio.[1345] One of them faded from view September 5; the other actually outshone the original comet on August 31, but was plainly of inferior vitality. It was last seen by Barnard on November 25, with the thirty-six inch refractor, while its primary afforded an observation for position with the twelve-inch, March 20, 1890.[1346] A cause for the disruption it had presumably undergone had, before then, been plausibly assigned.
The adventures of Lexell's comet have long served to exemplify the effects of Jupiter's despotic sway over such bodies. Although bright enough in 1770 to be seen with the naked eye, and ascertained to be circulating in five and a half years, it had never previously been seen, and failed subsequently to present itself. The explanation of this anomaly, suggested by Lexell, and fully confirmed by the analytical inquiries both of Laplace and Leverrier,[1347] was that a very close approach to Jupiter in 1767 had completely changed the character of its orbit, and brought it within the range of terrestrial observation; while in 1779, after having only twice traversed its new path (at its second return it was so circumstanced as to be invisible from the earth), it was, by a fresh encounter, diverted into one entirely different. Yet the possibility was not lost sight of that the great planet, by inverting its mode of action, might undo its own work, and fling the comet once more into the inner part of the solar system. This possibility seemed to be realized by Chandler's identification of Brooks's and Lexell's comet.[1348] An exceedingly close approach to Jupiter in 1886 had, he found reason to believe, produced such extensive alterations in the elements of its motion as to bring the errant body back to our neighbourhood in 1889. But his inference, though ratified by Mr. Charles Lane Poor's preliminary calculations, proved dubious on closer inquiry, and was rendered wholly inadmissible by the circumstances attending the return of Brooks's comet in 1896.[1349] The companion-objects watched by Barnard in 1889 had by that time, perhaps, become dissipated in space, for they were not redetected. They represented, in all likelihood, wreckage from a collision with Jupiter, dating, perhaps, so far back as 1791, when Mr. Lane Poor found that one of the fateful meetings to which short-period comets are especially subject had taken place.
The Lexell-Brooks case was almost duplicated by the resemblance to De Vico's lost comet of 1844[1350] of one detected November 20, 1894,[Pg 368] by Edward, son of Lewis Swift. Schulhof[1351] announced the identity, and Chandler,[1352] under reserve, vouched for it. Had the comet continued to pursue the track laboriously laid down for it at Boston, and shown itself at the due epoch in 1900, its individuality might have been considered assured; but the formidable vicegerent of the sun once more interposed, and, in 1897, swept it out of the terrestrial range of view. Hence the recognition remains ambiguous.
On the morning of March 7, 1892, Professor Lewis Swift discovered the brightest comet that had been seen by northern observers since 1882. About the time of perihelion, which occurred on April 6, it was conspicuous, as it crossed the celestial equator from Aquarius towards Pegasus, with a nucleus equal to a third magnitude star, and a tail twenty degrees long. This tail was multiple, and multiple in a most curiously variable manner. It divided up into many thin nebulous streaks, the number and relative lustre of which underwent rapid and marked changes. Their permanent record on Barnard's and W. H. Pickering's plates marked a noteworthy advance in cometary photography. Plate IV. reproduces two of the Lick pictures, taken with a six-inch camera, on April 5 and 7 respectively, with, in each case, an exposure of about one hour. The tail is in the first composed of three main branches, the middle one having sprung out since the previous morning, and the branches are, in their turn, split up into finer rays, to the number of perhaps a dozen in all. In the second a very different state of things is exhibited. "The southern component," Professor Barnard remarked, "which was the brightest on the 5th, had become diffused and fainter, while the middle tail was very bright and broad. Its southern side, which was the best defined, was wavy in numerous places, the tail appearing as if disturbing currents were flowing at right angles to it. At 42° from the head the tail made an abrupt bend towards the south, as if its current was deflected by some obstacle. In the densest portion of the tail, at the point of deflection, are a couple of dark holes, similar to those seen in some of the nebulæ. The middle portion of the tail is brighter, and looks like crumpled silk in places."[1353] Next morning the southern was the prominent branch, and it was loaded, at 1° 42′ from the head, with a strange excrescence, suggesting the budding-out of a fresh comet in that incongruous situation.[1354] Some of these changes, Professor Barnard thought, might possibly be explained by a rotation of the tail on an axis passing through the nucleus, and Pickering, who formed a similar opinion on independent PLATE IV.
grounds, assigned about 94 hours as the period of the gyrating movement.[1355] He, moreover, determined accelerative velocities outward from the sun of definite condensations in the tail, indicating for its materials, on Brédikhine's theory, a density less than one half that of hydrogen.[1356] This conclusion applied also to Rordame's comet, which exhibited a year later phenomena analogous to those remarked in Swift's. Their photographic study led Professor Hussey[1357] to significant inferences as to the structure and rapid changes of cometary appendages.
Seven comets were detected in 1892, and all, strange to say, were visible together towards the close of the year.[1358] Among them was a faint object, which unexpectedly left a trail on a plate exposed by Professor Barnard to the stars in Aquila[1359] on October 12. This was the first comet actually discovered by photography, the Sohag comet having been simultaneously seen and pictured. It has a period of about six years. Holmes's comet is likewise periodical, in rather less than seven years. Its path, which is wholly comprised between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, is less eccentric than that of any other known comet. Subsequently to its discovery, on November 6, it underwent some curious vicissitudes. At first bright and condensed, it expanded rapidly with increasing distance from the sun (to which it had made its nearest approach on June 13), until, by the middle of December, it was barely discernible with powerful telescopes as "a feebly luminous mist on the face of the sky."[1360] But on January 16, 1893, observers in Europe and America were bewildered to find, as if substituted for it, a yellow star of the seventh magnitude, enveloped in a thin nebulous husk, which enclosed a faint miniature tail.[1361] This condensation and recovery of light lasted in its full intensity only a couple of days. The almost evanescent faintness of Holmes's comet at its next return accounted for its invisibility previous to 1892, when it was evidently in a state of peculiar excitement. Mr. Perrine was barely able, with the Lick 36-inch, to find the vague nebulous patch which occupied its predicted place on June 10, 1899.
The origin of comets has been long and eagerly inquired into, not altogether apart from the cheering guidance of ascertained facts. Sir William Herschel regarded them as fragments of nebulæ[1362]—scattered[Pg 370] débris of embryo worlds; and Laplace approved of and adopted the idea.[1363] But there was a difficulty. No comet has yet been observed to travel in a decided hyperbola. The typical cometary orbit, apart from disturbance, is parabolic—that is to say, it is indistinguishable from an enormously long ellipse. But this circumstance could only be reconciled with the view that the bodies thus moving were casual visitors from outer space, by making, as Laplace did, the tacit assumption that the solar system was at rest. His reasoning was, indeed, thereby completely vitiated, as Gauss pointed out in 1815;[1364] and the objections then urged were reiterated by Schiaparelli,[1365] who demonstrated in 1871 that a large preponderance of well-marked hyperbolic orbits should result if comets were picked up en route by a swiftly-advancing sun. The fact that their native movement is practically parabolic shows it to have been wholly imparted from without. They passively obeyed the pull exerted upon them. In other words, their condition previous to being attracted by the sun was one very nearly of relative repose.[1366] They shared, accordingly, the movement of translation through space of the solar system.
This significant conclusion had been indicated, on other grounds, as the upshot of researches undertaken independently by Carrington[1367] and Mohn[1368] in 1860, with a view to ascertaining the anticipated existence of a relationship between the general lie of the paths of comets and the direction of the sun's journey. It is tolerably obvious that if they wander at haphazard through interstellar regions their apparitions should markedly aggregate towards the vicinity of the constellation Lyra; that is to say, we should meet considerably more comets than would overtake us, for the very same reason that falling stars are more numerous after than before midnight. Moreover, the comets met by us should be, apparently, swifter-moving objects than those coming up with us from behind; because, in the one case, our own real movement would be added to, in the other subtracted from, theirs. But nothing of all this can be detected. Comets approach the sun indifferently from all quarters, and with velocities quite independent of direction.
We conclude, then, that the "cosmical current" which bears the solar system towards its unknown goal carries also with it nebulous masses of undefined extent, and at an undefined remoteness, fragments[Pg 371] detached from which, continually entering the sphere of the sun's attraction, flit across our skies under the form of comets. These are, however, almost certainly so far strangers to our system that they had no part in the long processes of development by which its present condition was attained. They are, perhaps, survivals of an earlier, and by us scarcely and dimly conceivable state of things, when the swirling chaos from which sun and planets were, by a supreme edict, to emerge, had not as yet separately begun to be.[Pg 372]
FOOTNOTES:
[1267] Astr. Nach., Nos. 1,172-4.
[1268] Berichte Sächs. Ges., 1871, p. 174.
[1269] Natur der Cometen, p. 124; Astr. Nach., No. 2,086.
[1270] Annales de l'Obs. de Moscou, t. iii., pt. i., p. 37.
[1271] Bull. Astr., t. iii., p. 598. The value of the repellent force for the comet of 1811 (which offered peculiar facilities for its determination) was found = 17·5.
[1272] Faye, Comptes Rendus, t. xciii., p. 13.
[1273] Annales, t. v., pt. ii., p. 137.
[1274] Am. Jour. of Sc., vol. xxxii. (2nd ser.), p. 57.
[1275] Astr. Nach., No. 2,082.
[1276] Annales de l'Obs. de Moscou, t. vi., pt. i., p. 60.
[1277] Astr. Register, March, 1883.
[1278] Astr. Nach., No. 3,018.
[1279] Ibid., No. 3,093.
[1280] Constitution de l'Espace Céleste, p. 224.
[1281] Astroph. Jour., vol. iii., p. 36.
[1282] Physikalische Zeitschrift, November 10 and 17, 1900; Astroph. Jour., vol. xiii., p. 344. Cf. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsb., München, 1901, Heft iii.; J. Hahn, Nature, vols. lxv., p. 415; lxvi., p. 55.
[1283] Astr. Nach., No. 2,307.
[1284] Ibid., No. 2,304.
[1285] Observatory, vol. iii., p. 390.
[1286] Astr. Nach., No. 2,319.
[1287] Ueber die Kometen von 371 v. Chr., 1668, 1843, I. und 1880 I. Göttingen, 1880.
[1288] Meteor., lib. i., cap. 6.
[1289] Mém. Soc. Phys. de Genève, t. xxviii., p. 23.
[1290] Annales de l'Obs. de Moscou, t. vii., pt. i., p. 60.
[1291] Brédikhine, Annales, t. viii., p. 68.
[1292] Am. Jour. of Sc., vol. xxii., p. 305.
[1293] Messrs. Burton and Green observed a dilatation of the stellar image into a nebulous patch by the transmission of its rays through a nuclear jet of the comet. Am. Jour. of Sc., vol. xxii., p. 163.
[1294] Archives des Sciences, t. viii., p. 535. Cf. Perrine's negative results for Swift's comet in 1899, Astr. Nach., No. 3,602.
[1295] Riem concluded in 1896 for a definitive period of 2,429 years; Observatory, vol. xix., p. 282.
[1296] Holden, Publ. Astr. Pac. Soc., vol. ix., p. 89.
[1297] Annuaire, Paris, 1882, p. 781.
[1298] Annuaire, 1882, p. 766.
[1299] Am. Jour. of Sc., vol. xxii., p. 134.
[1300] Report Brit. Assoc., 1881, p. 520.
[1301] Month. Not., vol. xlii., p. 14; Am. Jour. of Sc., vol. xxii., p. 136.
[1302] Piazzi Smyth, Nature, vol. xxiv., p. 430.
[1303] Astr. Nach., No. 2,395.
[1304] Ibid.
[1305] Astr. Nach., No. 2,411.
[1306] Month. Not., vol. xlii., p. 49.
[1307] Astr. Nach., No. 2,414.
[1308] Copernicus, vol. ii., p. 229.
[1309] Astr. Nach., Nos. 2,434, 2,437.
[1310] Ibid., No. 2,441.
[1311] Report Brit. Assoc., 1882, p. 442.
[1312] J. J. Parsons, Am. Jour. of Science, vol. xxvii., p. 34.
[1313] Astr. Nach., No. 2,441.
[1314] Observatory, vol. v., p. 355. The transit had been foreseen by Mr. Tebbutt, but it occurred after sunset in New South Wales.
[1315] Observatory, vol. v., p. 354.
[1316] Gould, Astr. Nach., No. 2,481.
[1317] Flammarion, Comptes Rendus, t. xcv., p. 558.
[1318] Captain Ray's sextant observation of the comet of 1843, a few hours before perihelion, was too rough to be of use.
[1319] Astr. Nach., No. 2,538.
[1320] Nature, vol. xxix., p. 135.
[1321] Astr. Nach., No. 2,482.
[1322] Vierteljahrsschrift Astr. Ges., Jahrg. xxiv., p. 308; Bull. Astr., t. vii., p. 513.
[1323] Observatory, vol. xxiv., p. 167.
[1324] The attention of the author was kindly directed to this point by Professor Young of Princeton (N. J.). Cf. Rebeur-Paschwitz, Sirius, Bd. xvi., p. 233.
[1325] Oppenheim, Astr. Nach., No. 2,902.
[1326] Astr. Nach., No. 2,717.
[1327] Gruithuisen's Analekten, Heft 7, p. 48.
[1328] Month. Not., vols. xxv., xxvi., xxviii. Cf. Plummer, Observatory, vol. xiii., p. 263.
[1329] Nature, vol. xxvii., p. 246.
[1330] Astr. Nach., No. 2,468.
[1331] Athenæum, February 3, 1883.
[1332] Astr. Nach., Nos. 2,462, 2,466.
[1333] Ibid., No. 2,489.
[1334] Annales, Moscow, t. ix., pt. ii., p. 52.
[1335] Comptes Rendus, t. xcvii., p. 797.
[1336] Astr. Nach., No. 2,966.
[1337] Copernicus, vol. ii., p. 235.
[1338] Comptes Rendus, t. xcvi., p. 371.
[1339] Astr. Nach., No. 2,553.
[1340] Ibid.
[1341] Astr. Nach., No. 2,568.
[1342] Annales de l'Observatoire de Nice, t. ii., c. 53.
[1343] Fényi, Astr. Nach., No. 2,844; Kammermann, Ibid., No. 2,849.
[1344] Publ. Astr. Pac. Soc., vol. i., p. 72.
[1345] Annuaire, Paris, 1891, p. 301.
[1346] Astr. Nach., No. 2,989.
[1347] Comptes Rendus, t. xxv., p. 564.
[1348] Astr. Journ., Nos. 205, 231.
[1349] Ibid., Nos. 228, 244, 380.
[1350] Observatory, vol. xviii., pp. 60, 163 (Denning and Lynn).
[1351] Astr. Nach., No. 3,267; Plummer, Knowledge, vol. xix., p. 156.
[1352] Astr. Jour., Nos. 333, 338.
[1353] Astr. and Astroph., vol. xi., p. 387.
[1354] Knowledge, vol. xv., p. 299.
[1355] Harvard Annals, vol. xxxii., pt. ii., p. 272.
[1356] Ibid., p. 287.
[1357] Publ. Astr. Pac. Soc., vol. vii., p. 161.
[1358] H. C. Wilson, Astr. and Astroph., vol. xii., p. 121.
[1359] Observatory, vol. xvi., p. 92.
[1360] Barnard, Astr. and Astroph., vol. xii., p. 180; Astroph. Jour., vol. iii., p. 41.
[1361] Palisa, Astr. Nach., No. 3,147; Denning, Observatory, vol. xvi., p. 142.
[1362] Phil. Trans., vol. ci., p. 306.
[1363] Conn. des Temps, 1816, p. 213.
[1364] Œuvres, t. vi., p. 581.
[1365] Mem. dell' Istit. Lombardo, t. xii., p. 164; Rendiconti, t. vii., p. 77, 1874.
[1366] W. Förster, Pop. Mitth., 1879, p. 7; Fabry, Étude sur la Probabilité des Comètes Hyperboliques, Marseille, 1893, p. 158.
[1367] Mem. R. A. Soc., vol. xxix., p. 335.
[1368] Month. Not., vol. xxiii., p. 203.
article by Agnes Mary Clerke
from The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Popular History of Astronomy During the Nineteenth Century
No comments:
Post a Comment