Chapter II: Part 2

Herschel was rather unfortunate in his observations of Mars. Having obtained a rough approximation from Mars’ rotation in an interval of two days—this rough approximation being, as it chanced, only thirty-seven seconds in excess of the true period, he proceeded to take three intervals of one month each. This should have given a much better value; but, as it happened, the mean of the values he obtained was forty-six seconds too great. He then took a period of two years, and being misled by the erroneous values he had already obtained, he _missed one rotation_, getting a value two minutes too great. Thirty years ago, two German astronomers, Beer and Madler, tried the same problem, and taking a period of seven years, obtained a value which exceeds the true value by only one second. Another German, Kaiser, by combining more observations, obtained a value which is within one-fifteenth of a second of the true value. But a comparison of observations extending over 200 years has enabled me to obtain a value which I consider to lie within one-hundredth part of a second of the truth. This value for Mars’ rotation-period is 24 hours 37 minutes 22·73 seconds.

Here, then, we have a result so accurate, that _at some future time_ it may serve to test the earth’s rotation-period. We have compared the rotation-rate of our test-planet with the earth’s rate during the past 200 years; and therefore, if the earth’s rate vary by more than one-hundredth of a second in the next two or three hundred years, we shall—or rather our descendants will—begin to have some notion of the change at the end of that time.

But in the meantime, mankind being impatient, and not willing to leave to a distant posterity any question which can possibly be answered _now_, astronomers have looked around them for information available at once on this interesting point. The search has not been in vain. In fact, we are able to announce, with an approach to positiveness, that our great terrestrial time-piece is actually _losing time_.

In our moon we have a neighbour which has long been in the habit of answering truthfully questions addressed to her by astronomers. Of old, she told Newton about gravitation, and when he doubted, and urged opposing evidence offered—as men in his time supposed—by the earth, she set him on the right track, so that when in due time the evidence offered by the earth was corrected, Newton was prepared at once to accept and propound the noble theory which rendered his name illustrious. Again, men wished to learn the true shape of the earth, and went hither and thither measuring its globe; but the moon, meanwhile, told the astronomer who remained at home a truer tale. They sought to learn the earth’s distance from the sun, and from this and that point they turned their telescopes on Venus in transit; but the moon set them nearer the truth, and that not by a few miles, but by 2,000,000 miles or more. We shall see that she has had something to say about our great terrestrial time-piece.

One of the great charms of the science of astronomy is, that it enables men to _predict_. At such and such an hour, the astronomer is able to say, a celestial body will occupy such and such a point on the celestial sphere. You direct a telescope towards the point named, and lo! at the given instant, the promised orb sweeps across the field of view. Each year there is issued a thick octavo volume crowded with such predictions, three or four years in advance of the events predicted; and these predictions are accepted with as little doubt by astronomers as if they were the records of past events.

But astronomers are not only able to predict—they can also trace back the paths of the celestial bodies, and say: ‘At such and such a long-past epoch, a given star or planet occupied such and such a position upon the celestial sphere.’ But how are they to verify such a statement? It is clear that, in general, they cannot do so. Those who are able to appreciate (or better, to make use of) the predictions of astronomy, will, indeed, very readily accord a full measure of confidence to calculations of past events. They know that astronomy is justly named the most exact of the sciences, and they can see that there is nothing, in the nature of things, to render retrospection more difficult than prevision. But there are hundreds who have no such experience of the exactness of modern astronomical methods—who have, on the contrary, a vague notion that modern astronomy is merely the successor of systems now exploded; perhaps even that it may one day have to make way in its turn for new methods. And if all other men were willing to accept the calculations of astronomers respecting long-past events, astronomers themselves would be less easily satisfied. Long experience has taught them that the detection of error is the most fruitful source of knowledge; therefore, wherever such a course is possible, they always gladly submit their calculations to the test of observation.

Now, looking backward into the far past, it is only here and there that we see records which afford means of comparison with modern calculations. The planets had swept on in their courses for ages with none to note them. Gradually, observant men began to notice and record the more remarkable phenomena. But such records, made with very insufficient instrumental means, had in general but little actual value: it has been found easy to confirm them without any special regard to accuracy of calculation.

There is one class of phenomena, however, which no inaccuracy of observation can very greatly affect. A total eclipse of the sun is an occurrence so remarkable, that (1) it can hardly take place without being recorded, and (2) a very rough record will suffice to determine the particular eclipse referred to. Long intervals elapse between successive total eclipses visible at the same place on the earth’s surface, and even partial eclipses of noteworthy extent occur but seldom at any assigned place. Very early, therefore, in the history of modern astronomy, the suggestion was made, that eclipses recorded by ancient historians should be calculated retrospectively. An unexpected result rewarded the undertaking. It was found that ancient eclipses could not be fairly accounted for without assigning a slower motion to the moon in long-past ages than she has at present!

Here was a difficulty which long puzzled mathematicians. One after another was foiled by it. Halley, an English mathematician, had detected the difficulty, but no English mathematician was able to grapple with it. Contented with Newton’s fame, they had suffered their Continental rivals to shoot far ahead in the course he had pointed out. But the best Continental mathematicians were defeated. In papers of acknowledged merit, adorned by a variety of new processes, and showing a deep insight into the question at issue, they yet arrived, one and all, at the same conclusion—failure.

Ninety years elapsed before the true explanation was offered by the great mathematician Laplace. A full exposition of his views would be out of place in such a paper as the present, but, briefly, they amount to this:—

The moon travels in her orbit, swayed chiefly by the earth’s attraction. But the sun, though greatly more distant, yet, owing to the immensity of his mass, plays an important part in guiding our satellite. His influence tends to relieve the moon, in part, from the earth’s sway. Thus she travels in a wider orbit, and with a slower motion, than she would have but for the sun’s influence. Now the earth is not at all times equally distant from the sun, and his influence upon the moon is accordingly variable. In winter, when the earth is nearest to the sun, his influence is greatest. The lunar month, accordingly (though the difference is very slight), is longer in winter than in summer. This variation had long been recognised as the moon’s ‘annual equation;’ but Laplace was the first to point out that the variation is itself slowly varying. The earth’s orbit is slowly changing in shape—becoming more and more nearly circular year by year. As the greater axis of her orbit is unchanging, it is clear that the actual extent of the orbit is slowly increasing. Thus, the moon is slightly released from the sun’s influence year by year, and so brought more and more under the earth’s influence. She travels, therefore, continually faster and faster, though the change is indeed but a very minute one;—only to be detected in long intervals of time. Also the moon’s _acceleration_, as the change is termed, is only temporary, and will in due time be replaced by an equally gradual retardation.

When Laplace had calculated the extent of the change due to the cause he had detected, and when it was found that ancient eclipses were now satisfactorily accounted for, it may well be believed that there was triumph in the mathematical camp. But this was not all. Other mathematicians attacked the same problem, and their results agreed so closely that all were convinced that the difficulty was thoroughly vanquished.

A very noteworthy result followed from Laplace’s calculations. Amongst other solutions which had been suggested, was the supposition (supported by no less an authority than Sir Isaac Newton, who lived to see the commencement of the long conflict maintained by mathematicians with this difficulty), that it is not the moon travelling more quickly, but our earth rotating more slowly, which causes the observed discrepancy. Now it resulted from Laplace’s labours—as he was the first to announce—that the period of the earth’s rotation has not varied by one-tenth of a second per century in the last two thousand years.

The question thus satisfactorily settled, as was supposed, was shelved for more than a quarter of a century. The result, also, which seemed to flow from the discussion—the constancy of the earth’s rotation-movement—was accepted; and, as we have seen, our national system of measures was founded upon the assumed constancy of the day’s duration.

But mathematicians were premature in their rejoicings. The question has been brought, by the labours of Professor Adams—co-discoverer with Leverrier of the distant Neptune—almost exactly to the point which it occupied a century ago. We are face to face with the very difficulties—somewhat modified in extent, but not in character—which puzzled Halley, Euler, and Lagrange. It would be an injustice to the memory of Laplace to say that his labours were thrown away. The explanation offered by him is indeed a just one. But it is insufficient. Properly estimated it removes only half the difficulty which had perplexed mathematicians. It would be quite impossible to present in brief space, and in form suited to these pages, the views propounded by Adams. What, for instance, would most of our readers learn if we were to tell them that, ‘when the variability of the eccentricity is taken into account, in integrating the differential equations involved in the problem of the lunar motions—that is, when the eccentricity is made a function of the time—non-periodic or secular terms appear in the expression for the moon’s mean motion’—and so on? Let it suffice to say that Laplace had considered only the work of the sun in diminishing the earth’s _pull_ on the moon, supposing that the slow variation in the sun’s _direct_ influence on the moon’s motion in her orbit must be self-compensatory in long intervals of time. Adams has shown, on the contrary, that when this variation is closely examined, no such compensation is found to take place; and that the effect of this want of compensation is to diminish by more than one-half the effects due to the slow variation examined by Laplace.

These views gave rise at first to considerable controversy. Pontécoulant characterised Adams’s processes as ‘analytical conjuring-tricks,’ and Leverrier stood up gallantly in defence of Laplace. The contest swayed hither and thither for a while, but gradually the press of new arrivals on Adams’s side began to prevail. One by one his antagonists gave way; new processes have confirmed his results, figure for figure; and no doubt now exists, in the mind of any astronomer competent to judge, of the correctness of Adams’s views.

But, side by side with this inquiry, another had been in progress. A crowd of diligent labourers had been searching with close and rigid scrutiny into the circumstances attending ancient eclipses. A new light had been thrown upon this subject by the labours of modern travellers and historians. One remarkable instance of this may be cited. Mr. Layard has identified the site of Larissa with the modern Nimroud. Now, Xenophon relates that when Larissa was besieged by the Persians, an eclipse of the sun took place, so remarkable in its effects (and therefore undoubtedly total), that the Median defenders of the town threw down their arms, and the city was accordingly captured. And Hansen has shown that a certain estimate of the moon’s motion makes the eclipse which occurred on August 15, 310 B.C., not only _total_, but _central_ at Nimroud. Some other remarkable eclipses—as the celebrated sunset eclipse (total) at Rome, 399 B.C.; the eclipse which enveloped the fleet of Agathocles as he escaped from Syracuse; the famous eclipse of Thales, which interrupted a battle between the Medes and Lydians; and even the partial eclipse which (possibly) caused the ‘going back of the shadow upon the dial of Ahaz’—have all been accounted for satisfactorily by Hansen’s estimate of the moon’s motion: so also have nineteen lunar eclipses recorded in the Almagest.

This estimate of Hansen’s, which accounts so satisfactorily for solar and lunar eclipses, makes the moon’s rate of motion increase more than twice as fast as it should do according to the calculations of Adams. But before our readers run away with the notion that astronomers have here gone quite astray, it will be well to present, in a simple manner, the extreme minuteness of the discrepancy about which all the coil has been made.

Suppose that, just in front of our moon, a false moon exactly equal to ours in size and appearance (see _note_ at the end of this paper) were to set off with a motion corresponding to the present motion of the moon, save only in one respect—namely, that the false moon’s motion should not be subject to the change we are considering, termed _the acceleration_. Then one hundred years would elapse before our moon would fairly begin to show in advance. She would, in that time, have brought only one one-hundred-and-fiftieth part of her breadth from behind the false moon. At the end of another century she would have gained four times as much; at the end of a third, nine times as much: and so on. She would not fairly have cleared her own breadth in less than twelve hundred years. But the _whole_ of this gain, minute as it is, is not left unaccounted for by our modern astronomical theories. _Half_ the gain is explained, the other half remains to be interpreted; in other words, _the moon travels further by about half her own breadth in twelve centuries than she should do according to the lunar theory_.

But in this difficulty, small as it seems, we are not left wholly without resource. We are not only able to say that the discrepancy is probably due to a gradual retardation of the earth’s rotation-movement, but we are able to place our finger on a very sufficient cause for such a retardation. One of the most firmly established principles of modern science is this—that where _work is done_, force is, in some way or other, expended. The _doing of work_ may show itself in a variety of ways— in the generation of heat, in the production of light, in the raising of weights, and so on; but in every case an equivalent force must be expended. If the brakes are applied to a train in motion, intense heat is generated in the substance of the brake. Now, the force employed by the brakesman is _not_ equivalent to the heat generated. Where, then, is the balance of force expended? We all know that the train’s motion is retarded, and this loss of motion represents the requisite expenditure of force. Now, is there any process in nature resembling, in however remote a degree, the application of a brake to check the earth’s rotation? There is. The tidal wave, which sweeps, twice a day, round the earth, travels in a direction contrary to the earth’s motion of rotation. That this wave ‘does work,’ no one can doubt who has watched its effects. The mere rise and fall in open ocean may not be strikingly indicative of ‘work done;’ but when we see the behaviour of the tidal wave in narrow channels, when we see heavily-laden ships swept steadily up our tidal rivers, we cannot but recognise the expenditure of force. Now, where does this force come from? Motion being the great ‘force-measurer,’ what motion _suffers_ that the tides may _work_? We may securely reply, that the only motion which _can_ supply the requisite force is the earth’s motion of rotation. Therefore, it is no mere fancy, but a matter of absolute certainty, that, though slowly, still very surely, our terrestrial globe is losing its rotation-movement.

Considered as a time-piece, what are the earth’s errors? Suppose, for a moment, that the earth was _timed_ and _rated_ two thousand years ago, how much has she _lost_, and what is her ‘rate-error?’ She has lost in that interval nearly one hour and a quarter, and she is losing now at the rate of one second in twelve weeks. In other words, the length of a day is now more by about one eighty-fourth part of a second than it was two thousand years ago. At this rate of change, our day would merge into a lunar month in the course of thirty-six thousand millions of years. But after a while, the change will take place more slowly, and some trillion or so of years will elapse before the full change is effected.

Distant, however, as is the epoch at which the changes we have been considering will become effective, the subject appears to us to have an interest apart from the mere speculative consideration of the future physical condition of our globe. Instead of the recurrence of ever-varying, closely intermingled cycles of fluctuation, we see, now for the first time, the evidence of cosmical decay—a decay which, in its slow progress, may be but the preparation for renewed genesis—but still, a decay which, so far as the races at present subsisting upon the earth are concerned, must be looked upon as finally and completely destructive.[2]

(From _Chambers’s Journal_, October 12, 1867.)

_ENCKE THE ASTRONOMER._

The years which have passed since Encke died have witnessed notable changes in the aspect of the science he loved so well. But we must look back over more than half a century, if we would form an estimate of the position of astronomy when Encke’s most notable work was achieved. At Seeberge, under Lindenau, Encke had been perfecting himself in the higher branches of mathematical calculation. He took the difficult work of determining the orbital motions of newly-discovered comets under his special charge, and Dr. Bruhns tells us that every comet which was detected during Encke’s stay at Seeberge was subjected to rigid scrutiny by the indefatigable mathematician. Before long a discovery of the utmost importance rewarded his persevering labours. Pons had detected on November 26, 1818, a comet of no very brilliant aspect, which was watched first at Marseilles, and then at Mannheim, until December 29. Encke next took up the work, and tracked the comet until January 12. Combining the observations made between December 22 and January 12, he assigned to the body a parabolic orbit. But he was not satisfied with the accordance between this path and the observed motions of the body. When he attempted to account for the motions of the comet by means of an orbit of comparatively short period, he was struck by the resemblance between the path thus deduced and that of Comet I, 1805. Gradually the idea dawned upon him that a new era was opening for science. Hitherto the only periodical comets which had been discovered except Lexell’s—the ‘lost comet’—had travelled in orbits extending far out into space beyond the paths of the most distant known planets. But now Encke saw reason to believe that he had to deal with a comet travelling within the orbit of Jupiter. On February 5, he wrote to the eminent mathematician Gauss, pointing out the results of his inquiries, and saying that he only waited for the encouragement and authority of his former teacher to prosecute his researches to the end towards which they already seemed to point. Gauss, in reply, not only encouraged Encke to proceed, but counselled him as to the course he should pursue. The result we all know. Encke showed conclusively that the newly-discovered comet travels in a path of short period, and that it had already made its appearance several times in our neighbourhood.

From the date of this discovery, Encke took high rank among the astronomers of Europe. His subsequent labours by no means fell short of the promise which this, his first notable achievement, had afforded. If he effected less as an astronomical observer than many of his contemporaries, he was surpassed by few as a manipulator of those abstruse formulæ by which the planetary perturbations are calculated. It was to the confidence engendered by this skill that we owe his celebrated discovery of the acceleration of the motion of the comet mentioned above. Assured that he had rightly estimated the disturbances to which the comet is subjected, he was able to pronounce confidently that some cause continually (though all but imperceptibly) impedes the passage of this body through space, and so—by one of those strange relations which the student of astronomy is familiar with—the continually retarded comet travels ever more swiftly along a continually diminishing orbit.

Bruhns’ Life of Encke is well worth reading, not only by those who are interested in Encke’s fame and work as an astronomer, but by the general reader. Encke the man is presented to our view, as well as Encke the astronomer. With loving pains the pupil of the great astronomer handles the theme he has selected. The boyhood of Encke, his studies, his soldier life in the great uprising against Napoleon in 1813, and his work at the Seeberge Observatory; his labours on comets and asteroids; his investigations of the transits of 1761 and 1769; his life as an academician, and as director of an important observatory; his orations at festival and funeral; and lastly, his illness and death, are described in these pages by one who held Encke in grateful remembrance as ‘teacher and master,’ and as a ‘fatherly friend.’

Not the least interesting feature of the work is the correspondence introduced into its pages. We find Encke in communication with Humboldt, with Bessel and Struve, with Hansen, Olbers, and Argelander; with a host, in fine, of living as well as of departed men of science.

(From _Nature_, March 10, 1870.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Other green lines have since been discovered in the auroral spectrum; and occasionally a red line is seen.

[2] In the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ for October 1866, a more detailed but somewhat less popular account of the subject of the above paper is presented. A few months earlier, a skilfully-written paper on the same subject, from the pen of Mr. J. M. Wilson, of Rugby, had appeared in the _Eagle_, a magazine written by and for members of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Although my paper in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ was written quite independently of Mr. Wilson’s (which, however, I had read), yet it chanced that in describing the same mathematical relations, and the same sequence of events, I here and there used language closely resembling his. I fear this led for a while to some misconception; but I was fortunately able to show in Mr. De la Rue’s address to the Astronomical Society, on the same subject, passages yet more strikingly resembling some in Mr. Wilson’s paper (written subsequently and quite independently). The fact would seem to be that if two persons describe exactly the same events, and deal with exactly the same mathematical relations, it is almost certain that in more than one passage they will use somewhat similar expressions.

I was actually indebted to Mr. Wilson’s paper for one illustration, however,—that derived from the movements of a supposed artificial moon; and I think that had his paper appeared in a magazine printed for general circulation, I should have referred to it. As it was, this seemed useless so far as the readers of the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ were concerned. The circumstances of the case were, indeed, far from calling for a reference; while I had in a sense made the illustration my own by detecting an important miscalculation in the original (the amount of advance being either doubled or halved—I forget which). Had I referred to Mr. Wilson’s paper, I must needs have mentioned this mistake; and it would have appeared as though I had had no other purpose in making the reference.

I mention these matters to explain what I fear my esteemed fellow-collegian was disposed at the time to regard as either a wrong or a slight. Nothing was further from my intention than either.

_VENUS ON THE SUN’S FACE._

More than a century ago scientific men were looking forward with eager interest to the passage of the planet Venus across the sun’s face in 1769. The Royal Society judged the approaching event to be of such extreme importance to the science of astronomy that they presented a memorial to King George III., requesting that a vessel might be fitted out, at Government expense, to convey skilful observers to one of the stations which had been judged suitable for observing the phenomenon. The petition was complied with, and after some difficulty as to the choice of a leader, the good ship ‘Endeavour,’ of 370 tons, was placed under the command of Captain Cook. The astronomical work entrusted to the expedition was completely successful; and thus it was held that England had satisfactorily discharged her part of the work of utilising the rare phenomenon known as a transit of Venus.

A century passed, and science was again awaiting with interest the approach of one of these transits. But now her demands were enlarged. It was not one ship that was asked for, but the full cost and charge of several expeditions. And this time, also, science had been more careful in taking time by the forelock. The first hints of her requirements were heard some fourteen years ago, when the Astronomer-Royal began that process of laborious inquiry which a question of this sort necessarily demands. Gradually, her hints became more and more plain-spoken; insomuch that Airy—her mouthpiece in this case—stated definitely in 1868 what he thought science had a right to claim from England in this matter. When the claim came before our Government, it was met with a liberality which was a pleasing surprise after some former placid references of scientific people to their own devices. The sum of ten thousand five hundred pounds was granted to meet the cost of several important and well-appointed expeditions; and further material aid was derived from the various Government observatories.

And now let us inquire why so much interest is attached to a phenomenon which appears, at first sight, to be so insignificant. Transits, eclipses, and other phenomena of that nature are continually occurring, without any particular interest being attached to them. The telescopist may see half-a-dozen such phenomena in the course of a night or two, by simply watching the satellites of Jupiter, or the passage of our moon over the stars. Even the great eclipse of 1868 did not attract so much interest as the transit of Venus; yet that eclipse had not been equalled in importance by any which has occurred in historic times, and hundreds of years must pass before such another happens, whereas transits of Venus are far from being so uncommon.

The fact is, that Venus gives us the best means we have of mastering a problem which is one of the most important within the whole range of the science of astronomy. I use the term important, of course, with reference to the scientific significance and interest of the problem. Practically, it matters little to us whether the sun is a million of miles or a thousand millions of miles from us. The subject must in any case be looked upon as an extra-parochial one. But science does occasionally attach immense interest to extra-parochial subjects. And this is neither unwise nor unreasonable, since we find implanted in our very nature—and not merely in the nature of scientific men—a quality which causes us to take interest in a variety of matters that do not in the least concern our personal interests. Nor is this quality, rightly considered, one of the least noble characteristics of the human race.

That the determination of the sun’s distance is important, in an astronomical sense, will be seen at once when it is remembered that the ideas we form of the dimensions of the solar system are wholly dependent on our estimate of the sun’s distance. Nor can we gauge the celestial depths with any feeling of assurance, unless we know the true length of that which is our sole measuring-rod. It is, in fact, our basis of measurement for the whole visible universe. In some respects, even if we knew the sun’s distance exactly, it would still be an unsatisfactory gauge for the stellar depths. But that is the misfortune, not the fault, of the astronomer, who must be content to use the measuring-rod which nature gives him. All he can do is to find out as nearly as possible its true length.

When we come to consider how the astronomer is to determine this very element—the sun’s distance—we find that he is hampered with a difficulty of precisely the same character.

The sun being an inaccessible object, the astronomer can apply no other methods to determine its distance—directly—than those which a surveyor would use in determining the distance of an inaccessible castle, or rock, or tree, or the like. We shall see presently that the ingenuity of astronomers has, in fact, suggested some other indirect methods. But clearly the most satisfactory estimate we can have of the sun’s distance is one founded on such simple notions and involving in the main such processes of calculation as we have to deal with in ordinary surveying.

There is, in this respect, no mystery about the solution of the famous problem. Unfortunately, there is enormous difficulty.

When a surveyor has to determine the distance of an inaccessible object, he proceeds in the following manner. He first very carefully measures a base-line of convenient length. Then from either end of the base-line he takes the bearing of the inaccessible object—that is, he observes the direction in which it lies. It is clear that, if he were now to draw a figure on paper, laying down the base-line to some convenient scale, and drawing lines from its ends in directions corresponding to the bearings of the observed object, these lines would indicate, by their intersection, the true relative position of the object. In practice, the mathematician does not trust to so rough a method as construction, but applies processes of calculation.

Now, it is clear that in this plan everything depends on the base-line. It must not be too short in comparison with the distance of the inaccessible object; for then, if we make the least error in observing the bearings of the object, we get an important error in the resulting determination of the distances. The reader can easily convince himself of this by drawing an illustrative case or two on paper.

The astronomer has to take his base-line for determining the sun’s distance, upon our earth, which is quite a tiny speck in comparison with the vast distance which separates us from the sun. It had been found difficult enough to determine the moon’s distance with such a short base-line to work from. But the moon is only about a quarter of a million of miles from us, while the sun is more than ninety millions of miles off. Thus the problem was made several hundred times more difficult—or, to speak more correctly, it was rendered simply insoluble unless the astronomer could devise some mode of observing which should vastly enhance the power of his instruments.

For let us consider an illustrative case. Suppose there was a steeple five miles off, and we had a base-line only two feet long. That would correspond as nearly as possible to the case the astronomer has to deal with. Now, what change of direction could be observed in the steeple by merely shifting the eye along a line of two feet? There is a ready way of answering. Invert the matter. Consider what a line of two feet long would look like if viewed from a distance of five miles. Would its length be appreciable, to say nothing of its being measurable? Yet it is just such a problem as the measurement of that line which the astronomer would have to solve.

But even this is not all. In our illustration only one observer is concerned, and he would be able to use one set of instruments. Suppose, however, that from one end of the two-feet line an observer using one set of instruments took the bearings of the steeple; and that, half a year after, another observer brought another set of instruments and took the bearing of the steeple from the other end of the two-feet line, is it not obvious how enormously the uncertainty of the result would be increased by such an arrangement as this? One observer would have his own peculiar powers of observation, his own peculiar weaknesses: the other would have different peculiarities. One set of instruments would be characterised by its own faults or merits, so would the other. One series of observations would be made in summer, with all the disturbing effects due to heat; the other would be made in winter, with all the disturbing effects due to cold.

The observation of the sun is characterised by all these difficulties. Limited to the base-lines he can measure on earth, the astronomer must set one observer in one hemisphere, another in the other. Each observer must have his own set of instruments; and every observation which one has made in summer will have to be compared with an observation which the other has made in winter.

Thus we can understand that astronomers should have failed totally when they attempted to determine the sun’s distance without aid from the other celestial bodies.

It may seem at first sight as though nothing the other celestial bodies could tell the astronomer would be of the least use to him, since these bodies are for the most part farther off than the sun, and even those which, approach nearest to us are still far beyond the limits of distance within which the simple plan followed by surveyors could be of any service. And besides, it might be supposed that information about the distance of one celestial body could be of no particular service towards the determination of the distance of another.

But two things aid the astronomer at this point. First of all, he has discovered the law which associates together the distances of all the planets from the sun; so that if he can determine the distance of any one planet, he learns immediately the distances of all. Secondly, the planets in their motion travel occasionally into such positions that they become mighty indices, tracing out on a natural dial-plate the significant lesson from which the astronomer hopes to learn so much. To take an instance from the motions of another planet than the one we are dealing with. Mars comes sometimes so near the earth that the distance separating us from him is little more than one-third of that which separates us from the sun. Suppose that, at such a time, he is seen quite close to a fixed star. That star gives the astronomer powerful aid in determining the planet’s distance. For, to observers in some parts of the earth, the planet will seem nearer to the star than he will to observers elsewhere. A careful comparison of the effects thus exhibited will give significant evidence respecting the distance of Mars. And we see that the star has served as a fixed mark upon the vast natural dial of the heavens, just as the division-marks on a clock-face serve to indicate the position of the hands.

Now we can at once see why Venus holds so important a position in this sort of inquiry. Venus is our nearest neighbour among the planets. She comes several millions of miles nearer to us than Mars, our next neighbour on the other side. That is the primary reason of her being so much considered by astronomers. But there is another of equal importance. Venus travels nearer than our earth to the sun. And thus there are occasions when she gets directly between the earth and the sun. At those times she is seen upon his face, and his face serves as a dial-plate by which to measure her movements. When an observer at one part of the earth sees her on one part of the sun’s face, another observer at some other part of the earth will see her on another, and the difference of position, if accurately measured, would at once indicate the sun’s distance. As a matter of fact, other modes of reading off the indications of the great dial-plate have to be adopted. Before proceeding to consider those modes, however, we must deal with one or two facts about Venus’s movements which largely affect the question at issue.

Let us first see what we gain by considering the distance of Venus rather than that of the sun.

At the time of a transit Venus is of course on a line between the earth and the sun, and she is at somewhat less than a third of the sun’s distance from us. Thus whatever effect an observer’s change of place would produce upon the sun would be more than trebled in the case of Venus. But it must not be forgotten that we are to judge the motions of Venus by means of the dial-plate formed by the solar disc, and that dial-plate is itself shifted as the observer shifts his place. Venus is shifted three times as much, it is true; but it is only the balance of change that our astronomer can recognise. That balance is, of course, rather more than twice as great as the sun’s change of place.

So far, then, we have not gained much, since it has been already mentioned that the sun’s change of place is not measurable by any process of observation astronomers can apply.

It is to the fact that we have the sun’s disc, whereby to measure the change, that we chiefly trust; and even that would be insufficient were it not for the fact that Venus is not at rest, but travels athwart the great solar dial-plate. We are thus enabled to make a time measurement take the place of a measurement of space. If an observer in one place sees Venus cross the sun’s face at a certain distance from the centre, while an observer at another place sees her follow a path slightly farther from the centre, the transit clearly seems longer to the former observer than to the latter.

This artifice of exchanging a measurement of time for one of space—or _vice versâ_—is a very common one among astronomers. It was Edmund Halley, the friend and pupil of Sir Isaac Newton, who suggested its application in the way above described. It will be noticed that what is required for the successful application of the method is that one set of observers should be as far to the north as possible, another as far to the south, so that the path of Venus may be shifted as much as possible. Clearly the northern observers will see her path shifted as much to the south as it can possibly be, while the southern observers will see the path shifted as far as possible towards the north.

One thing, however, is to be remembered. A transit lasts several hours, and our observers must be so placed that the sun will not set during these hours. This consideration sometimes involves a difficulty. For our earth does not supply observing room all over her surface, and the region where observation would be most serviceable may be covered by a widely-extended ocean. Then again, the observing parties are being rapidly swayed round by the rotating earth and it is often difficult to fix on a spot which may not, through this cause, be shifted from a favourable position at the beginning of the transit to an unfavourable one at the end.

Without entering on all the points of difficulty involved by such considerations as these, I may simply indicate the fact that the astronomer has a problem of considerable complexity to solve in applying Halley’s method of observation to a transit of Venus.

It was long since pointed out by the French astronomer Delisle that the subject may be attacked another way—that, in fact, instead of noticing how much longer the transit lasts in some places than in others, the astronomer may inquire how much earlier it begins or ends in some places than in others.

Here is another artifice, extremely simple in principle, though not altogether so simple in its application. My readers must bear with me while I briefly describe the qualities of this second method, because in reality the whole question of the transit, and all the points which have to be attended to in the equipment and placing of the various observing parties, depend on these preliminary matters. Without attending to them—or at least to such primary points as I shall select—it would be impossible to form a clear conception of the circumstances with which astronomers have to deal. There is, however, no real difficulty about this part of the subject, and I shall only ask of the reader to give his attention to it for a very brief space of time.

Suppose the whole of that hemisphere of the earth on which the sun is shining when the transit is about to begin were covered with observers waiting for the event. As Venus sweeps rapidly onwards to the critical part of her path, it is clear that some of these observers will get an earlier view of the commencement of the transit than others will; just as at a boat-race, persons variously placed round a projecting corner of the course see the leading boat come into view at different times. Some one observer on the outer rim of the hemisphere would be absolutely the first to see the transit begin. Then rapidly other observers would see the phenomenon; and in the course of a few minutes some one observer on the outer rim of the hemisphere—almost exactly opposite the first—would be absolutely the last to see the transit begin. From that time the transit would be seen by all for several hours—I neglect the earth’s rotation, for the moment—but the end of the transit, like the beginning, would not be seen simultaneously by the observers. First one would see it, then in succession the rest, and last of all an observer almost exactly opposite the first.

Now, here we have had to consider four observers who occupy exceptional positions. There is (1) the observer who sees the transit begin earliest, (2) the one who sees it begin latest, (3) the one who sees it end earliest, and (4) the one who sees it end latest. Let us consider the first two only. Suppose these two observers afterwards compared notes, and found out what was the exact difference of time between their respective observations. Is it not clear that the result would at once afford the means of determining the sun’s distance? It would be the simplest of all possible astronomical problems to determine over what proportion of her orbit Venus passed in the interval of time which elapsed between these observations; and the observers would now have learned that that portion of Venus’s orbit is so many miles long, for they know what distance separated them, and it would be easy to calculate how much less that portion of Venus’s orbit is. Thus they would learn what the length of her whole orbit is, thence her distance from the sun, and thence the sun’s distance from us.

The two observers who saw the transit end earliest and latest could do the like.

Speaking generally, and neglecting all the complexities which delight the soul of the astronomer, this is Delisle’s method of utilising a transit. It has obviously one serious disadvantage as compared with the other. An observer at one side of the earth has to bring his observations into comparison with those made by an observer at the other side of the earth. Each uses the local time of the place at which he observes, and it has been calculated that for the result to be of value there must not be an error of a single second in their estimates of local time. Now, does the reader appreciate the full force of this proviso? Each observer must know so certainly in what exact longitude he is, that his estimate of the time when true noon occurs shall not be one second wrong! This is all satisfactory enough in places where there are regular observatories. But matters are changed when we are dealing with such places as Woahoo, Kerguelen Land, Chatham Island, and the wilds of Siberia.

In the transit[3] of 1874 there are many such difficulties to be encountered. In fact, it is almost impossible to conceive a transit the circumstances of which are more inconvenient. On the other hand, however, the transit is of such a nature that if once the preliminary difficulties are overcome, we can hope more from its indications than from those of any other transit which will happen in the course of the next few centuries.

The transit will begin earliest for observers in the neighbourhood of the Sandwich Islands, latest for observers near Crozet Island, far to the south-east of the Cape of Good Hope. It ends earliest for observers far to the south-west of Cape Horn, latest for observers in the north-eastern part of European Russia. Thus we see that, so far as the application of our second method is concerned, the suitable spots are not situated in the most inviting regions of the earth’s surface. As the transit happens on December 8, 1874, the principal northern stations will be very bleak abodes for the observers. The southern stations are in yet more dreary regions,—notwithstanding the fact that the transit occurs during the summer of the southern hemisphere.

For the application of Halley’s method we require stations where the whole transit will be visible; and as the days are very short at the northern stations in December, it is as respects these that we encounter most difficulty. However, it has been found that many places in Northern China, Japan, Eastern Siberia, and Manchouria are suitable for the purpose. The best southern stations for this method lie unfortunately on the unexplored Antarctic continent and the islands adjacent to it; but Crozet Island, Kerguelen Land, and some other places more easy of access than the Antarctic continent, will serve very well. Indeed, England has so many stations to occupy elsewhere that it is doubtful whether she will care to undertake the dangerous and difficult task of exploring the Antarctic wastes to secure the best southern stations. The work may fairly be left to other nations, and doubtless will be efficiently carried out.

What England will actually undertake has not yet been fully decided upon. We may be quite certain that she will send out a party to Woahoo or Hawaii to observe the accelerated commencement of the transit. She will also send observers to watch the retarded commencement, but whether to Crozet Island, Kerguelen Land, Mauritius, or Rodriguez is uncertain. Possibly two parties will be sent out for this purpose, and most likely Rodriguez and Mauritius will be the places selected. It had been thought until lately that the sun would be too low at some of the places when the transit begins, but a more exact calculation of the circumstances of the transit has shown this to be a mistake. Both Crozet Island and Kerguelen Land are very likely to be enveloped in heavy mists when the transit begins—that is, soon after sunrise—hence the choice of Mauritius and Rodriguez as the most suitable station.

England will also be called on to take an important part in observing the accelerated end of the transit. A party will probably be sent to Chatham Island or Campbell Island, not far from New Zealand. It had been thought that at the former island the sun would be too low; but here, again, a more exact consideration of the circumstances of the transit has led astronomers to the conclusion that the sun will be quite high enough at this station.

The Russian observers are principally concerned with the observation of the retarded end of the transit, nearly all the best stations lying in Siberia. But there are several stations in British India where this phase can be very usefully observed; and doubtless the skilful astronomers and mathematicians who are taking part in the survey of India will be invited—as at the time of the great eclipse—to give their services in the cause of science. Alexandria, also, though inferior to several of the Indian stations, will probably be visited by an observing party from England.

It will be seen that England will thus be called on to supply about half-a-dozen expeditions to view the transit. All of these will be sent out in pursuance of Delisle’s mode of utilising a transit, so that, for reasons already referred to, it will be necessary that they should be provided with instruments of the utmost delicacy, and very carefully constructed.[4] They will have to remain at their several stations for a long time before the transit takes place—several months, at least—so that they may accurately determine the latitude of the temporary observatories they will erect. This is a work requiring skilled observers and recondite processes of calculation. Hence it is that the cost of sending out these observing parties is so considerable.

The only English party which will apply Halley’s method of observation is the one which will be stationed at Mauritius, under Lord Lindsay. This part of their work will be comparatively easy, the method only requiring that the duration of the transit should be carefully timed. In fact, one of the great advantages of Halley’s method is the smallness of the expense it involves. A party might land the day before the transit, and sail away the day after, with results at least as trustworthy as those which a party applying Delisle’s method could obtain after several months of hard work. It is to this, rather than any other cause, that the small expense of the observations made in 1769 is to be referred. And doubtless had it been decided by our astronomical authorities to apply Halley’s method solely or principally, the expense of the transit-observations would have been materially lessened. There would, however, have been a risk of failure through the occurrence of bad weather at the critical stations; whereas now—as other nations will doubtless avail themselves of Halley’s method—the chance that the transit-observations will fail through meteorological causes is very largely diminished. Science will owe much to the generosity of England in this respect.

It is, indeed, only recently that the possibility of applying Halley’s method has been recognised. It had been thought that the method must fail totally in 1874. But on a more careful examination of the circumstances of the transit, a French astronomer, M. Puiseux, was enabled to announce that this is not the case. Almost simultaneously I published calculations pointing to a similar result; but having carried the processes a few steps further than M. Puiseux, I was able to show that Halley’s method is not only available in 1874, but is the more powerful method of the two.

Unfortunately, there is an element of doubt in the inquiry, of which no amount of care on the part of our observers and mathematicians will enable them to get rid. I refer to the behaviour of Venus herself. It is to the peculiarity we are now to consider that the _quasi_-failure of the observations made in 1769 must be attributed. It is true that Mr. Stone, the first-assistant at the Greenwich Observatory, has managed to remove the greater part of the doubts which clouded the results of those observations. But not even his skill and patience can serve to remove the blot which a century of doubt has seemed to throw upon the most exact of the sciences. We shall now show how much of the blame of that unfortunate century of doubt is to be ascribed to Venus.