Chapter VI (2)

---------------------------------------------------+
ACHROMATIC REFRACTORS. |
-----------+-----------+--------------+------------+
Length | Diameter | | |
and name | of | Illuminating | Price. |
they are | aperture. | power. | |
called by. | | | |
-----------+-----------+--------------+------------+
Feet. | In. Th. | | £ s. |
2 | 1. 6 | 25 | 4 4 |
2-1/2 | 2 | 40 | 12 12 |
3-1/2 | 2. 7 | 72 | 21 to 42 |
5 | 3. 8 | 144 | 105 to 150 |
7 | 5 | 250 | 250 |
7 | 6 | 360 | 360 |

----------------------------------------------------
| GREGORIAN &c. REFLECTORS.
+--------------+-----------+--------------+---------
| Length and | Diameter | |
| name they | of | Illuminating | Price.
| are | aperture. | power. |
| known by. | | |
+--------------+-----------+--------------+---------
| Feet. | In. Th. | | £ s.
| 1 | 2. 5 | 62 | 7 7
| 1-1/2 | 3 | 90 | 12 12
| 2 | 4. 5 | 202 | 20
| 3 | 5. 5 | 302 | 50
| 4 | 7 | 490 | 105
| 7 Newtonian | 7 | 490 | 126
| 5 Gregorian | 9 | 810 | 200
| 10 Newtonian | 10 | 1000 | 315

The illuminating powers stated in the above table are only comparative. Fixing on the number 25 as the illuminating power of a 2 feet telescope, 1-6/10 inch aperture, that of a 2-1/2 feet 2 inches inches aperture, will be 40, of a 5 feet 3-8/10 inch aperture, 144, &c. If the illuminating power of a Gregorian 1-1/2 foot, and 3 inches aperture, be 90, a 5 feet, with 9 inches aperture, will be 810, &c.

6. _On choosing Telescopes, and ascertaining their properties._

It is an object of considerable importance, to every astronomical observer, that he should be enabled to form a judgment of the qualities of his telescope, and of any instruments of this description which he may intend to purchase. The following directions may perhaps be useful to the reader in directing him in the choice of an achromatic refracting telescope.

Supposing that an achromatic telescope of 3-1/2 feet focal length, and 3-1/4 inches aperture were offered for sale, and that it were required to ascertain whether the object-glass, on which its excellence chiefly depends--is a good one and duly adjusted;--some opinion may be formed by laying the tube of the telescope in a horizontal position, on a firm support, about the height of the eye,--and by placing a printed card or a watch glass vertically, but in an inverted position, against some wall or pillar, at 40 or 50 yards distant, so as to be exposed to a clear sky. When the telescope is directed to this object, and accurately adjusted to the eye--should the letters on the card, or the strokes and dots on the watch-glass appear clearly and sharply defined, without any mistiness or coloration, and if very small points appear well defined--great hopes may be entertained that the glass will turn out a good one. But a telescope may appear a good one, when viewing common terrestrial objects, to eyes unaccustomed to discriminate deviations from perfect vision, while it may turn out to be an indifferent one, when directed to certain celestial objects. Instead therefore of a printed card, fix a black board, or one half of a sheet of black paper, in a vertical position at the same distance, and a circular disk of white writing paper, about 1/4 of an inch in diameter, on the centre of the black ground. Then having directed the telescope to this object, and adjusted for the place of distinct vision, mark with a black-lead pencil the sliding eye-tube, at the end of the main tube, so that this position can always be known; and if this sliding tube be gradually drawn out, or pushed in, while the eye beholds the disk, it will gradually enlarge and lose its colour, till its edges cease to be well-defined. Now, if the enlarged misty circle is observed to be concentric with the disk itself, the object-glass is properly centered, as it has reference to the tube; but if the misty circle goes to one side of the disk, the cell of the object-glass is not at right angles to the tube, and must have its screws removed and its holes elongated, by a rattailed file, small enough to enter the holes. When this has been done, the cell may be replaced, and the disk examined a second time, and a slight stroke on one edge of the cell, by a wooden mallet, will show by the alteration made in the position of the misty portion of the disk, how the adjustment is to be effected, which is known to be right when a motion in the sliding tube will make the diluted disk enlarge in a circle concentric with the disk itself. When the disk will enlarge so as to make a ring of diluted white light round its circumference, as the sliding tube holding the eye-piece is pushed in or drawn out, the cell may be finally fixed by the screws passing through its elongated holes.

When the object-glass is thus adjusted, it may then be ascertained whether the curves of the respective lenses composing the object-glass are well-formed and suitable for each other. If a small motion of the sliding tube of about 1/10th of an inch in a 3-1/2 feet telescope, from the point of distinct vision, will dilute the light of the disk and render the appearance confused, the figure of the object-glass is good; particularly if the same effect will take place at equal distances from the point of distinct vision, when the tube is alternately drawn out and pushed in. A telescope that will admit of much motion in the sliding tube without sensibly affecting the distinctness of vision, will not define an object well at any point of adjustment, and must be considered as having an imperfect object-glass, inasmuch as the spherical aberration of the transmitted rays is not duly corrected. The due adjustment of the convex lens, or lenses, to the concave one, will be judged of by the absence of coloration round the enlarged disk, and is a property distinct from the spherical aberration; the achromatism depending on the relative focal distances of the convex and concave lenses, is regulated by the relative dispersive powers of the pieces of glass made use of; but the distinctness of vision depends on a good figure of the computed curves that limit the focal distances. When an object-glass is free from imperfection in both these respects, it may be called a good glass for terrestrial purposes.

It still, however, remains to be determined how far such an object-glass may be good for viewing a star or a planet, and can only be known by actual observations on the heavenly bodies. When a good telescope is directed to the moon or to Jupiter, the achromatism may be judged of, by alternately pushing in, and drawing out the eye-piece, from the place of distinct vision. In the former case, a ring of purple will be formed round the edge; and in the latter, a ring of light green, which is the central colour of the prismatic spectrum; for these appearances show, that the extreme colours red and violet are corrected. Again, if one part of a lens employed have a different refractive power from another part of it, that is, if the flint-glass particularly is not homogeneous, a star of the first and even of the second magnitude will point out the natural defect by the exhibition of an irradiation, or what is called _a wing_, at one side, which no perfection of figure or of adjustment will banish, and the greater the aperture the more liable is the evil to happen. Hence caps with different apertures are usually supplied with large telescopes, that the extreme parts of the glass may be cut off, in observations requiring a round and well-defined image of the body observed.

Another method of determining the figure and quality of an object-glass is by first covering its centre by a circular piece of paper, as much as one half of its diameter, and adjusting it for distinct vision of a given object, such as the disk above mentioned, when the central rays are intercepted--and then trying if the focal length remains unaltered when the paper is taken away, and an aperture of the same size applied, so that the extreme rays may in their turn be cut off. If the vision remains equally distinct in both cases, without any new adjustment for focal distance, the figure is good, and the spherical aberration cured, and it may be seen by viewing a star of the first magnitude successively in both cases, whether the irradiation is produced more by the extreme or by the central parts of the glass. Or, in case the one half be faulty and the other good, a semicircular aperture, by being turned gradually round in trial, will detect what semicircle contains the defective portion of the glass; and if such portion should be covered, the only inconvenience that would ensue, would be the loss of so much light as is thus excluded. When an object-glass produces radiations in a large star, it is unfit for the nicer observations of astronomy, such as viewing double stars of the first class. The smaller a large star appears in any telescope, the better is the figure of the object-glass, but if the image of the star be free from wings, the size of its disk is not an objection in practical observations.[30]

Some opticians are in the habit of inserting a diaphragm into the body of the large tube, to cut off the extreme rays coming from the object-glass when the figure is not good, instead of lessening the aperture by a cap. When this is the case, a deficiency of light will be the consequence beyond what the apparent aperture warrants. It is therefore proper to examine that the diaphragm be not placed too near the object-glass, so as to intercept any of the useful rays. Sometimes a portion of the object-glass is cut off by the stop in the eye-tube. To ascertain this, adjust the telescope to distinct vision, then take out the eye-glasses, and put your finger on some other object on the edge of the outside of the object-glass, and look down the tube; if you can see the tip of your finger, or any object in its place, just peeping over the edge of the object-glass, no part is cut off. I once had a 3-1/2 feet telescope whose object-glass measured 3 inches diameter, which was neither so bright, nor did it perform in other respects nearly so well as another of the same length whose object-glass was only 2-3/4 inches diameter; but I found that a diaphragm was placed about a foot within the end of the large tube, which reduced the aperture of the object-glass to less than 2-1/2 inches; and when it was removed the telescope was less distinct than before. The powers given along with this instrument were much lower than usual--none of them exceeding 100 times. This is a trick not uncommon with some opticians.

Dr. Pearson mentions that an old Dollond’s telescope of 63 inches focal length, and 3-3/4 inches aperture, supposed to be an excellent one, was brought to Mr. Tulley, when he was present, and the result of the examination was that its achromatism was not perfect. The imperfection was thus determined by experiment. A small glass globe was placed at 40 yards distance from the object-end of the telescope when the sun was shining, and the speck of light seen reflected from this globe formed a good substitute for a large star, as an object to be viewed. When the focal length of the object-glass was adjusted to this luminous object, no judgment could be formed of its prismatic aberrations, till the eye-piece had been pushed in beyond the place of correct vision; but when the telescope was shortened a little, the luminous disk occasioned by such shortening was strongly tinged with _red_ rays at its circumference. On the contrary, when the eye-piece was drawn out, so as to lengthen the telescope too much, the disk thus produced was tinged with a small circle of _red_ at its _centre_, thereby denoting that the convex lens had too short a focal length; and Mr. Tulley observed, that if one or both of the curves of the convex lens were flattened till the total focal length should be about 4 inches increased, it would render the telescope quite achromatic, provided in doing this the aberration should not be increased.

The following general remarks may be added. 1. To make anything like an accurate comparison of telescopes, they must be tried not only at the same place, but as nearly as possible at the same time, and, if the instruments are of the same length and construction, if possible, with the same eye-piece. 2. A difference of 8 or 10 times in the magnifying power, will sometimes, on certain objects, give quite a different character to a telescope. It has been found by various experiments that object-glasses of two or three inches longer focus will produce different vision with the same eye-piece. 3. Care must be taken to ascertain that the eye-glasses are perfectly clean and free from defects. The defects of glass are either from veins--specks--scratches--colour, or an incorrect figure. To discover veins in an eye or an object-glass, place a candle at the distance of 4 or 5 yards; then look through the glass, and move it from your eye till it appear full of light--you will then see every vein, or other imperfection in it which may distort the objects and render vision imperfect. Specks or scratches, especially in object-glasses, are not so injurious as veins, for they do not distort the object, but only intercept a portion of the light. 4. We cannot judge accurately of the excellence of any telescope by observing objects with which we are not familiarly acquainted. Opticians generally try an instrument at their own marks, such as the dial-plate of a watch, a finely engraved card, a weather-cock, or the moon and the planet Jupiter, when near the meridian. Of several telescopes of the same length, aperture and magnifying power, that one is generally considered the best with which we can read a given print at the greatest distance, especially if the print consists of _figures_, such as a table of logarithms, where the eye is not apt to be deceived by the imagination, in _guessing_ at the sense of a passage, when two or three words are distinguished.

There is a circumstance which I have frequently noticed, in reference to achromatic telescopes, particularly those of a small size, and which I have never seen noticed by any optical writer. It is this,--if the telescope, when we are viewing objects, be gradually turned round its axis, there is a certain position in which the objects will appear distinct and accurately defined; and if it be turned round exactly a semicircle from this point, the same degree of distinctness is perceived; but in all other positions, there is an evident want of clearness and defining power. This I find to be the case in more than ten 1 foot and 2 feet telescopes now in my possession; and therefore I have put marks upon the object-end of each of them, to indicate the positions in which they should be used for distinct observation.--This is a circumstance which requires, in many cases, to be attended to in the choice and the use of telescopical instruments, and in fixing and adjusting them on their pedestals. In some telescopes this defect is very striking, but it is in some measure perceptible in the great majority of instruments which I have had occasion to inspect. Even in large and expensive achromatic telescopes this defect is sometimes observable. I have an achromatic whose object-glass is 4-1/10 inches diameter, which was much improved in its defining power, by being unscrewed from its original position, or turned round its axis--about one-eighth part of its circumference. This defect is best detected by looking at a large printed bill, or a sign-post at a distance, when, on turning round the telescope or object-glass, the letters will appear much better defined in one position than in another. The position in which the object appears least distinct is when the upper part of the telescope is a quadrant of a circle different from the two positions above-stated, or at an equal distance from each of them.

7. _On the mode of determining the magnifying power of Telescopes._

In regard to refracting telescopes, we have already shown that, when a single eye-glass is used, the magnifying power may be found by dividing the focal distance of the object-glass by that of the eye-glass. But when a Huygenian eye-piece, or a four-glass terrestrial eye-piece such as is now common in achromatic telescopes, is used, the magnifying power cannot be ascertained in this manner; and in some of the delicate observations of practical astronomy, it is of the utmost importance to know the exact magnifying power of the instrument with which the observations are made, particularly when micrometrical measurements are employed to obtain the desired results.--The following is a general method of finding the magnifying powers of telescopes when the instrument called a _dynameter_ is not employed; and it answers for refracting and reflecting telescopes of every description.

Having put up a small circle of paper, an inch or two in diameter, at the distance of about 100 yards, draw upon a card 2 black parallel lines, whose distance from each other is equal to the diameter of the paper circle. Then view through the telescope the paper circle with one eye, and the parallel lines with the other; and let the parallel lines be moved nearer to or further from, the eye, till they seem exactly to cover the small circle viewed through the telescope. The quotient obtained by dividing the distance of the paper circle by the distance of the parallel lines from the eye, will be the magnifying power of the telescope. It requires a little practice before this experiment can be performed with accuracy. The one eye must be accustomed to look at an object near at hand, while the other is looking at a more distant object through the telescope. Both eyes must be open at the same time, and the image of the object seen through the telescope must be brought into apparent contact with the real object near at hand. But a little practice will soon enable any observer to perform the experiment with ease and correctness, if the telescope be mounted on a firm stand, and its elevation or depression produced by rack-work.

The following is another method, founded on the same principle:--Measure the space occupied by a number of the courses, or rows of bricks in a modern building--which, upon an average, is found to have 8 courses in 2 feet, so that each course or row, is 3 inches. Then cut a piece of paper 3 inches in height, and of the length of a brick--which is about 9 inches--so that it may represent a brick, and fixing the paper against the brick wall, place the telescope to be examined at the distance of about 80 or 100 yards from it. Now, looking through the telescope at the paper with one eye, and at the same time, with the other eye, looking past the telescope, observe what extent of wall the magnified image of the paper appears to cover, then count the courses of bricks in that extent, and it will give the magnifying power of the telescope. It is to be observed, however, that the magnifying power determined in this way, will be a fraction greater than for very distant objects, as the focal distance of the telescope is necessarily lengthened in order to obtain distinct vision of near objects.

In comparing the magnifying powers of two telescopes, or of the same telescope, when different magnifying powers are employed, I generally use the following simple method. The telescopes are placed at 8 or 10 feet distant from a window, with their eye-ends parallel to each other, or at the same distance from the window. Looking at a distant object, I fix upon a portion of it whose magnified image will appear to fill exactly two or three panes of the window. Then putting on a different power, or looking through another telescope, I observe the same object, and mark exactly the extent of its image on the window-panes, and compare the extent of the one image with the other. Suppose for example, that the one telescope has been previously found to magnify 90 times, and that the image of the object fixed upon exactly fills three panes of the window, and that with the other power or the other telescope, the image fills exactly two panes, then the magnifying power is equal to two thirds of the former, or 60 times; and were it to fill only one pane, the power would be about 30 times. A more correct method is to place at one side of the window, a narrow board, two or three feet long, divided into 15 or 20 equal parts, and observe how many of these parts appear to be covered by the respective images, of the different telescopes. Suppose, in the one case, 10 divisions to be covered by the image, in a telescope magnifying 90 times, and that the image of the same object in another telescope, measures 6 divisions, then its power is found by the following proportion, 10 : 90 : 6 : 54 : that is, this telescope magnifies 54 times.

Another mode which I have used for determining, to a near approximation, the powers of telescopes, is as follows:--Endeavour to find the focus of a single lens which is exactly equivalent to the magnifying power of the eye-piece, whether the Huygenian or the common terrestrial eye-piece. This may be done by taking a small lens, and using it as an object-glass to the eye-piece. Looking through the eye-piece to a window and holding the lens at a proper distance, observe whether the image of one of the panes exactly coincides with the pane, as seen by the naked eye; if it does, then the magnifying power of the eye-piece is equal to that of the lens. If the lens be 1/2 inch focal length, the eye-piece will produce the same magnifying power, as a single lens when used as an eye-glass to the telescope, and the magnifying power will then be found by dividing the focal distance of the object-glass by that of the eye-glass. But if the image of the pane of glass does not exactly coincide with the pane as seen by the other eye, then proportional parts may be taken by observing the divisions of such a board as described above, or we may try lenses of different focal distances. Suppose, for example, that a lens 2 inches focal length had been used, and that the image of a pane covered exactly the space of two panes, the power of the eye-piece is then equal to that of a single lens 1 inch focal distance.

The following is another mode depending on the same general principle. If a slip of writing-paper one inch long, or a disk of the same material of one inch diameter, be placed on a black ground at from 30 to 50 yards distance from the object-end of the telescope, and a staff painted white, and divided into inches and parts by strong black lines, be placed vertically near the said paper or disk; the eye that is directed through the telescope when adjusted for vision, will see the magnified disk, and the other eye, looking along the outside of the telescope, will observe the number of inches and parts that the disk projected on it will just cover, and as many inches as are thus covered will indicate the magnifying power of the telescope--at the distance for which it is adjusted for distinct vision. The solar power, or powers for very distant objects, may be obtained by the following proportion:--As the terrestrial focal length, at the given distance: is to the solar focal length :: so is the terrestrial power, to the solar power. For example, a disk of white paper one inch in diameter, was placed on a black board, and suspended on a wall contiguous to a vertical black staff that was graduated into inches by strong white lines, at a distance of 33 yards 2-1/2 feet, and when the adjustment for vision was made with a 42 inch telescope, the left eye of the observer viewed the disk projected on the staff, while the right eye observed that the enlarged image of the disk covered just 58-1/2 inches on the staff, which number was the measure of the magnifying power, at the distance answering to 33 yards 2-1/2 feet--which in this case exceeded the solar focus by an inch and a half. Then according to the above analogy, we have, as 43.5 : 42 :: 58.5 : 56.5 nearly. Hence the magnifying power due to the solar focal length of the telescope in question is 56.5, and the distance 33 yards 2-1/2 feet, is that which corresponds to an elongation of the solar focal distance an inch and a half.[31] If we multiply the terrestrial and the solar focal distances together, and divide the product by their difference, we shall again obtain the distance of the terrestrial object from the telescope. Thus, (43.5 + 42)/1.5 = 1218 inches = 101.5 feet, or 33 yards 2-1/2 feet.

The magnifying power of a telescope is also determined, by measuring the image which the object-glass or the large speculum of a telescope forms at its solar focus. This is accomplished by means of an instrument called a _Dynameter_. This apparatus consists of a strip of mother-of-pearl, marked with equal divisions, from the 1/100th to the 1/1000th of an inch apart, according to the accuracy required. This measure is attached to a magnifying lens in its focus, in order to make the small divisions more apparent. When the power of a telescope is required, the person must measure the clear aperture of the object-glass, then holding the pearl _dynameter_ next the eye-glass, let him observe how many divisions the small circle of light occupies, when the instrument is directed to a bright object. Then by dividing the diameter of the object-glass by the diameter of this circle of light, the power will be obtained.[32] The most accurate instrument of this kind is the _Double Image Dynameter_ invented by Ramsden, and another on the same principle now made by Dollond, a particular description of which may be found in Dr. Pearson’s ‘Introduction to Practical Astronomy.’ The advantage attending these dynameters is that they do not require any knowledge of the thickness and focal lengths of any of the lenses employed in a telescope, nor yet of their number or relative positions; neither does it make any difference whether the construction be refracting or reflecting, direct or inverting. One operation includes the result arising from the most complicated construction.

I shall only mention farther the following method of discovering the magnifying power, which is founded on the same general principle as alluded to above. Let the telescope be placed in such a position opposite the sun, that the rays of light may fall perpendicularly on the object-glass; and the pencil of rays may be received on a piece of paper, and its diameter measured. Then, as the diameter of the pencil of rays is to that of the object-glass, so is the magnifying power of the telescope.

8.--_On cleaning the lenses of telescopes._--

It is necessary, in order to distinct vision, that the glasses, particularly the eye-glasses of telescopes be kept perfectly clean, free of damp, dust, or whatever may impede the transmission of the rays of light. But great caution ought to be exercised in the wiping of them, as they are apt to be scratched, or otherwise injured by a rough and incautious mode of cleaning them. They should never be attempted to be wiped unless they really require it; and, in this case, they should be wiped carefully and gently with a piece of new and soft lamb’s-skin leather. If this be not at hand, a piece of fine silk paper, or fine clean linen may be used as a substitute. The lens which requires to be most particularly attended to is the second glass from the eye, or the field-glass; for if any dust or other impediment be found upon this glass, it is always distinctly seen, being magnified by the glass next the eye. The next glass which requires attention is the fourth from the eye, or that which is next the object. Unless the glass next the eye be very dusty, a few small spots or grains of dust are seldom perceptible. The object-glass of an achromatic should seldom be touched, unless damp adheres to it. Care should be taken never to use pocket handkerchiefs or dirty rags for wiping lenses. From the frequent use of such articles, the glasses of seaman’s telescopes get dimmed and scratched in in the course of a few years. If the glasses be exceedingly dirty, and if greasy substances are attached to them, they may be soaked in spirits and water, and afterwards carefully wiped. In replacing the glasses in their socket, care should be taken not to touch the surfaces with the fingers, as they would be dimmed with the perspiration: they should be taken hold of by the edges only, and carefully screwed into the same cells from which they were taken.

ON MEGALASCOPES, OR TELESCOPES FOR VIEWING VERY NEAR OBJECTS.

It appears to have been almost overlooked by opticians and others, that telescopes may be constructed so as to exhibit a beautiful and minute view of very near objects, and to produce even a microscopic effect, without the least alteration in the _arrangement_ of the lenses of which they are composed. This object is effected simply by making the eye-tube of a telescope of such a length as to be capable of being drawn out 12 or 13 inches beyond the point of distinct vision for distant objects. The telescope is then rendered capable of exhibiting with distinctness all kinds of objects, from the most distant to those which are placed within 3 or 4 feet of the instrument--or not nearer than double the focal distance of the object-glass. Our telescopes, however, are seldom or never fitted with tubes that slide farther than an inch or two beyond the point of distinct vision for distant objects, although a tube of a longer size than usual, or an additional tube would cost but a very trifling expence.

The following, among many others, are some of the objects on which I have tried many amusing experiments with telescopes fitted up with the long tubes to which I allude. The telescope to which I shall more particularly advert is an achromatic, mounted on a pedestal, having an object-glass about 19 inches focal length, and 1-5/8 inch diameter, with magnifying powers for distant objects of 13 and 20 times. When this instrument is directed to a miniature portrait, 3-1/2 inches in length, placed in a good light, at the distance of about 8 or 10 feet, it appears as large as an oil-painting four or five feet long, and represents the individual as large as life. The features of the face appear to stand out in bold relief: and perhaps there is no representation of the human figure that more resembles the living prototype, than in this exhibition, provided the miniature is finely executed. In this case the tube requires to be pulled out four or five inches from the point of distinct vision for distant objects, and consequently the magnifying power is proportionally increased. Another class of objects to which such a telescope may be applied is _Perspective prints_, either of public buildings, streets or landscapes. When viewed in this way they present a panoramic appearance, and seem nearly as natural as life--just in the same manner as they appear in the Optical Diagonal Machine, or when reflected in a large concave mirror--with this advantage, that, while in these instruments the left hand side of the print appears where the right should be,--the objects seen through the telescope appear exactly in their natural position. In this case, however, the telescope should have a small magnifying power, not exceeding 5 or 6 times, so as to take in the whole of the landscape. If an astronomical eye-piece be used, the print will require to be inverted.

Other kinds of objects which may be viewed with this instrument, are trees, flowers, and other objects in gardens immediately adjacent to the apartment in which we make our observations. In this way we may obtain a distinct view of a variety of rural objects, which we cannot easily approach, such as the buds and blossoms on the tops of trees, and the insects with which they may be infested. There are certain objects on which the telescope may be made to produce a powerful microscopical effect, such as the more delicate and beautiful kinds of flowers, the leaves of trees, and similar objects. In viewing such objects, the telescope may be brought within little more than double the focal distance of the object-glass from the objects to be viewed, and then the magnifying power is very considerably increased. A nosegay composed of a variety of delicate flowers, and even a single flower, such as the sea-pink, makes a splendid appearance in this way. A peacock’s feather, or even the fibres on a common quill, appear very beautiful, when placed in a proper light. The leaves of trees, particularly the leaf of the plane-tree, when placed against a window-pane, so that the light may shine through them--appear, in all their internal ramifications, more distinct, beautiful and interesting, than when viewed in any other way; and in such views a large portion of the object is at once exhibited to the eye. In this case, the eye-piece of such a telescope as that alluded to requires to be drawn out 12 or 14 inches beyond the point of distinct vision for objects at a distance--and the distance between these near objects and the object-end of the telescope, is only about 3-1/2 feet.

A telescope having a diagonal eye-piece presents a very pleasant view of near objects in this manner. With an instrument of this kind, I have frequently viewed the larger kind of small objects alluded to above, such as the leaves of shrubs and trees, flowers consisting of a variety of parts, the fibres of a peacock’s feather and similar objects. In this case the object-glass of the instrument, which is 10-1/2 inches focal length, was brought within 22 inches of the object, and the eye looked down upon it, in the same manner, as when we view objects in a compound microscope. A common pocket achromatic telescope may be used for the purposes now stated, provided the tube in the eye-piece containing the two lenses next the object, be taken out, in which case the two glasses next the eye form an astronomical eye-piece, and the tubes may be drawn out 5 or 6 inches beyond the focal point for distant objects, and will produce distinct vision for objects not farther distant than about 20 or 24 inches. But, in this case, the objects to be viewed must be inverted, in order that they may be seen in their natural positions when viewed through the instrument. Telescopes of a large size and high magnifying powers may likewise be used with advantage for viewing very near objects in gardens adjacent to the room in which the instruments are placed, provided the sliding-tube next the eye has a range of two or three inches beyond the point of vision for distant objects. In this case, a magnifying power of 100 times on a 3-1/2 or a 5 feet achromatic produces a very pleasant effect. In making the observations to which I have now alluded, it is requisite in order to distinct vision, and to obtain a pleasing view of the objects, that the instrument should be placed on a pedestal, and capable of a motion in every direction. The adjustment for distinct vision may be made either by the sliding-tube, or by removing the telescope nearer to or farther from the object.

REFLECTIONS ON LIGHT AND VISION--AND ON THE NATURE AND UTILITY OF TELESCOPES.

Light is one of the most wonderful and beneficial, and at the same time one of the most mysterious agents in the material creation. Though the sun from which it flows to this part of our system is nearly a hundred millions of miles from our globe, yet we perceive it as evidently, and feel its influence as powerfully, as if it emanated from no higher a region than the clouds. It supplies life and comfort to our physical system, and without its influence and operations on the various objects around us, we could scarcely subsist and participate of enjoyment for a single hour. It is diffused around us on every hand from its fountain the sun; and even the stars, though at a distance hundreds of thousands of times greater than that of the solar orb, transmit to our distant region a portion of this element. It gives beauty and fertility to the earth, it supports the vegetable and animal tribes, and is connected with the various motions which are going forward throughout the system of the universe. It unfolds to us the whole scenery of external nature--the lofty mountains and the expansive plains, the majestic rivers and the mighty ocean; the trees, the flowers, the crystal streams, and the vast canopy of the sky adorned with ten thousands of shining orbs. In short there is scarcely an object within the range of our contemplation, but what is exhibited to our understanding through the medium of light, or at least bears a certain relation to this enlivening and universal agent. When we consider the extreme minuteness of the rays of light, their inconceivable velocity, the invariable laws by which they act upon all bodies, the multifarious phenomena produced by their inflections, refractions and reflections, while their original properties remain the same; the endless variety of colours they produce on every part of our terrestrial creation, and the facility with which millions of rays pass through the smallest apertures, and pervade substances of great density, while every ray passes forward in the crowd without disturbing another, and produces its own specific impression--we cannot but regard this element as the most wonderful, astonishing and delightful part of the material creation. When we consider the admirable beauties and the exquisite pleasures of which light is the essential source, and how much its nature is still involved in mystery, notwithstanding the profound investigations of modern philosophers, we may well exclaim with the Poet:--

“How then shall I attempt to sing of HIM
Who, light himself, in uncreated light
Invested deep, dwells awfully retired
From mortal eye or angel’s purer ken;
Whose single smile has, from the first of time,
Filled, overflowing, all yon lamps of heaven,
That beam for ever through the boundless sky.”--THOMSON.

The eye is the instrument by which we perceive the beautiful and multifarious effects of this universal agent. Its delicate and complicated structure, its diversified muscles, its coats and membranes, its different humours possessed of different refractive powers, and the various contrivances for performing and regulating its external and internal motions, so as to accomplish the ends intended--clearly demonstrate this organ to be a master-piece of Divine mechanism--the workmanship of Him whose intelligence surpasses conception, and whose Wisdom is unsearchable. ‘Our sight (says Addison) is the most perfect and delightful of all our senses. It fills the mind with the largest variety of ideas, converses with its objects at the greatest distance, and continues the longest in action, without being tired or satiated with its proper enjoyments. The sense of feeling can indeed give us a notion of extension, shape, and all other ideas that enter the eye, except colours; but at the same time it is very much strained, and confined in its operation to the number, bulk and distance of its particular objects. Our sight seems designed to supply all these defects, and may be considered as a more delicate and diffusive kind of touch that spreads itself over an infinite multitude of bodies, comprehends the largest figures, and brings into our reach some of the more remote parts of the universe.’

Could we suppose an order of beings endued with every human faculty but that of sight, it would appear incredible to such beings--accustomed only to the slow information of touch--that by the addition of an organ consisting of a ball and socket, of an inch diameter, they might be enabled, in an instant of time, without changing their place, to perceive the disposition of a whole army, the order of a battle, the figure of a magnificent palace, or all the variety of a landscape. If a man were by feeling to find out the figure of the Peak of Teneriffe, or even of St. Peter’s church at Rome, it would be the work of a lifetime. It would appear still more incredible to such beings as we have supposed, if they were informed of the discoveries which may be made by this little organ in things far beyond the reach of any other sense--that, by means of it we can find our way in the pathless ocean--that we can traverse the globe of the earth, determine its figure and dimensions, and delineate every region of it--yea, that we can measure the planetary orbs, and make discoveries in the sphere of the fixed stars. And, if they were farther informed that, by means of this same organ, we can perceive the tempers and dispositions, the passions and affections of our fellow-creatures, even when they want most to conceal them--that when the tongue is taught most artfully to lie and dissemble, the hypocrisy should appear in the countenance to a discerning eye--and that by this organ we can often perceive what is straight and what is crooked in the mind as well as in the body--would it not appear still more astonishing to beings such as we have now supposed?[33]

Notwithstanding these wonderful properties of the organ of vision, the eye, when unassisted by art, is comparatively limited in the range of its powers. It cannot ascertain the existence of certain objects at the distance of three or four miles, nor perceive what is going forward in nature or art beyond such a limit. By its natural powers we perceive the moon to be a globe about half a degree in diameter, and diversified with two or three dusky spots, and that the sun is a luminous body of apparently the same size--that the planets are luminous points, and that about a thousand stars exist in the visible canopy of the sky. But the ten thousandth part of those luminaries, which are within the reach of human vision, can never be seen by the unassisted eye. Here the TELESCOPE interposes, and adds a new power to the organ of vision, by which it is enabled to extend its views to regions of space immeasurably distant, and to objects, the number and magnitude of which could never otherwise have been surmised by the human imagination. By its aid we obtain a sensible demonstration that space is boundless--that the universe is replenished with innumerable suns and worlds--that the remotest regions of immensity, immeasurably beyond the limits of unassisted vision, display the energies of Creating Power, and that the Empire of the Creator extends far beyond what eye hath seen or the human imagination can conceive.

The telescope is an instrument of a much more wonderful nature than what most people are apt to imagine. However popular such instruments now are, and however common a circumstance it is to contemplate objects at a great distance which the naked eye cannot discern, yet, prior to their invention and improvement, it would have appeared a thing most mysterious, if not impossible, that objects at the distance of ten miles could be made to appear as if within a few yards of us, and that some of the heavenly bodies could be seen as distinctly as if we had been transported by some superior power, hundreds of millions of miles beyond the bounds of our terrestrial habitation. Who could ever have imagined--reasoning _a priori_--that the refraction of light in glass--the same power by which a straight rod appears crooked in water, by which vision is variously distorted, and by which we are liable to innumerable deceptions--that that same power, or law of nature, by the operation of which the objects in a landscape appear distorted when seen through certain panes of glass in our windows, that that power should ever be so modified and directed as to extend the boundaries of vision, and enable us clearly to distinguish scenes and objects at a distance a thousand times beyond the natural limits of our visual organs? Yet such are the discoveries which science has achieved, such the powers it has brought to light, that by glasses ground into different forms, and properly adapted to each other, we are enabled as it were to contract the boundaries of space, to penetrate into the most distant regions, and to bring within the reach of our knowledge the most sublime objects in the universe.

When Pliny declared in reference to Hipparchus, the ancient astronomer, ‘_Ausus rem Deo improbam annumerare posteris stellas_,’--that ‘he dared to enumerate the stars for posterity, an undertaking forbidden by God,’ what would that natural historian have said, had it been foretold that in less than 1600 years afterwards, a man would arise who should enable posterity to perceive, and to enumerate ten times more new stars than Hipparchus ever beheld--who should point out higher mountains on the moon than on the earth, who should discover dark spots, as large as our globe, in the sun, the fountain of light--who should descry four moons revolving in different periods of time around the planet Jupiter, and could show to surrounding senators the varying phases of Venus? and that another would soon after arise who should point out a double ring of six hundred thousand miles in circumference, revolving around the planet Saturn, and ten hundreds of thousands of stars which neither Hipparchus nor any of the ancient astronomers could ever descry? Yet these are only a small portion of the discoveries made by Galileo and Herschel, by means of the telescope. Had any one prophetically informed Archimedes, the celebrated geometrician of Syracuse, that vision would, in after ages, be thus wonderfully assisted by art--and further, that one manner of improving vision would be to place a dark _opake_ body directly between the object and the eye--and that another method would be, not to look at the object, but to keep the eye quite in a different, and even in an _opposite_ direction, or to stand with the back directly opposed to it, and to behold all the parts of it, invisible to the naked eye, most distinctly in this way--he would, doubtless have considered the prophet as an enthusiastic fool or a raving madman. Yet these things have been realized in modern times in the fullest extent. In the Gregorian reflecting telescope an opake body, namely the small speculum near the end of the tube, interposes _directly_ between the eye and the object. In the Newtonian Reflector, and in the diagonal eye-pieces formerly described, the eye is directed in a line at right angles to the object, or a deviation of 90 degrees from the direct line of vision. In Herschel’s’ large telescopes, and in the _Aerial Reflector_ formerly described (in pp. 311-325) the back is turned to the object, and the eye in an opposite direction.

These circumstances should teach us humility and a becoming diffidence in our own powers; and they should admonish us not to be too dogmatical or peremptory in affirming what is possible or impossible in regard either to nature or art, or to the operations of the Divine Being. Art has accomplished, in modern times, achievements, in regard to locomotion, marine and aërial navigation, the improvement of vision, the separation and combinations of invisible gases, and numerous other objects, of which the men of former ages could not have formed the least conception. And even yet, we can set no boundaries to the future discoveries of science and the improvements of art; but have every reason to indulge the hope that, in the ages to come, scenes of Divine mechanism in the system of nature will be unfolded, and the effects of chemical and mechanical powers displayed, of which the human mind, in its present state of progress, cannot form the most imperfect idea. Such circumstances likewise should teach us not to reject any intimations which have been made to us in relation to the character, attributes, and dispensations of the Divine Being, and the moral revelations of his will given in the Sacred Records, because we are unable to comprehend every truth and to remove every difficulty, which relates to the moral government of the Great Ruler of the universe. For, if we meet with many circumstances in secular science, and even in the common operations of nature, which are difficult to comprehend--if even the construction of such telescopes as we now use, would have appeared an incomprehensible mystery to ancient philosophers--we must expect to find difficulties almost insurmountable to such limited minds as ours, in the eternal plans and moral arrangements of the “King Immortal and Invisible,” as delineated only in their outlines, in the Sacred Oracles--particularly those which relate to the origin of physical and moral evil, the ultimate destiny of man, and the invisible realities of a future world.

The UTILITY of the telescope may be considered in relation to the following circumstances.

In the first place, it may be considered as an instrument or machine which virtually transports us to the distant regions of space. When we look at the moon through a telescope which magnifies 200 times, and survey its extensive plains, its lofty peaks, its circular ranges of mountains, throwing their deep shadows over the vales, its deep and rugged caverns, and all the other varieties which appear on the Lunar surface, we behold such objects in the same manner as if we were standing at a point 238,800 miles from the earth in the direction of the moon, or only twelve hundred miles from that orb, reckoning its distance to be 240,000 miles. When we view the planet Saturn with a similar instrument, and obtain a view of its belts, and satellites, and its magnificent rings, we are transported, as it were, through regions of space, to a point in the heavens more than _nine hundred millions of miles_ from the surface of our globe, and contemplate those august objects, as if we were placed within five millions of miles of the surface of that planet.[34] Although a supernatural power, sufficient to carry us in such a celestial journey, a thousand miles every day, were exerted--it would require more than two thousand four hundred and sixty years, before we could arrive at such a distant position; yet the telescope, in a few moments, transports our visual powers to that far distant point of space. When we view, with such an instrument, the minute and very distant clusters of stars in the Milky Way, we are carried in effect through the regions of space to the distance of _five hundred thousand millions of miles_ from the earth; for we behold those luminaries through the telescope nearly as if they were actually viewed from such a distant point in the spaces of the firmament. These stars cannot be conceived as less than _a hundred billions_ of miles from our globe, and the instrument we have supposed brings them within the two hundredth part of this distance. Suppose we were carried forward by a rapid motion towards this point, at the rate of a thousand miles _every hour_, it would require more than _fifty-seven thousand years_, before we could reach that very distant station in space to which the telescope, _in effect_, transports us. So that this instrument is far more efficient in opening to our view the scenes of the universe than if we were invested with powers of locomotion to carry us through the regions of space, with the rapidity of a cannon ball at its utmost velocity; and all the while we may sit at ease in our terrestrial apartments.