Part 11

Whether it is likely that there will be a display of meteors to-night (or, rather, to-morrow morning), is a question to which most astronomers would be disposed, we believe, to reply definitely in the negative. The display of November 13-14, 1866, was very brilliant; that of 1867 (best seen in the United States) was almost equally so; but successive showers steadily diminished. In other words, the part of the system crossed by the earth in 1866 and 1867 was very rich, but the part which she crossed afterwards (the rich part having passed far on towards the remote aphelion of the system outside the orbit of Uranus) was less rich. For the last few years very few November meteors have been seen, though the few stragglers which have been seen, and have been identified as belonging to the family by their paths athwart the star-depths, have been almost as interesting to astronomers as the showers of such bodies seen in 1799, 1833, 1866, and 1867. But it is not altogether impossible that in the small hours 'ayont the twal' to-morrow morning a shower of meteors may be seen. For Schiaparelli (the Italian astronomer who first started the ideas which led when properly followed up to the discovery of the relations existing between meteors and comets) asserts that it has happened before now that the November meteors have appeared in great numbers in years lying midway between the times of _maximum_ display. These times are separated on the average by about 33-1/4 years. Thus, in 1799, there was a great display of November meteors, a shower rendered specially celebrated by Humboldt's description. In 1833 there was another, the display which so terrified the negroes of South Carolina, but more interesting scientifically as described by Arago. In 1866 the shower again attained its _maximum_ splendour, though the display of 1867 was little inferior. It will not be till 1899 that another great shower of November meteors may be confidently looked for. But if Schiaparelli be right, it is quite possible that there may be a shower this year, due to some scattered flight of the November meteors which, delayed accidentally (through some special perturbation) many hundreds of years ago, has come in the course of ages to travel nearly half a circuit behind the richest part of the system, the 'gem of the meteor-ring,' as it has been poetically called. Even, however, though no display of November meteors should be seen, yet the recognition of even a few scattered stragglers would be exceedingly interesting to astronomers. A single meteor seen to-night which could be regarded as certainly belonging to the November system would suffice to show the possibility that a whole flight of the November meteors might travel at a similar distance behind the main body. It would be more easy, however, to identify two such meteors than one, six than two, and a score than half-a-dozen. The only way in which a meteor can be questioned, so to speak, respecting the family it belongs to, is by noting its path across the sky. If this path tends directly from the constellation Leo (however remote Leo may be from the part of the heavens traversed by the meteor), the chances are that the meteor is a Leonid, or one of the November family. If the path tends from that particular part of the constellation Leo (near the end of the curved blade of the so-called Sickle in Leo), the probability of the meteor being a Leonid is increased. If two or more meteors are seen to-morrow morning (after 12.30) which both tend from the Sickle in Leo, even though they seem to tend in opposite directions, the chances are yet greater that they are travelling in parallel paths along the track of the November meteors, but some 2,000 million miles behind the main body. Should the number mount up to a score or so, the conclusion would be, to all intents and purposes, certain; and the possible occurrence of even a shower of Leonids at a time midway between the customary _maxima_ of the meteoric displays would be placed beyond question.

We must, however, admit that it seems less likely there will be anything like a display of Leonids to-night than that patient observers may be able to identify a few of these bodies, and thus--though by observations of a less attractive kind--to advance our knowledge of this interesting system. Far more likely is it that towards the end of the month there will be a display of meteors belonging to another and an entirely distinct family, a family scarcely less worthy to be called November meteors _par excellence_, but actually rejoicing in the classically unsatisfactory name of Andromeds.

_EXPECTED METEOR SHOWER._

(From the _Times_ of November 25, 1878.)

It is probable that during the next three nights some light may be thrown on one of the most perplexing yet most interesting of all the problems recently suggested to the study of astronomers. It is confidently expected that many of those November meteors called Andromeds will be seen on one or other of those nights, if not on all three. No meteor systems, not even the famous systems of August and November, are more remarkable than this singular family. To explain why astronomers regard the Andromeds with so much interest, it will be necessary to speak of an object which at first sight seems in no way connected with them--an object, in fact, which, so long as it was actually known to astronomers, was never supposed to be connected with any family of meteors--the celebrated lost comet called Biela's (or, by Frenchmen, Gambart's comet). In February, 1826, Biela discovered in the constellation Aries a comet which was found to be travelling in an oval path round the sun, in a period of about six years seven and a half months. Tracing its course backwards, astronomers found that it had been seen in 1772 by Montaigne, and observed for two or three weeks in that year by Messier, the great comet hunter. Nothing very remarkable was recognised regarding this comet in 1826, except the fact that its path nearly intersects that of our own earth; so that if ever the earth is to encounter a comet, here seemed to be the comet she had to fear. Great terror was, indeed, excited by the announcement that in 1832 the comet would cross the earth's track only four or five weeks before the earth came to the place of danger. But no harm happened. In that year, and again in 1839, the comet returned quietly enough, though in 1839 it was not observed, being so placed that it was lost in the splendour of the solar rays. In February, 1846, the comet was again seen, this being the third return since its discovery in 1826, or rather, since its recognition as a member of the solar system, the eleventh since it was first seen by Montaigne. At this time everything seemed to suggest that this comet, unless our earth at some future time should absorb it, would remain for a long time a steady member of the sun's comet family. But only a few days after its detection in February, 1846, the comet was found to have divided into two, which travelled side by side until both vanished from view with increasing distance. In 1852 the companion comets reappeared, and again both continued in view till their motion carried them beyond telescopic range. As the distance between the coupled comets had increased from about 160,000 miles in 1846 to about 1,250,000 miles in 1852, astronomers anticipated a most interesting series of observations at the successive returns of the double comet to the earth's neighbourhood. Unfortunately, in 1859 the comet's course carried it athwart a part of the sky illuminated by the sun's rays, so that astronomers could not then expect to see it. But in 1866 it was looked for hopefully. Its orbit had now been most carefully computed, and many observers, armed with excellent telescopes, were on the watch for it, with very accurate knowledge of the course along which it might be expected to travel, and even of its position from day to day and from hour to hour. But it was not seen. Nor, again, was it seen in 1872, when fresh computations had been made, and observations were extended over a wider range, to make sure, as was hopefully thought, that this time it should not escape recognition. Could it have come, asked Herschel in 1866--and in 1872 the same question might still more pertinently be asked--into contact or exceedingly close approach to some asteroid as yet undiscovered? or, peradventure, had it plunged into and got bewildered among the rings of meteorolites, which astronomers more than suspected?

Between 1866, when Sir John Herschel thus wrote, and 1872, when again Biela's comet was sought in vain, a series of strange discoveries had been made respecting meteors, which led astronomers to believe that, even though the missing comet might never again be seen as a comet, we might still learn something respecting its present condition. It had been noticed that the remarkable comet of 1862 (comet 11 of that year) crossed the earth's track near the place where she is on August 10-11, the time of the August meteors, called the Tears of St. Lawrence in old times, but now known as the Perseids, because they seem to radiate from the constellation Perseus. Later the idea occurred to Schiaparelli, an Italian astronomer, that the August meteors may travel along the path of that comet. He could not prove this, but he advanced very strong evidence in favour of the opinion, for he found that bodies travelling along the path of the comet of 1862 would seem to radiate from Perseus as they traversed the earth's atmosphere. It was as if a person suspected that a steam-cloud seen on a distant railway track belonged to a particular train, and, though unable actually to prove this, was yet able to show that, with the wind and weather then prevailing, that train, travelling at its customary rate, would leave a steam-cloud behind it precisely of the apparent length and position of the observed steam-cloud. This cloud might have the observed position though otherwise produced, yet the evidence would be thought strongly to favour the supposition that it came from the train in question. In like manner the August meteors might be travelling on any one of a great number of tracks intersecting the earth's orbit in the place occupied by the earth on August 10-11; yet it was at least a striking coincidence that a flight of meteors travelling in the orbit of the chief comet of 1862 would seem to radiate from the constellation Perseus, precisely as the August meteors do.

While astronomers were still discussing the ideas of Schiaparelli, Professor Newton of Yale College, in America, called their attention to the great display of November meteors which might be expected on November 13-14, 1866. The fine shower of that year was well observed, and the part--we may almost say the point--of the constellation Leo from which the meteors radiated was correctly determined. And now a strange thing happened. Those who believed in Schiaparelli's account of the August meteors supposed of necessity that the bodies forming that system travel in an orbit of enormous extent, for the comet of 1862 travels on a path extending much further from the sun than the path of Neptune. There was, therefore, nothing to prevent them from believing that the Leonides travel in a track carrying them far away from the sun. The recurrence of great displays of these meteors at intervals of about 33 years might be readily explained on such an assumption, for if the Leonides have a period of about 33 years, their path must extend far beyond the path of Uranus. But hitherto astronomers had not been ready to admit such an explanation of the periodic recurrence of great displays of the November meteors. They preferred theories (for several were available) which accounted for the 33-year period, while assigning to the Leonides paths of much less extent. Now that the idea of vast meteoric orbits had been fairly broached, some astronomers thought it might at least be worth while to calculate the path of the November meteors on the assumption that their true period is about 33-1/4 years. This was perfectly easy, because the period of a body travelling round the sun determines the velocity at any given distance from the sun, and knowing thus (at least, on this assumption) the true velocity of the Leonides as they rush into our air, while their apparent path is known, their true course is as readily determined as the true course of the wind can be determined by a seaman from the apparent direction and velocity with which it reaches his ship. When the path of the November meteors had been determined (on the assumption mentioned), it was found to be identical with the path of a comet which had only been discovered a few months before-the comet called Tempel's. That a comet which is invisible to the naked eye should have been discovered in the very year when first astronomers made exact observations of the meteors which travel in its track--for it will presently be seen that the assumption above mentioned was a just one--cannot but be regarded as a very singular coincidence. It was a most fortunate coincidence for astronomers, since there can be but little doubt that but for it Schiaparelli's theory would very soon have been forgotten. As that theory was itself suggested by the fortuitous recognition of another comet (only visible at intervals of more than a century) at a time when attention had been specially directed to the August meteors, it may fairly be said that the theory which now associates meteors and comets in the most unmistakable manner was suggested by one accident and confirmed by another. Albeit such accidents happen only to the zealous student of nature's secrets. We shall presently see that the fortunate detection of Tempel's comet in 1866 was not the last of the series of coincidences by which the theory of meteors was established.

Although the evidence favouring Schiaparelli's theory was now strong, yet it was well that at this stage still more convincing evidence was forthcoming. The date of the November display has changed since the Leonides were first recognised, in such sort as to show that the position of their path has changed. The change is due to the disturbing attractions of the planets. It occurred to our great astronomer Adams, discoverer with Leverrier of distant Neptune, to inquire whether the observed change accorded with the calculated effects of planetary attraction, if the Leonides are supposed to travel in any of the smaller paths suggested by astronomers, or could be explained only by the assumption that the meteors travel on the widely-extending path corresponding to the 33-1/4 years period. The problem was worthy of his powers--in other words, it was a problem of exceeding difficulty. By solving it, Adams made that certain which Schiaparelli and his followers had merely assumed. He showed beyond all possibility of doubt or question that of all the paths by which the periodic meteoric displays could be accounted for, the wide path carrying the November meteors far beyond the track of Uranus was the only one which accorded with the observed effects of planetary perturbation.

It was in the confidence resulting from this masterly achievement that in 1872 some astronomers (among them Professor Alex. Herschel, one of Sir J. Herschel's sons) announced the probable occurrence of a display of meteors when the earth crossed the track of Biela's missing comet. An occurrence of this sort was alone wanting to complete the evidence for the meteoric theory. It had been found that the August Perseids move as if they followed in the track of a known comet; the path of the November Leonides had been shown to be identical with that of another comet; if astronomers could predict the appearance of meteors at the time when the earth should pass through the track of a known comet, even those who could not appreciate the force of the mathematical evidence for the new theory would be convinced by the meteoric display. Possibly such observers would have been satisfied with a meteor shower which would not have contented astronomers. The display must have special characteristics to satisfy scientific observers. The path of a body following Biela's comet being known, and its exact rate of motion, the direction in which it must enter our earth's atmosphere (if at all) is determined. Calculation showed this direction to be such that every meteor would appear to travel directly from the constellation Andromeda,--from a point near the feet of the Chained Lady. A meteor might appear in any part of the sky, but its course must be directed from that point, otherwise it could not possibly be travelling in the track of Biela's comet.

The event corresponded exactly with the anticipations of astronomers. On the evening of November 27, 1872, many thousands of small meteors were seen. In England between 40,000 and 50,000 were counted. In Italy the meteors were so numerous that at one time there seemed to be a cloud of light around the region near the feet of Andromeda whence all the meteor-tracks seemed to radiate. The meteors were unmistakably travelling on the track of Biela's comet. They overtook the earth on a path slanting downwards somewhat from the north--precisely in the direction in which Biela's comet would itself have descended upon the earth if at any time the earth had chanced to reach the part of her path crossed by the comet's when the comet was passing that way.

Strangely enough, a German astronomer, Klinkerfues, seems to have regarded the meteoric display of November 27, 1872, as an actual visit from Biela's comet. He telegraphed to Pogson, Government Astronomer at Madras, 'Biela touched earth on November 27, look out for it near Theta Centauri;' which, being interpreted, means, Biela's comet then grazed the earth, coming from the feet of Andromeda, look for it where it is travelling onwards in the opposite direction--that is towards the shoulder of the Centaur. As Biela's comet had in reality passed that way twelve weeks earlier, the instructions of Klinkerfues were somewhat wide of the mark. However, Pogson followed them, and near the spot indicated he saw two faint cloud-like objects, slowly moving athwart the heavens. These he supposed to be the two comets into which the missing comet had divided. It so happens, strangely enough, that these objects, though moving parallel to the track of the missing comets, were neither those comets themselves, nor the meteor flight through which the earth had passed a few hours before. They were probably somewhat richer meteor clouds, fragments (like the cloud through which our earth had passed) of this most mysterious of all known comets.

To-night, or perhaps to-morrow or next night (for the position of the meteor flights is not certainly known) we shall probably see meteors travelling in advance of the main body. For the earth passes during the next three days across the orbit of Biela's comet, about as far in front of the head as she passed behind the head in 1872. Now, there is no known reason for supposing (on _à priori_ grounds) that meteors get strewn behind a comet's nucleus more readily than in front of it. The disturbing forces which would tend to delay some meteoric attendants would be balanced by forces which would tend to hasten others. As a matter of fact it would seem that the meteor flights which follow a comet's nucleus are commonly denser than those which precede the nucleus. Yet in 1865 many thousands of Leonides were seen which were in advance of the main body forming the comet of 1866. In 1859, 1860, and 1861, many Perseids were seen, which were in advance of the comet of 1862. So that we might fairly expect to see a great number of Andromeds to-night (or on the following nights) even if we had none but the probabilities thus suggested to guide us. But since many were seen on November 27 last, when the head of the comet, now some four months' journey from us, was a whole year's journey further away, it seems probable that on the present occasion a display well worth observing will be seen should fine weather prevail. It will be specially interesting to astronomers, as showing how meteors are strewn in front of a comet. How meteors are strewn behind a comet we already know tolerably well from observations made on the Perseids since 1862 and on the Leonides since 1865.

_COLD WINTERS._

During the cold weather of last December (1878) we heard much about old-fashioned winters. It was generally assumed that some thirty or forty years ago the winters were colder than they now are. Some began to speculate on the probability that we may be about to have a cycle of cold winters, continuing perhaps for thirty or forty years, as the cycle of mild winters is commonly supposed to have done. If any doubts were expressed as to the greater severity of winter weather thirty or forty years ago, evidence was forthcoming to show that at that time our smaller rivers were commonly frozen over during the winter, and the larger rivers always encumbered with masses of ice, and not unfrequently frozen from source to estuary. Skating was spoken of as a half-forgotten pastime in these days, as compared with what it was when the seniors of our time were lads. Nor were dismal stories wanting of villages snowed up for months, of men and women who had been lost amid snowdrifts, and of other troubles such as we now associate rather with Siberian than with British winters.

Turning over recently the volume of the 'Penny Magazine' for the year 1837, I came across a passage which shows that these ideas about winter weather forty years ago were entertained forty years ago about winter weather eighty or ninety years ago. It occurs in an article on the 'Peculiarities of the Climate of Canada and the United States.' Discussing the theory whether the clearing away of forests has any influence in mitigating the severity of winter weather, the writer of the article says, 'Many persons assert, and I believe with some degree of accuracy, that the seasons in Europe, and in our own island particularly, have undergone a remarkable change within the memory of many persons now living; and if such really be the case, how few attempts have been made to account for this change, since no great natural phenomenon, like that of clearing away millions of acres of forest timber, and thereby exposing the cold and moist soil to the action of the sun's rays, has recently taken place here; so that if the climate of Great Britain has actually undergone a change, the cause, whatever that may be, must be of a different nature from that generally supposed to affect the climate of North America.' It must be explained that, though in this passage the writer does not speak of a diminution in the severity of the winters, it is a change of that sort that he is really referring to. He had said, a few lines before, that 'some of the older inhabitants of North America will declare to you that the winters are much less severe "now" than they were forty or fifty years ago,' and in the passage quoted he is discussing the possibility of a similar change in Europe, where, however, as he points out, the cause assigned to the supposed change in America has certainly no existence. Since 1830, by the way, the theory has been advanced that the supposed mildness of recent winters may have been caused by the large increase in the consumption of coal, owing to the use of steam machinery, gas for lighting purposes, and so forth.