Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets - Volume 1: 1600-1899 3031231708, 9783031231704

Table of contents :
Preface
Analysis
References
Acknowledgments
Contents
Catalog
KM1625-1
KM1647-1
KM1656-1
KM1666-1
KM1675-1
KM1676-1
KM1708-1
KM1717-1
KM1722-1
KM1726-1
KM1732-1
KM1742-1
KM1742-2
KM1742-3
KM1746-1
KM1748-1
KM1749-1
KM1758-1
KM1770-1
KM1783-1
KM1783-2
KM1784-1
KM1784-2
KM1784-3
KM1793-1C/1793 A1
KM1796-1
KM1803-1
KM1807-1
KM1808-1
KM1808-2
KM1808-3
KM1813-1X/1813 D1
KM1817-1
KM1817-2
KM1817-3X/1817 V1
KM1820-1
KM1820-2
KM1823-1
KM1826-1
KM1832-1
KM1837-1
KM1839-1
KM1841-1
KM1846-1X/1846 U1
KM1849-1
KM1851-1
KM1854-1X/1854 F2
KM1855-1X/1855 K1
KM1856-1
KM1856-2
KM1856-3
KM1857-1
KM1859-1
KM1860-1
KM1865-1
KM1865-2
KM1865-3
KM1865-4
KM1871-1
KM1871-2
KM1871-3X/1871 Y2
KM1872-1X/1872 X1
KM1874-1
KM1876-1
KM1877-1
KM1878-1
KM1879-1
KM1879-2
KM1880-1X/1880 P1
KM1880-2
KM1880-31880g = X/1880 Y2
KM1881-1X/1881 J2
KM1881-2
KM1882-1
KM1882-2
KM1882-3X/1882 K1
KM1882-4
KM1883-1
KM1883-2
KM1883-3
KM1883-4
KM1883-5
KM1883-6
KM1883-7
KM1883-8X/1883 Y1
KM1884-1
KM1884-2
KM1885-1X/1885 G1
KM1885-2X/1885 Q1
KM1887-1
KM1889-11889a = X/1889 A1
KM1889-2
KM1889-3
KM1890-1
KM1890-2
KM1891-1
KM1891-2
KM1892-1
KM1892-2
KM1892-3
KM1892-4
KM1892-5
KM1893-1
KM1894-1
KM1895-1X/1895 M1
KM1895-2
KM1896-1X/1896 S1
KM1899-1
Appendix
References
Index

Citation preview

Historical & Cultural Astronomy Series Editors: W. Orchiston · M. Rothenberg · C. Cunningham

Gary W. Kronk Maik Meyer

Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets — Volume 1 1600–1899

Historical & Cultural Astronomy Series Editors Wayne Orchiston, Adjunct Professor, Astrophysics Group University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD, Australia MARC ROTHENBERG, Smithsonian Institution (retired) Rockville, MD, USA CLIFFORD CUNNINGHAM, University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Editorial Board JAMES EVANS, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, WA, USA MILLER GOSS, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Charlottesville, USA DUANE HAMACHER, Monash University Melbourne, Australia JAMES LEQUEUX, Observatoire de Paris Paris, France SIMON MITTON, St. Edmund’s College Cambridge University Cambridge, UK CLIVE RUGGLES, University of Leicester Leicester, UK VIRGINIA TRIMBLE, University of California Irvine Irvine, CA, USA GUDRUN WOLFSCHMIDT, Institute for History of Science and Technology University of Hamburg Hamburg, Germany TRUDY BELL, Sky & Telescope Lakewood, OH, USA DAVID DEVORKIN, National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution Washington, USA

The Historical & Cultural Astronomy series includes high-level monographs and edited volumes covering a broad range of subjects in the history of astronomy, including interdisciplinary contributions from historians, sociologists, horologists, archaeologists, and other humanities fields. The authors are distinguished specialists in their fields of expertise. Each title is carefully supervised and aims to provide an in-depth understanding by offering detailed research. Rather than focusing on the scientific findings alone, these volumes explain the context of astronomical and space science progress from the pre-modern world to the future. The interdisciplinary Historical & Cultural Astronomy series offers a home for books addressing astronomical progress from a humanities perspective, encompassing the influence of religion, politics, social movements, and more on the growth of astronomical knowledge over the centuries. The Historical & Cultural Astronomy Series Editors are: Wayne Orchiston, Marc Rothenberg, and Cliff Cunningham.

Gary W. Kronk • Maik Meyer

Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets - Volume 1 1600-1899

Gary W. Kronk Belleville, IL, USA

Maik Meyer Limburg, Germany

ISSN 2509-310X     ISSN 2509-3118 (electronic) Historical & Cultural Astronomy ISBN 978-3-031-23170-4    ISBN 978-3-031-23171-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23171-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Anyone who digs into the literature of cometary astronomy will be rewarded with wonderful stories of discovery, descriptions of bright, naked-eye comets displaying a beautiful tail, and the work of astronomers to understand where these comets come from and what they are made of. Not all of this is in this book, but what is included are stories of forgotten objects, which the authors refer to as “unconfirmed comets.” Most were seen on only one night. Most were seen by only one person. Some were undoubtedly real, some were misidentifications, and some were fraudulent. When possible, the authors have tried to present new material on these objects by not only searching the literature, but approaching historical societies, libraries, and observatories around the world to acquire material that has never been published. We were not only able to learn more about most of the objects in this book, but also more about the discoverers, and all this information is presented here. The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries saw a tumultuous change in science, especially astronomy. The invention of the telescope was a major factor, effectively opening up another universe and helping in the recognition and interpretation of celestial phenomena. Whereas the observer had earlier been limited to the naked eye, the telescope increased the number of observable objects by several orders of magnitude. This resulted in a rapid increase of new discoveries, not only comets, but also planets, minor planets, nebulae, galaxies, and star clusters. The dissemination of information also changed dramatically during this period. Through several millennia, the early sharing of ideas were inscribed on rock faces, turtle shells, palm leaves, and other early “media,” which were only available to a select few. Over 4000 years ago, more extensive writing began using stone tablets and papyrus, enabling a greater development of ideas. Over 2000 years ago, hand-­ written letters started to be sent to others. But none of these modes of recording events and thoughts were meant for the wide-spread dissemination of ideas. This began to change in the fifteenth century, when J. Gutenberg’s printing press enabled the first mass production of books. A real force of change began in the seventeenth century, when there was an explosion in the number of newspapers and journals. For the first time, the population at large had the ability to keep up on current events and learn about ongoing research. Finally, the telegraph came along in the 1840s and v

vi

Preface

1850s, not only allowing rapid communication between cities, but even between continents. During the period covered by this book, the time it took for news of comet discoveries to spread from one continent to another was reduced from months to less than an hour. While the appearance of bright comets had always attracted the attention of ordinary people, reports and messages about alleged celestial objects and phenomena were published and documented. Although there are many well-known observers who regularly searched for comets during the period covered by this book, prizes began being offered to encourage more people to look for comets. The first was announced by J. J. L. de Lalande in 1800. His offer of 600 Francs (about $2000) was to go to the first person to discover a comet in the new century. On the nights of July 11 and 12, 1801, the comet that would become known as C/1801 N1 was discovered by J. L. Pons, P. F. A. Méchain, C. Messier, and A. Bouvard. Pons, who saw the comet on the 11th, received the award and would eventually discover more than 30 comets in his life. Méchain, Messier, and Bouvard independently found the comet within about 15 minutes of each other on the 12th. What would become the Lalande prize was continued thereafter and was given to any astronomer who made “such discovery, observation, or work in astronomy, as shall be thought the most remarkable or useful, during the course of the year” [1]. It would eventually reach a value of 10,000 Francs (about $23,000) in 1950, when it was merged with another award. A new comet award was announced by King Frederick VI of Denmark in 1831. His majesty, the King of Denmark, of whom the astronomy already owes so much, has – upon the request of the Secret Minister of State Herr v. Mösting – in order to revive the zeal to search the heavens for telescopic comets, laid foundation on December 17, 1831, for a golden medal (of the weight of 20 Ducats). This medal will be granted to everyone who first finds a telescopic comet according to the following conditions. [2]

This medal was continued until 1850. Beginning in 1869, the Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna (Austria) began awarding a gold medal to comet discoverers. It was finally discontinued in 1880. Perhaps the most famous prize was that offered by H.  H. Warner, one of the wealthiest people in Rochester, New York, during the nineteenth century. In January 1881, he began offering a prize of $200 in gold ($5800) for every comet discovered in the United States and Canada. He later included other countries. The main requirement was that a telegram had to be sent to L. Swift, also in Rochester, and was to include the time of discovery, the position, and the daily rate and direction of motion. Once the comet was confirmed, the discoverer would receive the prize. The Donohoe Medal was announced in the July 1889 issue of the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. It was described as a “recognition of merit,” and not a reward, for the discovery of a comet. It was made of bronze and the inscription included the name of the discoverer, as well as the date of the discovery [3]. It was discontinued in 1950. There can be no doubt that these prizes inspired people to search for comets, but it seems the prizes offering money were seen by some as a way to get rich quick. An

Preface

vii

amateur astronomer named Reissig claimed to have discovered comet C/1801 N1 a few weeks after Pons and others had made their announcement. His discovery date was 12 days prior to Pons, which would mean he was entitled to the reward of 600 Francs. He said it was seen for 5 or 6 minutes between Ursa Major and Camelopardalis. After the orbit of this comet was firmly established, it revealed that the comet was nowhere near the location Reissig indicated. His claim was fraudulent. A classic attempt at garnering the Warner prize was made by J. M. Klein of Kentucky, who announced several comet discoveries during the 1880s. He would generally report his observations for specific dates. When a bright comet was discovered weeks or months later, he would claim that it was the comet he had actually discovered earlier. Klein’s stories were written by a newspaper reporter named J. Mulhattan, who famously became known as the “Great Kentucky Liar,” the “King of Liars,” etc. He penned numerous stories throughout the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s without any factual basis, but they sold newspapers. Klein never received the Warner prize. Although the Warner prize had inspired many fraudulent claims of comet discoveries, it did encourage many to seriously hunt for comets. Details of the Warner prize appeared in newspapers published in large cities and small towns across the United States. While active, Swift, W. R. Brooks, and E. E. Barnard discovered the most comets and would get the prize more than any other observer. Barnard won it five times, which enabled him to buy a house [4]. As noted above, Swift was the person designated to receive the reports of comet discoveries and he mentioned on several occasions that he was sent on many wild-goose chases. In an 1882 issue of the British journal The Observatory, Swift wrote about some of the reports he received: These are a few samples of many which have come to me, and which will undoubtedly continue to come as long as the prizes are offered. ‘Just discovered new comet 20° east of overhead’ (which I found to be = M15). ‘Bright comet short tail in north-east’ (= great nebula in Andromeda). ‘Bright comet visible to naked eye’ (= Praesepe). ‘Bright comet N.E. of Lesath moving a degree a day’ (= M7) [5].

None of the misidentified objects in the previous paragraph are in this book, because the true nature of these “comet” reports was quickly identified before they received publicity. The authors only included objects whose discovery received some publicity in a widely distributed publication. Most of the objects in this book were observed on only one night, but there were rare occasions when the discoverer reported multiple observations, yet remained the only observer. Some of these objects have generated much past discussion, such as Pogson’s “comet” of 1872, but most remained obscure with no follow up. Frequently left unanswered was the question of whether these objects were real or not. Part of the reason for this book is to provide the full details of these objects, some published and some unpublished. We also wanted to try to identify what these objects were. Ultimately, we found that some of these “comets” were already known comets or nebulae. A few are strongly believed to have been reflections of nearby stars or planets. Some were likely fabrications. But, after all the eliminations, there remained objects that were probably real comets. These objects are examples of

viii

Preface

what can happen when prompt announcements are not made, photographs are not immediately examined, or rapidly moving objects are encountered. In a few cases, our research even enabled us to calculate improved orbits or orbits for the first time ever. A very remarkable case is our re-discovery of a comet by chasing down letters containing lost observations. This allowed us to calculate an orbit for a comet that had been doubted since its initial report and so raised the tally of comet discoveries for its discoverer by one comet [see KM1808-2]. While many discoverers of these unconfirmed comets are neither amateur nor professional astronomers, many were the greatest alumni in comet and asteroid observing. For each of the cases, when possible, we have tried to add background information about the observer and the circumstances leading up to the discovery to put everything into a historical and cultural perspective. E. E. Barnard, a discoverer of many comets in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, reported a comet in May 1881, which might have been a ghost image of a star [see KM1881-1]. Had it been real, it would have been his first. In response, Swift, the discoverer of 13 comets in the last half of the nineteenth century, wrote a letter to Barnard and told the following story to show that anyone can make a mistake: I discovered a comet revolving once in 24 [hours] round Jupiter. It was nothing but a ghost of course. It would appear to make half a revolution round the planet while moving from the eastern to the western horizon, it being in opposition. After observing it for two successive nights I wrote to Dr. Gould and he had all the astronomers in Cambridge searching for it. On the 3rd or 4th night I wiped the outer surface of my [objective] and behold my comet was gone. [6]

W. F. Denning, known for his comet discoveries, as well as his vast work in observing and studying meteor showers, sent a letter to The Observatory on June 22, 1889, giving an anecdotal story about how easy even experienced comet observers can be fooled by other objects in the sky. He wrote the following: Observers have sometimes too hastily assumed they have discovered new comets near Jupiter. These objects have either been nebulae lying near the planet’s path, or ghosts produced by faulty instruments. On May 28 last the writer saw a large bright nebulous object about 1° S.S.E. of Jupiter, and on reference found it to be Messier 22. [7]

Whether a report represents a real comet or something else, there are many reasons why it might not have been investigated immediately. Communications were a major problem that led to unconfirmed comets. Prior to the telegraph, letters were sent to colleagues or various institutions, to alert others of their find. Hence, some comets were never observed by anyone outside the country where it was discovered. As the nineteenth century progressed, Harvard College Observatory (United States), Kiel Observatory (Germany), the Royal Observatory of Greenwich (England), and Dunecht Observatory (Scotland) became clearinghouses for comet discovery announcements. However, throughout the period covered by this book, both non-­ astronomers and astronomers sometimes just sent announcements to newspapers, letting them spread the news.

Preface

ix

The reason several well-known professional astronomers have unconfirmed comets is usually because of poor weather conditions. Astronomers are typically careful not to report a comet until they know the direction it is heading and how fast it is moving. There are several objects in this book where well-known astronomers could not confirm their discovery because of clouds, which sometimes persisted for several days or weeks. They subsequently made a report in the hope that someone might recover it. Unconfirmed comets are rarely included in comet catalogs, but there are many examples that illustrate their importance. In 1986, L.  Kresák was examining the orbit of 26P/Grigg-Skjellerup and found the comet to be identical to a rapidly moving comet observed during February 6–9, 1808, by Pons. In 1819, J. F. Encke was examining the orbit of the comet that would become known as 2P/Encke. He was able to link it to a comet that was only seen on January 17 and 19, 1786, by P. F. A. Méchain and C. Messier. Another example is A. C. D. Crommelin’s linking of a comet seen by Pons on four days during February 23–28, 1818, with the comet that would become known as 27P/Crommelin. These successful linkages show the value of our documentation of unconfirmed cometary objects. The present age of computers is offering new and quicker ways for astronomers to examine the evolution of comet orbits, observational circumstances, and identification, so that unconfirmed comets can potentially become “new” observations of known comets. Such observations can be very important in examining and better refining nongravitational forces. These forces are different for each comet and have been responsible for several comets becoming far removed from their predicted positions from one apparition to the next. The authors have made extensive use of these modern tools to examine each of the described cases which occasionally resulted in surprising conclusions. The authors have chosen to present the data as close to the original form as possible. The times have been converted to Universal Time (UT), but the positions are usually the actual positions in the original epoch they were given. This typically does not change until more recent times, when Universal Time became the standard in astronomy, and coordinates were usually given for equinox 1950.0 or 2000.0. Since this is a mainly a reference book, the authors have treated the discussion of each object as a self-contained story, so that the reader does not need to go back to a previous story to find out what something is, unless directed to do so.

Analysis Both authors have utilized various planetarium programs to aid in plotting the reported positions for the locales of the observers. These programs included Guide by Bill Gray, Voyager by Carina Software, and the free program Cartes du Ciel by Patrick Chevalley.

x

Preface

For the brighter periodic comets, orbits were integrated backward and tested for the identity with the objects in this book. The authors also used published and unpublished orbits for long-periodic comets. One of the byproducts of the successful application of this method was the identification of periodic comet 12P/Pons-­ Brooks with the comets C/1457 A1 and C/1385 U1 – and possibly with one seen in the year 245 [8]. The integration and calculation of orbits were carried out by using the FindOrb software by Bill Gray. Concerning the backward integration, this procedure becomes more and more uncertain the further one integrates into the past, especially for short-period comets. Approaches to the major planets will lead to changes in the orbit that become increasingly uncertain to predict. Close approaches to planets can lead to dramatic changes in the orbital elements. Even slight differences in the adopted starting orbit can therefore lead to very different backward integrated orbits. We tried to integrate the most reliable orbit. Because of the uncertainties involved, the reader should keep in mind that identities might have been missed. The magnitudes are usually estimates by the authors, based on the available descriptions and observing conditions. If we knew the exact location of the observer, Google Earth was sometimes used to examine the local landscape to check for hills or mountains that might have hampered attempts at observing. We have incorporated additional tools to help us analyze observations made at lower altitudes and twilight. D. W. E. Green published a paper titled “Magnitude Corrections for Atmospheric Extinction” in 1992. This considers the effects of the thickening atmosphere as comets move closer to the horizon. Formulae for calculating these corrections were provided in that paper. Green also gave three tables, one for “Average” extinction, one for “Winter” extinction, and one for “Summer” extinction. He wrote: Because extinction can vary significantly at a single site from night to night (even from minute to minute!), two additional tables are included, which observers can use for more dry, winter-like conditions … or for more humid, summer-like conditions …. [9]

Although the authors have tried to learn as much about the observing locales around the time low-altitude observations were made, it was frequently impossible to know weather conditions, such as temperature and humidity. Therefore, the results of calculations using Green’s formulae are only used as a guide. Twilight can obviously have a strong affect on astronomical observations. There are three defined levels of twilight: civil (Sun altitude 0° to –6°)‚ nautical (Sun altitude –6° to –12°), and astronomical (Sun altitude –12° to –18°). Two papers proved valuable in our analysis of the visibility of stars in varying degrees of twilight. In 1953, R. Tousey and M. J. Koomen wrote a paper titled “The Visibility of Stars and Planets During Twilight” [10]. In 1975, J. Slančíková wrote a paper titled “Influence of the Twilight Effects on the Observed Hourly Rates of Meteors” [11]. Both papers presented formulae and charts to determine the limiting stellar magnitude based on the Sun’s altitude below the horizon.

Preface

xi

For some objects discovered in the United States, the authors used weather data to check observing conditions on some nights. For this information, we accessed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Central Library to consult weather charts originally drawn by the United States Army Signal Service. Several daily newspapers also carried observations by the signal service. We have always tried to find and use the original reports to avoid relying on secondhand sources – something that was not always possible. Since the wording, technical terms, and phrases have changed since the seventeenth century, a great part of the analysis, especially for the older objects, dealt with the interpretation, transcription, and translation of original sources. Here, we are indebted to many individuals who helped with these tasks. The selection of objects to appear in this book was often not straightforward, as is the definition of an unconfirmed comet. We have excluded most reports that were, for instance, one-liners in a newspaper that were not reported elsewhere. Another decision was to leave out the objects that were exclusively reported from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean sources during this period due to the fact that these alleged naked-eye objects were not seen elsewhere, and there are uncertainties in the interpretation of their nature. On the other hand, some well-known cases and already known identifications were included, since we were able to uncover new information about these and their protagonists and we felt that it was important to be presented. We even included cases that were clearly fabrications [see, e.g., KM1880-2] as an example of the extremes people might go to claim a discovery of a comet. In summary, this book is offered as the most detailed catalog of unconfirmed comets.

References 1. A Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, and the Arts, 2 (1802 Jun.), p. 141. 2. “Stiftung einer Medaille für die Entdeckung telescopischer Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 10 (1832 Mar. 20), pp. 65–68. 3. “Comet Medal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 1 (1889 Jul.), pp. 48–49. 4. E.  B. Frost, “Edward Emerson Barnard,” Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Fourteenth Memoir, 21 (1926), p. 2. 5. L. Swift, “The Warner Comet Prizes,” The Observatory, 5 (1882 Oct.), p. 299. 6. L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1881 May 16), p. 2. 7. W. F. Denning, “Notes on Comets and Comet-seeking,” The Observatory, 12 (1889 Jul.), p. 286. 8. M.  Meyer, T.  Kobayashi, S.  Nakano, and D.  W. E.  Green, “Comet 12P/Pons-­ Brooks: Identification with Comets C/1385 U1 and C/1457 A1,” eprint arXiv:2012.15583 (2020 Dec.). 9. D. W. E. Green, International Comet Quarterly, 14 (1992 Jul.), pp. 55-59. 10. T. Tousey and M. J. Koomen, “The Visibility of Stars and Planets During Twilight,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 43 (1953 Mar.), p. 178. 11. J. Slančíková, “Influence of the Twilight Effects on the Observed Hourly Rates of Meteors,” Bulletin of the Astronomical Institute of Czechoslovakia, 26 (1975), pp. 321–326.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance during the writing of this book. Brian G.  Marsden of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for providing valuable insight into this project over several decades. Syuichi Nakano for help and confirmation with orbital calculations and elements. Emilie Kaftan of the Bibliothèque de l’Observatoire de Paris for providing scans of and links to files located at Paris Observatory. John Bortle for answering a number of questions involving hypothetical observing conditions for comets, the zodiacal light, and other phenomena. Father Gregor Helms for obtaining and transcribing letters from the archives of the abbey St. Stephan, Augsburg, Germany. Alex Scholten for Dutch translations, going through several dozen Dutch newspapers. Klaas Jobse, Reinder J. Bouma, and David Daelman for Dutch translations. Mary Teissier du Cros and Jean-Bruno Desrosiers for French translations. Roger Ceragioli for Latin translations. Marcos Oliva for Spanish translations. Gianluca Masi for Italian translations. Richard Miles and Bob King for answering questions about aurorae and the zodiacal light. Nicolas Biver for obtaining scans from Paris Observatory. Daniela Pozzi for obtaining a scan of parts of a rare Italian book. In addition to the above, the authors wish to thank all unnamed individuals and institutions who have responded to our numerous requests for rare and unpublished documents or help with transcriptions or translations. Finally, the authors would like to thank our families for their patience during the last few years as we worked to research and write this book.

xiii

Contents

Catalog������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     1 KM1625-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     1 KM1647-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     4 KM1656-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     7 KM1666-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    10 KM1675-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    12 KM1676-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    14 KM1708-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    17 KM1717-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    18 KM1722-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    20 KM1726-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    21 KM1732-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    22 KM1742-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    23 KM1742-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    25 KM1742-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    28 KM1746-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    31 KM1748-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    34 KM1749-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    35 KM1758-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    36 KM1770-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    37 KM1783-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    39 KM1783-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    42 KM1784-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    43 KM1784-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    46 KM1784-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    47 KM1793-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    52 KM1796-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    53 KM1803-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    55 KM1807-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    58 KM1808-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    61 KM1808-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    62 xv

xvi

Contents

KM1808-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    66 KM1813-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    69 KM1817-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    73 KM1817-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    74 KM1817-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    77 KM1820-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    79 KM1820-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    80 KM1823-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    82 KM1826-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    84 KM1832-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    87 KM1837-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    89 KM1839-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    91 KM1841-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    93 KM1846-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    94 KM1849-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    96 KM1851-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    99 KM1854-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   102 KM1855-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   103 KM1856-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   106 KM1856-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   108 KM1856-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   109 KM1857-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   112 KM1859-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   113 KM1860-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   115 KM1865-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   117 KM1865-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   118 KM1865-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   121 KM1865-4��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   124 KM1871-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   128 KM1871-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   129 KM1871-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   133 KM1872-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   135 KM1874-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   141 KM1876-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   143 KM1877-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   144 KM1878-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   146 KM1879-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   151 KM1879-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   154 KM1880-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   161 KM1880-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   164 KM1880-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   169 KM1881-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   174 KM1881-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   177 KM1882-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   183 KM1882-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   185

Contents

xvii

KM1882-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   186 KM1882-4��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   190 KM1883-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   193 KM1883-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   194 KM1883-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   195 KM1883-4��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   197 KM1883-5��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   199 KM1883-6��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   201 KM1883-7��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   203 KM1883-8��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   206 KM1884-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   210 KM1884-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   212 KM1885-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   214 KM1885-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   216 KM1887-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   218 KM1889-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   220 KM1889-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   224 KM1889-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   225 KM1890-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   226 KM1890-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   228 KM1891-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   230 KM1891-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   232 KM1892-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   234 KM1892-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   235 KM1892-3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   238 KM1892-4��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   241 KM1892-5��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   243 KM1893-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   245 KM1894-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   248 KM1895-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   250 KM1895-2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   252 KM1896-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   254 KM1899-1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   258 Appendix ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   259 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   263 Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   285

Catalog

KM1625-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1625 January 26 W. Schickard Tübingen, Germany

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

2–3? Visual 3

Details of this object appear in J. Kepler’s Tomi Primi Ephemeridvm Iohannes Kepleri Pars Secvnda, which was published in 1630 and was translated by M. Proctor and A. C. D. Crommelin in 1937, as follows [1]: A comet was observed in Austria, towards the south, in January 1625. Of skilled observers of it I only know of Schickard, Professor at Tübingen, who observed it on January 26, in the evening, towards the west, with a long tail stretching from the west towards the east, slightly upwards. It seems to have been retrogradely moving to meet the sun in Capricornus, a constellation with baleful influence to Saxony and to Upper Austria. Schickard saw the comet’s tail on February 11 and 12; on the 11th it was short, crossing Eridanus towards Lepus. It went from longitude 38°, south latitude 33°, to longitude 65°, south latitude 43°. On the 12th it was longer, and farther south from the bend of Eridanus under the centre of Cetus, under the whole of Lepus, towards the back of Canis Major. The head of the comet was hidden by horizontal clouds; therefore it was retrograde, moving towards the sun, since on the following days it was no more seen (Fig. 1).

In 1824, H. W. M. Olbers published a note in the Astronomische Nachrichten stating that a bright comet seen in 1625 was missing from all comet catalogues [2]. Thereafter, the comet appeared in later comet catalogs and eventually caught the attention of A. C. D. Crommelin. Crommelin, who was the namesake for periodic comet 27P/Crommelin for his extensive work on linking the apparitions of 1818, 1874, and 1928, noted this comet was a good candidate for one of the earlier observed apparitions of 27P, assuming a comet observed by P. dal P. Toscanelli in 1457 was identical. During the discussion of Kepler’s report, he noted an obvious error, the comet was not moving retrograde © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. W. Kronk, M. Meyer, Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets - Volume 1, Historical & Cultural Astronomy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23171-1_1

1

2

Catalog

Fig. 1  This graphic appeared in Crommelin’s 1934 paper titled “The Comet of 1625.” The coordinates along the top and sides represent longitude and latitude, respectively. It shows the three positions of Schickard’s comet, as well as the positions of the 1457 comet, both of which were then thought to have been previous apparitions of comet 27P/Crommelin. The lines marked “HORIZON” represent the location of the “horizon at Tübingen, at the end of twilight on the three days of observation.” (This graphic appeared in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association and permission to use it was granted by the British Astronomical Association [www.britastro.org/journal])

as stated by Kepler. Although 27P is not known for displaying such a long tail, Crommelin regarded the identity as highly probable and even calculated the following orbit [3, 4]: T (UT) 1625 Jan. 31.1

ω 196.35°

Ω (2000.0) 253.18°

i 28.98°

q

e 0.7391

0.9183

This orbit was included in several comet orbit catalogs during the next few decades; however, B. G. Marsden calculated new orbits for 27P in 1973, which successfully linked the 1818, 1873, 1928, and 1956 apparitions [5]. In the 1975 edition of his Catalogue of Cometary Orbits, Marsden wrote, Recent calculations do not confirm the supposed identity of comets 1457 I and 1625 with P/Crommelin. A parabolic orbit is now listed for comet 1457 I, but no independent orbit can be calculated for comet 1625. [6]

Comet “1457 I,” later known as C/1457 A1, is now recognized as a previous apparition of periodic comet 12P/Pons-Brooks [7]. Following the 1984 apparition of 27P/Crommelin, M. C. Festou, B. Morando, and P. Rocher published a paper analyzing the orbit of this comet between the years 1000 and 2100. They found that 27P likely passed perihelion on October 20.81, 1624, or 3 months prior to Schickard’s observations. They said the only way to reconcile the difference would be to assume a secular acceleration of 13 days per revolution because of nongravitational forces (NGF) from 1625 until its next observed apparition in 1818, after which the nongravitational forces became almost negligible. The authors added,

K M1625-1

3

Those orders of magnitude for NGF are not observed, even in very active comets for which a maximum effect of about 4 days per revolution has been computed by Marsden. [8]

They concluded, … the idea that the comets of 1457 and 1625 were apparitions of P/Crommelin should be rejected considering that both the dynamical behaviour and the activity level of the comet nucleus should have been quite erratic to accept such an identification, a conclusion reached by Marsden (1975) too, though by a different approach. [9]

Although the comet was reported by Kepler, who attributed the observations to Schickard (both well recognized and famous scientists), there are some circumstances around this comet that could shed some doubt on its reality. First, searches for any mention of this comet in chronicles, broadsheets, or diaries of the time came up empty, so that Kepler’s Ephemerides are the only source. This is unusual since it must have been a very conspicuous object. To have such a long tail, as given in Kepler’s description, would require a rather bright object that would be easily recognizable even low above the horizon. The comet was at about 45−50° elongation from the sun, so it was not really a twilight object. That there are no other reports is, at the least, unusual. Second, the observer mentioned by Kepler is W. Schickard. Schickard was an astronomer, geometer and mathematician. Schickard first met Kepler in 1617. Kepler became his mentor and close friend for the rest of his life. From 1619, Schickard worked as a professor for Hebraic language at the University of Tübingen, but continued his astronomical studies. He became professor for astronomy at the university in 1631. Schickard is also known for the invention and construction of the first calculating machine. He published many papers on astronomical subjects. In 1619, following the appearance of the three bright comets of 1618−19, he dedicated a hand-written and illustrated textbook on the comets to his local duke. Until the end of his life, he repeatedly published leaflets on his astronomical observations, e.g. about a bolide (1623, follow-up publications in 1624), northern lights (1630) and sun dogs (1633). If Schickard really observed such a bright comet in 1625, then it seems strange that he did not publish anything about it. From the aforementioned examples, one can see that he often wrote these leaflets soon after the observations, probably to preserve the fresh memory of the event. The third point casting doubt on a comet observation by Schickard is the circumstance that this comet is nowhere mentioned in the correspondence of Schickard or Kepler. The non-existence of independent reports of a comet that might have been as bright as magnitude 2–4 is very puzzling. One could argue that chronicles, broadsheets, diaries, leaflets, and letters could have become lost over time, but it seems odd that so much potential documentation would be lost. There could even be a possibility that Schickard was not even the observer and that Kepler, for some reason, falsely attributed the observations to him. The Authors considered the possibility that the observations were misdated, but there are no reports of comets, either before or after 1625, that match the description in Kepler’s book. This very detailed description and the inclusion of the comet in Kepler’s Ephemerides, however, is in favor for the reality of this object, after all, why would Kepler fabricate such an observation?

4

Catalog

KM1647-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1647 September 29 Several Poland & The Netherlands

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

3–4? Visual 2+

In 1668, J. Hevelius published his Cometographia. In this magnificent work he published the observation by a friend of an unknown comet in 1647. The observation was made on September 29, at 8:30 p.m. local time, “immediately after sunset,” from Marienburg, Prussia (now Malbork, Poland). He added that it was “only perceived for a few days, being quite close to the Sun and with its path undoubtedly directed toward the Sun.” Hevelius added that his friend provided a drawing of the comet and surrounding stars. He wrote, It is my wish and pleasure to annex his depiction here, in order that the comet’s location and the direction of its tail with respect to the other stars might become more accurately known. It is clear that the comet was in the constellation of [Coma] Berenices, not too far from Boötes’ left shin star (a minimum of 5 degrees), from [Arcturus] 10 degrees more or less, and from his left shoulder 23 or 24 degrees very nearly. Toward this latter star too (but a little in the direction of Boötes’ left elbow), it stretched out its coma, inclining to the right, with its tip upward toward the zenith, so that it looked like a soldier’s javelin. Indeed, since the comet was elevated above the horizon by no more than 5 or 6 degrees, and since this observation was made just after sunset, it could not have been otherwise. The length of the tail was 12 degrees more or less, and it was clear and bright – brighter and denser near the head whence it emanated, but a little fainter and less dense near its extremity. It appeared to have rays gradually spreading themselves out, whence at the tip of its tail it seemed four or five times bigger than near its head. Moreover, it extended into three or four separate rays, like an unbundled broom. Its head was a little more condensed, being slightly smaller than Arcturus, as far as could be discerned by the naked eye. It was then located at nearly 8 degrees of Libra, and about 26 degrees north latitude, projecting its tail in the direction opposite from the Sun. [10]

Hevelius actually gave a different star name instead of Arcturus in the above account, but he later mentioned the comet again on page 886 of Cometographia and said the star was Arcturus [11], which also matches the drawing (Fig. 2). The given ecliptic position translates to: 1647 (UT) Sep. 29.8013

α (apparent) 13h 12.0m

δ +20° 38′

Hevelius then tried to explain why the comet was not seen elsewhere. His first idea was “the continuous cloudiness of the air for several days ….” Hevelius then made some assumptions for his second idea. He states that the comet was located 27 degrees from the Sun on September 29. Hevelius also said the comet was seen for 2 days at Marienburg, but adds “if memory serves,” indicating this period may not be accurate. Because of the lack of further observations, he wrote, “its path was without doubt directed toward the Sun and against the order of the [zodiacal] signs [i.e., to the west], and indeed from the head of Boötes toward the ecliptic and Spica

K M1647-1

5

Fig. 2  This sketch was engraved by Hevelius, based on his friend’s description. (J.  Hevelius, Cometographia. Danzig: Simon Reiniger (1668), between pp. 456 & 457)

Virginis.” Based on this possible two-day period of observation he suggests a daily motion of “7 or 8 degrees” would decrease the elongation from the Sun by 15°, putting it only 12° from the Sun. Hevelius then points out … as can easily be seen, it would certainly not have been visible beyond two days, since the angular distance at which stars of the first magnitude make their appearance [from the Sun] is given by authorities as not less than twelve degrees. Yet the comet, as you will have noticed, was smaller than Arcturus. Therefore, at a distance of 12 degrees … there is no way a longer visibility would be granted. [12]

What Hevelius did not know was that the comet was seen elsewhere. In 1669, D.  Rembrantsz van Nierop (Nieuwe Niedorp, The Netherlands) wrote a letter to C. Huygens (The Hague, The Netherlands), stating the following: … a small comet was seen in the year 1647, in early October, moving from west of Boötes, through Boötes, north of Arcturus, towards the Northern Crown, about parallel to the equa-

6

Catalog tor, for about a week. This comet appears to have been moving towards the Earth, and because of the motion of the Earth it appears to have been moving with the signs [ecliptic constellations towards the west]. However, this comet has not been as close to the Earth as many others, because it was so small and seen so few days. [13]

In 1669, van Nierop published a book where he provided almost the same details of this comet: In the same manner a small comet star was seen in the year of 1647, at the beginning of October. Moving from the west of Boötes, through Boötes, north of Arcturus towards the Northern Crown. It moved parallel with the ecliptic and was seen for one week. [14]

There is another mention of this comet in C. Commelin’s Beschryvinge van Amsterdam of 1726, where he simply states that a comet was seen in 1647, but this might have been based on van Nierop’s earlier statements. [15] N. Struyck summarized the above observations in his 1753 book Vervolg van de Beschryving der Staartsterren. He said the observation by Rembrantsz indicates that “the apparent path must have been following the order of the signs.” He then writes, Which is in disagreement with the report of Hevelius. Because he reports that the apparent path was against the order of the Signs […]. But because Hevelius has not more than a single observation, that is that of 29 September at 8h30  in the evening, when it was 8 degrees in Libra at 26 degrees northern latitude, and while he tells it was observed only on two days. […] So, it appears that Hevelius based his conclusion solely on the rapid disappearance of this comet, and that Dirk Rembrandz [sic] gives the correct description. He himself, or the person that provided the report, has seen it later than the 29th September. The tail will have been diminished by then. Hence, he calls it a small comet. [16]

This object seems most likely to be real. Observations exist independently from Poland and the Netherlands, which place the object in the same area of the sky and at the same general time. The orbit below, calculated by the Authors, represents the reported observations and explains why it was only seen for a brief period. T (UT) 1647 Sep. 20.36

ω 348.4°

Ω (2000.0) 11.0°

i 90.6°

q 0.811

e 1.0

Assuming an apparent visual magnitude of 3 for the discovery observation, one receives an absolute magnitude H10 of 7.4. At the beginning of September, the comet was around magnitude 6–7 at a declination of −30°. It was approaching Earth and on September 20 the fourth-magnitude comet was already as close as 0.3 AU, but still at a declination of −20°. It then moved quickly northward. At the time of the comet’s first observation on September 29, it had just passed perigee at 0.19 AU and reached its maximum brightness of magnitude 3. The comet then moved away from Earth and, having already passed perihelion on September 20, it faded rather quickly. It was around magnitude 4 on October 5 and was probably fainter than magnitude 6 by October 15. The orbit nicely explains why the comet was suddenly seen after its approach to Earth, coming from southern declinations and then quickly fading over the course of 2 weeks.

K M1656-1

7

KM1656-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1656 April 1 P. Mundy Indian Ocean

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

2–3? Visual 2

This probable comet was recorded by P. Mundy, a British merchant born around 1597 in Penryn (Cornwall, England). Mundy joined his trading father early in his life and, after numerous travels through Europe, he eventually joined the East India Company and continued his world-wide travels as a trader and merchant until 1663. Mundy, often described as a merchant adventurer, wrote extensively about his travels, being interested in culture and nature. Mundy’s ship Aleppo Merchant left Rajapur, India, on January 10, 1656, and by March 29 it was situated at 19° southern latitude and at the longitude of St. Johns (now Sanjan, India), which is at 72.8° eastern latitude. Mundy wrote the following on April 1 (he gave the date as March 22, as England was still using the Julian calendar): In the morning Mr. Bowen and others affirmed to have seene a blazing starre, with a taile or streame, pointing upward and was aboutt 10 or 12 degrees below the planett Venus. [17]

As can be seen, this account was given to Mundy by other crew members. The term “below the planett Venus” must be taken as being situated below and not southerly from it. On April 1, at the beginning of astronomical twilight (around 4:55 local time) Venus was at a height of 23° at magnitude −4.1. The estimated location of about 10° or 12° below Venus would indicate the following position: 1656 (UT) Apr. 1.0

α (apparent) 22h 55m ± 5m

δ −8° 40′ ± 20′

Mundy then gives details of a second observation, made by himself, on April 6 (he gave the Julian date as March 27): I, with others thereto consorted, rose early, for untill then there was no clear sky, and wee saw thatt which they called the blasing starre. There were two smalle starres parrallel with the horizon and near together. It had its originall from the southermost, which was like a white glare, not very plaine, yett to bee perceaved, smalle beneath and spreading itsselfe upward in length 6 or 7 degrees and aboutt 4 or 5 degrees lower then [Venus] and about 10 or 12 degrees southward of the said planett. [18]

Mundy’s observation is clearly more detailed than the April 1 observation by his crew mates, and it even includes a sketch (Fig. 3). A.  S. D.  Maunder presented Mundy’s observations in a 1934 letter to The Observatory and made the following comment: I identify the ‘small starre’ parallel with the more southern Comett to the horizon, with φ Aquarii this ‘being by my course computation … somewhat more or less.’ But with earnestness, I add, ‘salvo errore’. [19]

8

Catalog

Fig. 3  This is Mundy’s sketch of the eastern sky showing Venus, two stars, and the comet. (Permission to use this graphic was granted by the Hakluyt Society, publishers of The Travels of Peter Mundy, in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667)

Although Maunder provided all of Mundy’s text in his letter, he seems to have ignored that there were “two smalle starres parallel with the horizon and near together” in the previous paragraph. Instead, he mentions a “small starre” parallel with the comet. The Authors have tried to use Mundy’s rough measurements of the comet’s position, and his drawing, to determine the identity of the “two smalle starres.” There are two pairs of stars that are somewhat near Mundy’s indicated position: 94 & 97 Aquarii to the left of his position and 98 & 99 Aquarii to the right. If one of these pairs represent the pair of stars that Mundy saw, then the comet’s head would have been at the same position as either 97 or 99 Aquarii. Both are “aboutt 4 or 5 degrees lower” than Venus, but it then gets complicated. Mundy’s other measurement was “southward” of Venus. A true, southward direction would represent declination in the celestial coordinate system; however, if Mundy truly meant “southward” to be more general, this could simply indicate a direction to the right of Venus. The Authors have decided that since Mundy did not give the first measurement in right ascension, then the second measurement would not be declination, but simply to the right of Venus. The star 97 Aquarii would have been 8.5° to the right of Venus, while 99 Aquarii would have been 14° to the right of that planet. So, 97 Aquarii would be 1.5° from the lower boundary of Mundy’s estimate, while 99 Aquarii would have been 2° from the upper boundary. This is not much of a difference. There are two other factors to consider. First, Mundy said the stars were parallel with the horizon. The stars 94 & 97 Aquarii are close to parallel, but the stars 98 & 99 Aquarii are definitely not. Second, the stars 94 & 97 Aquarii are both about magnitude 5.2, while 98 & 99 Aquarii are about a magnitude brighter. All four stars are

K M1656-1

9

17° to 18.2° above the horizon at the beginning of astronomical twilight. At such an altitude, atmospheric extinction would dim the stars by about one magnitude. If they were seen before the beginning of astronomical twilight, they would have been lower over the horizon and would have appeared fainter. However, following the beginning of astronomical twilight, both pairs could have moved a little higher, thus reducing atmospheric extinction, before twilight became an issue. So, if Mundy saw the stars at the beginning of astronomical twilight or even before, 98 & 99 Aquarii would have been easier to see. However, if he saw the stars before twilight became a problem, 94 & 97 Aquarii would be back in the running. Ultimately, it seems an impossible task to determine which pair of stars Mundy was referring to. Because 94 & 97 Aquarii are nearly parallel to the horizon, the Authors prefer this pair. Since the comet would have been over 97 Aquarii, the resulting position of the comet was probably the following: 1656 (UT) Apr. 6.0

α (apparent) 23h 05m

δ −16° 55′

However, since 98 & 99 Aquarii are the brighter pair, guaranteeing their visibility at that altitude, there is a chance that the comet was over 99 Aquarii, which produces the following position: 1656 (UT) Apr. 6.0

α (apparent) 23h 08m

δ −22° 31′

Both positions, when compared to the April 1 position, indicate the comet was moving away from the Sun and it seems safe to assume that it might have just passed perihelion. There might be another observation of this comet. The Historia de la Villa Imperial de Potosi was written by B. Arzáns de Orsúa y Vela during the period of 1705–1736 and chronicles life in the Bolivian city of Potosí, beginning in 1545 and continuing to 1720. Among the events of 1656 it states the following: In this year of [16]56, continuing the government of His Excellency Don Luis Enríquez, Count of Alua [Alba] de Liste, were discovered the powerful mines of the Asiento de Puno …. And it is notable that the same day that monstrous richness was discovered, a very yellow comet appeared in the air in the westward direction, that is how it was seen on this Villa, in such Asiento and all of Peru. [20]

Although no month or day was given for the Peruvian comet observation, it is interesting that it was seen in the west. If this was the same comet seen by Mundy, it implies an evening observation. Since Mundy’s comet had been seen in the morning sky and was apparently moving away from the Sun, the Peruvian comet may represent a pre-perihelion observation made sometime during March. Unfortunately, this is conjecture, as no other records or more detailed accounts have been found by the Authors.

10

Catalog

KM1666-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1666 February Several Sri Lanka, Korea

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

bright Visual 2+

R. Knox, an English sea captain working for the British East India Company, was shipwrecked in November 1659, at the coast of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). He was held captive by the king of the local Kandy kingdom for more than 19 years before he managed to escape and return to England. Upon returning, he started to write down his experiences during his time as a captive. In his book, he mentions some comets that were seen, especially the bright comet C/1664 W1. For the year 1666 he reports the following: In the year 1666 in the month of February, there appeared in this Countrey [sic] another Comet or stream in the West, the head end under the Horizon, much resembling that which was seen in England in the year 1680 in December. The sight of this did much daunt both King and People, having but a year or two before felt the sad event of a Blazing-Star in this Rebellion which I have now related. The King sent men upon the highest mountains in the Land to look if they could perceive the head of it, which they could not, being still under the Horizon. This continued visible about the space of one month, and by that time it was so diminished, that it could not be seen. [21]

The Dutch mathematician N. Struyck briefly mentions Knox’s comet in his 1740 book Inleiding tot de Algemeene Geographie, while discussing the well-observed, bright comet seen in 1668, now designated C/1668 E1. He wrote, Robert Knox mentioned, that in the Year 1666 (but one must read the year 1668) in the month of February (this should be Old Style) in Ceylon a comet was seen in the West. The head or star [of the comet] stayed under the horizon; otherwise it would resemble the great Comet which was seen in December 1680. [22]

Struyck does not provide an explanation as to why 1666 must be read as 1668, but the Authors do note that the observations of C/1668 E1 sound very similar to what Knox was reporting. The 1668 comet emerged from the sun’s glare after its perihelion of February 28, but initially only the long, bright tail rose above the horizon. The maximum reported tail lengths were up to 40°. The comet was last seen at the end of March 1668 [23]. So, Struyck’s implication that the 1666 comet was actually the 1668 comet seems reasonable. However, W. T. Lynn provided a different explanation in 1888. Lynn pointed out that the head of the comet of 1668 was reported to have been observed from Goa in India and therefore “must have been visible in Ceylon during part of its appearance.” He added, “Moreover the probability that there is a mistake of 2 years in Knox’s narrative is much diminished … by his giving the correct date for the comet of 1664 …” [24]. Lynn said the description of Knox’s comet of 1666 resembled the widely observed comet of 1680, suggesting that it “made a near approach to the Sun.” He

K M1666-1

11

also noted other comets that passed very close to the Sun, namely, those seen in 1843, 1880, 1882, 1887, and “in all probability that of 1668.” Lynn added, It would appear therefore that there is a family of comets moving in nearly the same orbit, which carries them when in perihelion very near the Sun; and another member of it may have been visible in 1666. [25]

Lynn then concluded, That on that supposition Robert Knox is the only person who gave an account of it will not seem so very remarkable if we consider how scanty are the records of the kind about that time of objects not visible in the northern hemisphere. Although this is chiefly conjecture, you may deem it not wholly devoid of interest. [26]

There might be an independent observation of this object. In 1917, R. Sekiguchi published a list of Korean observations of novae and comets. The information in the paper remained relatively obscure until 1980, when I.  Hasegawa published his Catalogue of Ancient and Naked−Eye Comets [27]. According to Hasegawa, Sekiguchi said, “A comet was seen in the winter of the seventh year of Hyŏnjong.” Although Hasegawa considered Knox’s object and the Korean object to be the same, the fact that the Korean record does not provide a month, leaves the possibility that the observation could have been made at the beginning or at the end of 1666, with the former being likelier. However, without a definite time period, Hasegawa’s suggested link is surely not definite. The question that needs to be answered is, did Knox give the date correctly or did he make a mistake of 2 years? Knox notes that a rebellion against the king occurred in December 1664, and adds, “About which time appeared a fearful Blazing-Star,” which he later called a comet [28]. A bright comet was discovered in mid-­November 1664, which is now designated C/1664 W1. In another part of his book, Knox conjectures that the “Comet ushereth in the Rebellion” and, after providing a summary of the rebellion, he added, “Another Comet, but without any bad Effects following it.” This might refer to the comet now designated C/1665 F1, which would have been visible in the morning sky from Ceylon from late March until about mid-April. Aside from the comets C/1664 W1 and C/1665 F1, the only other comet referred to by Knox in his book was that of 1666 but it was only mentioned once. His remark that it was seen “but a year or two” after the rebellion, somehow confirms the year and seems to rule out a mistake by the printer. However, maybe the most surprising fact about Knox’s book is that he did not mention the bright comet seen for a month in 1668, which would have definitely been visible from Ceylon. Such an absence could be the strongest argument that his 1666 comet was really the 1668 comet. Furthermore, except for the uncertain Korean report mentioned above, this object is not mentioned in any of the Far East Asian chronicles. These chronicles include several independent reports of comets between 1660 and 1670. Unfortunately, without confirmed independent sightings of this comet it is impossible to tell whether it is a misdated account of the 1668 comet or a genuine object seen 2 years earlier.

12

Catalog

KM1675-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1675 November 10 Several Neustadt an der Weinstrasse, Germany

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1+?

This object has been left out of comet catalogues completely, probably with good reason. According to several sources of that time, a celestial phenomenon was observed on November 10, 1675, in southwestern Germany. Roughly similar woodcuts were published in the Diarii Europaei and other publications [29]. The sources agree that on November 10 (or October 31, if the Julian calendar is used) a two-tailed star or comet was seen in Neustadt an der Haardt (now Neustadt an der Weinstrasse) at 5  a.m (Fig.  4). It was situated toward the direction of the nearby town of Landau, with one tail directed toward the south (“against Switzerland”) and the other toward the west (“against France”). The tail was described as one cubit in width and one pique in length. Some of those early newspapers connected this sighting with the Franco-Dutch war (1672–1678) [30]. Another mention of this object can be found in the report of the comet of 1677 (C/1677 H1) by J.  H. Voigt. The woodcut on the front page of this booklet also depicts in the upper left the two-tailed comet of 1675 [31]. Given the many sources where this object was reported it is astonishing that it was not observed by any astronomer of that time nor that there were any other reports than the one from this little town in Germany. The only conclusion seems to be that this was no comet but a locally limited celestial phenomenon. Checking the situation at 5  a.m. on November 10, 1675, shows that the −10 magnitude, last quarter moon was close to culmination at a height of 50°. One can imagine that a lunar halo or a moon behind clouds or fog might have been seen as a two-tailed object. The train of a meteor cannot be ruled out, but it would have had to be quite bright given the bright moonlight. However, such a bright meteor would have been visible over a larger area and not locally in one town. It seems that the decision to leave this object out of the comet catalogues of the last centuries was correct. Despite the very cometary appearance in the wood cuts and descriptions—it was no comet.

K M1675-1 Fig. 4  Drawings of this comet appeared in several publications, sometimes labeled November 10, 1675 (Gregorian Date) and sometimes labeled October 31, 1675 (Julian Date). (This graphic appeared in the periodical Diarii Europæi, which was published in 1676)

13

14

Catalog

KM1676-1 Date: Observer(s): Location:

1676 February 14 J. de Fontenay & Chinese France & China

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

3? Visual 2+?

This is an interesting object, which may very well have been seen in France and China. Unfortunately, the details are sketchy and come from secondary sources. This somewhat prevents an absolute confirmation that this was a comet. J. de Fontenay (or Fontaney) was a man of science, trained in observation and interpretation of natural phenomena. He was born in France in 1643. From various sources, it appears that he held the chair of mathematics at the Collège de Jésuites de La Flèche from 1668 to 1685 and the chair of mathematics at the university of Nantes from 1674 to 1676. He also held the chair of mathematics at the Collège de Clermont in Paris (now Lycée Louis-le-Grand) beginning in 1676. He used the telescopes at the latter school to observe lunar eclipses in 1678 [32], a comet in 1680 [33], and a solar eclipse in 1684 [34]. In 1685, he left for China to do missionary work and remained there until returning to France in 1702. While in China he observed a lunar eclipse in 1685 [35] and discovered a comet on February 17, 1699, which was independently discovered in France 2  days later, and remained under observation until March 6 [36]. This story concerns a comet that was reported by Fontenay in February 1676, while at Nantes. The earliest reference appeared in the Philosophical Transactions less than a month after the supposed discovery, when a letter from J.  D. Cassini (Paris Observatory, France) to H. Oldenbourg, dated March 4, 1676, simply stated, We have heard about a rumour that at Nantes a very obscure comet has been seen between Eridanus and Lepus. Despite we had a clear sky we have looked for it in vain. [37]

A year later, a few more details were provided in the fifth volume of Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad Usum Scholae. The translation from Latin follows: In the year 1676, from the 14th of February until the 9th of March, Père Fontenay [sic] – a most learned man at the Collège de Clermont, now a professor of mathematics – observed a comet lacking a tail, quite in the same place where Monsieur Cassini had spotted the tail of a comet lacking a head, at Bologna in 1668. Like a star of the third magnitude (somewhat dimmer than the rest) it was seen. But gradually it became smaller as it proceeded by its own motion to the east. [38]

This text did not specify any constellations, as did Cassini’s statement a year earlier, but did note that the comet was in the “same place” as the comet of 1668. This former comet moved from Cetus into Eridanus while being observed. J. Cassini provided the first full account of the comet in 1731, when he wrote a paper titled, “Of the True Movement of Comets with Respect to the Sun and the Earth,” published in Histoire de l’Academie Royale des Sciences. He stated, In 1676 a Comet without a head appeared, equal to the Stars of the 3rd magnitude, which was observed in Nantes by the Jesuit Father Fontenay [sic] on February 14, in the

K M1676-1

15

Constellation of Eridanus, at the place in Heaven where a headless Comet was seen in 1668. It ceased to appear the following March 9 in the Stars of Lepus, having had a direct movement. [39]

Together the three accounts above offer corroborating details when it comes to the location in the sky and the period the object was seen, but the description varies. It was described as “a very obscure comet” by J. D. Cassini, a “tailless comet” in the Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad Usum Scholae, and “a Comet without a head” by J. Cassini. During the research for his Cométographie, A. G. Pingré came across J. Cassini’s 1731 text of the 1676 comet and included it verbatim in the second volume, which was published in 1784. He then added, I am far removed from questioning the authority of Fr. Fontenay [sic], even more so that of the late M. Cassini, author of the excerpt I have just reported; but it might be desirable that this Comet had more than one Observer, & that the first mention I find of it was not fifty-six years after its appearance. [40]

Obviously, Pingré did not find the two earlier sources, but he did imply confidence in both Fontenay and Cassini. Although no other observation seems to have been made in Europe, there is a possible Chinese observation. It appears in the Monograph on Astronomy/Astrology in the Qing shi gao, which is a history of the Qing dynasty. D. W. Pankenier, retired Professor of Chinese at Lehigh University (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA), translated the text as follows: In the 15th year, 1st month, day wuzi, an unusual star appeared NE of Tianyuan, its color white. [41]

The indicated date is February 18, 1676, and “Tianyuan” is composed of the stars Kappa, Nu1–4, Phi, Chi, e, f, g, h and y Eridani. There is no mention of motion or duration beyond this 1 day, nor is there any descriptive detail indicative of a comet. So, the object was left out of Pankenier’s book Archaeoastronomy in East Asia, which was published in 2008 and co-written with Z.-t. Xu and Y.-t. Jiang. How reliable are the French and Chinese accounts? As indicated earlier, Fontenay was interested in astronomy and in the years that followed he made some significant contributions by providing time measurements during the eclipses and both positions and descriptions for the Great Comet of 1680. The credibility of the Qing shi gao was brought into question in 1955. T. Griggs (Drew University, New Jersey) wrote, It has not been approved as an official history because it contains numerous errors, both in printing and in fact …. [42]

When Pankenier was approached about this comment he said this was “a bit of an exaggeration.” He explained, While it’s true that it needs to be used with some caution as regards court politics, internal deliberations, and imperial affairs, there are often independent sources that provide corroboration. Chinese historians do not shrink from using it.

16

Catalog

Pankenier added, As far as the observational records themselves, it is very unlikely that they would have been fabricated since many would have been easily observable. Plus attempting to deceive the emperor was a capital offense, and official rivalries would likely have ensured that any cover-up would have been discovered. [43]

It seems safe to say that this comet was real, as the Chinese found it just 4 days after Fontenay and both reported the object was in Eridanus. But there are still some unresolved issues. First, we don’t know how far the comet moved. J. D. Cassini said the comet was between Eridanus and Lepus. These two constellations border one another, so Cassini’s remark is simply a reference to the region. J. Cassini wrote that the comet was discovered in Eridanus on February 14 and was last seen in Lepus on March 9. The Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad Usum Scholae said the comet was moving eastward. With no positions available, the comet’s motion could have been as little as a few arc seconds (simply crossing the border from Eridanus to Lepus) or as much as 50°. The comet was said to have become gradually “smaller,” probably an indication that it was fading. Second, we don’t know why J. D. Cassini did not see the comet. He told Oldenbourg in a March 4 letter, “we have looked for it in vain,” implying that he and others at Paris Observatory could not find it. We don’t know when Cassini was initially informed of the comet, but he likely had at least a few days to look for it and possibly a week or more. Searches would have had to cover a rather large area. A really good question is whether Cassini knew which direction the comet was heading. Fontenay said it was last seen in Lepus on March 9, but was a Lepus location in the information that Cassini received sometime prior to March 4? We know the comet was fading and was approaching the Milky Way, potentially increasing the challenge in finding it. If Fontenay’s observations were only made with the naked eye, the comet could have been about magnitude 5 when he last saw it. Paris Observatory had a 6.4-cm, 6-m focal length  refractor, which Cassini had used to discover a division in Saturn’s rings in 1675. Were the searches at Paris Observatory made with the naked eye or with the refractor? An interesting question is, did Fontenay observe the comet with a telescope? He used a telescope to make numerous observations while at Collège de Clermont in Paris beginning 2 years later, but there are no records of a telescope being used while he was at Nantes. If he had used a telescope to follow the comet after its discovery it could have been much fainter than magnitude 5 when last seen, thus becoming more of a challenge, even if the Paris observers were using their telescope. Third, why did the Chinese only report the comet on one night? There are actually a couple of possible reasons. Weather could have been a factor. But, the most likely reason is that the comet was not particularly bright. In a paper by D. K. Yeomans et al., published in 1986, their investigation of all historical apparitions of Halley’s Comet revealed a few occasions where the comet could have been followed a few weeks to a month longer than reported in Chinese records [44]. A look through Chinese records reveals numerous cases of comets that were recorded on one night only. Comets had an astrological significance to the Chinese. It could be that if the comet failed to become spectacular, as for Fontenay’s comet, or had faded to a certain brightness, they no longer considered it worthy of further observations.

K M1708-1

17

KM1708-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1708 February 23 Several N30.4, W1.8

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

N. Struyck uncovered the observation of this object in the log book of the cargo ship Schagerlaan. While the ship had been sailing from the Netherlands to the Cape of Good Hope, the following was written: In the year mentioned [1708], on February 23rd, a Thursday, we were at noon at an estimated 30 degrees 24 minutes Northern Latitude and 1 degree 47 minutes Longitude, and we saw in the evening, in a clear sky, a Comet-star under the Moon, which both set after 1¼ hour and was afterwards not seen anymore. [45]

Recreating the situation in the sky for the evening at the given ship’s coordinates shows that the 4.5% thin waxing moon at magnitude −6 was extremely close to Venus at magnitude −3.9. The distance of the planet to the moon’s centre was about 0.4°, so both set together. It might be possible that the “Comet-star” was actually Venus. The only discrepancy to the above description is that Venus was above the moon and not below. Whether this is a mistake in the log book or whether a comet was visible cannot be decided on the basis of this single observation.

18

Catalog

KM1717-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1717 June 21 E. Halley London, England

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

7? Visual 1

While E. Halley is famous for being the first to identify a periodic comet – the famous 1P/Halley – few know that he almost discovered a comet by himself. In the Philosophical Transactions of 1717, he reports the discovery of a “small telescopic comet” on June 21, 1717 (the dates in the quotations below are given using the Julian Calendar) [46]. On Monday, June 10, in the Evening, the Sky being serene and calm, I was desirous to take a View of the Disk of Mars (then very near the Earth, and appearing very glorious) to see if I could distinguish in my 24 Foot [7.3 meter] Telescope, the Spots said to be seen on him. Directing my Tube for that purpose, I accidentally fell upon a small whitish Appearance near the Planet, resembling in all respects such a Nebula as I lately described in Philos. Transact. N°. 347. but smaller. It seemed to emit from its upper part a very short kind of Radiation directed towards the East, but Northerly withal; which, considering its Situation, was nearly towards the Point opposite to the Sun. The great Light of the Moon, then very near it and also near Full, hinder’d this Phænomenon [sic] from being more distinctly seen; but its Place in the Heavens was sufficiently ascertained from the Neighbourhood of Mars […].

After detailing the position of the object with respect to Mars and two little stars, which are HIP 84903 and HIP 84888, he continues: The Rev. Mr. Moses Williams, Mr. Alban Thomas, and my self, contemplated this Appearance for above an Hour, viz. from 10½h to near twelve, and we could not be deceiv’d as to its Reality; but the Slowness of its Motion made us at that time conclude, that it had none, and that it was rather a Nebula than a Comet.

The next night they again tried to observe the object: However, suspecting that it might have some Motion, I attended the next Night, June 11th, at the same Hours, and in the same Company; when with some Difficulty by reason of the Thickness of the Air, we found the two little Stars; but the Nebula could not at that time be seen, which we then imputed to the want of a clearer Sky. But on Saturday, June 15th, the Moon being absent, and the Air perfectly clear, we had again a distinct View of the two Stars, with an entire Evidence that there remained no Footstep or Sign of it, in the place where we had first seen this Phænomenon [sic], which we therefore now found to be a Comet, and that being far without the Orb of the Earth, and in it self a very small Body, it appeared only like a little Speck of a Cloud, such as would scarce have been discerned in an ordinary Telescope, much less by the naked Eye.

K M1717-1

19

Halley’s given position matches well with his verbal descriptions of the relation to the two small stars. The Authors derived the following position in close agreement with the one given by Halley. 1717 (UT) Jun. 21.96

α (apparent) 17h 02m 50s

δ −26° 59′ 53″

Checks by the Authors could not detect any identifications with known comets. It must be noted, however, that there is still the possibility that the observers were fooled by a ghost image of nearby Mars, which was at the time only 25′ away with a magnitude of −2.3.

20

Catalog

KM1722-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1722 December 12 Several Poland

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1+?

The January 2, 1723, edition of the Amsterdamse Saturdaegse Courant states that in Krakow, Poland, … at night of the 12th [December] a Comet-star was seen in the East, but was gone since then. [47]

There is a possible corroboration from the Netherlands. In 1740, N. Struyck wrote that in December 1722 there was a rumor that people in the countryside outside Amsterdam and Leiden had seen a comet [48]. At the request of the Authors, A. Scholten (The Netherlands), an amateur astronomer, read all available editions of online Dutch newspapers spanning December 12, 1722, through mid-January 1723, but found no mention of any comet seen from near Amsterdam and Leiden. Struyck lived in Amsterdam, so there is a possibility that he heard this news from other people. It is also possible that Struyck incorrectly remembered the details and was thinking of the Krakow comet that was reported in the Amsterdam newspaper quoted above.

K M1726-1

21

KM1726-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1726 January 29 Several Naples, Italy

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1?

Under a dateline of Naples, January 29, 1726, the Gazzette Bolognesi printed the following story: It’s been several evenings now since a bright comet has been visible towards the sky, mainly in the Eastern part, hence the curiosity to observe and the study to understand. [49]

The Amsterdamse Courant reported the following: Naples on January 29. For some evenings a shining comet has been seen in the east. [50]

N.  Struyck said the Leidsche Courant newspaper of February 22, 1726, reported that on January 29 a comet was seen on several evenings in Naples, Italy. It was said that it was pointing toward the east with a bright light. Nothing else is known about this object [51]. Despite three apparent sources, they could have been reporting this information from a single newspaper, possibly originating from Naples. So, the evidence for this “comet” likely relies on a single source. The big question here is why was it not seen from other locations in the Northern Hemisphere, especially since the report said it was seen for “several evenings.” An object seen toward the east in the evening sky should be visible during the remainder of the night since celestial objects rise in the east and set in the west. Recreating the situation of January 29, it can be seen that Mars was situated directly in the east at magnitude −1.2. In addition, Procyon, at magnitude 0.5, was in the east-southeast and Sirius, at magnitude −1.1, was visible in southeastern sky. It seems possible that one of these objects was the reason for the newspaper report.

22

Catalog

KM1732-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1732 February 29 J. Dove ship Monmouth, S34° 28′, W12° 35′

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

The September-October issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London for 1732, contains a letter by J. Dove to E. Halley about a possible comet sighting while on board the ship Monmouth. The 29th of February, at about half an Hour past Ten at Night, I judge (having a good Observation at Noon) we were in Lat. 34° 28′ South, and Long. 12° 35′ West from Cape Bonne Esperance, the Moon shining very bright, being near the Full, we saw something very bright rise about West, which I judge to be a Comet: It set about East, passing from West to East in about five Minutes, between the Moon and our Zenith, and to the Southward of Spica Virginis; it carried a Stream of Light after it about 40° long, and 1° or 1° ½ broad; the Brightness of the Moon outshined the Comet as it came near it. [52]

The most curious wording is the statement that it crossed the sky from west to east within 5 minutes and with a high certainty it can thus be concluded that this was possibly a bright meteor, with an exaggerated duration. Interestingly, this object appeared in several lists of comets for many years as a discovery by M.  C. Hanow (Danzig (now Gdansk), Poland). The reason is a because of a mistake in a 1753 book by Hanow, who included this sighting as a possible comet. In remark 58 to his comet register he quite accurately gives the details of Dove’s letter only misprinting the date as February 27, instead of February 29 [53]. Apparently, later authors took this as an independent sighting of the original object, thus adding some weight to the assumption that it might have been a possible comet.

K M1742-1

23

KM1742-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1742 March 24 J. Grant Paris, France

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

This is the first story of three unconfirmed comets that were reported during a three-­week period in 1742. In 1906, the French astronomer B. Cohn briefly looked into the possibility that at least two of these reports might have referred to the same comet, but ultimately decided against this possibility because of a lack of details [54]. However, the Authors suggest that all three of these stories should be looked at together to get the complete picture of the reports and the overall analysis. Paris Observatory contains a manuscript archive that includes the observation logs of astronomers. One log book contains observations spanning January 1, 1742, to July 20, 1743, and must be J.-D.  Maraldi’s, as it contains the observations he made of comet C/1742 C1. For March 24, 1742, Maraldi writes: At 8h of the evening Mr. Grant discovered a comet in the constellation Orion in conjunction with the star θ in Orion’s sword, the tail was about 1°, and at 9 o’clock it was already far from the star to the east and only a whiteness was seen. [55]

The comet was seen for an hour and showed movement; however, a confusing aspect of this observation was the comet’s apparent alteration in appearance, changing from a comet with a tail 1° long to a simple “whiteness.” That part of the sky was moving closer to the horizon, the altitude being 25° at 8 p.m. and 17° at 9 p.m. It could be surmised that the comet’s appearance degraded as moved into haze above the horizon. J. Grant was the first European to see the bright comet C/1742 C1 three weeks earlier, while working as an associate astronomer at Paris Observatory [56]. Originally from Ireland, he was a friend of C-F. Cassini de Thury and went by the name of “Jacques Grante.” He seems to have worked voluntarily at Paris Observatory [57]. The remark by Maraldi also contains a sketch (Fig. 5) that apparently shows the object superimposed on the star Theta2 Orionis. This would produce the following position: 1742 (UT) Mar 24.83

α (apparent) 5h 23m

δ −05° 37′

B. Cohn provided a very similar position when he discussed this object in 1906 [58]. He noted that this was not comet C/1742 C1. The Authors believe this was a real comet. The comment that the object was “far from the star” an hour later could imply a fairly rapid motion.

24

Catalog

Fig. 5  At the very bottom of Maraldi’s observation log book, beneath his note about Grant’s object, was this sketch, which was about the size of a postage stamp. Two stars are marked Theta, with the bottom one apparently representing Theta1 and the upper one Theta2. Based on the comet and star representations in Maraldi’s other sketches in this log book, the comet is apparently superimposed on Theta2. North is to the right and west is at the bottom

K M1742-2

25

KM1742-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1742 April 6 and 7 C. G. Semler Halle, Germany

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

5–6? Visual 2

C. G. Semler, a teacher and astronomer in Halle, Germany, published a small book in 1742, which contained observations of the bright comet C/1742 C1. The book also includes a discussion in which he tries to show why the Star of Bethlehem could not have been a comet and an appendix providing information on a new comet that he discovered in early April 1742. This latter object is the focus of this story. Semler wrote the following: On April 6, when the sky was exceptionally clear I went outside to observe the stars and again the place of the comet described in the earlier paragraphs [C/1742 C1]. I imagined the path this comet would have taken if it would have been continuously visible. And indeed very quickly I saw in the constellation Auriga a bright variable ray which was similar to the tail of the earlier comet in all regards but only of a sixth of its length. I continued to observe this apparition more closely and soon noticed that the ray originated from a star that was barely visible to the naked eye. From this, I concluded, that it was a comet, too. [59]

Semler says that he observed the object from after 8 o’clock until 11 o’clock in the evening and notes that the head of the comet was just visible to the naked eye (Fig. 6). The use of a 3-meter-long telescope did not show the comet larger, but it was much clearer. The tail was narrow close to the head, wider in the middle, and pointed at the end. In all, Semler devoted nine pages to this object, which include several contradictions. Fig. 6  This is Semler’s drawing from his 1742 book. He stated that object “a” represented the comet. (C. G. Semler, Vollständige Beschreibung Von Dem Neuen Cometen Des 1742sten Jahres. Halle: Renger (1742), p. 179)

26

Catalog

First, Semler says the object’s “apparent length was about half a degree.” He then claimed that the comet covered the stars Mu and Phi in Auriga [60]. These two stars are nearly 5° apart, thus contradicting Semler’s statement about the length. Second, Semler gives an indication concerning how fast the comet was moving by writing, On April 6 its height was 38 degrees and 20 minutes, in the evening after 9. On April 7 between 8 and 9 o’clock it was at a height of 30 degrees 10 minutes. [61]

These statements indicate the comet’s altitude changed by 8° 10′; however, since he determined the altitude after 9 p.m. on the first night and between 8 and 9 p.m. on the second night, the comet’s daily motion was actually greater than this. This altitude change would generally indicate a westward motion, but whether it was directly westward or included additional motion toward the north or south cannot be determined. It should, however, be noted that if a north or south component to the motion were to be added, this could increase the comet’s daily motion. Semler then wrote the following two pages later: Its movement was so small that it was almost not noticeable between April 6 and 7 but it must have been moving since it disappeared. [62]

This definitely contradicts the motion indicated by his altitude measurements. Another confusing reference to the object’s speed is made by Semler one page prior to mentioning the altitudes. It moved faster than the tail of the first comet. [63]

The “first comet” is C/1742 C1. This statement is made in a paragraph that describes the object’s tail, but it is uncertain how it should be reconciled with the statements made concerning the comet’s movement. It might be possible that he was describing movements within the tail. It appears that Semler’s object was not mentioned again until 1877, when F. A. T. Winnecke very briefly mentioned it. He simply stated that it was a “faint comet” that was “allegedly” observed on April 6 and 7 at the following position [64]: 1742 (UT) Apr. 6.8 or 7.8

α 5h 24m

δ +35°

In 1906, B. Cohn acknowledged Winnecke for bringing Semler’s observation to light. Using’s Semler’s ecliptic longitude and latitude, Cohn determined the following position [65]: 1742 (UT) Apr. 6.8 or 7.8

α (apparent) 4h 53m

δ +38.3°

Semler gave the longitude of the comet as 16° 22′ in Gemini, which translates to 76° 22′, and the latitude as 15° 23′. From these measurements, the Authors determined a position of α = 4h 53m, δ = +38° 04′, which is in close agreement to the

K M1742-2

27

findings of Cohn and with a position near Mu Aurigae. We could not determine how Winnecke arrived at the position he published. What conclusion can be made as to whether Semler’s object was real or not? His report is certainly not easy to evaluate. His background shows that he was someone who was trying to make valuable scientific observations and he seems to have had more than a basic knowledge of astronomy, especially comets. The observations provided for both C/1742 C1 and this object seem too detailed to have been fabricated. The apparent contradictions might easily arise from a misunderstanding of parts of his report, which seems quite honest overall. It should be noted that Semler argued that this comet did not belong to our solar system, because of its apparent faintness and the distance from the ecliptic, which is obviously a subjective statement. With the information at hand, Cohn set out to determine if Semler’s object was a later observation of a comet that J.-D. Maraldi said was discovered by J. Grant on March 24 [see KM1742-1]. He wrote the following: Assuming that Semler’s observations could be fully trusted one could bring them in agreement with Maraldi’s note. One only would need to assume an apparent motion to the north-­ west to account for an increase of 43° in declination and 1/2 hour in right ascension within 14 days. Also the tail length of 1/2°, as mentioned by Semler, would agree well with Grant’s indication and the often doubted claim by Semler would find a strong support with the note of Maraldi. [66]

The Authors note that the identity of Grant’s and Semler’s objects – whose descriptions and magnitudes appear to be comparable – would require a fast movement of almost 42° in declination within 13 days (not 14, as noted by Cohn). The movement indicated by Grant seems to be directed more to the East than to the North, which is not agreeing with the required direction to reach the position indicated by Semler. In addition, we still have Semler’s contradiction as to the speed of his comet. Did it barely move between April sixth and seventh or was it moving at a speed of more than 8° per day? Of the three objects presented in this book for 1742, Semler’s is clearly the most uncertain one.

28

Catalog

KM1742-3 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1742 April 11 and 14 Several Indian Ocean

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

3–4? Visual 2+

It is the great merit of N. Struyck to have uncovered the reports of Dutch sailors from old ship logs, especially since many are now lost. In his 1753 book, he discussed many of these, including the accounts of a comet seen in April 1742 by sailors on two different days and on two different ships [67]. The Ananas left Batavia, Dutch East Indies (now Jakarta, Indonesia) on December 15, 1741, with J.  Popta as the master. According to Struyck, head helmsman J. J. Moorland wrote in his notebook on April 11, that he saw a “star with a tail in the south-east” in the morning sky. Struyck added that, on the same morning, D. de Backer wrote the following in his notebook, … during good weather a star with a long tail was seen in the south-east. The position of the ship was at noon 33° 36′ southern latitude and 53° 31′ eastern longitude. [68]

The ship arrived at the Cape on May 27. The Horstendaal left Batavia on January 1, 1742, with J. Kelder as the master. According to Struyck, J. Groot wrote the following in his notebook on April 14, when just a few days out from Cape Town: … in clear air and good weather at the beginning of the day guard again a comet with a tail was seen in the south-east, with a tail pointing towards the south-west and with a length of 30°. [69]

The position of the ship at noon was given as 35° 36′ southern latitude and 42° 6′ eastern longitude. The ship arrived at Cape Town on April 22. It is quite clear that a real comet was seen by both ships given the independent sightings. It is also a fact that it was not comet C/1742 C1, which was not visible at the time and location reported by crew members of these two ships. Numerous searches by the Authors did not uncover further sightings of this southern comet. The above descriptions only allow the estimate that the object was visible in Phoenix or the immediately surrounding constellations. This means that it was not a member of the Kreutz group of sungrazing comets. As an interesting side note it may be mentioned that both ships were shipwrecked later in 1742: The Horstendaal ran aground on September 18, on the coast of the Netherlands, while the Ananas ran aground on October 17, on the French coast near Calais. In both cases large parts of the cargo could be saved and no casualties were reported [70]. An obvious question arises and that is, could the objects seen by Grant, Semler, and the Dutch sailors represent the same comet? B. Cohn was apparently the first person to contemplate this. In 1905, he wrote the following: One could also raise the hypothesis that Semler’s observation can be discarded and that Grant’s and [the Dutch] reports deal with the same comet. In this case the latter would have

K M1742-3

29

moved very quickly to the south-east, namely 10 hours in right ascension and 25° in southern declination within 20 days. Also, the development of the tail would have required a rare intensity. Definitely this comet was very striking and was seen at the beginning and in the middle of April very often in the southern hemisphere and one could derive an orbit from such observations. As long as this isn’t possible it seems more plausible to assume that in the year of 1742 three different comets have been seen, of which the first and second were discovered by Grant in Paris and the third by Dutch sailors in the Indian Ocean. [71]

The two comets found by Grant, includes comet C/1742 C1 and the unconfirmed comet mentioned earlier [see KM 1742-1]. The Authors also investigated the possibility that these three objects represent the same comet and generally confirm Cohn’s conclusions. At first glance one is tempted to reject a possible relation between objects KM1742-1, KM1742-2, and KM1742-3 due to considerably different positions within a short period. In the table below, the positions for the two southern observations are simply estimates by the Authors, just for illustration. They have been derived by using a position in the south-east at a height of 15° at 05:00 local time. 1742 (UT) Mar 24.83 Apr. 6.8 or Apr. 7.8 Apr. 11.06 Apr. 14.09

α (apparent) 5h 23m 4h 53m 1h 26m 1h 41m

δ −05° 35′ +38° 04′ −49° 30′ −47° 40′

Grant Semler Ananas Horstendaal

Obviously all three objects cannot be related. But what about a relation between only two of them? The identity of the southern object with Semler’s seems impossible. This would require it to have been moving about 100° to the southwest and to develop a very long tail within 5 days. The identity of Grant’s possible comet with the southern comet would require a movement over 65° within 18 days. Still quite fast, but not impossible. Can an orbit be calculated that would fit the three positions by Grant and the Dutch sailors and explain why it was not seen anywhere else? Applying the above positions, the Authors tried to derive exemplary orbits to demonstrate whether such a relation would be a reasonable assumption. All resulting orbits have in common that they require a very close approach to Earth. One of these is given below. T (UT) 1742 Apr. 17.72

ω 218.0°

Ω (apparent) 5.2°

i 30.0°

q 0.895

e 1.0

Such an orbit would have meant that the comet would have been close to the Earth since January. It then quickly approached Earth and reached its perigee of only 0.024 AU on the day of Grant’s observation. It then moved quickly southward and was almost at perihelion when seen by the Dutch sailors and still at only 0.25 AU from Earth. The comet then remained a southern hemisphere object. While this description would explain why it was not seen again by Grant, other

30

Catalog

circumstances are not in agreement. If the object had been so close to Earth, it would have been a large object that probably appeared very diffuse. Grant’s description indicates a small object. Further, after the Paris observation, the comet would have become much fainter (not visible to the naked eye) and would not have been displaying the long tail reported from the Dutch sailors. The Authors have tried to vary the southern positions to come up with different and more plausible orbits, but it is apparent that the fast movement requires an intrinsically faint object during a very close approach to Earth. This is not agreeing with the observations that indicate a rather bright object at both occasions while the brightness evolution should have been more dynamic. The Authors do strongly believe that the Dutch comet was a real comet.

K M1746-1

31

KM1746-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1746 February 2 E. C. Kindermann Dresden, Germany

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

2 Visual 8

The reality of this comet has been debated over the years, which is quite astonishing since the first report describing it reads like an astrological pamphlet. With good reason, this object has been left out of all modern catalogues. E.  C. Kindermann was astronomer and mathematician at the Saxon court in Dresden. He had no formal education from a university and was basically self taught. In 1739, he published an astronomical textbook that had a title claiming that all celestial bodies would end up as comets. This title was changed in a later edition [72]. In 1744, he wrote the first science-fiction novel in German language, which described a trip to the first moon of Mars [73]. Kindermann published a pamphlet in 1746, which contained observations of a comet that he claimed to have predicted in earlier publications [74]. Reading further, the astonished reader finds that this comet is said to be the same that appeared in 1682, later known as 1P/Halley, and he even named it “Hetor.” The reason I called it Hetor is that it appeared from the Herculian spheres and I could have called him Hercules as well…

Kindermann then goes on to say that it was first seen at 1:00 a.m. on February 2, close to the head of Medusa. Among the classical astronomical figures depicted in the sky, the head of Medusa is being held by the hand of Perseus. This would be close to Beta Persei, also known as Algol. Put into modern terms the position would be something like, 1746 (UT) Feb. 02.0035

α (apparent) 02h 50m

δ +40° 00′

For Dresden, this would place the object at a height of about 22° in a northwestern direction. Kindermann goes on to say that the comet moved northward through Perseus, across the right leg and the breast of Camelopardalis, and through the tail of Draco. There is no indication whether this all happened on February 2 or over several nights. He then said he next saw the comet on February 20, around 10:00 p.m., rising in the right leg of Pegasus. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty as to where the “right leg” is located, as classical depictions of Pegasus as a constellation can differ [75]. Despite this uncertainty, this location contradicts his statement that it rose at 10:00 p.m., as this area set around 9:30 p.m. The text continues to be confusing: Its course is very fast, with the apparent arc being 120 degrees, which he passes within 5 1/4 hour: It moves against the rules of motion, which means that his movement force exceeds the one that is put against him.

32

Catalog

Kindermann continues to say that it looked like a star of second magnitude, but the tail was only visible with the help of a telescope. He closes the pamphlet by predicting further comets for the coming years, which are returns of earlier ones, e.g. the Great Comet of 1744 (C/1743 X1), which he said would return in 1757 [76]. The Dutch astronomer N.  Struyck noted that the comet was discussed in Kindermann’s booklet “in an unusual way,” and wrote to him for more details, presumably in 1748. Kindermann responded, noting that the comet was also seen by three other people. He also said he saw the comet in Lyra on February 21, in the head of Hercules on February 22, in the thigh of Hercules on February 23, in a small arm of Serpens on February 24, and noted that it crossed the ecliptic at longitude 220° on February 26. Kindermann said the comet disappeared between Virgo and Libra on February 27. Struyck added that this was all the information he received and suspected that the object of February 2 was not a comet but a different object. The comet has been considered doubtful ever since. In 1784, A.  G. Pingré expressed some doubt about this comet, based on its apparent rate of motion [77]. In 1846, J. R. Hind estimated rough positions from the available descriptions and computed an uncertain parabolic orbit. He said this orbit satisfied the general path of the comet and bore some resemblance to the orbit of the comet of 1231, but added that the “path assigned by this observer [Kindermann] is by no means regular [and] probably there are errors of dates” [78]. Hind’s orbit is as follows: T (UT) 1746 Feb. 15.5

ω 165°

Ω (2000.0) 339°

i 6°

q 0.95

e 1.0

During 1896, J. Holetschek published an analysis of the brightness and tails of all comets seen prior to 1760 [79]. He began his discussion about Kindermann’s object by saying that he preferred to leave it out, but decided not to do so since Hind had presented an orbit. Interestingly, after beginning his analysis, Holetschek noticed that Hind’s orbit showed the comet “would have passed from the Triangle through Aries to the Whale, thus through an area which is neither mentioned in [Kindermann’s or Struyck’s] report, and that therefore the orbit of Hind must be afflicted with an essential error.” He said a perihelion date near the beginning of February would allow the orbit to more closely represent the locations given by Struyck. Holetschek mentioned that he contacted Hind, but Hind said the calculations had been lost. However, Hind added that he remembered, when asking German astronomers about Kindermann’s observations, he mostly received head-shaking disapproval [80]. Holetschek covered Kindermann’s observations and pointed out contradictions, especially between the observation of February 2 and all others from February 20 onward. He then presented an orbit that omitted the February 2 and final observations, but still only crudely represented the other observations, but with large residuals. It is as follows:

K M1746-1 T (UT) 1746 Jan. 30.301

33 ω 136.98°

Ω (2000) 343.65°

i 9.88°

q 0.871

e 1.0

This orbit revealed the comet should have been about 50° from Kindermann’s indicated location on February 2. Holetschek concluded that the February 2 observation must have been something else, maybe a meteor, and agreed with Hind concerning the contradictions in the given positions and observation times. Holetschek finally took a look at Kindermann’s earlier publications and found that his 1744 astronomy textbook predicted the appearance of a comet named “Hetor” in 1746, so that his comet was apparently supposed to be a fulfillment of his own prediction. In 1897, Holetschek commented, … based on the study of the literary products of Kindermann this comet does not seem to be real and it does not deserve to be added in a catalogue of comets as well as the orbit by Hind. [81]

34

Catalog

KM1748-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1748 April 24 Several Cape of Good Hope, South Africa

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

2–4 Visual 1

This object was uncovered by N. Struyck in the ship log of the Huis te Mannepad. While laying at the Cape of Good Hope, it reported the following: In the year 1748, on the 24th of April, at 4 o’clock of the morning, a star with a tail was seen in the north-east, in the beginning of Aries. It was seen the whole morning until the daybreak, but we did not see the star again. [82]

Struyck, as well as other comet cataloguers, have regarded this object as a third comet seen during the first half of 1748; however, the Authors believe this object is actually an independent discovery of comet C/1748 H1. The log said the comet was “in the beginning of Aries.” If one reconstructs the situation it can be seen that the Sun was situated in Aries, so that none of that constellation would have been seen in the northeastern sky on that morning. But the Authors believe the Dutch sailors were actually using ecliptic coordinates, as was a common practice in those days. The entire sky is divided into 12 zodiacal signs, each spanning 30° in ecliptic longitude. Aries spanned the longitudes of 0° to 30°, so the “beginning of Aries” would indicate an ecliptic longitude near 0°. Such a longitude, as well as the northeast location would place the comet in Pegasus. Comet C/1748 H1 was discovered from China as an object of third magnitude the very next morning and was located in Pegasus [83]. The orbit of this comet indicates it would have been at an ecliptic longitude of about 345° on the morning it was found by the Dutch sailors, about 15° from their indicated ecliptic longitude, which the Authors believe is close enough to establish a link. This would mean the Dutch sailors discovered C/1748 H1 about 1.5 days before it was found in China. Why wasn’t the comet reported by the Dutch sailors on the following mornings? Weather could have been a factor, but another issue would have been that C/1748 H1 was moving northward. This would have caused it to draw about 3° closer to the horizon every morning, as seen at the Cape of Good Hope. It would have been 13° above the horizon when first seen, but the altitude would have decreased to 10° by the morning of April 25 and 7° by the morning of April 26. By the time of the last date, atmospheric extinction would have dimmed the comet by at least two magnitudes. If this comet had been third magnitude when seen in China on April 25, extinction would have dimmed it to magnitude 5 by the 26th, making it almost impossible to spot with the naked eye.

K M1749-1

35

KM1749-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1749 December 28 Unknown Cobham, Surrey, England

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

naked eye Visual 2

As 1750 began, newspapers in England were reporting that a comet had been discovered on December 28 and 29, 1749. The basis of the announcement seems to have been a single letter from the village of Cobham. The letter stated the following: On Thursday and Friday Nights last, between the Hours of Seven and Ten, appeared N. N. W. a surprising hairy Comet, which, exclusive of its Hair, was considerably larger than a Star of the first Magnitude; the Atmosphere surrounding its Body was dark and dense, its Kernel, when not obscured by the Clouds, shone very bright. [84]

These details were published partly or in full in several newspapers, but the observer seems to have remained anonymous. No independent reports were ever published. What was seen by the observer in Cobham? It was not a comet. A comet brighter than first magnitude in the northern sky would have been noticed by others throughout the Northern Hemisphere, especially since it was apparently seen on two nights. There is the possibility that the observer saw a weak aurora borealis. Auroras were reported in Northern Europe in December 1749 and January 1750. It is interesting that these newspaper accounts prompted P.  W. Wargentin (Uppsala, Sweden) to search for the comet starting on February 1, 1750 [85]. He spotted a comet that evening at about 5:00  p.m. about 14−15° above the west-­ southwest horizon. He saw it again on the second and fifth, but it was no longer visible on the eighth and ninth. Three rough positions enabled B. G. Marsden to calculate an orbit in 1975, which revealed a perihelion date of February 23, 1750 [86]. It is designated C/1750 C1. Despite the coincidence of Wargentin finding his comet when he was looking for the English comet, the two objects cannot be identical. Wargentin’s comet would not have been above the horizon during the time given in the letter and was in a different area of the sky.

36

Catalog

KM1758-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1758 January 19 Several Rome, Italy

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 3

The Gazette de Vienne of February 15, 1758, gives a report from Rome, Italy, dated January 28 [87]: Last Thursday, Friday and Saturday we observed a comet at our horizon of which we believe that it is the same that appeared in 1685.

With a dateline of January 28, the likely dates being referred to are January 19, 20, and 21, but there are two problems with this short report. First, there is no indication whether it was seen in the morning or evening. Second, no comet was recorded anywhere in the world in 1685. It seems likely that the report was referring to the 1682 apparition of Halley’s Comet, which E. Halley had predicted would return in 1759. Searches for this comet actually began in 1757. Since Halley’s Comet was finally recovered in late December 1758, it would have been far too faint to have been the comet referred to above. With no observations being recorded elsewhere, it seems likely that this was not a comet. Nevertheless, this object found its way into some comet catalogues because J. N. Delisle included the above report in a paper on comet C/1758 K1, but gave a wrong date of issue of the Gazette de Vienne [88]. There was a lot going on in the evening sky at that time. Venus was shining at magnitude −4.1, at an altitude of 29° above the western horizon, but was rising higher as each day passed. Saturn and Mercury would have been quite near the horizon in the evening sky on January 19, 20, and 21, separated by only 2–3°. At the beginning of astronomical twilight, when the Sun was 12° below the horizon, Saturn would have been 7.0° above the horizon, shining at magnitude 0.8, while Mercury would have been 4.4° above the horizon, shining at magnitude −0.6. Adding the effects of atmospheric extinction would have made Saturn about magnitude 3.1 and Mercury about magnitude 2.9. Both planets would have become more difficult to see on each consecutive evening. Maybe these were mistaken for a comet?

K M1770-1

37

KM1770-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1770 March 19 M. Hell & J. Sajnovics Copenhagen, Denmark

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

In 1835, C. L. Littrow published a book containing the report of an expedition by Jesuit Fathers M. Hell and J. Sajnovics (also Sainovics) from Vienna (Austria) to Vardø (Norway) and back to observe the transit of Venus on June 3, 1769. Besides the astronomical results from Hell, the book also contains large parts of Sajnovics’ diary of the expedition, which began on April 28, 1768, and ended on August 12, 1770. The diary records his personal observations and views on the people and countries they were traveling through and is very entertaining to read [89]. Hell became a Jesuit in 1738, at the age of 18. He studied mathematics and philosophy in Vienna and later theology, after which he became a priest in 1752. In 1755, he took the position of the director of the Vienna University Observatory. Father Sajnovics, born in 1733, was a pupil of Hell. As Sajnovics was a born and native speaking Hungarian, Hell wanted to have him on the expedition since he had heard that the Sami language, the second most common language of Norway, and the Hungarian language were related. As a result of the expedition, Sajnovics published a book with the results of his investigations about this topic [90]. After the pre-announcement of the publication of the book in the Astronomische Nachrichten [91] it was soon noticed that both men seem to have observed a comet that could not be identified with a known object [92]. The observation took place on March 19, 1770, from Copenhagen (Denmark). Littrow gives the following translation from the original Latin in his book. On March 19, we saw around 11 in the evening the comet. On the 24th we didn’t see the comet despite clear skies, probably it was already in the vicinity of the sun. [93]

H. C. Schumacher, the editor of the Astronomische Nachrichten, and H. W. M. Olbers acquired pages from the observation logbook of Copenhagen Observatory. They found that the observatory had received news about the comet and unsuccessfully searched for it during March 20 to 26. The searches were carried out in the evening sky and in the early morning sky on the last day [94]. At this point it might be worth looking at the original Latin entry in Sajnovics’ diary, which translates as, Important note: Returning after dinner we saw the comet in the NE.  However, until we made Breviary the whole sky was covered by clouds. [95]

From this we learn that the comet was seen in the evening toward the northeast, after dinner and before the last canonical prayer. This is probably the basis for Littrow giving 11:00 p.m. as the observation time; however, since we neither know the time

38

Catalog

of the dinner nor the time of the last canonical prayer, this time may be uncertain by about 2 hours in either direction. Olbers remarked that under these circumstances the comet probably had a high northern declination, a large elongation of 100° to 130°, and was quickly moving south toward the Sun. This would mean that it rose later every night and even the morning observation of March 26 (2:00–2:30 local time) was then too early and should have been extended to later times to see the comet rise in the east. The Authors confirm Olbers’ conclusion. It should be noted, however, that the estimated elongation depends heavily on the actual observation time, the object height, and the precise observing direction on March 19. A later observation time, a lower height, and a more easterly position would yield smaller elongations of +2°

An orbit was finally published on January 28, 1881, in the English Mechanic and World of Science. H. T. Vivian (London, England) had taken Cooper’s three positions and determined the following parabolic orbit: T (UT) 1880 Nov. 1.378

ω 85.197°

Ω (1880.0) 249.176°

i 79.793°

q 0.54425

e 1.0

He wrote, This, of course, is not very accurate, but no great accuracy is to be expected from such rough observations, and it is, perhaps, useless to attempt anything better. All that can be done will only serve to give an idea of the orbit, which is all I attempted. [522]

Letters sent to The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent and English Mechanic and World of Science during February and March cast doubt on Cooper’s object, suggesting he had made a mistake. A person who identified himself as “A Sceptical F. R. A. S.” sent a letter to the English Mechanic and World of Science on February 10, 1881. He acknowledged that Vivian’s orbit had shown “a very fair agreement” with Cooper’s positions, but stated the following: Has any one else besides the discoverer succeeded in seeing this remarkable object? Or does it only exist in Mr. Cooper’s fertile imagination? There is no nebula near the assigned places to mislead a beginner, and its being observed on three evenings precludes the idea of its being a reflection from some foundry. [523]

H. Oppenheim (Berlin, Germany) decided to calculate an orbit from Cooper’s three positions and determined the following parabolic orbit that he sent to The Observatory on June 1, 1881 [524]. T (UT) 1880 Nov. 9.3071

ω 73.557°

Ω (1880.0) 257.598°

i 129.195°

q 0.38669

e 1.0

Oppenheim sent the same orbit to the Astronomische Nachrichten on June 2, as well as an ephemeris spanning the period of December 21, 1880, to January 18, 1881. He said the comet was found not long after Cooper had observed Saturn

K M1880-3

173

[525]. The comet was about 5° due west of that planet when discovered. Oppenheim’s ephemeris indicated the comet faded very rapidly following its discovery, which he suggested would explain the failure of others to find it. Based on the position of the nebula that Peters found on December 29, Oppenheim suggested Peters was searching an area 1h in right ascension farther east than what his ephemeris indicated. Oppenheim sent another letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on June 6, which provided an ephemeris for about two weeks prior to Cooper’s discovery. He found that the comet would have passed 0.09 AU from Earth on December 15, at which time it would have been 11 times brighter than when discovered, making it an easy naked-eye object of magnitude 1–2 [526]. It would have been in Cygnus, about 50° above the western horizon at the end of evening twilight. The Science Observer reacted with the statement, “failure to have seen so bright an object, had it existed, would have been most extraordinary” [527]. It should be added that an article was published in the Bulletin of the Minnesota Academy of Natural Sciences in 1881, which included a large mistake in the details of this comet. It stated that Cooper’s comet “was observed chiefly in America, being seen only twice in Europe so far as known” [528]. This is obviously not true. The orbits of Vivian and Oppenheim represent Cooper’s positions fairly well. Oppenheim’s seems to be slightly better, but as the positions are rough, it would be difficult to choose one orbit over the other. Oppenheim’s statement that the comet could have been an easy naked-eye comet when closest to Earth on December 15 is certainly valid; however, where Oppenheim’s orbit indicates the comet passed only 0.09 AU from Earth, Vivian’s orbit indicates it was never closer than 0.26 AU. This could have been a real comet, especially if traveling close to the orbit determined by Vivian. We have a possible  comet that both orbits indicate would have been brighter before discovery. Oppenheim’s orbit indicates the comet would have been brightest on the night of December 14/15. On the evening of December 14, the comet would have been situated in Cygnus, 45° above the horizon, at magnitude 1–2 at the end of astronomical twilight. It should have been an easy naked-eye object in the evening sky from December 12 to December 16. Vivian’s orbit indicates the comet would have had a sustained period of a maximum brightness of 2–3 during December 4–8, when it would have been in the Lyra-Cygnus region 48° to 59° above the horizon at the end of astronomical twilight. With both orbits indicating the comet was well-­ placed in the evening sky for observations one to two weeks prior to Cooper’s discovery, it is hard to believe that none of the then active comet hunters in Europe and the United States would have missed a naked-eye comet. Cooper’s object remains a mystery.

174

Catalog

KM1881-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1881 J2 1881 May 12 E. E. Barnard Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 2

E.  E. Barnard was born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee (USA). His father died before he was born and the family struggled for many years; hence, Barnard received little education, as he was always helping around the house. He began working at a photography studio at the age of 9 and would spend 17 years learning all about photography. He became interested in astronomy around 1876, after buying a copy of The Practical Astronomer by Thomas Dick. The next year, he bought a 12.7-cm refractor with the money he had saved from his photography job. Barnard began writing to L. Swift (Rochester, New York, USA) in 1880 and this began a long friendship [529]. Barnard was sweeping for comets in the eastern sky on the morning of May 12, 1881, when “an object entered the field of my telescope” around 3:00  a.m. The object was near the star Alpha Pegasi and he suspected it was a comet, as he was not familiar with any nebula in that position. He continued observing it “at intervals” until about 4:00 a.m., when twilight ended his observations [530]. Barnard knew he had to be cautious and decided not to send any notifications until he confirmed the comet. Fortunately, the morning of May 13 was clear. Barnard pointed his telescope to the spot where the comet had been 24  hours earlier and found nothing there. A good sign, for it meant the object had moved. He began slowly sweeping his telescope back and forth around the area and, just as twilight began, Alpha Pegasi “was obscured by the ring suspended in my eye-piece” and the comet became visible north of that star [531]. Having your name given to a comet is an exciting prospect, but there was additional encouragement in 1881. A wealthy man named H.  H. Warner, who was a friend and benefactor of Swift, had just announced in January that he would give $200 in gold (about $5800 today) to each person in the United States and Canada who discovered a comet. The discovery details had to be sent to Swift, who would also relay the details to other observatories. Now that Barnard had seen this comet on two mornings, he sent a telegram to Swift with the following positions [532]: 1881 May 12.4 May 13.4

α (apparent) 22h 59m 18s 22h 58m 52s

δ +14° 24′ 29″ +14° 36′

The morning of May 14 was clear and Barnard got up to observe his comet again. Knowing the comet’s direction of motion, he began searching for it as soon as it would have risen above the horizon, but the comet was not found. He wrote,

K M1881-1

175

At first I attributed my not finding it to the low altitude and bright moonlight. The search was continued until daylight, and I was greatly mortified at not finding any trace of the object. [533]

Barnard probably felt worse as the day progressed. He received telegrams from both Swift and S. C. Chandler (Massachusetts, USA) stating that they could not find the comet. To make matters worse, a story announcing his discovery was appearing in newspapers across the country. Swift sent a letter to Barnard on May 16 that said he and others could not find the comet. He expressed concern about the comet’s nearness to Alpha Pegasi and said this “raises suspicion in my mind that you were treated to a ghost of [Alpha] Pegasi.” Swift tried to console Barnard by stating that he once reported the discovery of a comet to Harvard College Observatory. The comet was near Jupiter and it turned out to be a ghost image of that planet. Swift’s six-page letter continued with an explanation of the kinds of ghost images. He added [534]: I shall be sorry if [the comet] turns out to have been a mistake as next myself I had rather you would have the gold and the honor than any man I know. [535]

Despite their growing friendship, Barnard was probably not very happy with Swift’s suggestion that he was possibly fooled by the reflection of Alpha Pegasi. He was not an inexperienced observer and likely felt he would not be fooled by a star’s ghost. Barnard wrote a long letter to The Daily American on May 16 that provided details of his discovery and subsequent searches. The following is an excerpt that was published in the May 17 edition: The object is evidently lost, having from some cause become totally invisible. However, I shall continue the search zealously, and when the moon ceases to interfere I hope that it may be found again. A short search Sunday morning [May 15], after the sky cleared at about daylight, and a longer search this morning [May 16], revealed nothing of the missing object; but the morning sky is now very white with moonlight and approaching dawn making it all but impossible to distinguish faint objects. [536]

Barnard may have felt a little better when a letter arrived from Chandler, dated May 25, that stated The suspicion of a ghost of course occurred to me independently, but I reasoned that you would have considered and tested that matter already. The change of eye piece which you made eliminates the chance that it was an eye piece ‘ghost’. [537]

Unlike Swift, at least Chandler gave him the benefit of the doubt, but still went on to suggest that Barnard try to reproduce the conditions present that morning, adding a “drop of water or moisture between the crown & flint will make a nice comet under proper conditions.” Chandler then said something that might have stunned Barnard. I am very much provoked with Swift for cabling that the comet was probably a mistake. This he had no manner of right to do, at least in that shape. The only reasons he had were insufficient ones to justify his action. [538]

Had Barnard’s friend betrayed him? Swift was well-known and had the respect of many people. By including his thought that Barnard’s comet was “probably a

176

Catalog

mistake” in his initial announcement to other observatories, he might have swayed many observers away from even searching. It is not known if Barnard addressed this in a letter to Swift, as Swift’s correspondence from other people does not survive. In a letter to Barnard dated May 25, Swift stated that he had four consecutive clear nights, but his searches for Barnard’s comet were fruitless [539]. Swift asked Barnard if he had a copy of Burritt’s Atlas Designed to Illustrate the Geography of the Heavens, and, if so, send it to him. Barnard did have it and did send it to Swift. Swift then marked the positions of about 400 nebulae that he had seen with his 11.4-­ cm comet seeker and mailed it back to Barnard on May 30 [540]. Barnard would use this while searching for comets with his 12.7-cm refractor. He and Swift remained good friends through the remainder of Swift’s life. Barnard wrote a lengthy obituary honoring Swift that was published in a 1913 issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten [541]. Was the object seen by Barnard on May 12 and 13 a comet or a ghost of Alpha Pegasi? It seems reasonable to just accept the two observations as a ghost, as Barnard and others failed to find it on the 14th. If the ghost image was ruled out, then why did the comet seemingly vanish after Barnard’s two observations? Barnard was not new to using a telescope and never admitted that it might have been a ghost image. He expressed puzzlement that the object had “become totally invisible” by the 14th, but continued searching for it during the next few mornings. It is not unprecedented for a comet to fade away quickly. It actually happened to L. Boethin (Abra, The Philippines) in January 1973. He discovered a comet on the 11th and estimated the magnitude as 9.5. It was the same magnitude on the 12th, but had faded to about 13.0 by the 13th. The comet was not seen by anyone else, but was linked to comet 104P/Kowal in 2003 [542]. Could a rapid fading be the cause of Barnard’s comet disappearing? Barnard discovered his first comet on September 18, 1881, and went on to discover a total of 16 comets. He gained a reputation as being a careful observer. Barnard received a fellowship to Vanderbilt University (Nashville, Tennessee, USA) in 1883 and did much work in their observatory. He accepted a position at the newly constructed Lick Observatory (California, USA) in 1887 and moved to the newly constructed Yerkes Observatory (Wisconsin, USA) in 1897. Barnard brought his interest in photography to his astronomical work. He was the first person to discover a comet on a photograph and created a photographic atlas of the Milky Way.

K M1881-2

177

KM1881-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1881 June 11 B. A. Gould Cordoba, Argentina

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

2–3 Visual 1

The Great Comet of 1881 was discovered on May 22, 1881, by J.  Tebbutt (Windsor, New South Wales, Australia). B.  A. Gould (Cordoba Observatory, Argentina) first observed the comet on May 26 and measured an excellent series of precise positions on every available night thereafter. Gould presented his eight precise positions to the Astronomische Nachrichten in a letter dated June 9, 1881. Interestingly, the Astronomische Nachrichten received another letter from Gould that was dated June 16, which told of an unusual observation that he made while observing the great comet on June 11. Gould found the great comet “with but little difficulty” on the evening of June 11, describing it as diffuse, elongated, and large, “although it was quite pale in the bright twilight and the tail could not be seen.” A “rough preliminary determination of its place” was obtained from the telescope’s setting circles. Gould then noted a star was in the same field of view as the comet. He wrote, Supposing it to be some one of the many bright stars of Orion in that vicinity, and susceptible of ready identification 1 did not complete the rough determination with the usual care, nor obtain instrumental readings for the star. This appeared only a little fainter than the comet itself, and not very dissimilar in aspect; since although its apparent diameter was much less than the comet’s, it was greatly blurred by the exceptionally thick haze and the mists of the horizon, —- the zenith-distance being nearly 80° I do not think it would have been below the third magnitude, and could rather believe it to have been as bright as the second. [543]

Gould obtained four measures of the difference in right ascension and declination between the comet and the star. Once the position of the star was found in a catalog, he could establish the precise position of the comet. He used the rough position of the comet from the setting circles and the measures of the difference in position between the comet and star to determine the star’s position as 1881 (UT) Jun. 11.9196

α (1881.0) 5h 10m 16s

δ –9° 30′

As Gould began looking through the various star catalogs at his disposal, he was surprised to find the comparison star was absent. How could such a bright star not be in any catalog? On the evening of the 12th, Gould “scrutinized the region without finding any visible star; but Rigel was much brighter than the missing object.” He then moved the telescope to the great comet, but found “no visible object in its vicinity.” Gould concluded his letter with the following:

178

Catalog

The whole observation has seemed to me so improbable that I have hesitated a good deal before sending it to you, fearing some gross error in reading the circles. But I have discovered none …. [544]

Both of Gould’s letters were published in the July 26, 1881, issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten. This journal’s editor was K. N. A. Krueger, who seems to have immediately began investigating this observation, as he published his analysis in the same issue. Krueger had the great comet’s orbit at hand that had been calculated by J. R. Hind. He calculated the position of the comet for the time of Gould’s observation and said it was quite close to Gould’s rough position. Using the calculated position, he used Gould’s careful measurements of the differences between the comet and the “star” and determined the following position for Gould’s object: 1881 (UT) Jun. 11.9196

α (1881.0) 5h 10m 26s

δ –9° 26.9′

Krueger checked the Berliner Academischen Charten (BAC) and confirmed that no star was in this position, but he did notice something strange. Gould’s four measurements spanned nearly six minutes and Krueger noticed that the great comet did not move as far northward as it should have during that time. This indicated that the “star” was apparently moving as well. Krueger suggested the object was either a mirage caused by the atmospheric conditions near the horizon, or, possibly, a second comet. Krueger concluded with the following: The two stars stood close together; would it perhaps be permissible to think of a doubling of the comet as a result of a mirage, especially since Mr. Gould himself claims that the object looks similar to the comet? Or should a second comet have been seen here? [545]

The letters of both Gould and Krueger were summarized in the August 11, 1881, issue of the journal Nature. An anonymous author of “Our Astronomical Column,” who might have been Hind, recalculated the position of the great comet for the average time of Gould’s observation and calculated the following position for Gould’s object: 1881 (UT) Jun. 11.9196

α (1881.0) 5h 10m 24.4s

δ –9° 30′ 10″

This author added, There appears to be a misprint or an oversight in Dr. Gould’s letter as regards the zenith distance of the comet and neighbouring object at the time of his observations, which would be nearer 85° than 80°. [546]

J. Tebbutt (Windsor, New South Wales, Australia) wrote a letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on October 10, 1881. He said he observed the comet in the morning sky, in twilight, one hour and 29  minutes prior to Gould’s observation and had detected no comparison stars of magnitude 7 or brighter. Tebbutt wrote, “I was,

K M1881-2

179

therefore, obliged to make circle comparisons with the bright star Rigel.” He said that since no object was present at the time of his observation, he suggested the only “feasible conclusion is that it was a companion comet” [547]. Tebbutt then added a postscript to his letter, asking the following, Can Dr. Gould by any possibility have observed the blurred images of the stars BAC 1592, 1597? And if so, is the former a variable? It is somewhat significant that the difference of position of these two stars agrees almost exactly with that of his objects, and, moreover, different magnitudes have been assigned to BAC. 1592 by different observers. [548]

Tebbutt’s letter was published in the January 16, 1882, issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten. Krueger added a remark that agreed with Tebbutt. He noted that Gould’s measured distance between the great comet and “star” corresponded “very exactly” to the distance between the stars BAC 1592 and 1597, the latter of which is known as Lambda Eridani. Krueger said that Lambda Eridani was likely diffused by the low altitude and was mistaken for the great comet by Gould. With respect to Lambda Eridani being variable, Krueger added, “I do not believe that the existing material already gives reason to consider it variable.” Meanwhile, Tebbutt wrote a second letter and sent it to The Observatory on October 15. It provided more details to support Tebbutt’s belief that Gould had actually observed BAC 1592 and Lambda Eridani. He wrote, Were it not that Dr. Gould’s circle-readings assign a place to the comet agreeing closely with its actual position, I should be disposed to suggest that he had not observed Comet b at all, but possibly the two stars known as B. A. C. 1592, 1597, whose relative magnitudes and positions agree almost exactly with his observations, and whose differential declination would gradually diminish from the effect of refraction as the stars approached the horizon. It will be observed that the Cordoba measures are not corrected for refraction. Further, it is not quite clear, from Dr. Gould’s letter, that he discovered the second object at the same pointing of the telescope for which he recorded the readings of the circles. Did he first determine the position of the real comet by the circles, and then by some accidental displacement of the telescope through defective clamping bring the stars I have mentioned into view, for it appears that no subsequent pointing of the instrument was verified by circle-­ readings? [549]

An anonymous writer in the journal Nature, who, again, might have been Hind, examined the particulars of Gould’s observations. He suggested Tebbutt was correct and that Gould confused Lambda Eridani for the great comet, blaming the low altitude for the diffuse appearance. An ephemeris for the great comet was calculated from a recently published orbit. The Nature writer pointed out that Gould gave the average distance between the comet and star as +48.6s in right ascension and −5′ 8.1″ in declination, which was quite close to the distance of +48.8s in right ascension and −5′ 13.2″ in declination between Lambda  Eridani and BAC 1592. The writer then noted that the great comet should have moved +0.41s in right ascension and + 44.7″ in declination between the times of Gould’s first and last observations, but that Gould’s observed difference in declination  was only 10.1″ and “that the discordance between observed and computed motion would not be explained by refraction.” Gould had written that his last position was measured “before the comet passed below the horizon.” The Nature writer pointed out that the great comet would

180

Catalog

have been at an altitude of 4° 15′ when the last measure was made, while Lambda Eridani would have been at an altitude of 2° 17′. Based on the assumption that Lambda Eridani was mistaken for the comet, the writer said the difference between the refractions of the first and last measurement was 9.2″, very close to the 10.1″ of Gould’s [550]. Gould sent a letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on February 23, 1882. He led off with the following: It is not surprising that any plausible hypothesis should be resorted to, in order to explain the singular, and to me yet inexplicable phenomenon in question. [551]

With respect to the refraction comments, he wrote, … such a change in the differential refraction, for two objects differing by only 5′ cannot seriously be imagined.

Gould continued, The appearance of the comet precluded the slightest doubt as to its identity. The tail itself could not be seen with the telescope, it is true, but the large, diffuse, and very elongated head, much brighter and more definite on the advancing side, were sufficient to enable the veriest tyro to recognize it as a comet.

Because the comet had been near the horizon, Gould said he sat “at the top of a high observing chair,” while J.  M. Thome assisted by reading the setting circles and recording the measurements that Gould dictated. Thus, Gould did not descend the ladder and the telescope was not jarred. The main implication was that the reason the position was so close to the predicted position of the great comet was because it was the great comet. Gould said he conducted some experiments on subsequent evenings to see how stars of a variety of magnitudes appeared when close to the horizon and “through different kinds of haze.” The result was that, “I have never seen one offer a similar appearance” [552]. Finally, Gould said the object was not a companion to the great comet, both because of the difference in relative motion and because it was no longer present when looked for the next night. Tebbutt responded by sending a letter to The Observatory on September 5, 1882. Although he rehashed the refraction argument, he did bring up a new, interesting point. As regards Dr. Gould’s assertion that it was evident from the first that the object was not a fixed star, I can only say that such a statement appears strange when viewed in the light of his original communication. At the date of his observation, when his judgment was, I might say, wholly unbiassed, it appears the probability of the object being a fixed star was so great that he at once concluded it was one of the bright stars of Orion, and consulted the catalogues for its place. [553]

Although the discussion between Gould and Tebbutt came to an end, there is an interesting sidebar to this story. W. Bone (Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia) sent letters to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society on October 22 and

K M1881-2

181

November 6, 1881. He said he was observing the great comet on the evening of June 10, 1881, when he … noticed a peculiar discordance in each succeeding measure, and at length found that the star (?) from which I was measuring was a rapidly moving body. At first I was inclined to believe it the result of refraction, but this should have affected both Comet and star nearly equally. On more careful inspection I found it was somewhat discoid, but its light although bright, was diffused and hazy. [554]

Bone immediately telegraphed the details to Melbourne Observatory (Victoria, Australia) and included that text in his November 6 letter. The telegram noted that the object moved 24s in right ascension during the time it was visible. Bone estimated the object’s magnitude as 2.5 in the letter, noting “it was visible to the naked eye in first twilight.” There are a couple of contradictions between the telegram and Bone’s October 22 letter. In the telegram, Bone said the object traveled 6′ toward the south during the time it was observed, while the letter stated that the object traveled 6′ toward the north. The letter gave the time of the observation as 5:52 p.m. (mean time) and the duration of visibility as 34 minutes 34 seconds. The telegram gave the time of the observation as 6:45 p.m. (mean time) and the duration as visibility as 34 minutes. The fact that the telegram implies a duration of visibility 34 seconds shorter is not important, but what is important is the fact that the difference in the given times is actually 53 minutes. Bone gave the following position in the letter: 1881 (UT) Jun. 10.3438

α (1881.0) 5h 18m 08s

δ −14° 18′ 00″

He gave the following position in the telegram: 1881 (UT) Jun. 10.3806

α (1881.0) 5h 18m 30s

δ −14° 24′

It is not known whether the difference in time and position was some sort of correction that was made between the sending of the telegram and mailing of the letter or if it represents the actual movement of the object, which would indicate the object moved +22s in right ascension and −6′ in declination. As the great comet was then visible in both the evening and morning, Bone woke up early to try to observe the object again, but was met with cloudy skies. On the evening of the 11th, Bone observed the great comet, but no trace of the other object was found. Bone never received a response from Melbourne Observatory, but he did stop by while visiting Melbourne some time later and was informed of Gould’s discovery. Bone finally read about Gould’s discovery in the August 11, 1881, issue of Nature. He noted that a comparison of the positions “makes it appear that it was actually another Comet we observed on those dates” [555].

182

Catalog

An anonymous writer in Nature examined the particulars of Bone’s observations. First, he stated that a request made to Bone for the raw measurements had not been answered. Second, he said that Melbourne Observatory had actually observed the great comet on the same evening as Bone and had used the star 8 Leporis as the comparison star for position measurements. The writer commented, It is difficult to explain how such an object could have escaped the attention of the Melbourne observers, while they were comparing the comet with a star so close to its place. [556]

The writer suggested the object Bone thought was a new object was simply 8 Leporis. Despite Gould’s strong belief that he saw the great comet and a mystery object, the arguments by Tebbutt and a writer in Nature are very strong that Gould actually saw Lambda Eridani and BAC 1592. Particularly, the Nature writer noted the similarity in the average distance measured by Gould and the actual distance between the two stars. The writer also noted that Gould’s measurements showing that the comet moved 10.1″ in declination was quite close to the 9.2″ shift resulting from refraction. As for Bone’s observation, the fact that the observers at Melbourne were observing the great comet at the same time and did not see the object, but did measure the comet’s distance from the nearby star 8 Leporis, is probably a good indication that this star was Bone’s object.

K M1882-1

183

KM1882-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1882 January 13 or 18 Several San Francisco, California, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

Naked eye Visual several

Two San Francisco newspapers ran a story on January 21, 1882, about a comet seen by “several parties” in the morning sky. The Daily Alta California provided the most details, stating the following: The rewards of early rising do not all accrue to early birds of the feathered tribe. On the morning of the 18th instant [January 18] a brilliant comet was observed by several parties, who describe its head or nucleus as appearing to them larger and brighter than Jupiter. It was seen at 5 a.m. a little east of south, not over about twenty degrees above the horizon, which was unusually clear, owing to the prevalence of our north winds at this season. Its head pointed toward the west, and one party who saw the comet of 1858 thought it appeared to him as large as that. Its coma or tail was short, somewhat bushy and slightly arched and pointed easterly. Although it was observed for fully one hour on the first day, those who rose to look at it on the following morning saw it only a little over half an hour, and even then it was singularly brilliant, before it dropped into the haze of the horizon. Evidently its visibility in this region is getting less, as each day it rises less and less above the horizon. [557]

The other San Francisco newspaper, the Daily Evening Bulletin, provided most of the same details, but gave the date as January 13 [558]. The story was picked up by only a few newspapers, which ran the story during the last days of January. Some gave the date of discovery as January 13 and some gave it as January 18. Venus is brighter than Jupiter, but it was in the east-southeastern part of the sky, not “a little east of south.” In addition, at 5 a.m., Venus was only 9° above the horizon, while the San Francisco object was about 20° above the horizon. Being a little east of south, the San Francisco object would have rose a little higher into the sky during the next hour, which is how long it was supposedly visible. Twilight would then have been present, since the Sun was a little less than 14° below the horizon, but this would have been fairly weak astronomical twilight and an object brighter than Jupiter would have remained visible for a while longer. The next morning, the comet was only visible for a half hour, which implies that its altitude had decreased. It is not known if the object had moved east or west of south. No twilight would have been present when the object was last seen. The only explanation for its disappearance would be that it entered the horizon haze. There are a couple of problems with these observations. The first is that the comet was not seen before the first date, which is baffling considering how bright it was and the fact that it should have been higher in the sky, considering that the two observations indicate it was getting closer to the horizon. It can be assumed that it ceased to be visible because it was too close to the horizon. The second problem is

184

Catalog

that any object visible from San Francisco would have been visible everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere and, with a fairly rapid southerly motion, it should have been seen in the Southern Hemisphere as well. With observations only spanning two days and with no observations made elsewhere to corroborate what was seen in San Francisco, it seems that the object was either a fabrication or a local phenomenon. It is interesting that the San Francisco Chronicle, the largest newspaper on the West Coast of the United States at that time, did not mention the comet.

K M1882-2

185

KM1882-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1882 March 16 E. E. Barnard Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

The journal Science Observer began the first ever coordinated effort to search for comets early in 1882. Called the “Systematic Search for Comets,” the journal’s editor, J. Ritchie, Jr., recruited the top three comet discoverers in the United States at that time, L. Swift, W. R. Brooks, and E. E. Barnard, to essentially cover the entire sky from the north polar region down to a declination of −45°. At least once a month, Swift would search the region from declination +90° to +45°, Brooks would search the region from declination +45° to +15°, and Barnard would cover the region from declination +15° to −45°. Other amateur astronomers would search smaller portions of these regions and the program eventually added observers from England, Canada, Germany, France, and Australia. The program began in March 1882. Barnard was sweeping the southern portion of his region on the night of March 16, 1882, when he saw an object that he thought was a comet. He wrote the following to Ritchie: I picked up a rather faint object which lay about 2½° S.W. of α Crateris. It was seen but for a short time on account of the hazing up of the sky. The object was roughly located that it might be found the following night. I should judge it to have been at least 2′ in diameter, not very well seen, yet, on a clear night, it might have been quite distinct. The following night was cloudy, and the next was hazy in the S.W., clouding up later in the evening. On the 21st, search was made for the object, but it could not be found. The region 10° on each side of α Crateris, and extending 5° N and 5° S of that star was carefully swept several times. The same was done on the 22d, without avail. [559]

Barnard also wrote to Swift, who responded on March 24 with the following: There is not a neb[ula] South west within 20° of Alkes. If you have made no mistake about the star or direction it is a [comet] sure. [560]

“Alkes” was the name of Alpha Crateris. Swift did mention that there were four faint nebulae that were 2° to 3.5° from Alkes, but none were located southwest of that star. Barnard reported a possible comet early in 1881 [see KM1881-1] and discovered a definite comet four months later. He would discover many more comets in the years that followed. Although there is nothing more to go on, this may have been a real comet.

186

Catalog

KM1882-3 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1882 K1 1882 May 17 Several Sohag, Egypt

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

Naked eye Visual & Photographic many

A total solar eclipse was predicted for May 17, 1882, and astronomers from England, France, and Italy set up equipment to make observations near Sohag, Egypt. Following the eclipse, telegrams began arriving in England providing brief details of the event, including the fact that a comet was seen near the Sun. A correspondent for The Times of London wrote a story about the eclipse that was picked up by newspapers all around the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries as well. An extract from that message is as follows: The total eclipse of the sun was successfully observed here to-day by the English, French, and Italian astronomers. A fine comet was discovered close to the sun, its position being determined by photographs. [561]

The Daily News of London also had a correspondent traveling with the English astronomers who wrote the following: This eventful morning was the finest we have yet had, cool and without a cloud. A great crowd of natives in picturesque costumes lined the road and the hill between camp and Sohag. The shore of the Nile, except before the observatories, was packed with dahabeeahs bringing the governors of the provinces and other notables to observe the eclipse and do honour to the strangers. [562]

The correspondent noted that, as the sky darkened, “the great silence gave way, and from river and palm-shaded slope arose a shout of wonder and fear, which reached its climax at the moment of the sun’s disappearance.” He continued, … in addition to the horror of the eclipse—which natives here as in India, attribute to the act of a dragon—there appeared in the heavens on the right of the sun an unmistakable scimetar [sic]. The eclipse had, in fact, revealed the existence of a new comet. [563]

E. B. Malet, British Consul-General at Cairo, sent a telegram at 11:40 a.m. on May 18. It summarized the preliminary results and added, “Comet near Sun striking object. Photographed naked eye” [564]. Several papers on the eclipse were published in the months and years that followed. Although most only briefly mentioned the comet, there were some that provided plenty of details. The June 1882 edition of the Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences contained a paper by C.  Trépied, which provided the following: Towards the middle of the totality, I saw on the right side of the Sun, by a zenith angle of about 90°, a slightly curved downward line, of a singular effect, and in obvious discrepancy with the rest of the corona. I didn’t have the idea for an instant that it could be a comet; I didn’t recognize its nature until an hour after the eclipse, comparing my sketch with one of the photographs obtained by Dr. Schuster. This photograph clearly showed the nucleus at a

K M1882-3

187

distance from the edge of the Sun a little more than the diameter of this star; the zenith angle and the direction of the tail were in agreement with what I had drawn, but I had stopped the line at a far too little distance from the edge. I did not believe, however, that I was allowed to change anything in my drawing. I would also have liked to draw the protuberances as seen with the naked eye, but I didn’t have time. [565]

Trépied added, “The brightness of the comet seemed to me to be in the same order as that of the outer parts of the corona.” The July 14, 1882, issue of Knowledge contained an article written by A. C. Ranyard. He had taken several photographs during the eclipse that showed the comet. He included a wood-cut with the article and wrote, It will be seen that the head of the comet is situated at about a solar diameter from the sun’s limb, and that the tail is greatly inclined to the line joining the head of the comet with the sun’s centre. There is a slight curvature of the comet’s tail; but its general direction is such that if a medial line, which we will call the axis of the tail, were produced, it would not pass through the moon’s disc. [566]

The November 1882 edition of the journal Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences contained a paper by P. Tacchini, which briefly mentioned the comet. He said it was isolated from the corona and was situated west of the Sun [567]. He gave the following position: 1881 (UT) May 17.2674

α (apparent) 3h 35m 16s

δ +18° 30′ 17″

Tacchini provided more details in an 1883 paper in the journal Memorie della Societa Degli Spettroscopisti Italiani. He wrote, Not far from the corona, on the western side, a little below the horizontal line passing through the center of the moon, I saw a slightly curved, graceful plume, which because of its shape, was very different from that of the real eclipse plumes, and being isolated and outside the field occupied by the corona, I immediately judged must not be a plume, but rather a comet. [568]

Tacchini gave the same time and position he provided in the 1882 paper and then continued, The comet seemed at first sight more vivid than the external part of the solar corona, but it is more exact to say that it appeared denser than the external part of the corona itself, and I did not notice any difference of brightness in all its tail; in the corona one could recognize a light of its own; the comet instead gave rather the idea of a substance illuminated by the sun and not able to reflect only little light, it seemed like filigree silver. [569]

A more extensive analysis of the 1882 eclipse was published by W. de W. Abney and A. Schuster in an 1884 issue of the Philosophical Transactions. They wrote, Some of the observers noticed during totality a luminous streak of light presenting exactly the appearance of a comet, which our photographs prove beyond doubt to be the case. The nucleus is exceedingly well and sharply defined, the tail is somewhat curved; it did not point towards the sun’s centre, but in a direction nearly tangential to the limb. The extent of the tail was roughly two-thirds of a solar diameter. [570]

188

Catalog

Fig. 16  This is the image presented by W. de W.  Abney and A.  Schuster in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. The comet is in the lower right quadrant. North is up, west to the right

Using their photographs (Fig. 16), Abney and Schuster provided the following position for the comet: 1881 (UT) May 17.2671

α (apparent) 3h 34m 43s

δ +18° 34′ 59″

K M1882-3

189

They added, An examination of our different photographs shows a slight but progressive change in the comet’s position. This is in part accounted for by the moon’s motion over the solar disc during the eclipse, for the position of the comet had of course to be referred to the dark lunar disc. The change in the distance of the comet from the moon’s centre is however slightly larger than can be accounted for by the motion of the moon, and is probably in part due to the proper motion of the comet, which in that case must have moved away from the sun during the eclipse. The motion, if it exists, must however have been very small, and as the matter presents very little importance we have not investigated it further, especially as the comet in all probability will not be heard of any more. [571]

Abney and Schuster added another piece of information: The different eclipse parties present at Sohag decided at a joint meeting after the eclipse to give the name of Tewfik to the comet, in recognition of the Khedive’s generous hospitality. [572]

The journal Nature included the following statement on June 29, 1882: The comet has doubtless been sought for elsewhere, though unfortunately without success. The object notified as having become visible some ten days since in the Cape Colony, near the sun in the evenings, would be the comet 1882 a (Wells) …. [573]

This comet was shown a few years later to be a member of the Kreutz group of sungrazing comets by M. W. Meyer [574] and H. C. F. Kreutz [575].

190

Catalog

KM1882-4 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1882 December 21 Several Broughty Ferry, Scotland

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

Naked eye Visual 1

Both the Dundee Advertiser [576] and The Evening Telegraph [577], published out of Dundee, Scotland, reported a “Strange Phenomenon” on December 22, 1882. The story was as follows: A correspondent writes:—Yesterday forenoon, between ten and eleven o’clock, the attention of several persons in Broughty Ferry was directed for a time to a somewhat unusual sight in the heavens. The sun at the time was shining brightly, being about due south, when a star was seen in close proximity to it. The star was a little above the sun’s path, and the peculiar phenomenon was seen by various persons, who had their attention directed to it. Being daytime, the star did not have the brilliant luminous radiance stars exhibit at night, but was of a milky white appearance, and seemed, when seen through the glass, to be of a crescent shape. Being on a light blue ground, and lying between two white clouds, it was seen to great advantage.

Broughty Ferry was a small village a short distance east of Dundee. An anonymous correspondent, identified only by the initial “C,” wrote to the Dundee Advertiser on December 23 stating that the “Broughty Ferry correspondent … does not seem to be aware that the planet Venus can be seen with the naked eye at any time during the day when she is within a few weeks of her greatest brilliancy.” He continued, It is at present a little to the west of the sun and above it. It will continue to recede from the sun, going westwards from it, till the beginning of February. At present it is of a crescent shape; but as it continues to course round the sun it will exhibit more and more of the fully rounded form till September 20th. [578]

The original newspaper story was published almost verbatim in the December 29, 1882, edition of Knowledge, a weekly magazine that was founded by the English astronomer R. A. Proctor in 1881 [579]. This generated additional reactions from that magazine’s readers. An anonymous note in Knowledge, which was probably written by Proctor, refers to a correspondent from Scarborough who “makes some fun out of our Gossip note about a star-like body seen on December 21, in close proximity to the sun, entertaining, apparently, the belief that the object was the planet Venus.” Proctor said the opinion was “naturally suggested” because of the “milky-white appearance” and “crescent shape” as seen through “the glass.” He then noted that Venus was “about 24 degrees” from the Sun on the morning the observation was made and commented, I would submit that such a distance as this, about forty-four sun breadths, would scarcely be described as ‘close proximity.’ [580]

A letter from J.  E. Gore (Ballysadare, Ireland), dated December 30, 1882, was printed in the same issue of Knowledge and offered another theory. Gore wrote that

K M1882-4

191

“if the object was not a comet near perihelion, it was probably a temporary star.” He noted that there were no stars capable of being seen in daylight with the naked eye near the position noted and said the “object could not have been the planet Venus, which was situated about 23° west of the sun on the day in question.” Gore said the position of Kepler’s nova of 1604 would have been about 8.5° west and “a little north” of the Sun on the day of the observation. He added, So that, if the object was really a star, it seems possible that it may have been another outburst of Kepler‘s star. The morning sky should be examined, as if the object be still visible, of the same brilliancy, it should now be a conspicuous object before sunrise. [581]

Another idea was suggested in the March 1883 issue of L’Astronomie, which was edited by C. Flammarion. The note is not attributed to any particular person and may very well have been written by Flammarion himself. The writer said that Venus was the first thing that came to mind, but that it was more than 23° from the Sun. He suggested the more likely culprit was Mercury, which was then about 2.1° from the eastern edge of the Sun. The writer continued, It would also be possible that this enigmatic apparition was due to a comet or a star. But in this case, the crescent shape would be inexplicable. [582]

Flammarion said one of the readers of L’Astronomie, named Guyot (Soissons, France), “came to save us from embarrassment.” Guyot said the object was Venus and that the statement that the object was near the Sun was in error. He added that he observed the crescent of Venus from 7:30 to 10:30 a.m., at which time clouds concealed it. Guyot added that he saw Jupiter with the naked eye on December 24. Flammarion added the following: This observation gives here a new testimony in favor of the opinion, so often uttered here, that amateurs can render to science very remarkable services. Astronomers were embarrassed about this apparition: the observation of an amateur solves the problem. [583]

This object faded into obscurity until the February 1967 edition of Sky & Telescope was published. Following the appearance of the sungrazing comet Ikeya-Seki in 1965, there was much discussion of sungrazing comets in the astronomical literature throughout 1966. C. M. Botley (Tunbridge Wells, Kent, England) wrote to Sky & Telescope presenting details of a possible “long-overlooked member” of the Kreutz sungrazing family of comets. The letter provided some of the details given in the December 29, 1882, issue of Knowledge [584]. Since this letter was published, the object has been included in several books about comets, sometimes with the identity with Venus and sometimes without. Because Broughty Ferry’s latitude was +56°, the Sun did not get very high on December 21, 1882. The comet was supposedly seen between 10 and 11 a.m. The Sun’s altitude was +5.6° at 10 a.m. and +8.8° at 11 a.m. Venus was a little over 22° away from the Sun and almost due west. Venus was also at a higher altitude than the Sun, being at 14.7° at 10 a.m. and 15.0° at 11 a.m. Venus would have reached its highest altitude of the day at 10:37 a.m. (15.2°), while the Sun would have reached its highest altitude of the day at 12:10 p.m. (10.2°). The likely magnitude of Venus was −4.5.

192

Catalog

During the period that the “comet” was seen, the Sun would have been deeper in horizon haze than Venus, which would have made Venus easier to see in daylight. As the Sun rose higher in the sky, it would have appeared brighter, which would explain why Venus was not seen after 11  a.m. So, it seems very likely that the Broughty Ferry “comet” was Venus.

K M1883-1

193

KM1883-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 January 12 W. L. Burton United States

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 2

The first news of this object appeared in the January 13, 1883, edition of the Savannah Morning News (Georgia, USA). The short blurb stated the following: Captain Catherine, of the steamship City of Savannah, from New York, reports on the 12th inst., at 2 o’clock a.m., the discovery of a new comet ten degrees southeast from the belt of Orion. It is very dim, but plainly visible with a marine glass. [585]

Additional details were published on the morning of January 14  in The Sunday Morning Telegram of Savannah, Georgia. It said that Captain Catharine reported the discovery, but that it was W. L. Burton, second officer of the City of Savannah, who actually made the discovery. It continued, Mr. Burton was on watch with Quartermaster Neitzell and was tracing the constellations when he detected a pale streak of light southeast from the belt of Orion. It was difficult at first to distinguish more than a faint bar with the naked eye, but with the aid of a marine glass, the characteristics of a comet are plainly visible. Mr. Burton at once reported the discovery to the Captain of the ship and an observation was taken. It was impossible to determine the movement and path of the new celestial wanderer, as the body was faint and imperfect and the means of observation were limited. [586]

The ship was then about 40 kilometers southwest of Cape Lookout, North Carolina. The story said the comet was spotted by the passengers around 9:00 p.m. that same evening, “while coming up the river,” adding, “Its location is ten degrees southeast of Orion, the tail pointing obliquely towards the constellation” [587]. The ship pulled into port later that night. An attempt was made to observe the comet on the night of January 13, but the sky was cloudy. It seems likely that Burton was observing the Great September Comet of 1882 (C/1882 R1), which was faintly visible to the naked eye throughout January and into the early days of February. His report of the comet being “very dim” to the naked eye is an identical description that E. E. Markwick (Pietermaritzburg, South Africa) gave during January 8–14 [588]. In addition, Burton said the comet appeared as a “pale streak of light,” while Markwick noted the tail was only seen by averted vision, which would indicate that the tail was quite faint. The Great September Comet was also southeast of the belt of Orion. The only difference is that Burton said the comet was 10° from the belt, while the actual distance was 30°. Nevertheless, considering that the Great September Comet was still being observed by astronomers around the world, those same astronomers would have noticed if another comet had appeared in the same area of the sky.

194

Catalog

KM1883-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 January Unknown Panama

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

Three days after the report of Burton’s comet first appeared in newspapers, the Panama Star & Herald reported a comet, as follows: A comet is at present visible in the Heavens. Whether it is the same which has puzzled all the astronomers of late, or whether it is an entirely new visitor we will not pretend to say. At all events the present is a much earlier riser than the last one, as it becomes visible from 9 to 10 p.m., and does not wait until four o’clock in the morning prior to placing itself on exhibition. The only trouble with the present visitor is that it is not so large as the last one, and, as it appears directly overhead, a long look at it is liable to cause a stiff neck. [589]

Condensed versions of this story would appear in newspapers published in the United States and the United Kingdom during the next few weeks. It would be easy to suggest that the Panama comet was another observation of the Great September Comet; however, one piece of information in the above paragraph makes this difficult to accept. The story said the comet was “directly overhead.” It even added that looking at the comet would hurt the observer’s neck. No date was provided in the Panama story, but, for this investigation, the Authors have chosen the dates of January 10–15 as most likely. The maximum altitude of the Great September Comet was slowly increasing during this period, moving from 53° on January 10 to 55° on January 15 and it would have been about 10° lower at 9  p.m., one of the times mentioned in the above story. This is hardly directly overhead. What was overhead were the planets Jupiter and Saturn, both being around 20° from the zenith. Although neither of these should be mistaken for a comet, once looking up, potential observers might have also seen the large star cluster known as the Pleiades. Anyone familiar with the Pleiades will know that it has a nebulous appearance to the naked eye. Could this have been mistaken for a comet by inexperienced observers in Panama?

K M1883-3

195

KM1883-3 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 January 21 P. Spina? Puebla Observatory, Mexico

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

8 Visual 1

Beginning on January 24 and 25, 1883, newspapers in North America and the United Kingdom began publishing a short blurb concerning the discovery of a new comet. The La Patria Diario de Mexico published the following blurb: Comet.- It is noted by the Observatory of Puebla the appearance of a new telescopic comet, visible at 6h 40m PM near planet Jupiter. [590]

The San Francisco Chronicle published the following: The Pueblo Observatory observed a new comet near Jupiter on Sunday at 6:40 o’clock in the evening. [591]

The dateline of the San Francisco blurb indicated it came from Mexico on January 23, while “Sunday” would have been January 21. The planet Jupiter was then situated in the constellation Taurus. The newspaper El Abogado Cristiano Ilustrado of Mexico City published the following letter on February 1, noting that it was received by the Central Meteorological Observatory. Arrived to Puebla on January 24th.- Received in Mexico on the same date. Mr. Bárcena: The comet is getting closer to Jupiter. Yesterday it looked oval at 7:15 PM, by gases and clouds that covered the less brighter side, but at 7:30 PM it looked completely spheric, bright, being the apparent diameter 2/3 of the day 21st.- P. Spina, observatory correspondent. [592]

P. Spina worked at Colegio del Sagrado Corazón in Puebla for many years around this period, providing meteorological data. The “comet” was met with skepticism outside Mexico. A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed G.  Davidson on January 24 and reported the following: Professor Davidson expressed great doubt of the truthfulness of the reported discovery of a comet by astronomers in Mexico. The Professor thought it extremely unlikely that all the comet-seekers in the United States should fail to find it if it really was a comet, for our territory is much larger than that of Mexico, our observatories more numerous and our facilities greater than those of our sister republic, and it was not to be supposed the Mexicans would get ahead of us. [593]

Davidson said the object would be looked for as soon as the weather permitted, but the newspaper stated, “for the present Professor Davidson is disposed to reject the whole story as a hoax.”

196

Catalog

C. B. Hill looked for this comet from Davidson Observatory at San Francisco (California, USA) and said he “very soon found an object that might readily be mistaken for a comet, but upon proper scrutiny he believes it to be the nebula technically known as [M1].…” Hill continued, “The nebula has a very cometic appearance, and being mistaken for [a comet] by Messier, was the cause of his forming the first catalogue of nebula” [594]. Others agreed that the “comet” was likely M1, also known as the Crab Nebula (Fig. 17). Jupiter was closest to the Crab Nebula on January 19 at a distance of about 1° and very slowly moved away from it in the days that followed.

Fig. 17  Image of the Crab Nebula taken by Gary W. Kronk. The image is 10′ wide. North is up and west to the right

K M1883-4

197

KM1883-4 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 April 3 C. E. A. Hartwig Strasbourg, Germany

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

13.5 Visual 1

The periodic comet discovered by H. L. d’Arrest (Leipzig, Germany) in 1851 was expected to make another return in 1883. Using positions from the 1851, 1857, 1870, and 1877 apparitions, G. Leveau (Paris Observatory, France) calculated an orbit that indicated a perihelion date of January 14, 1884 [595]. The comet was not favorably placed for observation at this apparition, but Leveau considered the best time for recovery was the period of April 23 to November 25, 1883. A. Berberich subsequently calculated an ephemeris. At the prompting of K. N. A. Krueger (Kiel Observatory, Germany), C. E. A. Hartwig (Strasbourg Observatory, Germany) took up the task of searching for this comet. On the night of April 3, Hartwig was using a 15-cm comet-seeker to sweep the sky where comet d’Arrest was supposed to be moving through. He soon found a diffuse object that had not been present in that position the night before and did not appear in any existing catalog. He “at once made a position determination using the 18-inch [46-cm] refractor.” Hartwig described the object as “of irregular shape with a central condensation” [596]. The position was as follows: 1883 (UT) Apr. 3

α (1883.0) 13h 55m 22.5s

δ +8° 15.6′

Hartwig immediately sent a telegram to the Central Office of Kiel Observatory announcing his recovery of comet d’Arrest (now known as 6P/d’Arrest). Krueger relayed the message to other European observatories, as well as Harvard College Observatory in the United States. For the latter country, Krueger added a daily motion of −44“ in right ascension and +9′ in declination, which was the speed comet d’Arrest would be moving, “because I assumed that the American astronomers were not in possession of an ephemeris” [597]. Hartwig wanted to acquire another observation of the comet on April 4, but the sky remained cloudy; however, April 5 was clear. Hartwig examined the position determined two nights earlier and found that the “comet” had not moved. He had found a nebula [598]. Meanwhile, in the United States, astronomers were trying to observe comet d’Arrest by extrapolating the comet’s motion using Hartwig’s position and the daily motion. They found nothing. Hartwig cabled the news that he had made a mistake to Krueger, who sent a telegram to Harvard College Observatory. Newspapers in the United States began running the story of Hartwig’s mistake on April 6 [599]. Hartwig was the first person to ever report this “nebula,” which is actually a galaxy, so it was not present in any catalog available to him. It was later designated NGC 5405 (Fig. 18).

198

Catalog

Fig. 18  This is NGC 5405. This photograph, plate 96, was obtained in 1950, in the course of the National Geographic Society – Palomar Observatory Sky Survey. The image is about 10′ wide. North is up and west is to the right. This is a 12-minute exposure on Kodak 103aO (blue), without a filter. (Palomar Sky Survey images courtesy of the United States Naval Observatory Image and Catalogue Archive)

K M1883-5

199

KM1883-5 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 August 22 L. Swift Rochester, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

L. Swift (Rochester, New York, USA) was searching for comets using his 11.4cm comet seeker on the night of August 22, 1883, when he encountered an object in the constellation Andromeda. He was observing just outside Warner Observatory and went into that building to observe the object with the 41-cm refractor. Unfortunately, clouds prevented a clear view and then the Moon rose [600]. Moonrise was around 9:15  p.m. The next day, the Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser stated the following: Last evening, while engaged in his skywatching act, Prof. Swift discovered another comet. It is located on the ankle of Andromeda. [601]

Swift looked for the object on the evening of August 23 and found that it had not moved. He telegraphed a message to Harvard stating that he had “not found a comet, but a nebula” [602]. The New York Tribune ran the following story: Rochester, Aug. 24.—Dr. Lewis Swift, Director of Warner Observatory, says the object dimly seen on Wednesday evening proves to have been a nebula the identity of which the clouds and moonlight obscured. Dr. Swift has discovered forty new nebulae lately, all of which have escaped the eye of astronomers with larger telescopes. [603]

It is actually a mystery as to what Swift saw. Part of the problem is that we don’t exactly know where the object was located. He did say it was “on the ankle of Andromeda,” but all of the classical drawings of Andromeda reveal two ankles. Swift must have telegraphed a position to Harvard, but this position does not seem to have been published anywhere nor is a description available. An attempt by the Authors to acquire a copy of that telegram from Harvard revealed that it was not in their archives. The classical drawings of the characters in the night sky vary from one book to the next; however, one of Swift’s favorite books was E. H. Burritt’s Atlas, Designed to Illustrate the Geography of the Heavens. For years, Swift plotted nebulae that he found using his 11.4-cm comet seeker in this atlas [604] and it seems likely that the figures in this book would be Swift’s reference when referring to features such as the “ankle of Andromeda.” Andromeda is on plates II and VI [605]. The two stars that represent the ankles of Andromeda are Gamma Andromedae and 51 Andromedae. There are several deep sky objects in this area of the sky, but nothing lies within a degree of either of Andromeda’s ankles that could have been detected with Swift’s 11.4-cm comet seeker. Swift published his first catalog of nebulae in 1885 and included 17 objects discovered in 1883, none of which were close to the either of Andromeda’s ankles.

200

Catalog

Swift might have identified the object as a previously discovered nebula. He did keep J. F. W. Herschel’s General Catalogue of Nebulae in 1880 [606] handy, which included all of the objects found by his father, F. W. Herschel, as well as himself; however, Swift typically consulted this before reporting a new comet. Another possibility is that Swift might have been fooled by a tight grouping of stars. From an examination of the more than 1200 deep sky objects that Swift discovered, there are instances when he was fooled by a small grouping of three or four stars and both Gamma Andromedae and 51 Andromedae do have such groupings nearby. Although the 41-cm refractor would have resolved a group of stars, Swift said he did not get a “clear view” with that telescope on August 22 and does not state whether he observed the object with that refractor on the 23rd. A third possibility is that Swift might not have formally logged the nebula at that time. Once he had acquired the 41-cm refractor, the comet seeker was typically used to search for comets. In his second and third catalogs of nebulae, Swift listed five objects within 6° of Gamma Andromedae. These were the galaxies NGC 746, NGC 801, NGC 846, NGC 920, and NGC 933, which were all listed as having been discovered in 1885. Is it possible that one of these was the object that Swift observed back in 1883?

K M1883-6

201

KM1883-6 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 August 28 W. Noble Uckfield, East Sussex, England

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

Captain W. Noble served in the Queen’s Own Light Infantry Militia, serving in the Crimean War during the 1850s. When Noble left the military he and his wife settled in the Uckfield region of East Sussex (England), where he built a wooden observatory, with a zinc-covered rotating dome [607]. Noble was elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1855. He was one of the founders of the British Astronomical Association and served as its first president. For several decades he was also a member of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society [608]. Noble had been in the observatory on the evening of August 28, 1883. Upon stepping out at 10:35  p.m. local time, he noticed a bright light on the east-northeast horizon, beneath the Pleiades star cluster. He wrote, My first thought was that the moon was rising, but an instant’s reflection sufficed to remind me that she would not up for the next two hours. As I watched the light becoming brighter and brighter, I saw that it threw a kind of radial illumination upward, the effect of which I have tried to reproduce in the accompanying rough little sketch. As will be seen, a few distant cumulo-stratus clouds, close to the horizon, crossed it. [609]

Noble continued with the following: For a moment I imagined that I was viewing the apparition of a new and most glorious comet; but, as I watched, the ‘tail’ disappeared, and what would represent the nucleus flashed up brilliantly.

Noble went back to the observatory to get his 7.6-cm refractor, which he used for “looking over the landscape;” however, the illumination completely vanished when he reached the door. Noble thought it might have been “some distant house, barn, or haystack” on fire, but inquiries revealed nothing of the kind occurred in that part of Sussex on that evening. Checking an Ordnance Map, he noted that no house or farm buildings were close to the line extending from his observatory to the east-northeast horizon. A reader with the initials “M.  F. W.” sent a letter to Knowledge after reading Noble’s letter. He said he saw “a similar cone of light … with the exception that the tail was broader and not so long … one evening in July” at about 7:30 p.m. He also thought it was a comet, but it vanished while he was getting his telescope in his house. He noted, “The moon rose about the same spot rather more than an hour afterwards” [610]. It is uncertain what Noble might have observed. It certainly was not a comet, as that would have risen higher into the sky, would not have suddenly vanished, and would have been seen elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. It could have been an auroral display, although none seem to have been reported on that night.

202

Catalog

Based on Noble’s drawing, the object looks like a wide searchlight beam (Fig. 19). The description by “M. F. M.” in Knowledge also sounds like a searchlight beam. Was someone testing a bright carbon-arc light? They were becoming more plentiful in the early 1880s and a powerful 100,000 candlepower searchlight, named the Great Torpedo Searcher, had been on display in March 1883 at the Electric Exhibition at the Royal Aquarium in London (England) [611]. There are only small villages east-­northeast of Uckfield, but was an inventor living in one of these villages, experimenting with electricity and carbon-arc lights?

Fig. 19  This is the “rough little sketch” produced by Noble that appeared in the November 9, 1883, issue of Knowledge

K M1883-7

203

KM1883-7 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1883 September 11 L. Swift Rochester, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 2

L. Swift found a diffuse object on the morning of September 11, 1883. He “supposed it to be a nebula, though he had a slight suspicion that it might be a comet” [612]. Because of the mistake he had made three weeks earlier [see KM1883-5], he chose not to announce it until he could confirm that it was moving. The next few nights were cloudy, but Swift found the object again on the morning of September 15. According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, … it was again observable for a few minutes after the moon set, and he was enabled to partly verify his suspicion. [613]

Exactly what the newspaper meant by “partly verify” is unknown, but he did send the following telegram to Harvard College Observatory: Tuesday eighteen forty-two North seventy-three nine this morning eighteen twenty-six North seventy-three eight very faint verify. [614]

This indicated the following positions: 1883 (UT) Sep. 11 Sep. 15

α (1883.0) 18h 42m 18h 26m

δ +73° 09′ +73° 08′

The Sunday edition of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle indicated that Swift saw the comet again on the evening of the 15th, writing, … after he had turned his glass upon the stranger a few minutes fully proved the truth of his supposition. It was a comet. [615]

He gave the position as 1883 (UT) Sep. 15

α (1883.0) 18h 26m

δ +73° 07′

Clouds prevented astronomers at Harvard College Observatory from confirming the comet on the night of September 15/16, but they received a telegram from Swift on the morning of the 16th telling them to cable the details. According to Science Observer, Accordingly, telegrams of announcement, cable messages and associated press despatches [sic] were distributed. [616]

Swift also sent the following postcard to his friend E.  E. Barnard (Nashville, Tennessee, USA) on September 16:

204

Catalog

One of my neb. turns out to be a [comet] now in 18 26 +73 07 [very faint, very very slow] saw it last eve in moonlight. [617]

An announcement was published in the Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser on September 17. In addition to some of the above details, it reported, The Professor thinks the comet is moving very slowly towards the earth, as it appears slightly brighter than when first seen, though this supposition has not as yet been verified. [618]

The details of Swift’s discovery were received by the German journal Astronomische Nachrichten and were presented in the September 21, 1883, issue, which was then distributed across Europe. It stated, The announcement has been received by Harvard College Observatory, from Mr. Lewis Swift, Director of the Warner Observatory, of the discovery of a comet by Swift. Has not been seen by any one else: 1883 Sept. 11.000 Greenwich R. A.  = 280° 29′ PD. = 16° 51′         13.501        = 276° 30′ PD. = 16° 52′ [619]

The second date is actually in error, as the second observation was definitely made on September 15. The first hint of a problem appeared in Special Circular, No. 41, of the Science Observer, which was issued on September 21. It stated that astronomers at Cambridge (likely referring to Harvard College Observatory) had not found an object with motion in the place indicated by the reported positions [620]. It added that reports had also been received indicating the comet was not confirmed in Europe, but with no details. The September 28 issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten included letters from three European astronomers: E. Hartwig (Strasbourg Observatory, Germany), J. Palisa (Vienna, Austria), and E. A. Lamp (Kiel, Germany). Hartwig sent a letter to that journal on September 20. He looked for Swift’s object using the 46-cm refractor and found a nebula on September 19. He said no motion was detected during the next hour. He determined the position as α = 17h 51m 47.86s, δ = +72° 03′ 19.8″. This object was later designated as NGC 6508 [621]. Palisa searched for Swift’s object on September 20, using the 30.5-cm refractor. He found a nebula at α = 18h 25.1m, δ = +73° 08′ and said it was 1′ across with a star of magnitude 12–13 inside. Palisa suggested this is what Swift saw on September 13, which promulgated the date error published by the Astronomische Nachrichten. Palisa suggested that the apparent movement between the two dates was simply a 4° error in right ascension [622]. Lamp searched for Swift’s object on September 23 and located the same nebula that Palisa had found, although the position was more precisely given as α = 18h 26m 42.26s, δ = +73° 06′ 59.3″. He added that the observing conditions were “excellent” and added, “otherwise I could not have observed this object” [623]. Swift sent a letter to Barnard on October 1. He stated, I was woefully deceived but thought I had a sure thing. The story about it is too long to tell. I regret it very much. I was hoping I should ever steer clear of false alarms. This however is the only one I ever made. [624]

K M1883-7

205

Swift then sent a letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on October 20. He first took a dig at Hartwig. Swift said he had discovered the same nebula that Hartwig observed on October 1 and then added, “It would appear from his silence, that he missed another about 4m east and 1° 20’ north, which I found Oct. 3.” Swift then wrote the following: That seen by MM. Palisa and Lamp, is the one which I announced as a new comet. It would be too long a story to relate how in several particulars I was deceived. I will therefore merely say that the RA of the object seen on September 10, was in error owing (as I afterwards became convinced) to the accidental movement of the telescope in my descent from the observing chair. [625]

Swift said that he taken a look at the object though his 41-cm refractor and noted it was conspicuous “even in presence of a full moon.” He added, “It seems to me strange that so bright a nebula should have been so long overlooked.” Swift’s object was later designated NGC 6654, which is a 12th-magnitude galaxy in the constellation Draco (Fig. 20).

Fig. 20  This is NGC 6654. This photograph, plate 801, was obtained in 1953, in the course of the National Geographic Society – Palomar Observatory Sky Survey. The image is about 10′ wide. North is up and west is to the right. This is a 12-minute exposure on Kodak 103aO (blue), without a filter. (Palomar Sky Survey images courtesy of the United States Naval Observatory Image and Catalogue Archive)

206

Catalog

KM1883-8 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1883 Y1 1883 December 25 H. Clevers & L. C. Thirlwall Tasmania

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

0 Visual 2

The earliest announcement concerning the discovery of this comet appeared in the newspapers The Mercury (Hobart, Tasmania) and The Daily Telegraph (Launceston, Tasmania, Australia), on December 31, 1883. The Daily Telegraph stated the following: Mr. Wm. Sharland, of New Norfolk, discovered a bright comet at 4 a.m. on Thursday last, bearing about east, only a few degrees above the horizon. Captain Shortt was made acquainted with this discovery, but he has not been able to see the comet, owing to hazy weather. [626]

The indicated date was December 27. J. Shortt, a meteorological observer [627], experienced unfavorable weather conditions for three mornings after first hearing of the comet and could not see it [628]. These two newspapers also noted that Shortt was “of the opinion” that this was not the comet found by J.  L. Pons in 1812. Indeed, that comet, which had been rediscovered by W.  R. Brooks in September 1883, was then a bright, naked-eye object only visible to observers in the Northern Hemisphere and is now known as 12P/Pons-Brooks. News of the Tasmanian comet began appearing in newspapers in mainland Australia on January 3. According to J. Tebbutt, a well-known comet observer in Windsor (New South Wales, Australia), he first heard of the Tasmanian comet when he read the January 4 edition of the Echo, a newspaper published in Sydney. He wrote the following: An examination of the eastern sky was made here during the last two mornings [January 6 and 7] with the view of finding the bright comet …. Clouds and haze, however, prevented anything being seen near the horizon. [629]

The following was subsequently published in the January 17 edition of The Mercury: Mr. Sharland desires us to mention that he has not made any such discovery as that referred to, and we have now reason to suppose that the information tendered to us in good faith was incorrect, and that no comet was actually observed at the time stated. [630]

Sharland saw the above quote in The Mercury and sent the following letter to that newspaper on January 17 Sir,—As the article under the above heading which appeared in The Mercury of to-day, does not explain how my name came to be connected with the reported discovery of a comet, allow me to state more clearly that from information I have received, the reporting of the name in connection with the comet, must have arisen entirely out of a mistake made at The Mercury office. [631]

K M1883-8

207

The editor of The Mercury printed the following below Sharland’s letter, “The mistake was not made in this office. We stated that the information had been supplied to us.” Seeing the brewing conflict between Sharland and The Mercury, Shortt sent the following letter on January 19 to clarify matters. Sir,—Seeing a letter in The Mercury of to day from Mr. W. C. Sharland, that there must have been some mistake in his having seen the reported comet, I beg to offer an explanation for his name appearing instead of Mr. Thirlwell’s [sic]. On being told that Mr. C.  Parson’s brother-in-law had seen it, I concluded the former gentleman was meant instead of the latter, which, I hope, will fully explain the cause of the error.

“Thirlwell” was actually L. C. Thirlwall, who lived in Kingston, Tasmania. Thirlwall wrote a letter to Shortt on February 11, providing the following details: The Comet I saw on the morning of 27th Dec. last was as near as I can judge due East, and rose above the Domain about 20 minutes before Sun rise. It was very distinct and the tail seemed about 2 or 3 times the size of the one seen lately the Comet I saw was nearly if not quite in the same position as the large comet last year, which I could often see out of the window of my Bedroom. [632]

Thirlwall added that he tried to see the comet again during the following mornings, but clouds and haze persisted. Thirlwall seems to compare his comet to two other comets. He compared the tail to “the one seen lately,” which no doubt refers to the periodic comet 12P/Pons-­ Brooks. This comet became visible to observers in Tasmania about a month prior to his letter being written. The brightness reached magnitude 3 and the naked-eye tail length was 4° to 9°. Thirlwall said the tail of his comet was “2 or 3 times” the length of comet 12P, making it 8° to 27° long. He also mentioned that his comet “was nearly if not quite in the same position as the large comet last year.” His letter was written in 1884, but there were no naked-eye comets seen from Tasmania “last year,” so Thirlwall was probably referring to the Great September Comet (C/1882 R1), which was a bright naked-eye comet in October and November 1882. This comet was initially visible from Tasmania, low over the eastern horizon, as was his comet. Word of another discoverer of this comet came forth in February 1884. C. Y. Parsons, a farmer in Tasmania, said a shearer that worked for him saw the comet on December 25 at Broadmarsh. The shearer’s name was H. Clevers. Parsons wrote to Shortt on February 11 and said Clevers, … was quite positive about it and said it was a fine comet and similar to the one that appeared last year and in about the same position viz just before the sun … it was a clear morning and he sat watching it for some time. [633]

Clevers is also referring to the Great September Comet of 1882 and the fact that it was low in the east before sunrise. Clevers visited Shortt in February and told him that he first saw the comet at 3 a.m. He described it as “about 8 or 10 degrees above the horizon, bearing East.” The tail was 2° to 3° long [634].

208

Catalog

Tebbutt sent a letter to the English journal The Observatory on March 11, 1884, providing the details of both observers [635]. H. C. F. Kreutz saw this letter and wrote his own letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on May 4. Included were two rough positions that Kreutz determined from the available information. 1883 (UT) Dec. 24.72 Dec. 26.76

α (1883.0) 14.8h 16.5h

δ –6° 0°

Kreutz stated the following: Assuming the correctness of the messages it seems very strange – and can only explained by the continuously bad weather  – that the comet escaped the attention of the northern hemisphere observers. According to my calculation in AN 2583 an identity with comet Ross can be excluded; the same result is found in a paper in ‘Nature’. [636]

It is equally strange that the comet escaped the attention of Southern Hemisphere observers. Nevertheless, W. Orchiston examined the available observations of this comet back in 1983. His conclusion was as follows: This comet should be added to the growing list of comets discovered by Australians, and emphasizes the importance of Australian cometary astronomy during the 1880’s …. It is only fitting that this belated confirmation of the discovery should appear now, exactly one hundred years after the event. [637]

The Authors are not as certain that a comet was seen from Tasmania. An analysis of the above reports reveals that this comet would need to have been quite spectacular, considering the circumstances of these observations, especially that of Thirlwall. Clevers said he saw the comet at 3:00 a.m. on December 25. The Sun was then 11° below the horizon, meaning that nautical twilight had just begun. Thirlwall said he saw the comet 20 minutes before sunrise on December 27, indicating the comet was seen around 4:00 a.m. The Sun was then 3.1° below the horizon, creating bright civil twilight. The conditions on the 27th would indicate that stars and planets of magnitude −2 and brighter would be the only objects visible within 10° of the horizon, according to a 1953 analysis of the visibility of stars and planets in twilight by R. Tousey and M. J. Koomen [638], which did not consider atmospheric extinction. The comet would have to have been considerably brighter than −2. Kreutz took Thirlwall’s description that he saw the comet rising literally, as his position places the comet on the horizon when first seen. This would have been impossible. Atmospheric extinction would have significantly diminished the comet’s light, theoretically by 11–12 magnitudes when 0.1° above the horizon. Assuming a comet would need to have been magnitude −3 or brighter to be discovered in bright civil twilight when 0.1° above the horizon, this indicates that Thirlwall’s comet would need to have a magnitude of −14 or −15. It seems more likely that the comet would have been a few degrees above the horizon when first seen. At an

K M1883-8

209

altitude of 5°, atmospheric extinction would only have diminished a comet of magnitude −3 by 3–4 magnitudes, indicating an actual brightness of −6 or −7. At 10°, atmospheric extinction would diminish a comet of magnitude −3 by 1–2 magnitudes, indicating an actual brightness of −4 or −5. It is difficult to decide exactly what was seen by Clevers and Thirlwall. If this had been a bright comet, the location in the sky would have enabled it to be seen almost anywhere on the planet. In the United States alone, L. Swift, E. E. Barnard, and W. R. Brooks, three of the most successful comet hunters of the nineteenth century, were quite active, while other successful comet hunters were active in Europe and Australia. This would seem to imply that what Clevers and Thirlwall saw was either a local event, a fabrication, or a misidentification. Typically a local event could include a persistent meteor train or an aurora. But a persistent meteor train in the same area of the sky two days apart seems unlikely and no aurorae were reported, especially one bright enough to be seen in strong twilight. A fabrication might be a possibility. The villages of Broadmarsh and Kingston are only about 40 kilometers apart. Although Thirlwall reported his comet sighting immediately, Clevers, for some reason, waited over two months before informing anyone of his observation. Did Clevers read about the comet in the local newspaper? In Orchiston’s 1983 paper, he quoted Parsons as saying that Clevers, “is a very truthful fellow and I have every confidence in his statement,” while Thirlwall said Clevers, “knew nothing of the report in the Mercury as he was away at the Lakes where he could see no news papers before the Mercury reported it” [639]. So, a fabrication would seem unlikely. Did both men misidentify another object? Maybe, but it depends on how astronomically savvy Clevers and Thirlwall were. Neither man said anything about the crescent Moon being near the comet. Clevers said the comet was 8° to 10° above the horizon and due east on December 25. On that morning, the crescent Moon was due east and 16° above the horizon. Its magnitude would have been about −7. Thirlwall said the comet was due east and rising above the horizon on December 27. The Moon was 14° above the horizon and almost due east, appearing as a thin crescent. Its magnitude would have been about −4. Admittedly, the tail that both men saw is difficult to explain; however, if ice crystals were present these could have produced a Moon pillar. Could a Moon pillar have been seen in the bright twilight during Thirlwall’s observation? This is uncertain and that is the only reason why the “comet” hypothesis is still viable.

210

Catalog

KM1884-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1884 May 26 R. F. Spitaler Vienna, Austria

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

H.  P. Tuttle (Harvard College Observatory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) discovered a comet on May 3, 1858. The comet remained visible for only a month and was only seen by astronomers in Cambridge and Ann Arbor (Michigan, USA). The initially published orbits were parabolic [640]; however, in the March 1884 issue of the journal Bulletin Astronomique it was noted that L. Schulhof had calculated an elliptical orbit for Tuttle’s comet that used eight positions and indicated a period of 6.1  years [641]. Not long afterwards, Schulhof calculated an extensive ephemeris that covered a wide range of perihelion dates and published it in the Astronomische Nachrichten [642]. The Bulletin Astronomique also published a paper by Schulhof in its April issue, which stated that the best orbit for the 1858 apparition had a period of 6.61 years; however, Schulhof also provided orbits with periods of 5.80 and 7.54 years [643]. R. F. Spitaler was interested in trying to recover this comet. His usual duties at Vienna Observatory were searching for nebulae and observing comets using the 69-cm refractor, which was then the largest refractor in the world. On the morning of May 26, 1884, Spitaler was sweeping near Schulhof’s ephemeris positions when he came upon three nebulae. Clouds moved in shortly thereafter and he only had time to determine a rough position for each. Unfortunately, “unprecedented bad weather” followed and Spitaler could not revisit the field of the three nebulae until the night of June 17, at which time one of the nebulae was missing. The position was as follows: 1884 (UT) May 26

α (1884.0) 17h?? 40m 50s

δ +35° 33′

Thinking this might be Tuttle’s comet, Spitaler’s colleague E. Weiss used this position to correct Schulhof’s orbit. Weiss then provided an ephemeris for the period of June 18–30 [644]. Weiss sent a telegram to the Central Office of Kiel Observatory (Germany) announcing that Spitaler had found a faint nebula near Schulhof’s predicted position [645]. This news was then telegraphed to other locations, one of which was Dunecht Observatory (Scotland), which then issued Dunecht Circular number 84 on June 20 [646]. The night of June 20 found Spitaler sweeping the 69-cm refractor around Weiss’ corrected ephemeris position, but “no nebulous object was found” [647]. No further observations were ever made. Tuttle’s comet was accidentally rediscovered by M. Giacobini (Nice Observatory, France) in 1907, but, as in 1858, the period of visibility was fairly short and an

K M1884-1

211

elliptical orbit could not be calculated. Interestingly, the English astronomer A. C. D. Crommelin later recognized the similarity in the orbits of the 1858 and 1907 comets. Although he linked the two comets, no recovery was made at the predicted returns of 1928 and 1934 [648]. The comet was accidentally rediscovered by L. Kresák (Skalnaté Pleso Observatory, Slovakia) in 1951. About two weeks after its rediscovery, the comets of 1858, 1907, and 1951 were found to be identical and the comet became known as 41P/Tuttle-Giacobini-Kresak. Precise orbits were now possible [649]. These revealed that the orbital period in 1858 was 6.02 years and that it was not the object that Spitaler had observed. Sadly, since Spitaler quickly assumed he had found Tuttle’s comet, his subsequent searches were only along that comet’s predicted path. The Authors integrated the orbits of all reasonably bright periodic comets, which have had multiple apparitions, but none have been found that would have passed near the position of Spitaler’s object.

212

Catalog

KM1884-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1884 September 9 W. R. Brooks Phelps, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

W. R. Brooks was born in England in 1844 and came to the United States with his parents when he was 13 years old. They settled in Darien, New York (USA). He developed an interest in astronomy at a young age and built a telescope when he was 14, which he observed Donati’s comet in 1858. He moved to a farm in Phelps, New York (USA) in 1870 and built Red House Observatory, where he would discover seven comets [650]. Unfortunately, a potential eighth comet discovery at that observatory seems to have gotten away. Brooks was sweeping for comets with his 23-cm reflector on the night of September 9, 1884, when he came across a “nebulous object” at about 9:00 p.m. local time near the following approximate position: 1884 (UT) Sep. 10.09

α 13h 05m

δ +57°

Brooks wrote, It was faintish, but easily seen with the sky illuminated by the approaching moonlight. After the Moon rose, it was not visible in the 9-inch [23-cm] reflector, so that further observations that night was impossible. [651]

Brooks said it was raining on the night of the 10th, but the evening of the 11th was clear. Brooks noted, “the seeing [was] far better than on the 9th,” but the object was not found. He sent a telegram to L. Swift (Rochester, New York, USA) on the morning of the 12th. Brooks continued to search “for several evenings following,” but never saw the object again. Swift briefly mentioned this object in a letter to E.  E. Barnard (Nashville, Tennessee, USA), He wrote, I found telegram from Brooks announcing suspected [comet]. It was no dout [sic] = 3414. My son sent it on to Harvard. [652]

The designation “3414” refers to an object in J.  F. W. Herschel’s “Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” published in 1864 [653]. This object is a galaxy, later designated “NGC 4977” in J. L. E. Dreyer’s “New General Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars” [654]. The position for 1860 was α = 13h 00m 41.9s, δ = +56° 25′ 37.8″. Herschel indicated that it was considerably faint and small. Its magnitude is about 14.5. It is uncertain why Swift assumed that Brooks had found an already known object. It is also uncertain why he did not mention NGC 4964, which is actually

K M1884-2

213

closer to Brooks’ position and slightly brighter. But Brooks had already independently discovered a comet in October 1881 and discovered two comets in 1883, not to mention the fact that he had observed other comets. Since Brooks had said the night of September 11 was a better night than September 9, it seems reasonable to believe Brooks would have observed a deep sky object again with no problem, so this might have been a real comet. The Authors integrated the orbits of all reasonably bright, multiple-apparition, periodic comets, but none have been found that would have passed near the position of Brooks’ object.

214

Catalog

KM1885-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1885 G1 1885 April 6 L. Swift Rochester, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

11? Visual 1

R.  Gautier began investigating the motion of periodic comet 9P/Tempel 1  in 1878, first calculating definitive orbits for the 1867 and 1873 apparitions, and then providing a prediction for the 1879 apparition. Following the 1879 recovery of that comet, Gautier began working on predicting the comet’s next perihelion date, which he determined as September 26.23, 1885. An ephemeris was provided for the period of March 21 to May 30, 1885 [655]. The September 24, 1885, issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten included the first catalog of 100 nebulae discovered by L. Swift at Warner Observatory using the 41-cm refractor. Number 19 was discovered on April 6, 1885, and was described as pretty faint, pretty large, and round. Swift noted that it was north of two stars, “which form with it a right triangle” [656]. He gave the position as 1885 (UT) Apr. 6

α (1885.0) 11h 54m 40s

δ +20° 02′ 35″

When Swift’s second catalog of nebulae was published on January 26, 1886, it actually began by providing more information for the above object, which Swift said he accidentally forgot to add to the first catalog. He said the object was discovered while searching for Tempel’s periodic comet and wrote, On the 8th it was missing, the evening of the 7th having been cloudy prevented a search for it. A most determined effort to re-find it was made on the evening of the 8th and also on the 10th and 13th but in vain. Neither could it be found at Harvard College Observatory. It was very faint, and in several sweeps was overlooked, but when once found could be seen without difficulty. It was of course a Comet, but I thought at the time that the Decl. was too great to be Tempel’s. [657]

Interestingly, periodic comet 9P/Tempel 1 would not be seen again until 1967, when a single photograph by E. Roemer (Catalina Observatory) showed a suspect. Poor weather prevented confirmation. The comet was recovered for certain in 1972 and has been seen at every apparition thereafter. Calculations using positions from the ten apparitions spanning 1967–2016 reveal that Gautier’s prediction for the 1885 apparition was only in error by 0.15 day. This actually confirms that Swift’s object was not Tempel 1, but was it a comet at all? The Authors note that the galaxy NGC 4032 is in nearly the same right ascension as Swift’s object, with a declination that is exactly 40′ to the north. There also happens to be two stars (HIP 58467 and HIP 58519) that form a nearly right-angled triangle with this galaxy. Swift published 12 catalogs containing over 1200 deep sky objects that he discovered during the 1880s and 1890s. There are several objects that were considered missing, until various researchers identified them with nearby deep

K M1885-1

215

sky objects that were some multiple of 10m or 10′ from Swift’s positions. Swift remarked that he had actually swept over this area several times and missed it, “but when once found [it] could be seen without difficulty.” This might explain why he could not find it during the next few days. Although this would seem to solve the mystery of what Swift actually saw, there is one problem and that is the brightness of NGC 4032. Swift indicated that his object was “pretty faint,” however, NGC 4032 has a magnitude of 12.3 and should have appeared fairly bright in Swift’s 41-cm refractor. To conclude, the Authors consider, with high probability, that Swift made an error in the position and actually saw NGC 4032; however, because of the brightness issue, a comet cannot be ruled out.

216

Catalog

KM1885-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1885 Q1 1885 August 20 L. Swift Rochester, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

12–14 Visual 1

This object appeared in L. Swift’s second catalog of nebulae that were discovered at Warner Observatory using the 41-cm refractor. He found it on August 20, 1885, and described it as very faint, pretty large, round, and slightly brighter in the middle. Swift gave the position as 1885 (UT) Aug. 20

α (1885.0) 4h 05m 12s

δ +27° 24′ 30″

He also wrote the following, Resembles a Comet. Moonlight and clouds prevented verification until Sept. 6, when it could not be found. Am certain of its place, and of its configuration with 4 stars. Have examined the place three times and am certain of its absence. Seeing on one occasion as good as when discovered. [658]

Labeled #29, he added, “with great probability” this object should be “struck out” from this catalog, as it was likely a comet. Another object was mentioned by Swift in 1892. In his tenth catalog of nebulae, object #14 was discovered on December 25, 1891, and had a position just a few arc minutes from the apparent comet seen in 1885. He described this nebula as extremely, extremely faint, pretty large, and round (Fig.  21). Swift specifically noted that this was not #29 from his second catalog, “That is still missing” [659]. This object was later designated as IC 359 in J. L. E. Dreyer’s Index Catalogue, first published in 1895, in which Swift is listed as the discoverer [660]. Nothing else was written about this object, but in a discussion with H. G. Corwin, Jr., in May 2017, Corwin suggested that object #29 was not missing, but was identical to IC 359 [661]. A subsequent examination reveals that Swift’s position for IC 359 is 12′ east of the actual position, while his position for the “comet” is less than 3′ west of IC 359. Despite Swift’s comment that IC 359 was not the same as his 1885 comet, it seems likely that it was.

K M1885-2

217

Fig. 21  This is IC 359. This photograph, plate 1468, was obtained in 1955, in the course of the National Geographic Society – Palomar Observatory Sky Survey. The image is about 10′ wide. North is up and west is to the right. This is an 8-minute exposure on Kodak 103aO (blue), without a filter. (Palomar Sky Survey images courtesy of the United States Naval Observatory Image and Catalogue Archive)

218

Catalog

KM1887-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1887 August 24 Several Indiana & Kentucky, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual ?

Beginning on August 25, 1887, dozens of newspapers across the United States and Canada began reporting the appearance of a new comet, with some referring to it as a “Great Comet.” There seems to have been two independent, primary discoveries. The first story originated out of Indianapolis, Indiana, being published in the Indianapolis Journal. It stated the following: About 11 o’clock last night a comet was observed in the northern sky. It appeared to be approaching the zenith, with the tail hanging almost directly over the city. Its head was about 70° from the horizon and a little east of north. Although dim when first seen, its outlines gradually became distinct. The end of the tail was fan-like, and on the horizon, near which it hung, appeared a reddish glare similar to that of an aurora borealis. The comet was seen by a number of people. The telegraph brought no information of its having been observed anywhere else in the country last night. [662]

But the object was seen at another location that night, as The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, wrote the following: A brilliant comet, with a tail apparently eight feet [2.4 meters] in length, thought to be one of the largest of recent years, was visible to the naked eye last night shortly after 11 o’clock. It was due north in the heavens just above the horizon. It was more or less brilliant by turns. It was surrounded by a light haze. It gradually grew more indistinct until after 2 o’clock, when it finally disappeared. [663]

Pieces of each story were published in other newspapers for the next week. The Morning News of Greensboro, North Carolina, gave a dateline of “Indianapolis, August 29” [664] and said the comet was seen “last night,” implying it as seen on August 28, but this was not true and the dateline might have been altered to make the story seem “hot off the press.” The Indianapolis Journal was a morning newspaper. The Indianapolis News was an evening newspaper and it also published a story on August 25, but with the headline “Aurora Borealis, Not a Comet.” It stated the following: A very peculiar phenomenon was observed last evening. About 11 o’clock there appeared about 50° above the horizon and 10° east of north, a light resembling a comet moving vertically toward the horizon. Within fifteen minutes four more appeared, parallel in course with the first and varying slightly from it in altitude. These did not attain the brightness of the first, but their presence showed that the manifestation was merely an unusual variation of the boreal light. [665]

The Indianapolis News then provided an alternative explanation from L. M. Brown, who stated that the “comet” was a “gas-well ghost” or “gas-well comet.” Gas wells were located northeast of Indianapolis. Brown said the reddish glow near the horizon was the glow from the wells and that the “comet” was

K M1887-1

219

...the result of the reflection (and perhaps refraction) of the gas-well light by minute crystals of ice in the air, high above the earth. Such appearances are common in the Pennsylvania gas-field, being often of surpassing beauty. [666]

The Indianapolis Journal did not appreciate this explanation and wrote the following in the next morning’s edition: The Journal scorns the insinuation that its comet was not a comet but a ‘gas-well ghost.’ Gas-well ghosts and gas-boom ghosts are common enough, but the Journal’s astronomer is not to be deceived by cheap imitations. [667]

What was the object seen simultaneously from Indianapolis and Louisville, cities that are nearly 177 kilometers apart? A naked-eye comet in the northern sky should have been noticed all across the Northern Hemisphere, but this object was only seen from those two cities. The “gas-well comet” theory might have worked if Indianapolis were the only town the phenomenon was seen; however, the fact that the same object was seen in Louisville dispels that explanation. The only explanation that makes sense is that the phenomenon was auroral in nature. Aurorae can have durations ranging from a few minutes to several hours and just because an aurora is seen from a particular location does not necessarily mean it can be seen east or west of that location. Indianapolis and Louisville have very similar longitudes of 86.2° and 85.8°, respectively, with Louisville lying to the south-southeast of Indianapolis. Odds are very high that if an aurora is seen from a particular longitude, locations to the north and south are likely to see it.

220

Catalog

KM1889-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1889a = X/1889 A1 1889 January 15 W. R. Brooks Geneva, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

After discovering eight comets that now bear his name while living in Phelps, New York, W. R. Brooks was offered an incredible opportunity by philanthropist W. Smith (Geneva, New York) in 1887: Smith would build a house for Brooks in Geneva, as well as an observatory. Brooks accepted the offer and even supervised the building of Smith Observatory [668]. He moved into the house in early April 1888 [669] and managed to discover his first comet (C/1888 P1) at this new observatory less than five months later. On the morning of January 15, 1889. Brooks was using the new short-focus, 25.7-cm telescope, with a field of view of 1° 20′, when he discovered a rapidly moving, diffuse comet. He sent a telegram to L. Swift (Warner Observatory, Rochester, New  York, USA) later that day. Swift was actually visiting Lick Observatory (California, USA) at the time, but a message was relayed to newspapers, presumably by Swift’s son, Edward. Two slightly different stories were published in dozens of newspapers beginning on January 16. The first story was published in the eastern most newspapers of the United States and Canada. Director Swift, of the Warner Observatory, yesterday received notice that William R. Brooks, of Smith Observatory, Geneva, had discovered a new comet. The discovery was made at 6:05 o’clock yesterday morning. The comet’s position is described as follows: Right ascension, eighteen degrees, four minutes; declination, south, twenty-one degrees and twenty minutes, with a rapid westerly direction. [670]

The second story was published in the midwestern and western newspapers of the United States and Canada. Rochester, N. Y., January 15 — Director Swift, of the Warner Observatory, received notice to-day of the discovery of a new comet by Professor Brooks at the Smith Observatory, Geneva, at 6:50 this morning. Its position is as follows: Right ascension 18 hours 47 minutes, declination south 21 degrees 20 minutes, with rapid westerly motion. The comet is faintish. [671]

The difference in both the time and right ascension is certainly puzzling, especially the latter, which amounts to a 10° difference in the location of the comet. Anyone trying to find the comet based on the erroneous coordinates would not have found it. It is uncertain whether two different messages were sent by a telegraph office or if an error was made by a telegraph operator as the message was relayed. Brooks did send a letter to the Phelps Citizen, the newspaper of the town he had lived in for 17 years. It stated the following: I discovered a new comet this morning in the eastern sky the first comet of the new year. It is in the constellation saggitarius [sic] rising just before the sun, right ascension 18 hours

K M1889-1

221

four minutes; declination south 21° 20 minutes with a rapid motion in a westerly course. The comet was discovered with the fine new telescope of this observatory. [672]

This at least confirmed the position, indicating that the eastern newspapers had apparently published the correct details. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle published additional information on January 17, which included the following quote from Brooks: The appearance of the comet is that of a round, diffused nebulosity, with indications of a short tail, which might be prominent under better conditions for seeing. [673]

Brooks sent letters to the Sidereal Messenger and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society during the next few days. The complete details were published in the latter journal. Brooks wrote, While sweeping the eastern heavens in the neighbourhood of the Sun, on the morning of January 15, 1889, at 6h 5m L.M.T., I discovered a new comet in approximately R.A. 18h 04m; declination south 21° 20′. I had only time to take the circle readings for position—the instrument used being the new 10 1 -inch [25.7-cm] equatorial of this observatory, with 8 a large achromatic positive eyepiece giving a power of 40 diameters, and a field of 1° 20′. The nearly full Moon was just setting, and the dawn approaching, so I had but a short time in which to do my work; but fortunately the comet was in a well-marked field of telescopic stars, and so I was enabled to detect motion in a few minutes, which was rapid in a westerly course. [674]

The converted time of discovery and position are as follows: 1889 (UT) Jan. 15.467

α (1889.0) 18h 04m

δ −21° 20′

Brooks said the object was “faintish,” but was brighter than the nebulae in that region, “which were not seen.” He added, “I was sure of its cometary nature, as I am now, and also of motion, which was unmistakable.” Brooks also talked about his attempts to find the comet in the mornings that followed: Clouds prevented another observation of the comet until the morning of the 20th, when careful sweeps were made in the direction of motion from the place of discovery, but the search was unsuccessful, owing to the bright moonlight—the Moon being only three days past the full. No other opportunity has since been offered at this observatory to re-observe the comet. It must now be a long distance west of its position at the time of discovery and probably fainter, for I must have caught the object just as it was sweeping upwards from the Sun. Yet it is hoped that the comet may not be beyond telescopic reach when the present Moon is out of the way. [675]

Brooks provided a drawing to show how the comet moved in the short time it was under observation. News of Brooks’ discovery had actually reached Lick Observatory on January 16. As noted earlier, Swift was visiting that observatory, having traveled there after observing the total solar eclipse of January 1. One of the observatory’s staff astronomers was E. E. Barnard. Together, Swift, Barnard, and Brooks were the top comet discoverers in the United States. The mornings of January 17 and 18 were cloudy,

222

Catalog

but the 19th was clear, and Barnard began his search for Brooks’ comet using the 30.5-cm refractor. He would search large areas of the southern sky on every available morning through February 3, but failed to find the comet. Beginning on January 28, Swift searched using “the 4-inch [10-cm] broken-tube comet seeker.” He covered all the southeastern sky on that morning and several mornings thereafter, but was also not successful in finding Brooks’ comet [676]. Brooks had already discovered nine comets that bore his name. He measured a position, recognized the direction the comet was heading, and quickly reported these details by sending a telegram. The sky was already beginning to brighten from astronomical twilight during his observation. Although the comet would have moved higher into the sky in the mornings that followed, moonlight would have hindered observations, especially if the comet was fading. Moonlight and the comet’s rapid motion were probably responsible for the comet becoming lost. The Authors did find the star pattern depicted in the drawing below (Fig. 22). Since Brooks’ drawing showed the comet in two locations, we measured both and came up with the following positions: 1889 (UT) Jan. 15.467 Jan. 15.471

α (1889.0) 18h 02.1m 18h 01.8m

δ −21° 21.6′ −21° 21.3′

Fig. 22  This is Brooks’ drawing representing the locations of the comet on January 15, 1889, as it appeared in the March 1889 issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

K M1889-1

223

The time of the second position is an estimate by the Authors. We know the comet was moving westerly; hence, the reason we assigned 6:05 a.m. local time to the first position. Unfortunately, we do not know how long Brooks actually observed the comet. Brooks did say that he detected motion in a “few” minutes. This is certainly ambiguous, especially for a comet with rapid motion. When the comet was first seen, the Sun was 14.3° below the horizon, so astronomical twilight was already brightening the sky and nautical twilight was 13  minutes from beginning. The Authors think it is safe to assume that the second position was estimated 5 minutes after the first.

224

Catalog

KM1889-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1889 July 6 L. Swift Rochester, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

L. Swift (Warner Observatory) was observing on the morning of July 6, 1889, when he spotted a diffuse object in the constellation Pisces. He telegraphed the details, which were subsequently published in numerous newspapers across the United States starting on July 6. The story was as follows: Rochester, N. Y., July 6—Prof. Swift, director of the Warner Observatory, discovered a new comet this morning, at 2:30. At 3:15 its approximate position was right ascension 22 hours 52 minutes 28 seconds, declination north, no degrees 49 minutes, or in constellation Pisces. It is moving west half a degree a day and south 10 minutes. It is just visible through a three-­ inch [7.6-cm] telescope. [677]

Swift likely alerted Harvard College Observatory about the comet, which was standard practice in those days. Subsequently, a telegram was sent from Boston to Kiel (Germany), where it was received at 8:30  p.m. on July 6. The telegram read as follows: A comet was discovered by Swift: July 5.833 m. t. Greenw. RA. = 343° 7′, PD. = 89° 11′; daily motion in RA. = −30′, in PD. = +10′. [678]

Kiel was considered the clearinghouse for astronomical announcements at that time and immediately sent telegrams to several European observatories. The next morning was cloudy in Kiel, but it was clear in Rome (Italy), where E. Millosevich was able to search for the comet. He found nothing, but sent a telegram to Kiel on July 8 suggesting that Swift had simply re-observed the comet Barnard (C/1888 R1) had discovered on September 3, 1888. K. N. A. Krueger (Kiel Observatory, Germany) wrote that he also wondered whether Swift had seen Barnard’s comet, but identity seemed impossible since the reported right ascension was in error by 21° [679]. The error was independently suggested in the United States as well, when the Sacramento Daily Record-Union published a story on July 8, with a dateline of “Mount Hamilton, July 7th” stating, The comet reported to have been discovered by Professor Swift, on the morning of July 6th, is probably the comet which was discovered by Mr. Barnard at the Lick Observatory on September 2d of last year, which has been continuously under observation here since that date. There is evidently an error of one hour and twenty-three minutes in Professor Swift’s reported position, as no comet, faint or otherwise, was found by Mr. Barnard last night in the place telegraphed. [680]

Kiel sent a telegram to Boston on July 8 asking to confirm the right ascension. A telegram from Boston was received at 9:00 p.m. that evening, stating that there was an “error in the observation” and that the right ascension should have been 321° 5′ (21h 24m). Swift had made an error.

K M1889-3

225

KM1889-3 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1889 December 23 L. Swift Rochester, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

The details of this object were published in L. Swift’s ninth catalog of nebulae discovered at Warner Observatory (Rochester, New  York, USA). The catalog appeared in the November 7, 1890 issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten. The object was labeled number 13 and was discovered on December 23, 1889. Swift gave the position as α = 3h 36m 06s, δ = −5° 02.1′ and described it as “e e F; p L; R,” meaning it was exceedingly, exceedingly faint, pretty large, and round. He added, … passed in line with 1417-18; cometary; unable to refind it; seeing good. Failed also at Harvard College Observatory. [681]

The numbers “1417–18” refers to NGC 1417 and NGC 1418, a pair of galaxies in the constellation Eridanus. Swift sent a letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on December 23, 1890, that corrected an error and provided a little more information: In description of nebula no. 13 for ‘passed’ read ‘1st of 3’. Calling attention to apparently so trivial a matter may seem unimportant, but it has more significance than at first sight appears, as I strongly suspect it to have been a comet, as at two subsequent examinations it could not be found. It was in line with N. G. C. 1417 and 1418 and all three were seen simultaneously. [682]

J. L. E. Dreyer pointed out in December 1891 that an object had been seen in Swift’s position on several instances, while it was missed on others. He said J. F. W. Herschel first detected it in 1827, while he had seen it on several occasions during 1875–1877. Dreyer suggested that the object’s brightness was variable [683]. He later designated it as IC 344. Swift wrote a letter to the journal Astronomy and Astro-Physics on February 11, 1892. He briefly discussed Dreyer’s paper and said he decided to try to view this object again. So, on January 31, 1892, he turned the 41-cm refractor to the area of his December 1889 “comet,” and saw the following: The two with which it was in line, were easily seen, but not even a glimpse of the other, using a power of 132. Changing the eye-piece to one giving a power of 195, I, after a prolonged endeavor, gained two glimpses of the object but they almost instantly vanished. [684]

Swift did say it was “exceedingly exceedingly faint,” so he might have initially found it on a night of exceptional seeing.

226

Catalog

KM1890-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1890 October 27 L. A. Eddie Grahamstown, South Africa

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

Naked eye Visual 1

L.  A. Eddie (Grahamstown, South Africa) was a very experienced comet observer, with his first observations having been published in March 1880. These concerned the Great Southern Comet of that year. He also published an excellent series of observations of the Great September Comet of 1882, which included detailed descriptions of the head and tail. Several London newspapers printed a story about a very unusual, comet-like object that was seen by Eddie on October 27, 1890. The dateline of the story was given as “Cape Town, November 5.” Eddie first saw the object at 7:45 p.m. noting the following: … it was inclined at an angle of about 45 degrees towards the south, and was about 30 degrees in length, but as it moved southward it became almost parallel to the horizon, with an altitude of about 20 degrees, till it stretched along the southern horizon an enormously long, narrow, almost parallel, weird-looking riband of gray light moving visibly across the sky. It passed over several bright stars, notably Alpha Centauri and Beta Argo Navis, but did not appear to dim their lustre. [685]

Eddie said the object was last seen at 8:32 p.m., when “the last trace faded in the south-eastern heavens.” He added the following, It travelled from nearly due west around the western and southern horizon at an altitude from about 20 to 25 degrees, and disappeared in the south-east, performing during that brief interval a journey stretching over at least 100 degrees. It was at its longest fully 90 degrees in length, while in width it did not exceed half a degree, except where it became very faint and slightly spread out at its posterior extremity, and where there were also faint indications of lateral diversion. The preceding portion was a point in cometary form, but no nucleus could be discerned. [686]

The journal Nature published the Times story verbatim on November 27, adding, If the statement is correct, we have represented here something that is quite unique in cometary phenomenon. It has still to be explained how it was that a phenomenon of such a nature as this was not telegraphed home at the time, and why no confirmation has been received from other sources. [687]

The Central Office of Kiel Observatory said a telegraphic inquiry was sent to the Cape Town Observatory (South Africa) for further information. They received the following reply: It has been cloudy here Oct. 27; has not been seen by any one else. [688]

K M1890-1

227

It seems very likely that Eddie observed a Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement (STEVE) event. Although such events have been reported for decades, it was not until 2017 that official research began. These events are typically oriented east-west and can extend for hundreds and even thousands of kilometers. They generally persist for 20 minutes to an hour. STEVE events occur closer to the equator than aurorae. While aurorae occur in the magnetosphere, STEVE events seem to occur in the ionosphere. Although STEVE events are most often seen during an auroral display, they can appear when no aurora is visible.

228

Catalog

KM1890-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1890 December 8 C. G. Bigourdan Paris Observatory, France

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

13.5 Visual 1

The story of this object is a curious one and it shows that, with detective work in archives, many riddles can be solved, even after more than 100 years. Among the great nineteenth century catalogs of nebulae and star clusters are the New General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars (NGC) and its update, and the Index Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars (IC). Both were compiled by J.  L. E. Dreyer from observations by a multitude of observers, especially F. W. Herschel and his son, J. F. W. Herschel. Despite efforts by Dreyer to identify all the objects in the catalogues, there are several entries that could not be unambiguously identified or are simply missing. The reason for this varies – a suspected object that was not there, a wrongly determined position, or even a comet. One object that has eluded identification is IC 2120, found on December 8, 1890, by C. G. Bigourdan, who started his astronomical career as an assistant astronomer at Toulouse Observatory (France) in 1877. In 1879, he followed F.  Tisserand to Paris Observatory where he was mainly observing nebulae to study their proper motion. This led to the discovery of about 500 new objects and the verification of the positions of nearly 6400 already known objects. One of his new discoveries received the designation IC 2120. His original observation report of “Bigourdan-262” is given below [689], translated by B. A. Skiff et al. [690] This object, taken at first for comet Spitaler (1890 VIII), is clearly nebulous and of magnitude 13.4 or 13.4-13.5. It is distinguished with difficulty from a very close neighboring star [mag.] 13.3 toward p[osition angle] = 180 deg, d[istance] = 0.3 [arcmin]. – m [circle reading] = 213.0 deg instead of 211.6 deg.

Since the object was not found again by observers during the 100 years after the first observations, Skiff et al., set out to solve the question of what this object really was. Skiff et al. noted that the brightness Bigourdan estimated is at the limit of the 31-cm refractor he was using. The first suspicion was that Bigourdan’s object is identical to the object PK 169-00.1, a planetary nebula in a catalogue by L. Perek and L.  Kohoutek. This identification was actually introduced in a 1947 paper by R. Minkowski, who labelled the object “M2-3” and said it was identical to IC 2120. However, except for the failed attempts to visually see the object, they note that the positions differ by more than half a degree. This would be an unusual error for Bigourdan, who produced very accurate astrometric positions. Skiff et at. determined the following position from these offsets. 1890 (UT) Dec. 8.861

α (2000.0) 05h 19m 10.5s

δ +38° 11′ 03″

K M1890-2

229

They also show that there is no other star nearby, which Bigourdan might have mistakenly identified as his reference star. There are also no known errors in the star catalogues Bigourdan was using. This left only the possibility that Bigourdan had seen something else – a comet. Since his original observing report mentions 113P/Spitaler one might ask why he did not relate the object to the comet and, if it were a comet, why was no motion detected? The question of the motion can be answered to a certain extent. The movement of the comet was about 14′/day, which gives 0.6″/minute. If Bigourdan made his four measurements within a short time he might not have noticed the motion. Periodic comet 113P/Spitaler was discovered on September 14, 1890, by R. F. Spitaler from Vienna, while he was trying to observe comet C/1890 V1 (Zona). It was described as a very faint, nebulous object of magnitude 13. During that apparition, comet 113P did not become brighter and was last detected on February 4, 1891, by Spitaler himself. Skiff and his co-workers consulted with B. G. Marsden regarding the orbit of comet 113P, which brought to light another strange circumstance: The comet was apparently measured from Paris Observatory on the same evening about 1.5 hours earlier than Bigourdan’s observation! The difference in the positions was only 1–2″. While at first this might seem puzzling, it later turned out that it was not Bigourdan who unknowingly observed the same object twice, but his colleague, astronomer D. Klumpke had observed the comet using the 38-cm telescope in the eastern dome of Paris Observatory at 7:13 Paris Mean Time, while Bigourdan was observing from the western dome, around 8:49 Paris Mean Time, as was deduced from four-hour angles given by the latter [691, 692]. So, unknowingly, the two astronomers were observing the same object – comet 113P/Spitaler – about 1.5 hours apart from the same observatory with different telescopes. One knew what they were looking at, while the other took it for a nebula. But we still do not have a satisfying answer to the question of why Bigourdan thought that this was not 113P/Spitaler. The only explanation could be that he did not think it was that bright.

230

Catalog

KM1891-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

1891 February 4 R. Spitaler Vienna, Austria

N/A Visual 1

Austrian astronomer E. F. von Haerdtl took a strong interest in the orbit of periodic comet Winnecke (later 7P/Pons-Winnecke) in 1888 [693] and 1889, precisely calculating its motion from its discovery year of 1858 through its 1886 apparition [694]. As a continuation of his work, he published a short paper in the Astronomische Nachrichten near the beginning of 1891 that provided an orbit, as well as an ephemeris for the period of January 7 to January 30, 1891. Haerdtl predicted the comet would next pass perihelion on July 1.29, 1892 [695]. K. N. A. Krueger, the editor of the journal Astronomische Nachrichten, included a short article in the February 10, 1891, edition concerning an interesting find by the Austrian astronomer R. F. Spitaler (Vienna Observatory). He said Spitaler was using the 69-cm refractor to search for comet Winnecke around the positions predicted by Haerdtl’s orbit. The evening of February 4 was very clear and transparent, and Spitaler found a “comet-like object” very near the predicted position. The object was described as “a very faint star with a coma 5″ to a maximum of 10″ in diameter.” At about 9:30 p.m. local time, it was situated between two stars and preceded the star DM +26.1714° by 20′ [696]. Krueger gave the position of Spitaler’s object as 1891 (UT) Feb. 10.850

α (apparent) 07h 58m 43s

δ  +26° 15′

and the predicted position of Winnecke’s comet as. α (apparent) 07h 57m 57s

δ +26° 06.6′

Krueger then stated, “Although this difference cannot initially be reconciled with the course of the comet after Haerdtl’s elements, the following continuation of the ephemeris will still be useful ….” Krueger then provided an ephemeris for the period of January 30 to March 19, 1891 [697]. In an article published in the journal Vierteljahrsschrift in 1892, H. C. F. Kreutz wrote the following: In the spring of 1891 an attempt was made at the observatories in Vienna and Mount Hamilton to locate Winnecke’s Comet in the opposition preceding the next perihelion opposition. The attempts on Mount Hamilton were unsuccessful; in Vienna, on February 4, 1891,

K M1891-1

231

near that of v. Haerdtl, perceived a comet-like object that could not be found later; however, the deviation from the calculation is far too significant for an identity with the comet being sought to be even probable. [698]

As there are no nebulous objects near Spitaler’s position, it must be assumed that Spitaler misidentified the field or discovered an actual comet with a different motion from comet Winnecke.

232

Catalog

KM1891-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1891 September 10–11 R. Copeland, J. L. E. Dreyer, and 2 others United Kingdom

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

Naked eye Visual 4+

R. Copeland, the Astronomer Royal for Scotland, was visiting Dunecht, Scotland, in September 1891 and was using a telescope at a local observatory. He wrote the following in Nature: I was just leaving the Observatory about 11:18 G. M. T. on the 10th inst. [September 10], when I saw a sharply-defined straight streak of light arching the sky from east to west. It was about 1° in width, and of uniform brightness from side to side, but more intense towards the western horizon, where it disappeared behind the trees at an altitude of some 4°. Eastward it extended across the constellation Andromeda, near the girdle, quite beyond the convergence point of auroral rays, or fully 120° from the western horizon. [699]

Copeland said the object was rapidly fading and was “drifting southwards at a rate of, perhaps, 1° in five minutes.” By 11:21 G. M. T., he noted, … the western portion was considered to cross the celestial equator in R. A. 262½°, passing through a point in R. A. 310° and Decl. +23° (1840.0). In the meantime the eastern portion had faded away. Although there was a bright aurora in the north-northwest, I did not think that the streak was auroral in character, but rather that it had been caused by the passage of a large meteorite. [700]

Although no further observations were reported for the night of September 10, there were at least four observations of an almost identical phenomenon on September 11. The Scotsman published a letter from an anonymous writer in Wigtownshire in its September 14 edition. The letter was written on September 12 and stated the following: There appeared here last night, between nine and ten, a very bright luminous arch, reaching from south-west to north-east. It extended directly over the zenith from horizon to horizon, and formed a very interesting spectacle while it lasted, which was only about half-an-hour. It seemed to be of electric origin from its wavy motion, and was slightly tinged pink at the eastern point just above the horizon. [701]

The journal Nature received a letter from W. E. Wilson (County Westmeath, Ireland) that was written on September 16 that provided details of a “remarkable appearance” that was seen on the night of September 11. The object was actually spotted by another person, who subsequently alerted Wilson at 9:00 p.m. Wilson wrote, It consisted of a luminous band stretching from the eastern horizon to the west, and passing a little to the south of the zenith. It was first seen here at 8.20, and began as a luminous ray coming up from the west, but when I first saw it, it had extended as described from west to east. It was like a straight tail of a large comet with its head below the horizon, or the track of the beam from a powerful electric search light. Its eastern end lay a little to the south of the Pleiades, which were just rising; and in the west it passed through Corona Borealis. The night was a brilliant starlight one, and small stars could be seen through the luminous band.

K M1891-2

233

It was seen in the Co. Kildare, 50 miles [80 kilometers] from here, and there it passed through the zenith also, which would show that it was at a great altitude. It gradually faded away, and was gone at 9.30. It would be of interest to know if it was observed in other parts of the country. [702]

J. L. E. Dreyer (Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland) wrote a letter to Nature on September 28 describing a “narrow luminous band” that he saw on the night of September 11, between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. It passed close south of Cassiopeia, and nearly through the zenith. Half an hour later it had drifted 8° or 10° southward, and had become very faint. [703]

H. Rix (Burlington House, London, England) sent a letter to Nature after reading Wilson’s letter in the September 24 edition. He and a friend had spent the day of September 11 at Epping Forest and were on a train approaching Woodford Station in London when the phenomenon was first noticed. … my friend and myself simultaneously noticed a luminous band, such as that observed by Mr. Wilson, and extending from the horizon almost to the zenith. Our first unreflecting thought was to refer it to the revolving light at the Naval Exhibition, only it did not revolve, and the direction was quite wrong. The fact that both of us thought of this is indicative of the appearance which the luminous beam bore. The night was clear and starlit, and I observed that the point in the horizon from which the beam rose was almost under the Great Bear, but a little to the left as I faced it. We saw it only for a minute or two before it was hidden from us by the shed of Woodford Station, in which station we stayed for what seemed a long while. When we got into the open country again, the phenomenon had disappeared. I may add, that my own eye being unfortunately defective for red, I asked my companion if he noticed any red tinge in the light, and he answered that it seemed quite white. [704]

Admittedly, the objects of September 10 and 11 were never actually called comets, but they are being included in this book because of their similarity to other very similar luminous bands that were reported as comets [see KM1770-1, KM1883-5, and KM1890-1]. The fact that the September 10 “streak of light” occurred during an auroral display, while the September 11 “luminous band” occurred without an aurora present makes these objects classic examples of Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement (STEVE) events. Such events were reported for decades, but official research only began in 2017. They are typically oriented east-west and can be thousands of kilometers long. Their duration can persist from 20 minutes to an hour and they are generally closer to the celestial equator than aurorae. There is actually a notable difference between aurora and STEVE events and that is the fact that aurorae occur in the magnetosphere, while STEVE events appear to occur in the ionosphere.

234

Catalog

KM1892-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1892 March 15 W. R. Brooks Geneva, New York, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

Naked eye Visual 1

An unusual object was seen by W.  R. Brooks (Smith Observatory, Geneva, New York) on March 15, 1892. Newspaper accounts were first published on March 17, stating the following: Geneva, N. Y., March 16.—Prof. Brooks, Director of the Smith Observatory, observed a wonderful celestial phenomenon last night. A streamer of white light resembling a great comet appeared in the western heavens at an elevation of 20 degrees, rapidly increasing in size until 30 degrees in length. It moved slowly eastward, passing directly overhead, and disappeared in the eastern sky near Arcturus. [705]

There were several reports of the aurora borealis in February, March, and April of 1892. The following story appeared in the Daily Picayune of New Orleans, Louisiana, which describes a display on March 15 that was visible to residents of Minnesota. The northern heavens were robed in green last evening until the stars were obscured. Wave after wave of quivering lights swept up from the horizon like folds of fleecy lace until to the very zenith the sky was shut out by the shifting shadows, and the earth seemed hemmed closely in. [706]

As with object KM1890-1  and KM1891-2, it seems likely that this was another STEVE event, the description of which is included in the story about those objects. Brooks would go on to discover another ten comets. When he had made his final discovery in 1911, there were 21 comets that bore his name.

K M1892-2

235

KM1892-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1892 March 19 M. F. J. C. Wolf Heidelberg, Germany

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Photographic 3

M. F. J. C. Wolf first became interested in astronomy when 16 years old and, through the encouragement of his father, he built an observatory behind their house. Wolf observed with a variety of instruments and, in 1884, discovered his first comet at 21 years of age. This comet proved to be a periodic comet with an orbital period of 6.8  years and is officially known as 14P/Wolf. Wolf was then attending the University of Heidelberg, studying physics and mathematics, and would receive his Ph. D. in 1888. Wolf became interested in photography and purchased a 15-cm doublet portrait lens to photograph the night sky. He soon began to conduct a widefield photographic survey for minor planets. During the next couple of years, he discovered that the Orion Nebula was larger than earlier suggested and he discovered a large nebula in Cygnus, which he named the North American Nebula. He also discovered minor planets, finding his first on December 22, 1891, which is now known as 323 Brucia [707]. On March 22, 1892, Wolf was inspecting three photographic plates exposed for two hours each on March 19.86, March 19.95, and March 20.87. On the first plate he noticed a “15′ long, small, cigar-shaped nebula with a condensation in the center.” The same object was subsequently noted on the other two plates, but its position changed with respect to the background stars, which immediately ruled out its being a nebula (Figs. 23 and 24). Although Saturn was then situated 8° away at the time the exposures were acquired, Wolf ruled out the possibility of the photographic images being a reflection, when other plates taken at similar distances from that planet revealed no similar objects. Wolf noted a significant decrease in brightness on the plate exposed on the 20th, estimating the brightness as similar to the Merope nebula in the Pleiades, so he decided to send the position and direction of motion to Kiel, Germany, that same day [708]. The position was given as 1892 (UT) Mar. 19.8613

α (1855.0) 11h 31.8m

δ +10° 30′

In a letter to Kiel Observatory written on March 28, Wolf summarized the above and added that he photographed the same region on the evening of March 22. Although he initially thought the object was gone, he added, “Perhaps there is a slight trace at the place corresponding to the movement.” Wolf added, “any further pursuit of the object appears to be impossible.” Wolf also made the following comment, It is evident that we have had to do with an object which is far from the earth. Strictly speaking, however, the possibility is not excluded that it was caused by a reflection phenomenon which Saturn had produced, which could only occur in the exact position of the camera. This is unlikely. [709]

236

Catalog

Figs. 23 and 24  These images show the object photographed on March 19 and 20, 1892, in the course of Wolf’s search for minor planets. The images are about 30′ wide. North is up and west is to the right. This work made use of the Heidelberg Digitized Astronomical Plates, which were produced at Landessternwarte Heidelberg-Königstuhl under grant No. 00.071.2005 of the Klaus-­Tschira-­Foundation

K.  N. A. Krueger, the editor of the Astronomische Nachrichten (Kiel, Germany) added a note to Wolf’s letter. He said news of the comet arrived on March 22 and a search was made that evening, “but in vain.” Another search was made on March 23, after an error in the position had been corrected by Wolf, but, again, no comet was found. A few observatories in Europe were alerted on March 22 and 23, as well as Harvard College Observatory (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) and Lick Observatory (California, USA), but no further observations were reported [710]. R. F. Spitaler (Vienna Observatory, Austria) noted that on March 24, 25, and 31, he

K M1892-2

237

“searched in vain” for the object using the 69-cm refractor, but did discover several nebulae [711]. No further details were ever published and this object was only occasionally mentioned in the decades that followed as a possible additional comet found by Wolf. Following the release of the digitized plate collection of Heidelberg Observatory, the Authors began looking for this object. The three plates were quickly found and are labeled G417, G419, and G421; however, there was a surprise. The telescope being used was a double astrograph. This consisted of two 15-cm portrait lenses. When searching for minor planets, Wolf simultaneously exposed a pair of plates, one with each portrait lens. The logs show that plates G417, G419, and G421, which contain the “comet,” were each exposed for two hours. But the logs also show that plates G418, G420, and G422, were shot at the same time and were also two-hour exposures. An examination of these plates did not reveal Wolf’s object. Why did Wolf not examine the second plates for each exposure before announcing his discovery? When comparing the pairs of plates, it immediately becomes obvious that the even-numbered plates appear underexposed compared to the odd-numbered plates. Wolf might have already become aware of an issue with the second portrait lens. What that problem would have been is unknown, but something like a dew buildup would have restricted the amount of light reaching the plate. A quick examination of the plates after they were developed would have revealed the problem and Wolf might have considered the plates useless, which led to him not checking them after finding the “comet.” Would this “problem” have prevented the object from showing up on the even-numbered plates? No, as it is definitely bright enough on the odd-­ numbered plates to have been detected on at least the two even-numbered plates exposed on March 19nd. It seems that Wolf’s object was a reflection of Saturn after all. Wolf would discover 61 minor planets from 1891 through 1901. In 1902, he was appointed as Chair of Astronomy at the University of Heidelberg, as well as Director of the new Heidelberg-Königstuhl Observatory.

238

Catalog

KM1892-3 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1892 August 13 E. E. Barnard Lick Observatory, California, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

A letter from E.  E. Barnard appeared in a 1906 edition of the Astronomische Nachrichten, which provided details of an unexplained observation that was made fourteen years earlier. Barnard frequently observed Venus using the 91-cm refractor at Lick Observatory. On the morning of August 13, 1892, twilight had become too bright to observe anything else, so he turned the telescope to Venus. The Sun was then only a half hour from rising. As the crescent shape of Venus came into view, Barnard noted a nearby star, which he estimated was about magnitude 7. He wrote, The position was so low that it was necessary to stand upon the high railing of a tall observing chair. It was not possible to make any measures, as I had to hold on to the telescope with both hands to keep from falling. [712]

Barnard did estimate that the star was 1′ to the south and about 14 seconds preceding Venus. Since he knew the current position of Venus, he estimated the following position for the “star”: 1892 (UT) Aug. 13.54

α (1855.0) 6h 50m 21s

δ +17° 13.6′

Barnard concluded that it was neither one of the brighter asteroids nor a reflection of Venus. The elongation from the Sun … would exclude the possibility that the object was an Intra-Mercurial planet, but it does not preclude the possibility of its being a planet interior to Venus, though such is not probable.

Barnard said he “previously hesitated about calling attention to the observation,” but felt it “best to put it on record.” No further details are available. Barnard’s reputation as an observer was solid and it seems likely that this object was real. What it was is a mystery. He ruled out an Intra-Mercurial planet, but added, “it does not preclude the possibility of its being a planet interior to Venus, though such is not probable.” Barnard’s letter generated some discussion during the next few months. First up was R. Pirovano (Pontafel, Carinthia, Austria), who did some calculations and said the altitude of Venus was 26° 6.5′ and that it “cannot be reconciled with Barnard’s words” that he had to stand “upon the high railing of a tall observing chair etc.” Pirovano said this contradicted Barnard’s statement that the observation was made “a half hour before sunrise” [713].

K M1892-3

239

Barnard responded in a letter sent to the Astronomische Nachrichten on September 25, 1906. He wrote, … with the large telescopes of this country 26° would be considered a low altitude for the observation of objects in certain parts of the sky. These telescopes are not expected to be used near the horizon. When it is required to observe near the horizon, it is necessary to have a high observing chair in addition to the elevating floor. [714]

Barnard added that the date is correct, because August 12, 1892, was a Friday and “Friday was officially my night with the 36-inch [91-cm].” He described other observations he made on the night of August 12/13. To check that his “memory may not have gone too far astray,” Barnard wrote to the director of Lick Observatory and asked him to set the 91-cm refractor to the same position necessary to have been observing Venus on that morning. He said Campbell wrote the following: With the telescope set at east hour angle 4h 40m and declination +17°, the eye piece of the 36-inch [91-cm] is 11 feet [3.4 meters] above the highest position of the floor. The top step of the smaller observing chair is 8 feet [2.4 meters] above the floor, and the top of the large chair is 15 feet [4.6 meters] above the floor.

This seems to have solved that problem. The date and time were apparently correct. The October issue of The Observatory included a letter by C. L. Brook (Harewood Lodge, Meltham, England) that contained a possible explanation. This place is close to (perhaps within) the border of the Milky Way in Gemini: we know that new stars, almost without exception, have appeared in or near the Milky Way; is it not possible that what Prof. Barnard saw was a Nova? If so, an examination of photographic plates taken later in that year might be advisable. [715]

The German astronomer C. W. L. M. Ebell suggested to M. F. J. C. Wolf (Heidelberg, Germany) that he look over his photographic plates of that area of the sky to see if the object Barnard saw could be found. Wolf checked the position on plates he had exposed on 1891 December 22 and 1892 December 16, 19, and 26, but no bright object was found. He then wrote, I brought the two plates 1891 Dec. 22 and 1892 Dec. 26 into the stereocomparator and compared them exactly also with respect to the faintest stars. I can assert that at the indicated position and in its vicinity the plates are completely identical up to the stars of 14th magnitude. Thus, if the bright object seen by Barnard in 1892 Aug. 12 had been a nova, it would have to have descended below 14th magnitude, which is not very likely, by Dec. 26 of that year. [716]

Wolf’s comment would seem to dispel the nova theory. The time between Barnard’s observation and the December 26, 1892, plate examined by Wolf was 135 days and Wolf said it was “not very likely” that Barnard’s object could have faded from magnitude 7 to fainter than magnitude 14 in that amount of time. However, some novae have faded that amount in a shorter period of time. The recurrent nova T Coronae Borealis takes about 60  days to fade 7–8 magnitudes after maximum brightness, while Nova Cygni 1975 faded 8 magnitudes in about 100 days. Barnard’s object was given the designation of NSV 3313 in the New Catalogue of Suspected Variable Stars that was published in 1982 [717]. It is listed as a cataclysmic variable in 1997, although marked as very uncertain in the latter publication [718].

240

Catalog

There still exist some doubts that Barnard’s object was a nova, but what else might it have been? In 2007, R.  Baum suggested the possibility that this object might have been a sungrazing comet, although he adds, “it is strange that there are no corroborating reports” [719]. The Authors agree that it could have been the prominent central condensation of a comet (not necessarily a sungrazer) whose coma was washed out by the twilight sky. However, in such a case, Barnard would probably still have noticed that the object was not completely star-like and still diffused or extended. Since nothing like that was seen, the nova theory seems the most likely explanation (Fig. 25).

Fig. 25  This sketch was drawn by E. E. Barnard and represents his view of Venus (the crescent at the top) and the mysterious star (underlined) on August 13, 1892, at 4:50 a.m. (Standard Pacific time), which was 00:50 Greenwich Mean Time. The field is 5′ across. (This originally appeared in the July 17 1906, issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten)

K M1892-4

241

KM1892-4 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1892 October 18 W. Schooling Hammersmith, England

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Photographic 1

E. Holmes (London, England) was observing double stars and Jupiter on the night of November 6, 1892. Conditions were not very good and he decided to quit for the night, but not before turning his 81-cm reflector toward Mu Andromedae, to see its faint companions, and then the “Andromeda nebula” (M31). He was looking for the nebula using his finder scope and thought he had found it, but when he looked through the large telescope he immediately realized he was not looking at the nebula, but some other bright object. He alerted a few other people and it was soon announced that he had discovered a new comet [720]. Not long after hearing the news of this comet, W. Schooling remembered that he had taken a time exposure of M31 on October 18. The exposure was made between 8:00 and 9:30 p.m. He pulled out his negative from that date and easily located M31, as well as something that looked like a comet. Not wanting to decide whether this was Holmes’ comet on his own, he sent a copy to the Royal Observatory (Greenwich, England), where E. W. Maunder and A. S. D. Russell closely examined the image. At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society on December 9, 1892, Maunder said, I feel pretty confident as to the reality of the object shown on Mr. Schooling’s plate. When I received the negative I roughly traced the path of [Holmes’ comet] on it by means of one of the ephemerides which were then available, and I found that this path continued backwards passed very near to the object in question. [721]

At the same meeting, Russell made the following comment: I measured Mr. Schooling’s photograph, and examined the object in question very carefully. It certainly seemed comet-like in appearance. The principal thing I noted about it was that it seemed to have two wings—the one perhaps the true tail of the comet, the other due possibly to the trail of the comet during the … exposure. I took a photograph of the comet on Nov. 14th, and the two images are very similar in appearance. [722]

Russell’s position was given as follows [723]: 1892 (GMT) Oct. 18.3646

α (1892.0) 01h 02m 10.7s

δ +39° 55′ 54″

Before this measured position had been announced, H. C. F. Kreutz used positions of Holmes’ comet from November 9, 13, and 17 to calculate an orbit with a period of 7.09 years [724]. After Russell had measured the above position, she forwarded it to E.  Roberts, chief assistant in the Nautical Almanac Office [725]. Roberts used this position, as well as positions obtained at the Royal Observatory on November 9 and 26, and calculated an orbit with a period of 15.18 years [726].

242

Catalog

W. H. M. Christie, the Astronomer Royal at the Royal Observatory, sent a letter to the Astronomische Nachrichten on January 26, 1893, which explained the care that Russell took in measuring the image, but added: Apart therefore from the small scale of the photograph and the want of definition of the image, the resulting place for the comet can at best be only approximate. [727]

As additional positions were reported for Holmes’ comet, it quickly became obvious that Schooling’s photograph did not show Holmes’ comet, as newer orbits placed that comet roughly half a degree from Schooling’s object. So, where it first seemed that Schooling’s photograph represented the first prediscovery observation of a comet, it probably represents an early example of an emulsion flaw being mistaken for a comet. Another blow against Schooling’s object being Holmes’ comet, now designated 17P/Holmes, is that this comet is known for its intense and large outbursts, which rise to a maximum as a very condensed object within a few days. It is then followed by a slow decline in brightness, while becoming more and more diffuse and large. The brightness in quiescence is usually around magnitude 14–15 even at perihelion. Since Schooling’s image was taken more than 2 weeks before Holmes discovered the comet in outburst, it would have been much too faint for him to photograph.

K M1892-5

243

KM1892-5 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1892 November 24 A. Freeman Brighton, England

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

A. Freeman, a member of the British Astronomical Association, was observing on the evening of November 24, 1892, when he spotted what he thought was a faint comet at 9:20 p.m. He was using a 26-cm reflector, with a magnification of 60×. The comet was described as fainter than E. Holmes’ recent comet discovery, but larger, with a diameter of about 10′ [728]. Holmes had found a comet on November 6, which was undergoing a major brightness outburst that brought it to naked-eye visibility. This comet is now known as 17P/Holmes. Freeman sent an announcement to Greenwich Observatory (England). W. H. M. Christie, the Astronomer Royal, sent a telegram to other observatories on November 26, which was as follows: A faint comet was discovered by Freeman, Brighton, Nov. 24.389 Gr. m. T. RA. = 7° 15′ PD. = 59° 51′. Daily motion: 0′ in RA. +3° 12′ in PD. Christie. [729]

Put into modern terms, this translates to 1892 (GMT) Nov. 24.889

α (apparent) 00h 29m

δ +30° 09′

Its daily motion was 3° 12′ due south. The Astronomische Nachrichten became the focal point for the discussion of this object in the following days. E. Weiss (Vienna Observatory, Austria) sent a telegram on November 27 stating that comet Freeman could not be found; however, on November 28, he sent another telegram stating that Freeman’s comet was probably a fragment of the lost periodic comet 3D/Biela, with a perihelion date of about December 28 [730]. A few hours after Weiss’ second telegram, Christie sent a telegram stating, “Comet Freeman probably a nebula” [731]. No object measuring 10′ in diameter is within many degrees of Freeman’s position. His position is close to NGC 149, but that galaxy is only 1′ across and about 15th magnitude, probably too faint for Freeman’s telescope. On December 3, K. N. A. Krueger, the editor of the Astronomische Nachrichten, stated that Weiss “still maintains the possibility of a connection with Biela’s comet, as long as it is not proven definitely to be a nebula.” Krueger added, “The comet has also been searched for in vain at other observatories” [732]. The Leicester Chronicle and the Leicestershire Mercury published a short blurb about this object on December 3. It stated, It is … not far from the place of the Holmes comet, and it is suggested that the latter may have separated into two, as Biela’s did in 1846. [733]

244

Catalog

The London Evening Standard published a short letter from H. Sadler on December 8. Sadler, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, wrote the following: This supposed discovery is a mistake, and was never intended to be announced until it had been verified. The object observed was a nebula, and the impression of rapid motion arose from the fact that the instrument had not been properly adjusted to the meridian of the station. [734]

No further details concerning this object were ever published. Since no nebula is near the indicated position there is the possibility that Freeman’s position is considerably in error. Despite the comment that Freeman’s comet was fainter and larger than comet Holmes, it has to be noted that comet Holmes had actually become fainter and larger by the time of Freeman’s observation and was only about 7° from his reported position. Estimates by other observers indicated that the coma of comet Holmes was 10′ to 20′ across at the time of Freeman’s observation. We now know that outbursts of comet Holmes start as a very condensed, almost star-like object, which becomes diffuse and larger in the following days and weeks. Is it possible that Freeman did not expect to see a large, faint object after he had possibly seen 17P shortly after outburst when it was well-condensed? Many inexperienced comet observers judge large, diffuse objects as fainter than they really are. He might have taken Holmes for a new object and reported an erroneous position. Further to this, comet C/1892 E1 (Swift) was situated only about 9° from the indicated position. It had a magnitude of about 10 and a diameter of maybe 2′. Although smaller than Freeman’s estimate, could he have seen this comet?

K M1893-1

245

KM1893-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1893 April 16 J. M. Schaeberle Africa, Brazil, & Chile

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

−2.5 ± 1.5 Photographic 3

The total solar eclipse of April 16, 1893, was the most photographed eclipse up to that time, with eclipse expeditions comprised of astronomers from England and the United States setting up telescopes in Africa, Brazil, and Chile. The latter location produced some of the best photographs of the Sun’s corona. Among this group were a few astronomers from Lick Observatory, who took photographs with five different instruments, one of which was a 12-m long refractor with an objective diameter of 12.7-cm. J. M. Schaeberle (Lick Observatory) said that eight different exposures were made with this telescope, with exposure times ranging from ¼ to 32  seconds. This large refractor captured images of the eclipsed Sun on photographic plates measuring 45 × 56 centimeters. The plate that captured the 32-second exposure was almost completely filled by the corona. Schaeberle said a “comet-like object … about four-fifths of a solar diameter from the Sun’s surface” was detected, adding that it was “visible on all my negatives of the outer corona” [735]. In the April 1894 issue of Astronomy and Astro-Physics, Schaeberle notes another feature apparently connected to the comet: The straight, slender, nearly radial streamer, from the Moon’s outline to the structure in question, is conspicuously visible and distinctly isolated from the more inclined neighboring streamers …. [736]

Schaeberle requested members of the British eclipse expeditions in Chile, Brazil, and Africa to forward copies of their eclipse plates to him for further examination. The copies finally arrived during the first week of May 1894, and Schaeberle, along with his colleague, E. S. Holden, concluded that the apparent motion of the object, with respect to several streamers within the corona, proved that this was a comet. A set of three precise positions were measured by E.  E. Barnard and confirmed by Schaeberle [737]. These are as follows: 1893 (UT) Apr. 16.5438 Apr. 16.5944 Apr. 16.6514

α (apparent) 1h 38m 20.2s 1h 38m 29.5s 1h 38m 40.5s

δ +9° 41.6′ +9° 32.9′ +9° 21.4′

Schaeberle said the photographs revealed the comet to be moving away from the sun and growing fainter. The earliest of the photographs were exposed in Chile and showed the comet situated 40.0′ from the sun in position angle 199.75°. The Brazil photographs showed the object 49.4′ away in position angle 195.50°, and the African photos showed the object 61.8′ away in position angle 193.50°. In terms of brightness, Schaeberle said the comet “forms a most conspicuous feature of the corona” on the Chilean photos, but was “very faint” on the African photos, proving “that the comet was growing fainter with increasing distance from the Sun.” He again noted “an

246

Catalog

Fig. 26  This drawing accompanied Schaeberle’s report on the solar eclipse in the 1895 issue of Contributions from the Lick Observatory. The “Comet” is marked in the lower right

apparent connection with a singularly slender, but conspicuous streamer from the Sun.” Schaeberle added, “These considerations render it almost certain that the object was actually within the visible limits of the corona, and that the theoretical perihelion passage occurred only a few hours before the photographs were taken” [738] (Fig. 26). Excerpts from some of Schaeberle’s articles appeared in the July 1894 issue of The Observatory. The following was then added concerning the photographs from the English expedition, … it is important to remark that the original negatives have been carefully scrutinized by Mr. Wesley and others for this comet, but without success, although Prof. Schaeberle kindly sent minute directions where to look for it. [739]

Schaeberle commented on the negative results in the August 1894 issue of the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. It is true that the British negatives of the eclipse are not so rich in detail nor so strong in contrasts as our own, but there is no question that the comet is visible on them also. If the observers have not seen it after having their attention directed to it, it can only be because they have not properly examined the negatives. [740]

Schaeberle added, I have just made and sent to the Royal Astronomical Society a negative copy of one of the British positives and indicated the exact position by a series of arrows. As the object is now shown in a very conspicuous manner it cannot fail to be seen at once.

K M1893-1

247

That image, as well as marked prints from negatives obtained in Chile and Brazil, were sent by Holden and, in the November 1894 issue of The Observatory, W.  H. Wesley said, “I had no difficulty in perceiving it upon both the plates.” He added, It is evident that upon the English photographs the denser portion of the cometary object is more or less lost in the coronal rays, and I should rather have looked for the vacuity ­immediately outside this denser portion. This vacuity appears to be what I at first took for the space between the forks of a coronal ray. [741]

Wesley concluded with the following, On the Brazil plates the comet would probably have been taken for a faint detail of the outer corona, and on the African photographs would have escaped observation altogether. But on the Chile negatives it is quite obvious, and the evidence of motion relatively to the Sun, given by the comparison of the plates taken at the three stations, seems to place the nature of Professor Schaeberle’s interesting discovery beyond a doubt. [742]

Schaeberle was awarded the 17th Donohoe comet medal “for his discovery of an unexpected comet on the negatives of the eclipse of April 16, 1893” [743]. Schaeberle’s comet was occasionally mentioned in books and papers for the next several decades, but, in 1989, E. W. Cliver, of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory at Hanscom Air Force Base (Massachusetts, USA), came up with an interesting explanation. The object on the eclipse photographs was not a comet, but a coronal mass ejection. He points out several reasons for this suggestion. First, Schaeberle’s object does not look like any other comet ever photographed next to the Sun, either during a solar eclipse or by spacecraft monitoring the Sun’s vicinity. These comets have all appeared “clearly separate and different from any coronal streamers.” Second, the “streamer” running between the comet and the Moon causes problems for the comet hypothesis. This feature resembles a sunward pointing tail displayed by dust-rich comets when Earth crosses the comet’s orbital plane. A dust-rich comet should “appear more prominent visually than on the blue sensitive plates which Schaeberle used.” Yet, it was not seen with the naked-eye during the eclipse, nor in the nights before or after the eclipse [744]. Cliver showed a drawing made from a photograph obtained by the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) satellite on March 16, 1980. SMM monitored solar flares in the 1980s. There was a strong similarity between Cliver’s photograph and those presented by Schaeberle. Part of Schaeberle’s argument for the 1893 feature being a comet, was its rapid change of position with respect to other features within the Sun’s corona. In a 1995 paper by D. F. Webb and Cliver, coronal mass ejections (CME) were said to appear “as observable changes in coronal structures occurring on time scales of minutes to hours ….” They examined drawings and photographs of 37 total eclipses from 1860 to 1980 and reported a CME was visible during 12 of the eclipses. In addition, a photograph was presented that had been obtained by SMM on April 5, 1980, which showed a feature remarkably similar to Schaeberle’s “comet” [745]. The Authors agree with the assessment by Cliver and Webb that the reported comet was part of a coronal mass ejection.

248

Catalog

KM1894-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1894 April 9 E. Holmes London, England

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

E. Holmes (London, England), who had discovered a comet in November 1892 while it was experiencing a major outburst in brightness, sent the following telegram to W.  H. M.  Christie, the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich Observatory (England), in 1894: Bright comet, Holmes, April 9. Right Ascension 17h. 58min.; North Declination 71deg. 30min. [746]

Christie then sent the following telegram to Kiel, Germany, on April 10: Bright comet tail discovered by Holmes at London April 9.500 M. T. Greenw. RA. = 269° 30′ PD. = 18° 30′. Is a rough approximation. Christie.

The coordinates given in Christie’s telegram were simply another way of writing the coordinates given by Holmes. K.  N. A. Krueger, the editor of the Astronomische Nachrichten, published the telegram in the next issue of that journal. He added that a search was made for the comet, but that nothing cometary was found. In addition, searches by other astronomers over wider areas of the sky also failed to reveal Holmes’ object. He added that telegraphic inquiries were sent to Greenwich Observatory and to Holmes. Holmes responded, stating that his “comet” was actually NGC 6503 [747] (Fig. 27).

K M1894-1

249

Fig. 27  This photograph of NGC 6503 was obtained in 1953  in the course of the National Geographic Society-Palomar Observatory Sky Survey. The image is 20′ wide. It is a 12-minute exposure on a Kodak 103aO photographic plate. (Palomar Sky Survey images courtesy of the United States Naval Observatory Image and Catalogue Archive)

250

Catalog

KM1895-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1895 M1 1895 June 30 L. Swift Echo Mountain, California, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

E. E. Barnard had discovered a comet in 1884 that was observed for 4 months. It proved to be periodic, but because of the short interval of observation, astronomers could not precisely determine its orbital period, producing values ranging from 5.36 to 5.50 years. A. Berberich took a special interest in the comet and made an exhaustive analysis of its motion. He reported that the 1890 apparition was not favorable for observations [748], but believed the comet could be recovered in 1895. He published ephemerides showing the comet’s position from April 24 to July 5 for perihelion dates of May 27, June 4, and June 12 [749]. According to a letter written by L.  Swift (Lowe Observatory, California) on August 9, 1895, “On every available occasion I have made a prolonged and desperate effort to detect this exceedingly faint comet which has eluded observation ever since its discovery in 1884” [750]. The night of June 30, 1895, was one of those occasions. Berberich’s ephemeris indicated an optimal position of α = 1h 14m 41s, δ = +3° 25′ 27″, while predicted positions for the period of eight days before and after the optimal prediction indicated that it could be up to several degrees toward the northeast or toward the southwest, respectively. During his search with the 41-cm refractor, Swift found … a faint, fairly large, nebulous object so cometary in appearance that I called in my son Edward, who was engaged in comet-seeking on the roof of the dark room just at hand, who instantly exclaimed, as he placed his eye to the telescope, ‘It is a beauty.’ Reading the rough circles from the floor of the Observatory, I made its place, right ascension 1h 20m 45s; declination north 3°. [751]

Swift later changed the declination, which results in the following position: 1895 (UT) Jun. 30.45

α (apparent) 1h 20m 45s

δ +2° 55′ 00″

This area of the sky was only visible in the morning hours, rising around 12:30 a.m. Astronomical twilight would have begun around 3:01 a.m., at which time the object’s altitude was near 30°. This time, converted to UT, is given above as the observation time. Swift knew there were several nebulae in the region that had been discovered by F. W. Herschel several decades earlier. Particularly, nebula III.253 (aka NGC 520) was very close to Swift’s position, being at right ascension = 1h 19m 08s, declination = +3° 16′. So close, in fact, that it should have been in the same field of view with Swift’s object. Swift searched for this nebula, but failed to find it, concluding that his object was Herschel’s nebula. Swift watched the object for an hour, but detected no motion, which strengthened the possibility that this was a nebula. Swift described its location:

K M1895-1

251

It was curiously situated in relation to three stars of the ninth magnitude, forming a right angled triangle, and a close double-star = Σ No. 122. [752]

The designation “Σ No. 122” means it was double star number 122 in the catalog of F.  G. W. von Struve, properly written as “Σ 122.” Also known as HR 419 and ADS 1148. A couple of days later, Swift wondered whether his nebula might have been Barnard’s comet after all. On July 3, he and his son decided to check the June 30 position, but as “that region rose above the mountain a dense fog had enveloped us.” The morning of July 4 was “beautifully clear” and the position was checked with the 41-cm refractor. Although the triangle of stars and Struve’s double star were found, the object was missing. Swift was now convinced that he had found Barnard’s lost comet. Berberich’s ephemeris indicated that the comet would be moving toward the northeast at the rate of about +2.5m in right ascension and 20′ in declination each day. He began searching the sky in that direction, but found nothing. He continued to sweep the sky along the predicted path on every clear morning through the remainder of July and into August, but the comet was not found. It is interesting that Swift could not find NGC 520. This is a galaxy of magnitude 11.4. It could easily have been seen in the 41-cm refractor and it was only 31′ from Swift’s position. Was Swift’s comet NGC 520? This is doubtful, because Swift said the night of July 4 was “beautifully clear” and it would have taken rather poor seeing conditions for him to not see this galaxy. In addition, Swift said the object was “fairly large,” while NGC 520 measures only 4′ × 2′. Swift did note a star configuration near the comet, as well as the double star Σ 122. This double star is 11′ from Swift’s position and 40′ from NGC 520. Swift’s favorite eyepiece was a periscopic one constructed by E. Gundlach of the Bausch & Lomb Optical Company. It provided a magnification of 132× and a field of view of about 32′ [753]. If Swift’s “comet” were centered, NGC 520 would have been outside the field of view, while Σ 122 would have been in the same field of view. We also really don’t know how hard Swift tried to find NGC 520, since he was really interested in finding Barnard’s comet and that’s what he thought he was observing. The possibility that Swift’s object was a real comet seems high, as both Swift and his son, Edward, saw the object. The fact that Swift’s diligent searches over the next few weeks failed to locate Barnard’s comet would indicate that that object he saw on June 30 was not that comet. Sadly, since Swift did not entertain the idea that this was a distinctly different comet than Barnard’s, no searches were conducted in any other direction. As for Barnard’s comet (D/1895 O1), it was not found in 1895. A further prediction by Berberich in 1900 produced a perihelion date of October 28 and he published ephemerides based on that date, as well as for 16 days before and after that date. Searches conducted by E. C. Pickering (Arequipa, Peru) using the 20-cm Bache and 61-cm Bruce photographic telescopes showed no trace of the comet. J. M. Young examined the case in her 1920 PhD dissertation at the University of California at Berkeley. She concluded that the published search ephemerides did not cover a large enough range in the possible perihelion dates. Berberich’s ephemerides covered a perihelion date range of 16 days in 1895, but should have covered a range of 105 days, while the 32-day range in 1900 should have been 157 days. Barnard’s comet is lost.

252

Catalog

KM1895-2 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1895 December 8 A. M. du Celliée Muller Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

N/A Visual 1

The full details of this object appeared in the February 5, 1896, issue of the Astronomische Nachrichten, where K. N. A. Krueger, the editor of that journal, published the available letters and telegrams. On the morning of December 8, 1895, A. M. du Celliée Muller was observing with his 6.1-cm Merz refractor, using a magnification of 65×, when he spotted an apparent comet “so very close to Venus.” He said it exhibited a tail extending 3–4′ toward the “upper left” at an angle of 35° to the horizon. He also noted a round nucleus that was “much brighter than the tail.” Observing with du Celliée Muller was G. J. van Dyk, who stated that the nucleus was “somewhat” elliptical [754]. Du Celliée Muller wanted to confirm the observation the next morning, but was met with clouds. Later that day, he decided to notify people of his discovery. He sent a telegram to J. A. C. Oudemans, the director of Utrecht Observatory (Netherlands), and mailed a letter to Kiel Observatory (Germany). These both provided the following position: 1895 (UT) Dec. 8.2708

α 13h 54m 40s

δ −8° 47′

This position indicates that the object was 30′ from Venus. In the letter to Kiel, du Celliée Muller stated, “I did make sure that it was not a false image or any other effect of the Venus light ….” Oudemans wrote to Kiel on December 11, informing them of the telegram he received from du Celliée Muller. He added that A. A. Nijland searched for the comet that morning, but failed to locate it, adding, “but moonlight may have hindered.” A few days later, with moonlight no longer a problem, both Oudemans and Nijland searched for the comet, but found nothing [755]. Krueger received a further letter from du Celliée Muller that had been written on December 19. Du Celliée Muller said, “It could not have been a false image; it was visible when Venus was taken out of the field as far as possible.” He added, “Later I studied all the light phenomena of Venus in detail, without finding a trace of a resemblance with a comet-like appearance.” Krueger concluded with the following: After the search for the comet, which had been carried out in various places early on, has remained unsuccessful, the same must probably be abandoned now. In describing the phenomenon, we were struck by the fact that the indicated tail direction of 35° towards the horizon, to the east, does not fit the sun at all. Mr du Celliée Muller now maintains his wish to see his observation published, although it has not been possible to verify it elsewhere, despite the efforts made. [756]

K M1895-2

253

Du Celliée Muller would appear a few more times in the literature during the remaining years of the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century. He was probably best known for his observations of “dark meteors” on April 4 and December 2, 1892 [757], a phenomenon that was also reported by W.  R. Brooks (Geneva, New York, USA) in 1896 and a few other observers in 1896 and 1897, generally while making observations of the Moon [758]. In fact, “dark meteors” have been reported throughout the twentieth century as well. Although du Celliée Muller and others believed these were objects traveling outside the atmosphere of Earth, it is now generally accepted that these objects are moving within the atmosphere, such as birds.

254

Catalog

KM1896-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

X/1896 S1 1896 September 20 L. Swift and others Echo Mountain, California, USA

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

−5 Visual 2

The Echo Mountain House was a hotel on Echo Mountain (California, USA). Together with nearby Lowe Observatory, it was part of the dream of T. S. C. Lowe, who was a scientist, inventor, and aeronaut, to create a vacation mecca on a mountain top outside Pasadena, California. L. Swift was the astronomer in residence at the observatory and spent his afternoons at the hotel’s social hall mingling with guests. The hotel was quite popular and a newspaper once wrote that Swift “is one of the chief attractions on Echo Mountain” [759]. On the afternoon of September 20, Swift was reading in the social hall. He made a leisurely glance out a window to observe the sun setting behind the Sierra Madre mountains and saw “a luminous object about one degree above the sun.” Two slightly different stories appeared in the newspapers across the United States on September 23, one originating from Boston (Massachusetts, USA) and the other originating from Pasadena (California, USA). They are as follows: Boston, Sept. 22—Dr. Lewis Swift of Echo Mountain, Cal., announces through Harvard College Observatory, that on Sunday night he saw a small bright comet near the sun, one degree east of it. On Monday night the object was north of the sun and fainter. [760] Pasadena, Sept. 22—Dr. Lewis Swift of Mount Lowe observatory has discovered two new comets near together and only one degree from the sun. He saw the brightest one first last Sunday night, getting a much better view of it last evening just before sunset, while the sun was partially hidden by the mountains. It is one degree from the sun. [761]

The story that originated from Boston was based on a telegram that Swift had sent to Harvard. That information was then relayed from Boston to Kiel (Germany), where it was published in the Astronomische Nachrichten as follows: Lewis Swift announces small bright comet Sunday night [Sept. 20] one degree east of sun Monday [Sept. 21] same north fainter. [762]

The German astronomer H. C. F. Kreutz, who was also the editor of the Astronomische Nachrichten, added the following: At first it seemed striking that a comet could be found in such a close vicinity of the Sun. Also the words ‘same north’ are not fully unambiguous, so it was preferred to maintain the original wording when forwarding the telegram. Further news on the comet has not been received; upon a request the following answer was received from Boston: ‘Comet has not been seen by any one else.’ [763]

Swift provided more details in the coming months, by way of letters to various journals. What seems to be the earliest was written by Swift on September 22 and was published in the October issue of the Astronomical Journal. Swift stated, On the evening of Sept. 20, I turned to look out of the window, some 20 feet [6 meters] distant, to see the sun descend behind a spur of the Sierra Madre range, about one-quarter

K M1896-1

255

of its diameter having disappeared. Instantly I noticed a luminous object about one degree above the sun. Thinking it was caused by refraction from a knot in the glass, I moved my head, but found the object remained stationary. Going out on the veranda the object was seen more distinctly. At first it occurred to me that it might be a small fire on the mountain, but this idea was quickly dispelled, as one-half of the sun’s disk was still above the mountain, and the object still higher. Seizing an opera-glass I saw that it had a very much fainter companion some 30′ north, but it could not be seen without the glass. In about four minutes after the sun had set the two objects also disappeared behind the mountain. [764]

Swift added that both objects “were seen by some fifteen people.” He attempted to re-observe the objects the next morning, but failed, “as the sun is not visible from the Observatory until 15° above the horizon.” Swift did look for the objects on the evening of September 21, writing the following: Last evening I began a search with the comet-seeker with the sun 10° in altitude, but nothing was seen until fully one-half of the sun had disappeared when I caught sight of it, but its faintness surprised me, for it was less bright through the telescope than with the naked eye the previous evening, though it is possible, and, perhaps probable, that it was the companion that was seen. [765]

Swift had earlier pointed the 41-cm refractor at the expected place of the comets. After having spotted one of the comets with the comet seeker, he said he observed it for “5  seconds” and then rushed into the observatory. Unfortunately, the “eye-­ piece was beyond my reach.” He went back to the comet seeker, but found that both the Sun and comet had set behind the mountain. He wrote, “I estimate that the object disappeared simultaneously with the sun’s upper limb.” Swift finished his letter with the following: The only thing that perplexes me about this strange affair is, that the sun, object, and companion, were not in line, but must have deviated from it by 30° or more.

Swift wrote another letter on October 11 and sent it to Popular Astronomy, which published it in the November issue. The details were the same, although Swift did add a couple of new pieces of information. While on the veranda outside the hotel on the first night, he observed the comets with two different pairs of binoculars, the second being “much finer” than the first. He also wrote, The Sun’s light, by smoke near the horizon (for weeks huge fires have burned on the mountain north of us) was so weakened that the eye could look at it without discomfort, a condition which must have diminished the normal light of the comet also. The objects simultaneously set behind the mountain about four minutes after the disappearance of the upper limb of the Sun. The brighter of the two must have been several times more brilliant than Venus which was not visible for some time after the Sun sank and then only as a faint point of light. [766]

The English Mechanic and World of Science published a short statement in its issue of October 9, 1896: There seems to be some doubt about the reality of the comet announced as having been discovered by Prof. Lewis Swift on Sept. 20, for no one else appears to have observed it. [767]

256

Catalog

Swift noted in his letter written to the Astronomical Journal, that both objects “were seen by some fifteen people.” This does not seem like an exaggeration, as Swift was at a popular hotel. Swift enjoyed spending his afternoons at Echo Mountain House talking to people. There are numerous newspaper stories that described Swift as an interesting person who regaled people with his stories of the heavens. It is easy to imagine a group of people gathered around Swift and, when he saw something interesting through the window, this group would have followed him outside to the veranda. He likely obtained the binoculars from those patrons. Swift wrote a letter to that magazine on December 23, noting I thought that it was about the time for the sun’s setting behind a spur of the Sierra Madre Mountains (a sight glorious to view, and much observed by our visitors), so I turned my eye toward a west window to find myself a little late, and that about one-fourth of the sun’s diameter had already sunk out of sight. [768]

He also stated that he observed the objects from the veranda through three different pairs of binoculars. Swift actually included a diagram with this letter, “drawn nearly to scale,” which showed the location of the bright comet directly above the Sun, the dimmer comet to the right, and the mountain top when first seen with the naked eye (Fig. 28). The “X” marks the comet’s location on the second night. Swift added another piece of information, not mentioned in the earlier letters. He wrote, Both bodies presented a hazy, cometary appearance, and it seems that there can be but one opinion regarding their character. It is very doubtful if either of the comets could have been seen in presence of an undimmed sun. [769]

There is a record of extensive searches that were made by two other astronomers. On September 21, Swift sent the following telegram to Lick Observatory, Last night at sunset object as bright as Venus, one degree east of sun. [770]

Fig. 28  Lewis Swift provided this drawing to illustrate the locations of the comets for a letter written to the magazine English Mechanic and World of Science. The letter was published in the January 15, 1897 issue. The object depicted directly above the Sun is the bright comet seen on September 20, while the second, fainter comet seen the same night is to the right. The “X” marks the position of the single comet seen on September 21

K M1896-1

257

W. J. Hussey and C. D. Perrine began searching for the objects on the afternoon of September 21. Hussey used the 30.5-cm refractor and said he, … examined the region immediately about the sun, and then with a low-power eye-piece for several degrees on every side of the sun, without finding the object. As the sun set I again searched north, south and east of it, and the next morning as it arose, north, south and west of it, without success. [771]

Hussey added that Perrine used the comet-seeker to search the region “many degrees about the sun” on several evenings and mornings, but was also unsuccessful. Perhaps the biggest question is why did the Lick Observatory astronomers not see the comet on the evening of September 21, while Swift did see it. The comet would have set behind mountains from both locations, the Sierra Madre Mountains for Swift and the Santa Cruz Mountains for Lick Observatory. The Santa Cruz Mountains are about 30  miles from Lick Observatory, while the Sierra Madre Mountains are about 60 miles from Lowe Observatory. Swift was searching for a while around the Sun prior to sunset and saw nothing until one-half of the Sun had set below the mountains. He commented that the comet would have set at the same time as the Sun. Could a mountain peak in the Santa Cruz range have been a little to the right of the Sun, hiding the comet from view at Lick Observatory? There is another possibility. Swift admitted to only seeing the comet for 5 seconds with his comet seeker on the 21, before rushing into the observatory to view the comet with the 41-cm refractor, which unfortunately was out of reach because it was pointing at an object very low over the horizon. It might be possible that he actually saw a reflection of the Sun in his optics on the second evening. The Authors wondered if this comet could have been a member of the Kreutz sungrazing family of comets, the brighter members of which can be seen in broad daylight next to the Sun. With a perihelion on September 20 or 21, such a comet would never have been north of the Sun and would only have appeared at the distance indicated in Swift’s drawing if southwest of the Sun.

258

Catalog

KM1899-1 Date: Discoverer(s): Location:

1899 October 28 Unknown Santiago, Chile

Brightness: Type: Nobs:

5? Visual 1

A telegraph message was sent from Santiago, Chile, on October 28 that was subsequently published in numerous newspapers in the United States the next day. It simply stated: Santiago de Chile. Oct. 28.—Biela’s Comet has been seen here with the naked eye. [772]

The Reuter news service subsequently telegraphed a message from New York to London, the content of which was published in several newspapers in the United Kingdom beginning on October 30. It stated: Advices from Santiago, Chile, announce that Biela’s comet has been observed from there and is visible to the naked eye. The above statement must be accepted with reserve, as Biela’s comet has not been seen since 1852, and is supposed to have broken up in the meteoric train in which it pursued its track. Its period of revolution was six years and a half, and the comet was formerly an object of fear, owing to the nearness with which it approached the earth’s orbit. [773]

A few astronomers provided comments about the supposed recovery of this comet. J. K. Rees, professor of astronomy at Columbia University in New York, stated: The report needs confirmation before we can believe it has anything to do with Biela’s comet. Astronomers are inclined to think that the comet has gone all to pieces, and it is not supposed that anything more can be seen than a meteoric shower when the earth crosses its orbit. [774]

W. Harkness, director of the United States Naval Observatory in Washington, D. C., said the following: I doubt very much if it is Biela’s comet that has been seen with the naked eye at Santiago de Chile. We have a system of collecting information which would have informed us had Biela’s comet been observed. [775]

The caution displayed by both astronomers was prudent, as a telegram received from Santiago on October 30, stated, Santiago de Chile, Oct. 30.—It now appears that Biela’s comet was not sighted here, as telegraphed on Saturday. In their anxiety some people mistook a cluster of stars for the comet. [776]

Appendix

Catalogue No. KM1625-1 KM1647-1 KM1656-1 KM1666-1 KM1675-1 KM1676-1 KM1708-1 KM1717-1 KM1722-1 KM1726-1 KM1732-1 KM1742-1 KM1742-2 KM1742-3 KM1746-1 KM1748-1 KM1749-1 KM1758-1 KM1770-1 KM1783-1 KM1783-2 KM1784-1 KM1784-2 KM1784-3 KM1793-1 KM1796-1 KM1803-1 KM1807-1

Date 1625 Jan 26 1647 Sep 29 1656 Apr 1 1666 Feb 1675 Nov 10 1676 Feb 14 1708 Feb 23 1717 Jun 21 1722 Dec 12 1726 Jan 29 1732 Feb 29 1742 Mar 24 1742 Apr 6 1742 Apr 11 1746 Feb 2 1748 Apr 24 1749 Dec 28 1758 Jan 19 1770 Mar 19 1783 Jul 30 1783 Dec 18 1784 Jan 23 1784 Apr 8 1784 Apr 11 1793 Feb 14 1795 Nov 14 1803 Feb 2 1807 Nov 30

Discoverer W. Schickard Several P. Mundy Several Several J. de Fontenay/Chinese Several E. Halley Several Several J. Dove J. Grant C. G. Semler Several E. C. Kindermann Several Unknown Several M. Hell, J. Sajnovics C. Herschel F. W. Herschel F. W. Herschel F. W. Herschel J. A. Dangos N. Maskelyne A. Bouvard Reissig Several

Obs 3 2+ 2 2+ 1+? 2+? 1 1 1+? 1? 1 1 2 2+ 8 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 4 4 2

Notes Comet Comet Misdated comet? Comet? Venus? Comet? Ghost image? Planet? Meteor Comet? Comet Fabricated = comet C/1748 H1 Aurora? Planet? Comet? Comet? Pair of stars = M49 Pair of stars Fabricated = comet C/1793 A1 = comet 2P/Encke Fabricated = M31

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. W. Kronk, M. Meyer, Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets - Volume 1, Historical & Cultural Astronomy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23171-1

259

260

Appendix

Catalogue No. KM1808-1 KM1808-2 KM1808-3 KM1813-1 KM1817-1 KM1817-2 KM1817-3

Date 1808 Jul 4 1808 Sep 11 1808 Nov 9 1813 Feb 19 1817 Apr 12 1817 Apr 28 1817 Nov 1

KM1820-1 KM1820-2 KM1823-1 KM1826-1 KM1832-1 KM1837-1 KM1839-1 KM1841-1 KM1846-1 KM1849-1 KM1851-1 KM1854-1 KM1855-1 KM1856-1 KM1856-2 KM1856-3 KM1857-1 KM1859-1 KM1860-1 KM1865-1 KM1865-2 KM1865-3 KM1865-4 KM1871-1 KM1871-2

1820 Apr 30 1820 May 5 1823 Dec 1 1826 Mar 29 1832 Nov 8 1837 Aug 15 1839 Jul 14 1841 May 27 1846 Oct 19 1849 Nov 15 or 28 1851 Nov 29 1854 Mar 16 1855 May 16 1856 Jul 30 1856 Aug 7 1856 Nov 21 1857 Jan 01 1859 Feb 1860 Nov 14 1865 Jun 11 1865 Aug 27 1865 Nov 4 1865 Nov 9 1871 Sep 21 1871 Dec 12

KM1871-3

1871 Dec 29

KM1872-1 KM1874-1 KM1876-1 KM1877-1 KM1878-1

1872 Dec 3 1874 Jun 1876 Jan 19 1877 Jul 1878 Dec 23 or 1879 Jan 1

Discoverer J.-L. Pons J.-L. Pons F. W. Bessel A. Stark Several T. F., S. R. H. W. M. Olbers, C. F. Scheithauer Several J. Reeves Several H. Flaugergues F. W. Bessel C. C. L. Rümker F. de Vico C. C. L. Rümker J. R. Hind T. M. Jenkins

Obs 2 11 1 2 1 2+ 2

Notes Comet Comet Comet? Comet? (= X/1813 D1) Venus Ghost of nearby star Comet (= X/1817 V1)

2 2+ 1 9 6? 1 3+ 1 ? 1

Zodiacal light? = Omega Centauri

I. Calandrelli T. J. C. A. Brorsen H. M. S. Goldschmidt Several E. J. Lowe & others D. H. Taft Several T. Slater H. P. Tuttle Unknown E. J. Lowe C. G. Talmage J. Buckingham J. R. Hind A. C. Ranyard & W. H. Wesley E. W. L. Tempel

1 1 1 3 2+ 1+ ? 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

N. R. Pogson R. B. Fairbairn Unknown W. S. Van Duzee L. Swift

2 1 1 1 1

1

= comet 3D/Biela

Comet Comet (= X/1846 U1) Comet?

Comet? (= X/1854 F2) Comet?

Zodiacal light? Comet?? Comet??

Comet? Coronal streamer? Comet? Nebula? (= X/1871 Y2) Comet (= X/1872 Y1) Meteor trail? Ghost image of Jupiter? Comet?

Appendix

261

Catalogue No. Date KM1879-1 1879 Feb 23 KM1879-2 1879 Apr 12 KM1880-1

1880 Aug 11

Discoverer B. M. Fish H. Harrison and J. S. Devoe L. Swift

KM1880-2 KM1880-3 KM1881-1

1880 Aug 26 1880 Dec 21 1881 May 12

J. M. Klein W. F. Cooper E. E. Barnard

6 3 2

KM1881-1 KM1882-1

1881 Jun 11 1882 Jan 13 or 18 1882 Mar 16 1882 May 17 1882 Dec 21 1883 Jan 12 1883 Jan 1883 Jan 21 1883 Apr 3 1883 Aug 22 1883 Aug 28 1883 Sep 11 1883 Dec 25

B. A. Gould Several

1 Several 1 Many 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 ? 2

Comet?? Comet (= X/1882 K1) Venus? = Comet C/1882 R1 Pleiades? = M1? = NGC 5405 Nebula

1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 4+

Comet? Comet? NGC 4032? Comet (= X/1885 G1) = IC 359 Aurora? Comet (= X/1889 A1) = Comet C/1888 R1 = IC 344 Auroral (“STEVE”)? = comet 113P/Spitaler Comet?? Auroral (“STEVE”)?

KM1892-1 KM1892-2 KM1892-3

1884 May 26 1884 Sep 9 1885 Apr 6 1885 Aug 20 1887 Aug 24 1889 Jan 15 1889 Jul 6 1889 Dec 23 1890 Oct 27 1890 Dec 8 1891 Feb 4 1891 Sep 10–11 1892 Mar 15 1892 Mar 19 1892 Aug 13

E. E. Barnard Several Several W. L. Burton ? P. Spina? C. E. A. Hartwig L. Swift W. Noble L. Swift H. Clevers & L. C. Thirlwall R. F. Spitaler W. R. Brooks L. Swift L. Swift Several W. R. Brooks L. Swift L. Swift L. A. Eddie C. G. Bigourdan R. Spitaler R. Copeland, J. L. E. Dreyer +2 W. R. Brooks M. F. J. C. Wolf E. E. Barnard

1 3 1

KM1892-4 KM1892-5

1892 Oct 18 1892 Nov 24

W. Schooling A. Schooling

1 1

Auroral (“STEVE”)? Reflection of Saturn? Comet?? Nova? (= NSV 3313) Image artifact = comet 17P/Holmes?

KM1882-2 KM1882-3 KM1882-4 KM1883-1 KM1883-2 KM1883-3 KM1883-4 KM1883-5 KM1883-6 KM1883-7 KM1883-8 KM1884-1 KM1884-2 KM1885-1 KM1885-2 KM1887-1 KM1889-1 KM1889-2 KM1889-3 KM1890-1 KM1890-2 KM1891-1 KM1891-2

Obs 1 7+

Notes

1

Comet? Galaxy? (= X/1880 P1) Fabricated

Comet? Other?

Ghost of nearby star? (= X/1881 J2) = Lambda Eridani

= NGC 6654 Comet??

262 Catalogue No. KM1893-1 KM1894-1 KM1895-1 KM1895-2 KM1896-1 KM1899-1

Appendix Date 1893 Apr 16 1894 Apr 9 1895 Jun 30 1895 Dec 8 1896 Sep 20 1899 Oct 28

Discoverer J. M. Schaeberle E. Holmes L. Swift M. du Celliée Muller L. Swift Unknown

Obs 3 1 1 1 2 1

Notes Coronal mass ejection = NGC 6503 Comet (= X/1895 M1) Ghost of Venus? Comet? (= X/1896 S1) Cluster of stars

References

M. Proctor and A. C. D. Crommelin, Comets − Their nature, origin, and place in the science of astronomy. London: The Technical Press Ltd. (1937), pp. 38−9. H. W. M. Olbers, “Ueber einen im Jahre 1625 erschienenen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 2 (1823 Apr.), pp. 101–104. A. C. D. Crommelin, “The Past History of Comet Pons-Coggia-Winnecke-Forbes,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 44 (1934 Apr.), pp. 238–242 A.  C. D.  Crommelin, “Supplement to Paper on the Comet of 1625,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 44 (1934 Jul.), pp. 338–339 B. G. Marsden, “Comets in 1972,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 14 (1973 Dec.), p. 404–405. B. G. Marsden, Catalogue of Cometary Orbits, 2nd ed. (1975), p. 10. M. Meyer, T. Kobayashi, S. Nakano, and D. W. E. Green, “Comet 12P/Pons-Brooks: Identification with Comets C/1385 U1 and C/1457 A1” eprint arXiv:2012.15583 (2020 Dec.). M. C. Festou, B. Morando, and P. Rocher, “The orbit of periodic comet Crommelin between the years 1000 and 2100,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, 142 (1985), p. 423. Ibid., p. 424. J. Hevelius, Cometographia. Danzig: Simon Reiniger (1668), pp. 456–457. Ibid., p. 886. J. Hevelius, Cometographia. Danzig: Simon Reiniger (1668), p. 457. Œuvres Complètes de Christiaan Huygens. Volume 6. The Hague: M. Nijhoff (1895), p. 412. D. Rembrantsz van Nierop, Eenige Oefeningen in God−lijcke Wis-konstige en Natuerlijcke dingen. Amsterdam (1669), p. 81. C.  Commelin, Beschryvinge van Amsterdam. Volume 2. Amsterdam: Andries van Damme, Johannes Ratelband, De Weduwe A. van Aaltwyk, and Hermanus Uytwerf (1726), p. 1183. N. Struyck, Vervolg van de Beschryving der Staartsterren. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1753), pp. 32. The Travels of Peter Mundy, in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667. Volume 5. London [England]: Hakluyt Society (1936), p. 76. Ibid., p. 76. A. S. D. Maunder, The Observatory, 57 (1934 Sep.), p. 278–279. B.  Arzáns de Orsúa y Vela, Historia de la Villa Imperial de Potosí. (1745). Brown University Library, Brown University, p. 305. R.  Knox, An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon, in the East−Indies. London: Richard Chiswell (1681), p. 60. N. Struyck, Inleiding tot de Algemeene Geographie. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1740), pp. 268–269.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. W. Kronk, M. Meyer, Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets - Volume 1, Historical & Cultural Astronomy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23171-1

263

264

References

G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 1. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (1999), pp. 360–362. W. T. Lynn, The Observatory, 11 (1888 Oct.), p. 375. Ibid., p. 376. Ibid., p. 376. I. Hasegawa, Vistas in Astronomy, 24 (1980), pp. 87, 96. R.  Knox, An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon, in the East−Indies. London: Richard Chiswell (1681), p. 58. Diarii Europaei, part 32, Frankfurt am Mann: Wilhelm Serlin (1676), pp. 318–320. Le Mercure Hollandois. Amsterdam: Henry & Theodore Boom (1677), pp. 668–669. J. H. Voigt, Von der Namen-Nennung / Materie und Würckung der Cometen (1677), p. 9. Journal des Sçavans, 7 (1679 Feb.), pp. 63–64. J. de Fontenay, “Observations of the Comet of 1680. and 1681. made at the Colledg of Clermont,” Philosophical Collections, 1 (1682 Jan.), pp. 106–113. Philosophical Transactions, 14 (1684 Sep.), pp. 715, 717–718. A Relation of the Voyage to Siam Performed by Six Jesuits. London: T. B. for J. Robinson and A. Churchil (1688), p. 238. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 1. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (1999), p. 364. J. D. Cassini, Philosophical Transactions, 11 (1676), No. 123, p. 565. Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad Usum Scholae, 5 (1677), p. 162. J. D. Cassini, Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences 1731 (1733), p. 328. A. G. Pingré, Cométographie, 2, Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale (1784), pp. 23−4. D. W. Pankenier email to G. W. Kronk (2020 Aug. 11). T. Griggs, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 18 (1955 Jun.), p. 105. D. W. Pankenier email to G. W. Kronk (2020 Aug. 11). D. K. Yeomans, J. Rahe, and R. S. Freitag, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 80 (1986 Apr.), pp. 62–86. N. Struyck, Vervolg van de Beschryving der Staartsterren. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1753), pp. 56. E. Halley, “An Account of a small Telescopical Comet, seen at London the 10th of June, 1717,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 30 (1717), p. 721–723. Amsterdamse Saturdaegse Courant (1723 Jan. 2), p. 1, col. 2. N. Struyck, Inleiding tot de Algemeene Geographie. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1740), pt. 2, p. 296. Gazzette Bolognesi (1726 Feb. 12), p. 1, col. 2. Amsterdamse Courant (1726 Feb. 23), p. 1, col. 1. N. Struyck, Inleiding tot de Algemeene Geographie. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1740), pt. 2, p. 297. J.  Dove, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 37 (1732 Sep./Oct.), pp. 393–4. M. C. Hanow, Seltenheiten der Natur und Oekonomie, Leipzig (1753), p. 517. B. Cohn, “Bahnbestimmung des Kometen 1742 I,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 170 (1906 Feb. 5), pp. 263–264. Journal des observations faites à l’Observatoire de Paris et au château de Thury, 1er janvier 1742 – 20 juillet 1743. Unpublished manuscript. Paris Observatory. I.  Passeron, Oeuvres Complètes de d’Alembert. Series V, Volume 2. Correspondance générale. 1741–1752 (2015), p. lxxix. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 169 (1919 July), p. 52. B. Cohn, “Bahnbestimmung des Kometen 1742 I,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 170 (1906 Feb. 5), pp. 263.264. C. G. Semler, Vollständige Beschreibung Von Dem Neuen Cometen Des 1742sten Jahres. Halle: Renger (1742), pp. 174–175. Ibid., p. 177. Ibid., p. 178. Ibid., p. 180.

References

265

Ibid., p. 177. A. Winnecke, Vierteljahrsschrift der Astronomischen Gesellschaft, 12 (1877), p. 94. B. Cohn, “Bahnbestimmung des Kometen 1742 I,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 170 (1906 Feb. 5), p. 263. Ibid., pp. 263–264. N.  Struyck, Vervolg van de Beschryving der Staartsterren. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1753), pp. 71–72. Ibid., p. 71. Ibid., p. 71. www.vocsite.nl. Retrieved on April 12, 2021. B. Cohn, “Bahnbestimmung des Kometen 1742 I,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 170 (1906 Feb. 5), pp. 263, 264. E. C. Kindermann, Vollständige Astronomie, oder Sonderbare Betrachtungen derer vornehmsten an dem Firmament befindlichen Planeten und Sterne. Rudolstadt: Wolffgang Deer (1739). E. C. Kindermann, Die Geschwinde Reise auf dem Lufft-Schiff nach der obern Welt. Berlin (1744). E. C. Kindermann, Astronomische Beschreibung und Nachricht von dem Cometen 1746. Dresden (1746), p. 12. Ibid, p. 13 Ibid, p. 14. A. G. Pingré, Cométographie, 2, Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale (1784), p. 56. J. R. Hind, Astronomische Nachrichten, 25 (1846), pp. 95–96. J. Holetschek, Untersuchungen über die Grösse und Helligkeit der Kometen und Ihrer Schweife, I. Die Kometen bis zum Jahre 1760. Wien: Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei (1896), pp. 222–225. Ibid, pp. 222–223. J.  Holetschek, “Bemerkungen und Berichtigungen zur Cometenliteratur,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 143 (1897), pp. 119–120. N.  Struyck, Vervolg van de Beschryving der Staartsterren. Amsterdam: Isaak Tirion (1753), pp. 100−1. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 1. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (1999), pp. 414–415. The Newcastle Courant (1749 Dec. 30 – 1750 Jan. 6), p. 2, col. 3. P. W. Wargentin, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 14 (1755), pp. 180–183. B. G. Marsden, “The next return of the comet of the Perseid Meteors,” Astronomical Journal, 78 (1973 Sept.), p. 655. Gazette de Vienne (1758 Feb. 15), p. 1, col. 2. J. N. Delisle, “Mémoire sur la Cométe de 1758,” Mémoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences 1759 (1765), p. 154. C. L. Littrow, P. Hell’s Reise nach Wardoe bei Lappland, Wien: Carl Gerold (1835). J.  Sajnovics, Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse. Copenhagen: Typis Orphanotrophii Regii (1770). H. C. Schumacher, Astronomische Nachrichten, 12 (1834 Nov. 22), p. 71–72. H. C. Schumacher, Astronomische Nachrichten, 12 (1835 Feb. 11), p. 151–152. C. L. Littrow, P. Hell’s Reise nach Wardoe bei Lappland, Wien: Carl Gerold (1835), p. 159. H. C. Schumacher, Astronomische Nachrichten, 12 (1835 Feb. 11), p. 151–152. H. C. Schumacher, Astronomische Nachrichten, 12 (1835 Mar. 7), pp. 183–184. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 1. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (1999), pp. 442–447. M.  Hoskin, “Caroline Herschel as Observer,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, 36, (2005), p. 379. RAS MSS Herschel C 1 1.1 p. 12. Ibid., p. 18.

266

References

M. Hoskin, “Caroline Herschel as Observer,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, 36, (2005), pp. 382 & 400. Ibid., p. 382. Ibid., pp. 382–383. N. English, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy: A History of Visual Observing from Harriot to Moore. Cham [Switzerland]: Springer (2018), pp. 93–94. B.  G. Marsden, “Elements of the Possible Comet,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, 36, (2005), p. 401. Ibid., p. 401. Ibid., p. 401. F. W. Herschel, “Catalogue of One Thousand new Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 76 (1786), p. 473. Ibid., p. 498. J. F. W. Herschel, “Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 154 (1864), p. 56. Ibid., p. 17. Ibid., p. 45. W.  Steinicke, William Herschel  – Discoverer of the Deep Sky. Norderstedt: Books on Demand (2021), pp. 104–105. F. W. Herschel, “Catalogue of One Thousand new Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 76 (1786), p. 457. RAS MSS Herschel W 2/1.7. Journal No 7. (25 Sept. 1783–19 Feb. 1784) F. W. Herschel, “Catalogue of One Thousand new Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 76 (1786), p. 471. J. E. Bode, Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1804. Berlin (1801), pp. 258–259. F.  W. Herschel, “Ueber den 7. Nebelfleck der 1sten Classe des Herschelschen Verzeichnisses,” Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1805. Berlin (1802), pp. 211–2. J.  F. W.  Herschel, A General Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars. London: Taylor and Francis (1864), p. 102. The Scientific Papers of Sir William Herschel, vol. 1. Edited by J. L. E. Dreyer. London: Royal Society (1912), p. 294. Ibid., p. 294. F. W. Herschel, “Catalogue of One Thousand new Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 76 (1786), p. 476, 498. J.  F. W.  Herschel, A General Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars. London: Taylor and Francis (1864), p. 101. W.  Steinicke, William Herschel  – Discoverer of the Deep Sky. Norderstedt: Books on Demand (2021), p. 236. F. Ventura, “Grandmaster de Rohan’s Astronomical Observatory (1783–1789),” Melita Historica, 10 (1990), pp. 245–255. C. Messier, Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences (1784), p. 326. Ibid., p. 326. Ibid., p. 327. J.  K. Burckhardt, “Bestimmung einiger älteren und neueren Cometen-Bahnen,” Monatliche Correspondenz, 16 (1807 Dec.), p. 513. Ibid., pp. 513–514. Correspondance, Astronomique, Géographique, Hydrographique et Statistique, 1 (1818), p. 79. J.  K. Burckhardt, “Bestimmung einiger älteren und neueren Cometen-Bahnen,” Monatliche Correspondenz, 16 (1807 Dec.), p. 514. J. A. Dangos, Leipziger Magazin für reine und angewandte Mathematik (1786), pp. 132–134. J.  F. Encke, “Imposture Astronomique Grossière du Chevalier D’Angos,” Correspondance astronomique, géographique, hydrographique et statistique, 4 (1820), pp. 456–474. Ibid., p. 462.

References

267

Ibid., p. 463. Ibid., p. 461. Ibid., pp. 461–462. C. F. Gauss letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1826 May 14). C. F. Gauss letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1826 May 14). C. F. Gauss letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1826 May 14). C. F. Gauss letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1826 May 14). H.  L. d’Arrest, “Einige Bermerkungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Cometen von 1784,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 65 (1865), pp. 289–296. H.  Gyldén, “Ueber die von dem Maltheserritter d’Angos im Jahre 1784 mitgetheilte Cometen-­ Entdeckung,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 102 (1882 Jul. 30), pp. 321–338. H. Gyldén, “Sur la seconde comète de l’année 1784,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 95 (1882 Jul.), p. 17. Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1797. Berlin (1794), p. 136. J.  E. Bode, “Ueber die angebliche Erscheinung eines Kometen vor der Sonne in Jahre 1798,” Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1801. Berlin (1798), pp. 227–229. J. Ashbrook, “The Comets of the Chevalier D’Angos,” Sky and Telescope, 14 (1955 Oct.), p. 501. W. M. Smyth, The Sailors Word-Book. London (1867), p. 42. Astronomical Observations made at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. vol. III.  London: C. Buckton and T. Bensley (1799), p. 82. G.  F. J.  A. von Auwers, Astronomische Beobachtungen auf der Königlichen Universitäts-­ Sternwarte zu Königsberg, 34, 1862, p. 229. H. L. d’Arrest, “Ueber einen angeblich von Maskelyne beobachteten, gegenwärtig unsichtbaren Nebelfleck,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 60 (1863 Oct. 9), pp. 379–380. Astronomical Observations made at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. vol. III.  London: C. Buckton and T. Bensley (1799), p. 82. F. Baldet, “Liste Générale des Comètes,” Annuaire pour l’an 1950. Paris: Bureau des Longitudes (1950), p. B53. C. G. Bigourdan, Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris. Memoires (1895), p. F50. C. F. Gauss letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1803 Apr. 22). H. W. M. Olbers letter to C. F. Gauss (1803 Jun. 8). Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1806. Berlin (1803), pp. 266–7. Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1805. Berlin (1802), pp. 128–129. H. W. M. Olbers letter to C. F. Gauss (1803 Aug. 23). “Reissig’s Comet (?) of 1803,” Nature, 14 (1876 Aug. 10), p. 311. J. Ashbrook, “Some Questionable Comets,” Sky & Telescope, 37 (1969 Apr.), p. 230. Ibid., p. 230. “Another Comet,” The Philosophical Magazine, 29 (1807 Dec.), p. 285. “The Second New Comet,” The Star (1808 Jan. 4), p. 2, col. 1. “The Comet,” The Hibernian Journal (1808 Jan. 8), p. 3, col. 2. “The Second New Comet,” The Star (1808 Jan. 4), p. 2, col. 1. “The Comet,” The Morning Herald (1808 Jan. 7), p. 3, col. 3. “New Comet,” Belfast Commercial Chronicle (1808 Jan. 13), p. 2, col. 4. H. W. M. Olbers letter to C. F. Gauss (1808 February 23). J. L. Pons, Monatliche Correspondenz, 18 (1808 Sep.), p. 249. “Ueber muthmassliche frühere Erscheinungen des Cometen 1873 VII,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 113 (1885 Dec. 15), pp. 143–144. G.  Bigourdan, “Sur une Comète Découverte par Pons le 11 Septembre 1808,” Bulletin Astronomique, 16 (1899), pp. 62–63. Ibid., pp. 62–63. Ibid., pp. 62–63. F. Baldet, Annuaire Pour l’an 1950. Paris: Gauthier-Villars (1950), pp. B54–B55. Les procès-verbaux du Bureau des longitudes (1808 Sep. 30).

268

References

B. von Lindenau letter to F. W. Bessel (1808 Oct. 26). B. von Lindenau letter to H.  W. M.  Olbers (1808 Oct. 28), Sig. VI Li 4, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen. B. von Lindenau letter to F. W. Bessel (1808 Nov. 4). Briefwechsel Zwischen Gauss und Bessel. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann (1880), p. 96. B. von Lindenau letter to F. W. Bessel (1808 Oct. 26). G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), p. 13. F. W. Bessel letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1808 Oct. 21) F. W. Bessel letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1808 Nov. 10) F. W. Bessel letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1808 Nov. 11) F. W. Bessel letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1808 Nov. 15) Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1812. Berlin (1809), pp. 125−8. Augsburgische Ordinari Postzeitung (1813 Feb. 26), p. 3. Ibid., p. 3. A. Stark, Meteorologisches Jahrbuch von 1813. Augsburg (1814), p. 7. P. G. Helms OSB, A. “Stark und seine ausgedehnte Korrespondenz,” Acta Astronomiae, 33 (2007), p. 301–314. J. E. Bode letter to A. Stark (Aug. 29, 1814). J. E. Bode letter to A. Stark (Nov. 8, 1814). Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1818. Berlin (1815), p. 280. Baierische National-Zeitung (1819 Jul. 21), p. 585, H. W. M. Olbers letter to F. W. Bessel (1821 Oct. 14). Groninger Courant (1817 Apr. 15), p. 1, col. 2. The Philosophical Magazine, 49 (1817 May), p. 394. Caledonian Mercury (1817 May 24), p. 2, col. 5. The Morning Chronicle (1817 May 20), p. 3, col. 5. “The Supposed Comet,” The Morning Post (1817 Jun. 4), p. 3, col. 5. T.  I. M.  Forster, The Pocket Encyclopedia of Natural Phenomena. London: J.  Nichols and Son (1827), pp. 40–41. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22 (1862 Feb.), p. 108. H. W. M. Olbers letter to C. F. Gauss (1817 Nov. 2). H. W. M. Olbers letter to C. F. Gauss (1817 Nov. 3). Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1821. Berlin (1818), p. 144. H. W. M. Olbers letter to F. W. Bessel (1817 Nov. 26); H. W. M. Olbers letter to C. F. Gauss (1817 Dec. 1). W.  Schur and A.  Stichtenoth, Wilhelm Olbers: Sein Leben und Seine Werke, Volume 1, Berlin (1899), p. 86. C. F. Gauss letter to H. W. M. Olbers (1817 Dec. 2). E. Pfitzner, Acta Historica Astronomiae, 13 (2001), pp. 100–112. Independent Chronicle and Boston Patriot (1820 May 13), p. 1, col. 2. National Intelligencer (1820 May 25), p. 2, col. 2. R. Miles email to G. W. Kronk (2019 Jan. 21). R. P. King email to G. W. Kronk (2019 Jan. 21). R. Miles email to G. W. Kronk (2019 Jan. 21) J. Reeves, “A Comet Observed in China,” The Indo-Chinese Gleaner, 14 (1820 Oct.), p. 436. Ibid., p. 436. F. X. von Zach letter to W. H. F. Talbot (1822 Jan. 9). J.  F. Davis, The Chinese: A General Description of the Empire of China and Its Inhabitants. London: Charles Knight & Co. (1836), p. 289. “Nouvelle comète découverte le 30 décembre 1823 dans la constellation de Hercule,” Correspondance Astronomique, Géographique, Hydrographique et Statistique, 10 (1824), p. 83.

References

269

“Comète découverte le 30 décembre 1823 dans la constellation de Hercule,” Correspondance Astronomique, Géographique, Hydrographique et Statistique, 10 (1824), p. 185. J.  Dalton, Meteorological Observations and Essays. 2nd edition. Manchester: Harrison and Crosfield (1834), p. 220. J.  Lovering, “On the Secular Periodicity of the Aurora Borealis,” Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 9 (new series), (1867), p. 107. H. Flaugergues, “Notice of a Comet discovered by M. Flaugergues at Viviers, March 29th, 1826,” Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 3 (1827), p. 95. Ibid., p. 95 “Comète de l’an 1826,” Correspondance Astronomique, Géographique, Hydrographique et Statistique, 14 (1826), pp. 399–407. H. Flaugergues, “Notice of a Comet discovered by M. Flaugergues at Viviers, March 29th, 1826,” Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 3 (1827), p. 97. H. Flaugergues, “Observations de la comete decouverte le vingt neuf Mars 1826 at 8h du Soir au dessous du bras gauche d’Orion,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 5 (1827 Sep.), pp. 461–462. Ibid., pp. 461–463. B.  Clüver, “Elemente des 2ten Cometen von 1826 von Herrn Clüver in Bremen berechnet,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 12 (1835 Jul. 1), pp. 281–284. B. Peirce, “Catalogue of the Orbits of All The Comets.” The American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge for the Year 1847. Boston: James Munroe & Co. (1846), p. 90. G.  F. Chambers, A Handbook of Descriptive and Practical Astronomy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press (1889), pp. 526–527. W.  Hassenstein, “Nachweis der Identität des Flaugerguesschen Kometen (1826 III) mit dem Bielaschen Kometen (1826 I),” Astronomische Nachrichten, 198 (1914 Jul. 22), pp. 449–458. Abhandlungen von Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel, volume 1. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann (1875), p. xxvii. F.  W. Bessel, Astronomische Beobachtungen auf der Königlichen Universitäts-Sternwarte in Königsberg, 17 (1835), pp. 95–96. H. L. D’Arrest, “Resultate aus Beobachtungen der Nebelflecken und Sternhaufen,” Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physischen Classe der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 3 (1857), pp. 313 & 358. H. L. d’Arrest, Siderum Nebulosorum Observationes Havnienses Institutae in Specula Universitatis per Tubum Sedecimpedalem Merzianum Ab Anno 1761 ad Annum 1867. Copenhagen: F. S. Muhlio (1867), p. 55. “Bessel’s Nebula in Perseus,” Nature, 19 (1879 Apr. 17), p. 555. C.  C. L.  Rümker, Mittlere Oerter von 12000 Fixsternen für den Anfang 1836 abgeleitet aus den Beobachtungen auf der Hamburger Sternwarte. Hamburg: Perthes, Besser & Mauke (1852), p. 241. G.  F. J.  A. von Auwers, Astronomische Beobachtungen auf der Königlichen Universitäts-­ Sternwarte zu Königsberg, 34 (1862), p. 229. G.  F. W.  Rümker, “Schreiben des Herrn Dr. G.  Rümker an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 65 (1865 Aug. 4), pp. 93–94. Ibid., p. 94. “Cometa del 14 Luglio 1839,” Memoria Intorno A Parecchie Osservazioni (1840), pp. 38–39. Astronomische Nachrichten, 16, (1839 Sep. 3), p. 372. C.  C. L.  Rümker, Mittlere Örter von 12000 Fixsternen für den Anfang 1836 abgeleitet aus den Beobachtungen auf der Hamburger Sternwarte. Hamburg: Perthes, Besser & Mauke (1852), p. 126. G.  F. J.  A. von Auwers, Astronomische Beobachtungen auf der Königlichen Universitäts-­ Sternwarte zu Königsberg, 34 (1862), p. 229. G.  F. W.  Rümker, “Schreiben des Herrn Dr. G.  Rümker an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 65 (1865 Aug. 4), pp. 93–94. J. R. Hind, Evening Mail (1846 Oct. 21), p. 3, col. 4.

270

References

J. R. Hind, “Schreiben des Herrn J. R. Hind au den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 25 (1846 Nov. 5), pp. 93–96. J.  R. Hind, “Hind’s Comet (October 18, 1846),” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 7 (1846 Nov.), p. 162. Ibid., p. 162. Ibid., p. 163. Ibid., pp. 162–163. E. F. MacPike, Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1932), pp. 91–92. E. Halley, Philosophical Transactions, 24 (1705 Mar.), pp. 1882–1893. R. Dunthorne, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 10 (1751), p. 285. Ibid., p. 285. “Port of Baltimore,” The [Baltimore] Sun (1849 Oct. 11), p. 3, col. 1. M. F. Maury, Daily National Intelligencer (1850 Apr. 3), p. 3, col. 5. Ibid., p. 3, col. 5. J. Curley, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10 (1850 Mar.), p. 122. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10 (1850 Mar.), p. 122. Ibid., p. 122. The Metropolitan Catholic Almanac and Laity’s Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1851. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr. (1850), p. 217. B.  A. Gould, “Southern Comet of November 1849,” The Astronomical Journal, 1 (1850 Jun. 10), p. 79. “On the Comet seen by Mr. Jenkins in November last,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10 (1850 Jun.), pp. 192–193. “A Fifth Comet in 1851,” Nature, 15 (1877 Jan. 25), p. 281–282. D. Ragona, Ragguagli popolari sulle comete periodiche, Palermo (1855), pp. 57–60. I. Calandrelli, Giornale di Roma, No. 274 (1851 Nov. 29), p. 1093. I. Calandrelli, Giornale di Roma, No. 275 (1851 Dec. 1), p. 1099. P. van Galen, “De Komeet ontdekt door Brorsen den 26. Februarij 1846, en hare terugkomst in 1851,” Algemeene konst- en letterbode for het jaar 1850. Haarlem (1850), pp. 189–191. I. Calandrelli, “Pontificio nuovo osservatorio della romana università,” Atti dell’ academia pontificia de’ nuovi Lincei. 6 (1855 Apr. 3), pp. 268–269. I. Calandrelli, Osservazioni e calcolo delle orbite delle due prime comete telescopiche dell’ anno 1857. Roma: Tipografia Delle Belle Arti (1857), 42pp. T.  J. C.  A. Brorsen, “Schreiben des Herrn. Th. Brorsen au den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 38 (1854 Mar. 27), p. 141–142. The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Review, 4 (1867 Sep.), pp. 336–337. H. M. S. Goldschmidt, “Entdeckung eines neuen Planeten,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 35 (1852 Dec. 14), pp. 343–344. H. M. S. Goldschmidt, “Entdeckung eines neuen Planeten,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 38 (1854 Nov. 10), pp. 175–176. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), pp. 143–145. F.  F. E.  Brünnow, Mémoire sur la comète elliptique de de Vico. Amsterdam: C.  G. Sulpke (1849), p. 34. H. Goldschmidt, Astronomische Nachrichten, 41 (1855 Aug. 25), pp. 285–288. Ibid., pp. 287–288. F. A. T. Winnecke, Astronomische Nachrichten, 69 (1867 Jun. 20), p. 205. Ibid., p. 206. E.  Becker, “Elemente und Ephemeride des Cometen II. 1867,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 69 (1867 May 27), p. 149. F. A. T. Winnecke, Astronomische Nachrichten, 69 (1867 Jun. 20), pp. 207–208.

References

271

F. E. von Asten, “Ueber die Identität des Tempel’schen Cometen (Comet 1867 II.) mit einem von Goldschmidt gesehenen Object,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 82 (1873 Nov. 3), pp. 273–276. F.  A. T.  Winnecke, “Einige Anmerkungen über den Denning’schen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 101 (1881 Nov. 26), pp. 77–78. R. Dunthorne, Philosophical Transactions, 47 (1752), pp. 285. J. R. Hind, “On the expected Reappearance of the celebrated Comet of 1264 and 1556,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 7 (1847 Mar.), p. 264. J.  R. Hind, “Expected Comet of 1264 and 1556,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 8 (1848 Apr.), p. 155. J. R. Hind, “On the Expected Comet of 1264 and 1556,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10 (1850 Mar.), p. 123. “The Great Comet,” The Congregationalist [Massachusetts] (1855 Nov. 30), p. 3, col. 4. “Reappearance of the Great Comet of 1556”, Limerick Observer (1856 Aug. 2), p. 3, col. 2. “Reappearance of the Great Comet of 1556”, The Belfast News-Letter (1856 Aug. 5), p. 4, col. 2. “Re-appearance of the Great Comet of 1556”, The Tipperary Free Press (1856 Aug. 5), p. 3, col. 2. The Morning Chronicle [London] (1856 Aug. 8), p. 7, col. 1. “Fireworks at Birdhill,” The Limerick Reporter and Tipperary Vindicator (1856 Aug. 5), p. 2, col. 6. “The Comet,” The Standard (1856 Oct. 8), p. 2, col. 5. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17 (1857 Feb.), p. 114. “Description of a Large Meteor,” London Evening Standard (1856 Sep. 3), p. 3, col. 6. “Meteor,” The Clare Journal and Ennis Advertiser [Republic of Ireland] (1856 Nov. 6), p. 4, col. 3. “Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon,” Saint James’s Chronicle [London] (1856 Nov. 11), p. 3, col. 6. “The Expected Comet,” Sacramento Daily Union (1856 Oct. 13), p. 1, col. 6. “The Comet,” Sacramento Daily Union (1856 Nov. 22), p. 2, col. 3. “The Comet,” Sacramento Daily Union (1856 Dec. 6), p. 2, col. 3. “History of Folsom Makes Very Interesting Reading,” The Sacramento Union (1911 Dec. 10), p. 5, col. 2. “The Comet,” Daily Democratic State Journal (1856 Nov. 27), p. 2, col. 1. “The Great Comet,” Daily Democratic State Journal (1856 Dec. 5), p. 2, col. 5. “The Comet,” Sacramento Daily Union (1856 Dec. 6), p. 2, col. 3. “Death of a Celebrated Aeronaut,” Cincinnati Daily Enquirer (1858 Oct. 3), p. 2, col. 6. “The Comet,” San Joaquin Republican (1856 Dec. 6), p. 1, col. 1. Ibid., p. 1, col. 1. “Sold,” The Sonoma County Journal (1856 Dec. 19), p. 2, col. 3. Panama Star & Herald (1857 Jan. 3), p. 2, col. 1. The Daily Picayune (1857 Jan. 14), p. 1, col. 7. Evening Mail (1857 Feb. 2), p. 6, col. 1. The Morning Chronicle (1857 Feb. 2), p. 3, col. 3. The Standard (1857 Feb. 2), p. 2, col. 4. The New York Herald (1857 Feb. 15), p. 3, col. 4. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17 (1857 Feb.), p. 114. “Donati’s Comet,” The Illustrated London News, 33 (1858 Oct. 23), pp. 387–388. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 19 (1858 Dec.), p. 45. Light: A Journal of Psychical, Occult, and Mystical Research, 6 (1886 May 29), p. 247. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 19 (1859 Jun.), p. 291. The Standard (1859 Aug. 3), p. 6, col. 2; Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper (1859 Aug. 7), p. 11, col. 5. H. P. Tuttle, Comet Seeker: September 11, 1860 to Sept. 13, 1861. Unpublished personal journal. United States Naval Observatory, Washington, D. C. H. P. Tuttle, Comet Seeker: September 11, 1860 to Sept. 13, 1861. Unpublished personal journal. United States Naval Observatory, Washington, D. C. C. A. F. Peters, “Neuer Comet,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 54 (1860 Nov. 1), pp. 143–144. Ibid., pp. 143–144.

272

References

J. E. B. Valz, “Découverte d’une nouvelle comète, par M. Tempel, de l’observatoire de Marseille,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de Académie des Sciences, 51 (1860 11), p. 675. E. W. L. Tempel, Astronomische Nachrichten, 54 (1861 Jan. 10), pp. 285–286. Ibid., pp. 285–286. J.  E. B.  Valz, “Découverte de deux nouvelles planètes télescopiques, faite à l’Observatoire de Marseilles, par M. Tempel, le 4 et la 9 mars 1861,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de Académie des Sciences, 52 (1861 03), p. 425. E. W. L. Tempel, “Über den Cometen IV. 1860,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 55 (1861 Mar. 30), pp. 79–80. J.  Kowalczyk, “Ueber die Bahnen der Cometen: IV 1860, I.1864 und IV.1864,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 73 (1869 Jan. 16), pp. 81–82. T. von Oppolzer, “Ueber den Cometen IV. 1860.,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 73 (1869 Feb. 16), pp. 189–190. J. Kowalczyk, “Elemente des Cometen IV.1860.,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 75 (1870 Jan. 12), pp. 165–166. “Another Comet,” The South Australian Register (1865 Jun. 19), p. 2, col. 5. The Sydney Morning Herald (1865 Jun. 19), p. 5, col. 4. The Sydney Morning Herald (1865 Jun. 20), p. 8, col. 3. The Sydney Morning Herald (1865 Jun. 23), p. 5, col. 5. “Comets,” The Globe (1865 Aug. 29), p. 3, col. 3. E.  J. Lowe, “Two Comets,” Nottingham & Midland Counties Daily Express (1865 Aug. 29), p. 3, col. 6. “P,” “The Comets,” Evening Mail (1865 Sep. 1), p. 1, col. 1. E. J. Lowe, “Mr. Lowe’s Comets,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 25 (1865 Oct.), p. 278. Ibid., p. 278. Ibid., p. 278. “A Comet,” The Standard (1865 Oct. 7), p. 6, col. 2. “H. H. C.,” “Biela’s Comet,” The Astronomical Register, 3 (1865 Oct.), p. 256. The Armidale Express (1865 Aug. 19), p. 3, col. 2. “Electrical Phenomenon,” The Birmingham Daily Gazette (1865 Aug. 22), p. 3, col. 5. “Aurora Borealis,” The Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser (England) p. 4, col. 4. The Astronomical Register, 4 (1866 Apr.), p. 96. Ibid., p. 97. C.  G. Talmage, “On a Probable Observation of Biela’s Comet,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 26 (1866 Apr.), p. 241. Ibid., pp. 241–242. Ibid., p. 242. Ibid., p. 242. Ibid., p. 242. Ibid., p. 242. The Astronomical Register, 4 (1866 May), p. 139. The Astronomical Register, 4 (1866 Jun.), p. 156. Ibid., pp. 166–167. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 20 (1860 May), p. 269. G. B. Airy, “Account of Observations of the Total Solar Eclipse of 1860, July 18,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 21 (1860 Nov.), p. 4. “Optical Instruments,” Handbook to the Industrial Department of the International Exhibition, 1862. Volume 2. London: Edward Stanford (1862), p. 190. The Astronomical Register, 4 (1866 Apr.), p. 97. J.  Buckingham, “Supposed Observation of Biela’s Comet,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 26 (1866 May), pp. 271–272.

References

273

Ibid., pp. 271–272. Ibid., pp. 271–272. J.  Buckingham, “On a supposed Observation of Biela’s Comet,” The Astronomical Register, 4 (1866 Jun.), p. 156. J. R. Hind, “Auffindung des Encke’schen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 78 (1871 Oct. 9), pp. 223–224. S. P. von Glasenapp, “Über die Erscheinung des Encke’schen Cometen im Jahre 1871,” Bulletin de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 16 (1871 Aug.), pp. 321–332. J. R. Hind, “Beobachtung des Encke’schen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 78 (1871 Oct. 24), pp. 253–254. “Obituary: Arthur Cowper Ranyard,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 55 (1895 Feb.), p. 199. A. C. Ranyard, “On a remarkable Structure visible upon the Photographs of the Solar Eclipse of December 12, 1871,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 34 (1874 Jun.), p. 366. The Astronomical Register, 12 (1874 Apr.), p. 78. A. C. Ranyard, “On a remarkable Structure visible upon the Photographs of the Solar Eclipse of December 12, 1871,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 34 (1974 Jun.), p. 366. Ibid., p. 367. Ibid., p. 367. Ibid., p. 369. Ibid., p. 369. W. H. Wesley, “The Solar Corona, as shown in Photographs taken during Total Eclipses,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 47 (1887 Jun.), pp. 501–502. The Observatory, 15 (1892 Dec.), p. 491–420. The Observatory, 16 (1893 Feb.), pp. 92–94. The Observatory, 16 (1893 Feb.), p. 88. Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., p. 89. W. H. Wesley, “Dark Markings in the Solar Corona,” Knowledge, 23 (1900 Oct. 1), p. 226. S. Bianchi, A. Gasperini, D. Galli, F. Palla, P. Brenni, and A. Giatti, “Wilhelm Tempel and His 10.8-­ cm Steinheil Telescope,” Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 13 (2010), pp. 43–44. “Aus einem Schreiben des Herrn Wilh. Tempel an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 80 (1872 Jul. 29), pp. 27–29. “Entdeckung eines neuen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 78 (1872 Jan. 3), pp. 383–384. K.  C. Bruhns, “Zusammenstellung der Planeten- und Cometen- Entdeckungen im Jahre 1871,” Vierteljahrsschrift der Astronomischen Gesellschaft, 7 (1872 Apr.), p. 98. E. W. L. Tempel, Astronomische Nachrichten, 80 (1872 Jul. 29), pp. 27–29. W.  Steinicke, Observing and Cataloguing Nebulae and Star Clusters, Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2010), pp. 173−4. “Comète Observée en L’Année 1772,” Connoissance des Temps Pour l’Année Commune 1774 (1772), p. 284. “Beobachtungen der beyden im Jahr 1805 erschienenen Kometen,” Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1809. Berlin (1806), pp. 134–136. E.  Weiss, “Bemerkungen über den Zusammenhang zwischen Cometen und Sternschnuppen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 68 (1867 Mar. 9), pp. 381–384. H. L. d’Arrest, “Ueber einige merkwürdige Meteorfälle beim Durchgange der Erde durch die Bahn des Biela’schen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 69 (1867 Mar. 19), pp. 7–10. E. F. W. Klinkerfues, “Schreiben des Herrn Prof. Klinkerfues an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 80 (1873 Jan. 16), p. 349. C.  F. W.  Peters, “Ueber die Annahme einer Identität des Sternschnuppenschwarmes vom 27, November 1872 mit dem Biela’schen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 80 (1873 Jan. 7), pp. 335–336.

274

References

E.  F. W.  Klinkerfues, “On the Re-discovery of Biela’s Comet,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 33 (1873 Jan.), p. 128. N. R. Pogson, “Extract of a Letter from N. R. Pogson Esq., Madras Observatory, to the Astronomer Royal,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 33 (1872 Dec.), p. 116. N. R. Pogson, “Biela’s Comet,” Nature, 7 (1873 Jan. 2), p. 163. N. R. Pogson, “Biela’s Comet,” Nature, 7 (1873 Jan. 2), p. 163. W. F. Denning, “Biela’s Comet and the Meteors of Nov. 27th Last,” The Western Daily Press (1873 Jan. 3), p. 3, col. 5. C.  F. W.  Peters, “Ueber die Annahme einer Identität des Sternschnuppenschwarmes vom 27. November 1872 mit dem Biela’schen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 80 (1873 Jan. 7), pp. 335–336. D. Kirkwood, “Biela’s Comets,” Nature, 8 (1873 May 1), pp. 4–5. Z. Sekanina, Icarus, 30 (1977 Mar.), p. 578. G.  L. Tupman, “Re-discovery of Biela’s Comet,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 33 (1873 Jan.), p. 130. G. L. Tupman, “On the supposed Re-discovery of Biela’s Comet. (No. 2.),” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 33 (1873 Mar.), pp. 317–319. W.  H. S.  Monck, “Pogson’s Comet and the Bielan Meteors,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 4 (1892 Jan.), pp. 19–20. N.  R. Pogson, “Madras Observations of Biela’s Comet,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 84 (1874 Aug. 11), pp. 183–186. “The Comet of December 1872 (Klinkerfues-Pogson),” Nature, 12 (1875 May 27), p. 68. K. C. Bruhns, “Ueber den Pogson’schen Cometen im Jahre 1872,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 86 (1875 Sep. 10), pp. 221–222. H. C. F. Kreutz, “Ueber das System der Cometen 1843 I, 1880 I, und 1882 II,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 114 (1886 Mar. 18), pp. 73–74. H.  C. F.  Kreutz, “Untersuchungen über das System der Cometen 1843 I, 1880 I und 1882 I.  III.  Theil”, Astronomische Abhandlungen als Ergänzungshefte zu den Astronomische Nachrichten, No. 1 (1901), pp. 62–63. “Discovery of Another Comet,” New-York Tribune (1874 Jun. 24), p. 5, col. 5. H. A. Fairbairn, The College Warden. New York: Thomas Whittaker (1899), pp. 100–101. The Connecticut Courant (1874 Jul. 4), p. 2, col. 1. The Evening Herald (1876 Jan. 20), p. 2, col. 4. The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser (1876 Feb. 12), p. 218, col. 1. “A Southern Comet (?),” Nature, 13 (1876 Apr. 6), p. 449. E. Loomis, “Astronomical Observatories in the United States,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 73 (1856 Jun.), p. 47. Daily National Intelligencer (1851 Oct. 9), p. 2, col. 3. “Observatory Notice,” Buffalo Commercial Advertiser (1853 Jul. 30), p. 2, col. 6. “The Largest Telescope in the Country,” Scientific American, 4 (1861 Apr. 6), p. 216. “A Look Through the Great Telescope,” Scientific American, 4 (1861 Apr. 20), p. 244. “Buffalo Astronomical Observatory,” Buffalo Morning Express (1864 Jan. 13), p. 3, col. 1. “Discovery of a New Comet,” Buffalo Daily Courier (1877 Jul. 9), p. 2, col. 1. The Rochester Evening Express (1877 Jul. 9), p. 3, col. 4. “The Supposed Discovery of a New Comet by a Buffalo Astronomer,” The Rochester Evening Express (1877 Jul. 11), p. 2, col. 2. G. W. Kronk, Lewis Swift: Celebrated Comet Hunter and the People’s Astronomer. New York: Springer International (2017), pp. 4–9, 16–17. “Lewis Swift Loses A Comet,” The New York Times (1879 Mar. 16), p. 10, col. 6. L. E. Thane, “The Observatory at Rochester N. Y.,” The Sunday Call [San Francisco] (1891 Nov. 29), p. 13, col. 6. NOAA Central Library Data Imaging Project, https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/ Digital-­Collections/US-­Daily-­Weather-­Maps.

References

275

“A Broken Telescope,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1879 Feb. 24), p. 3, col. 2. “Lewis Swift Loses A Comet,” The New York Times (1877 Mar. 16), p. 10, col. 6. G. W. Kronk, Lewis Swift: Celebrated Comet Hunter and the People’s Astronomer. New York: Springer International Publishing AG (2017), pp. 77–78. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), pp. 438–442. “A Broken Telescope,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1879 Feb. 24), p. 3, col. 2. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1879 Feb. 25), p. 2, col. 1. “The Old Fish Observatory,” Erie County Independent [Hamburg] (1921 May 19), p. 4, col. 4. W. H. Knight, “Some Telescopes in the United States,” The Sidereal Messenger, 10 (1891), p. 397. W. R. Cutter, Genealogical and Family History of Western New York. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company (1912), p. 302. J. R. Edson, Hamburg (Images of America series). Charleston (South Carolina): Arcadia Publishing (2000), p. 40. Hamburg Sentinel (1879 Mar. 13), p. 3, col. 2. “The Return of Brorsen’s Comet,” The Buffalo Daily Courier (1879 Mar. 15), p. 2, col. 7. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), pp. 438–442. Hamburg Sentinel (1879 Mar. 13), p. 3, col. 2. “The Return of Brorsen’s Comet,” The Buffalo Daily Courier (1879 Mar. 15), p. 2, col. 7. W.  H. Knight, “Some Telescopes in the United States,” The Sidereal Messenger, 10 (1891), pp. 398–399. H. Harrison, “A Curious Phenomenon,” New-York Tribune (1879 Apr. 17), p. 2, col. 3. Ibid., p. 2, col. 3. H. Harrison, “The Curious Astronomical Phenomenon,” Scientific American Supplement, 7 (1879 Jun. 21), p. 2885. Ibid., p. 2885. H. Harrison, “A Curious Phenomenon,” New-York Tribune (1879 Apr. 17), p. 2, col. 3. Ibid., p. 2, col. 3. H. Harrison, “The Curious Astronomical Phenomenon,” Scientific American Supplement, 7 (1879 Jun. 21), pp. 2884–2885. H. Harrison, “A Curious Phenomenon,” New-York Tribune (1879 Apr. 17), p. 2, col. 3. Ibid., p. 2, col. 3. H. Harrison, “The Curious Astronomical Phenomenon,” Scientific American Supplement, 7 (1879 Jun. 21), pp. 2884–2885. Ibid., pp. 2884–2885. J. S. Devoe, “Was it a Nebula!,” New-York Tribune (1879 Apr. 26), p. 2, col. 6. Ibid., p. 2, col. 6. D. A. J. Seargent, “Comet Harrison-Devoe -- Not So Micro?,” ACS Bulletin, number 84/R4 (1984 Oct.), p. 8. D. A. J. Seargent correspondence with G. W. Kronk (2020 Oct. 5). D. A. J. Seargent, “Comet Harrison-Devoe -- Not So Micro?,” ACS Bulletin, number 84/R4 (1984 Oct.), p. 8. Ibid., p. 8. H. Harrison, “A Curious Phenomenon,” New-York Tribune (1879 Apr. 17), p. 2, col. 3. S. Nakano email to G. W. Kronk (2022 Feb. 20). H. Harrison, “The Curious Astronomical Phenomenon,” Scientific American Supplement, 7 (1879 Jun. 21), p. 2884. “Possibly Another Comet,” Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser, 18 August 1880, p. 2, col. 3. L. Swift postcard to E. E. Barnard (1880 Aug. 18) L.  Swift, “Schreiben des Herrn L Swift an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 98 (1880 Sep. 11), pp. 95–96. Ibid., pp. 95–96.

276

References

H. G. Corwin, Jr., email to G. W. Kronk (2018 Mar. 31). “United States Census, 1880.” Database with images. FamilySearch. https://FamilySearch.org: 25 March 2021. Citing NARA microfilm publication T9. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. “A Comet Seen,” Courier-Journal (1880 Sep. 5), p. 3, col. 6. “Comet First Discovered Here,” The Hartford Herald (1880 Dec. 1), p. 2, col. 2. “A Comet Claimed,” The Courier-Journal (1880 Dec. 26), p. 3, col. 8. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), pp. 456–459. “A Comet Claimed,” The Courier-Journal (1880 Dec. 26), p. 3, col. 8. “United States Census, 1880.” Database with images. FamilySearch. https://FamilySearch.org: 25 March 2021. Citing NARA microfilm publication T9. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. “Klein’s Comet,” The Courier-Journal (1881 Jun. 28), p. 2, col. 4. Ibid., p. 2, col. 4. “A Kentucky Claimant,” Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser (1881 Jul. 9), p. 2, col. 5. H. H. Warner, “To American Astronomers,” The Topeka State Journal (1881 Jan. 12), p. 2, col. 3. “A Kentucky Claimant,” Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser (1881 Jul. 9), p. 2, col. 5. “Another Big Cave Discovered,” The Chicago Daily Tribune (1878 May 11) p. 6, col. 7. “A Monster Meteor,” The Decatur Daily Republican (1883 Apr. 16), p. 2. col. 3. “Kentucky’s Great Hoaxer,” The Daily American (1879 Feb. 15), p. 4, col. 2. “Lying as a Fine Art,” The Catholic Union [Buffalo, New York] (1880 May 20), p. 7, col. 1. “Klein’s Comets,” The Courier-Journal (1881 Aug. 1), p. 2, col. 7. “Klein’s Second Comet,” The Hartford (KY) Herald (1881 Jul. 20), p. 2, col. 2. “A Double Dose,” The Courier-Journal (1881 Oct. 18), p. 5, col. 2. “Klein to the Front,” The Hartford Herald (1882 Jan. 25), p. 4, col. 2. “Klein’s Comet,” The Courier-Journal (1882 Apr. 5), p. 7, col. 4. “A Comet Catcher,” The Courier-Journal (1882 Sep. 24), p. 11, col. 2. “Klein’s Comets,” The Courier-Journal (1881 Aug. 9), p. 6, col. 7. “A Comet Coming,” The Courier-Journal (1885 Jun. 21), p. 2, col. 5. “The Star of Bethlehem,” The Daily Examiner (1887 May 16), p. 1. col. 4. “A Star Liar,” Kentucky Advocate (1887 Jun. 3), p. 8, col. 4. W. Marriott, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 6 (1880), p. 107. “Proceedings at the Meetings of the Society,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1 (1873), p. 92. The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent (1873 Dec. 20), p. 3, col. 2. W. F. Cooper, “The Aurora,” The Sheffield Daily Telegraph (1874 Feb. 6), p. 4, col. 4. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 41 (1880 Nov.), p. 56. “Bright Comet Discovered,” The Evening News (1880 Dec. 28), p. 1, col. 3. “Astronomical,” Northampton Mercury Daily Reporter (1880 Dec. 28), p. 4, col. 4. “Dunecht Circular, No 15,” Aberdeen Journal (1880 Dec. 30), p. 4, col. 6. “Cooper’s Comet,” The Evening Star (1880 Dec. 29), p. 1, col. 7. “Editorial,” Science Observer, 3 (1881 Apr.), p. 52. “Schreiben des Herrn C. H. F. Peters,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 99 (1881 Feb. 11), pp. 141, 142. E. E. Block, “Cometenbeobachtungen auf der Sternwarte zu Odessa,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 99 (1881 Mar. 22), pp. 211–212. “Editorial,” Science Observer, 3 (1881 Apr.), p. 52. “Comet Seeker at Fault,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1881 Jan. 2), p. 2, col. 1. “Cooper’s Comet a Reality,” The Rochester Evening Express (1881 Jan. 5), p. 4, col. 1. The Brooklyn Daily Times (1881 Jan. 4), p. 2, col. 7. “Comet 1880g (Cooper),” The Observatory, 4 (1881 Jan.), p. 30. “Scientific News,” English Mechanic and World of Science, 32 (1881 Jan. 7), p. 419. H. T. Vivian, “Cooper‘s Comet,” English Mechanic and World of Science, 32 (1881 Jan. 28), p. 495.

References

277

“A Missing Comet (?),” English Mechanic and World of Science, 32 (1881 Feb. 25), p. 590. H. Oppenheim, The Observatory, 4 (1881 Jul.), p. 217. H. Oppenheim, “Ueber die Bahn des Cometen g 1880,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 100 (1881 Jun. 29), pp. 73–74. Ibid., pp. 73–74. “Editorial,” Science Observer (1881 Aug. 1), p. 85. W.  W. Payne, “The Study of Recent Comets,” Bulletin of the Minnesota Academy of Natural Sciences, 2 (1882 Dec.), p. 345. G. W. Kronk, Lewis Swift: Celebrated Comet Hunter and the People’s Astronomer. New York: Springer International (2017), pp. 103–104 & 111–112. E. E. Barnard, “Mr. Barnard and His Comet,” The Daily American (1881 May 17), p. 4, col. 3. Ibid., p. 4, col. 3. Ibid., p. 4, col. 3. Ibid., p. 4, col. 3. L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1881 May 16), p. 2. Ibid., p. 4. E. E. Barnard, “Mr. Barnard and His Comet,” The Daily American (1881 May 17), p. 4, col. 3. S. C. Chandler correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1881 May 25). S. C. Chandler correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1881 May 25). L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1881 May 25). L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1881 May 31). E. E. Barnard, “Lewis Swift,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 194 (1913 Mar. 22), pp. 133–136. B.  G. Marsden, “Comet 104P/Kowal,” International Astronomical Union Circular, No. 8255 (2003 Dec. 11). B. A. Gould, “Zwei Schreiben des Herrn Dr. B. A. Gould, Director der Sternwarte zu Cordoba,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 100 (1881 Jul. 26), p. 115. Ibid., p. 116. K.  N. A.  Krueger, “Bemerkung des Herausgebers zu obiger Beobachtung von Juni 11,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 100 (1881 Jul. 26), p. 116. “Gould’s Comet-Observations on June 11,” Nature, 24 (1881 Aug. 11), p. 342. J. Tebbutt, “Schreiben des Herrn John Tebbutt an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 101 (1882 Jan. 16), pp. 171–172. Ibid., p. 174. J.  Tebbutt, “Dr. Gould’s Observation (June 11th) of Comet b 1881,” The Observatory, 5 (1882 Jan.), p. 19. “The Great Comet of 1881,” Nature, 25 (1882 Mar. 30), p. 520. B. A. Gould, “Schreiben von Gould, Director der Sternwarte in Cordoba, an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 102 (1882 Jun. 6), p. 145. Ibid., p. 146. J. Tebbutt, “Dr. Gould’s Observation of Comet 1881, III., on June 11,” The Observatory, 5 (1882 Dec.), pp. 364–365. W. Bone, “On an Object seen near Comet b, 1881, on June 10, 1881,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 42 (1882 Jan.), p. 105. Ibid., p. 106. “The Great Comet of 1881,” Nature, 25 (1882 Mar. 30), p. 520. “A New Comet,” Daily Alta California (1882 Jan. 21), p. 1, col. 2. “A Comet in the Southern Heavens,” Daily Evening Bulletin (1882 Jan. 21), p. 4, col. 2. “Report on the Systematic Search for Comets,” Science Observer, 4 (1882 Jul. 12), p. 10. L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1882 Mar. 24). “The Eclipse Expedition,” The Globe (1882 May 18), p. 6, col. 4. “The Eclipse Expedition,” The Daily News (1882 May 19), p. 5, col. 6. Ibid., p. 5, col. 6. “The Eclipse of the Sun,” Aberdeen Evening Express (1882 May 19), p. 2, col. 5.

278

References

C. Trépied, “Eclipse totale du 17 mai,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 94 (1882 Jun.), p. 1641. A. C. Ranyard, “The Comet Seen During the Eclipse,” Knowledge, 2 (1882 Jul. 14), p. 105. P.  Tacchini, “Observations faites pendant l’éclipse totale de Soleil du 17 mai 1882,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 95 (1882 Nov.), pp. 897–898. P.  Tacchini, “Sull’eclisse Totale di Sole del 17 Maggio 1882,” Memorie della Societa Degli Spettroscopisti Italiani, 11 (1883), p. 13. Ibid., p. 13. W. de W. Abney and A. Schuster, “On the Total Solar Eclipse of May 17, 1882,” Philosophical Transactions, 175 (1884), pp. 261–262. Ibid., p. 262. Ibid., p. 262. “The Comet of May 17,” Nature, 26 (1882 Jun. 29), p. 210. M. W. Meyer, “Ueber die Bahn eines unsichtbaren Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 114 (1886 Mar. 18), p. 69–72. H.  C. F.  Kreutz, “Untersuchungen über das System der Cometen 1843 I, 1880 I und 1882 I.  III.  Theil”, Astronomische Abhandlungen als Ergänzungshefte zu den Astronomische Nachrichten, No. 1 (1901), pp. 59–60. “Strange Phenomenon,” The Dundee Advertiser (1882 Dec. 22), p. 5, col. 5. “Strange Phenomenon,” The Evening Telegraph (1882 Dec. 22), p. 4, col. 3. “The ‘Peculiar Phenomenon in the Heavens,’” The Dundee Advertiser (1882 Dec. 25), p. 7, col. 4. Knowledge, 2 (1882 Dec. 29), p. 489. R. A. Proctor, Knowledge, 3 (1883 Jan. 5), p. 1. J. E. Gore, “Bright Star Near the Sun,” Knowledge, 3 (1883 Jan. 5), p. 13. C. Flammarion, “Vénus visible près du Soleil,” L’Astronomie, 2 (1883 Mar.), pp. 108–109. C. Flammarion, “Vénus visible près du Soleil,” L’Astronomie, 2 (1883 Mar.), p. 109. C. M. Botley, Sky & Telescope, 33 (1967 Feb.), p. 84. “A New Comet Near the Belt of Orion,” Savannah Morning News (1883 Jan. 13), p. 4, col. 1. “The Comet,” The Sunday Morning Telegram (1883 Jan. 14), p. 3, col. 3. Ibid., p. 3, col. 3. E. E. Markwick, “Comet (b) 1882,” Astronomical Register, 21 (1883 Aug.), p. 190. Panama Star & Herald (1883 Jan. 16), p. 2, col. 1. “Cometa,” La Patria Diario de Mexico (1883 Jan. 25), p. 5, col. 2. “A New Comet,” San Francisco Chronicle (1883 Jan. 24), p. 3, col. 1–2. “El Nuevo Cometa,” El Abogado Cristiano Ilustrada (1883 Feb. 1), p. 6, col. 1. “The Mexican Comet,” San Francisco Chronicle (1883 Jan. 25), p. 1, col. 1. “The Reported Comet,” Daily Nevada State Journal (1883 Feb. 3), p. 3, col. 2. G. Leveau, “Sur le prochain retour de la comète périodique de d’Arrest,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 96 (1883 Jan. 22), pp. 229–230. C. E. A. Hartwig, “Auffindung eines neuen Nebels,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 105 (1883 Apr. 21), pp. 173–174. “D’Arrest’s Comet,” Nature, 27 (1883 Apr. 26), p. 618. C. E. A. Hartwig, “Auffindung eines neuen Nebels,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 105 (1883 Apr. 21), pp. 173–174. “Not D’Arrest’s Comet,” Evening Star (1883 Apr. 6), p. 3, col. 5. “A Supposed New Comet,” The New York Times (1883 Aug. 24), p. 2, col. 7. “Still Another Comet,” Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser (1883 Aug. 23), p. 2, col. 2. “Not A Comet After All,” Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser (1883 Aug. 24), p. 3, col. 8. “Not A Comet,” New York Tribune (1883 Aug. 25), p. 1, col. 5. L. Swift, “Notes on New and Old Nebulae,” Astronomy and astro-physics, 11 (1892 Aug.), p. 566. E.  H. Burritt, Atlas, Designed to Illustrate the Geography of the Heavens. New  York: Francis J. Huntington (1850), plates II & VI.

References

279

G.  W. Kronk, Lewis Swift: Celebrated Comet Hunter and the People’s Astronomer. Springer (2017), p. 201. “The late Captain William Nobel, F.R.A.S.,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 15 (1905), pp. 228–229. “Captain William Noble,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 14 (1904), pp. 351–352. W. Noble, “A Curious Phenomenon,” Knowledge, 4 (1883 Sep. 14), p. 173. “A Curious Phenomenon,” Knowledge, 4 (1883 Nov. 9), p. 293. The Morning Post [London] (1883 Mar. 28), p. 1, col. 4. “Another Comet,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1883 Sep. 16), p. 4, col. 6. Ibid., p. 4, col. 6. “Possible Discovery of a Comet by Swift,” Science Observer, 4 (1883), p. 53. “Another Comet,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1883 Sep. 16), p. 4, col. 6. “Possible Discovery of a Comet by Swift,” Science Observer, 4 (1883), p. 53. L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1883 Sep. 16). “Professor Swift’s New Comet,” Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser (1883 Sep. 17), p. 2, col. 2. “Entdeckung eines neuen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 106 (1883 Sep. 21), pp. 335–336. “Possible Discovery of a Comet by Swift,” Science Observer, 4 (1883), p. 53. E.  Hartwig, “Beobachtungen von neuen Nebeln.,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 106 (1883 Sep. 28), pp. 381−382. J. Palisa, “Beobachtungen von neuen Nebeln.,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 106 (1883 Sep. 28), pp. 381−382. E. A. Lamp, “Beobachtungen von neuen Nebeln.,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 106 (1883 Sep. 28), pp. 381−382. L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1883 Oct. 1). L.  Swift, “Schreiben von Prof. L.  Swift, Director des Warner Observ., Rochester, an den Herausgeber,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 107 (1883 Dec. 4), p. 273. “Another Comet,” The Daily Telegraph (1883 Dec. 31), p. 3, col. 3. “An Unexpected Comet,” The Mercury (1883 Dec. 31), p. 2, col. 8. The Tasmanian (1883 Jan. 5), p. 16, col. 5. J. Tebbutt, “The Comet of 1812,” The Sydney Morning Herald (1884 Jan. 8), p. 8, col. 1. “The New Comet,” The Mercury (1884 Jan. 17), p. 2, col. 5. W. C. Sharland, “The New Comet,” The Mercury (1884 Jan. 19), p. 3, col. 8. L. C. Thirlwall letter to J. Shortt (1884 Feb. 11). W. Orchiston, “Illuminating Incidents in Antipodean Astronomy: The Mysterious Tasmanian Comet of December 1883,” Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 5 (1983), p. 282. Ibid., p. 282. J. Tebbutt, “Comet Ross,” The Observatory, 7 (1884 May), p. 141. H. C. F. Kreutz, “Ueber den in Tasmania 1883 Dec. 25 und 27 gesehenen Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 108 (1884 May 8), pp. 423–424. W. Orchiston, “Illuminating Incidents in Antipodean Astronomy: The Mysterious Tasmanian Comet of December 1883,” Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 5 (1983), p. 284. T. Tousey and M. J. Koomen, “The Visibility of Stars and Planets During Twilight,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 43 (1953), p. 178. W.  Orchiston, “Illuminating Incidents in Antipodean Astronomy: The Mysterious Tasmanian Comet of December 1883,” Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 5 (1983), pp. 282–283. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), pp. 264–265. L. Schulhof, “Note de M. Schulhof,” Bulletin Astronomique, 1 (1884 Mar.), p. 112. L. Schulhof, “Ephéméride pour la recherche de la comète 1858 III,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 108 (1884 Apr. 30), pp. 403–406. L. Schulhof, “Sur l’Orbite de la Comète 1858, III (Tuttle),” Bulletin Astronomique, 1 (1884 Apr.), pp. 171–176.

280

References

E. Weiss, “Verschwundener Nebel,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 109 (1884 Jun. 30), pp. 143–144. K. N. A. Krueger, “Muthmassliche Auffindung des Cometen 1858 III,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 109 (1884 Jun. 21), pp. 111–112. R. Copeland, “Dun Echt Circular, No. 84,” The Astronomical Register, 22 (1884 Aug.), pp. 200–201. K. N. A. Krueger, “Muthmassliche Auffindung des Cometen 1858 III,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 109 (1884 Jun. 21), pp. 111–112. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 3. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2007), pp. 108–109. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 4. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2009), pp. 368–371. William R. Brooks, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 82 (1922), p. 246. W. R. Brooks, “Discovery of a Suspected Comet,” Sidereal Messenger, 3 (1884 Oct.), p. 249. L. Swift correspondence with E. E. Barnard (1884 Sep. 19). J. F. W. Herschel, “Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 154 (1864), p. 107. J. L. E. Dreyer, “New General Catalogue of Nebulæ and Clusters of Stars,” Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 49 (1888), p. 139. R. Gautier, “Eléments et éphéméride de la comète périodique de Tempel (1867 II),” Astronomische Nachrichten, 111 (1885 Mar. 26), pp. 241–246. L.  Swift, “Catalogue No. 1 of Nebulae discovered at the Warner Observatory,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 112 (1885 Sep. 24), pp. 313−314. L.  Swift, “Catalogue No. 2 of Nebulae discovered at the Warner Observatory,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 113 (1886 Jan. 26), pp. 305−306. L.  Swift, “Catalogue No. 2 of Nebulae discovered at the Warner Observatory,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 113 (1886 Jan. 26), pp. 307–310. L. Swift, “Catalogue No. 10 of Nebulae discovered at the Warner Observatory,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 129 (1892 May 31), pp. 361–362. J. L. E. Dreyer, “Index Catalogue of Nebulæ found in the Years 1888 to 1894,” Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 51 (1895), p. 196. H. G. Corwin, Jr., correspondence with G. W. Kronk (2017 May 12). “A New Comet Appears,” Indianapolis Journal (1887 Aug. 25), p. 5, col. 2. “A Heavenly Visitor,” The Courier-Journal (1887 Aug. 25), p. 2, col. 7. “A Large Comet Visible,” The Morning News (1887 Aug. 31), p. 1, col. 2. “Aurora Borealis, Not a Comet,” The Indianapolis News (1887 Aug. 25), p. 1, col. 5. Ibid., p. 1, col. 5. Indianapolis Journal (1887 Aug. 26), p. 4, col. 5. Geneva Advertiser (1887 Sep. 27), p. 3, col. 4. Geneva Advertiser (1888 Apr. 17), p. 3, col. 6. “Another Comet,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle [New York] (1889 Jan. 16), p. 6, col. 6. “A New Comet,” Los Angeles Daily Herald (1889 Jan. 16), p. 4, col. 5. “Another Comet Brooks,” The Phelps Citizen [New York] (1889 Jan. 17), p. 3, col. 2. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (1889 Jan. 17), p. 4, col. 2. W. R. Brooks, “Discovery of Comet Brooks, a 1889,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 49 (1889 Mar.), p. 327. Ibid., p. 327. E. E. Barnard, “On a Search for the Comet Reported 1889 Jan. 15, by Mr. Brooks,” Astronomical Journal, 8 (1889 Mar. 4), p. 168. “A New Comet Discovered,” The New Haven Evening Register (1889 Jul. 6), p. 1, col. 1. K. N. A. Krueger, “Vermeintlicher neuer Comet Swift,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 122 (1889 Jul. 19), pp. 117−118. Ibid., pp. 117−118. “It’s Our Old Comet,” Sacramento Daily Record-Union (1889 Jul. 8), p. 2, col. 4.

References

281

L.  Swift, “Catalogue No. 9 of Nebulae discovered at the Warner Observatory,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 126 (1890 Nov. 7), pp. 49–50. L. Swift, “Erratum to ‘Catalogue No. 9 of Nebulae’ in A. N 3004,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 126 (1891 Jan. 19), pp. 225−226. J.  L. E.  Dreyer, “Note on some apparently variable Nebulæ,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 52 (1891 Dec.), pp. 100–102. L. Swift, “Discovery of Nebulæ,” Astronomy and Astro-Physics, 11 (1892 Mar.), p. 198. “A New Comet,” The Times (1890 Nov. 24), p. 6, col. 2. Ibid., p. 6, col. 2. “A New Comet (?),” Nature, 43 (1890 Nov. 27), pp. 89–90. “A new comet ?,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 126 (1890 Dec. 12), p. 124. G. Bigourdan, “Observations de Nébuleuses et d’Amas Stellaires,” Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris: Observations 1898 (1902), p. G109. B. A. Skiff, H. G. Corwin, Jr., B. Archinal, B. Erdmann, S. Gottlieb, A. Ling and O. Brazell, “What is IC 2120?” Webb Society Quarterly Journal, No. 104 (1996 Apr.), p. 1–8. D. Klumpke, “Observations faites a l’Equatorial de 38cm,” Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris: Observations 1890. (1898), pp. F25–F26. H. G. Corwin, Jr., B. A. Skiff, B. G. Marsden, and G. V. Williams, “IC 2120 – The Final Chapter?” Webb Society Quarterly Journal, No. 105 (1996 Jul.), pp. 1–3. E.  F. von Haerdtl, “Die Bahn des Periodischen Kometen Winnecke in den Jahren 1858–1886,” Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 55 (1889), pp. 215–308. E.  F. von Haerdtl, “Die Bahn des Periodischen Kometen Winnecke in den Jahren 1858–1886,” Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 56 (1889), pp. 151–186. E.  F. von Haerdtl, “Ephemeride des Winnecke’schen Cometen für die Opposition 1891,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 126 (1891 Jan. 12), pp. 171–174. K.  N. A.  Krueger, “Ephemeride des Winnecke’schen Cometen für 1891,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 126 (1891 Feb. 10), pp. 311–312. Ibid., pp. 311–312. H.  C. F.  Kreutz, “Zusammenstellung der Cometen-Erscheinungen des Jahres 1891,” Vierteljahrsschrift, 27 (1892), pp. 67–68. R. Copeland, “A Rare Phenomenon,” Nature, 44 (1891 Sep. 24), p. 494. Ibid., p. 494. “A Luminous Arch,” The Scotsman (1891 Sep. 14), p. 10, col. 4. W. E. Wilson, “A Rare Phenomenon,” Nature, 44 (1891 Sep. 24), p. 494. J. L. E. Dreyer, “A Rare Phenomenon,” Nature, 44 (1891 Oct. 8), p. 541. H. Rix, “A Rare Phenomenon,” Nature, 44 (1891 Oct. 8), p. 541. The New York Times (1892 Mar. 17), p. 1, col. 2. The Daily Picayune (1892 Mar. 21), p. 8, col. 1. H. C. Macpherson, “Max Wolf,” The Observatory, 55 (1932 Dec.), p. 356. M.  F. J.  C. Wolf, “Ueber eine merkwürdige cometenartige Erscheinung,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 129 (1892 Apr. 8), p. 181 Ibid., p. 181 Ibid., p. 181 R. F. Spitaler, “Beobachtungen von Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 131 (1893 Jan. 10), p. 389–390. E.  E. Barnard, “An unexplained observation,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 172 (1906 Jul. 17), pp. 25–26. R. Pirovano, “Notiz betr. E. E. Barnard, An unexplained observation, A. N. 4106,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 172 (1906 Aug. 25), pp. 207–208. E. E. Barnard, “Reply to Mr. Rudolph Pirovano’s remarks in A. N. 4117, concerning ‘An unexplained observation’,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 173 (1907 Jan. 10), pp. 315–316. C. L. Brook, “An unexplained Observation,” The Observatory, 29 (1906 Oct.), p. 390.

282

References

M. F. J. C. Wolf, “Notiz betr. Barnard ‘An unexplained Observation’ in A. N. 4106 und 4148,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 174 (1907 Apr. 5), pp. 217–218. B. V. Kukarkin, P. N. Kholopov, N. M. Artiukhina, V. P. Fedorovich, M. S. Frolov, V. P. Goranskij, N.  A. Gorynya, E.  A. Karitskaya, N.  N. Kireeva, N.  P. Kukarkina, N.  E. Kurochkin, G. I. Medvedeva, N. B. Perova, G. A. Ponomareva, N. N. Samus, and S. Y. Shugarov, New Catalogue of Suspected Variable Stars. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House (1982). R. A. Downes, R. F. Webbink, M. M. Shara, “A Catalog and Atlas of Cataclysmic Variables—2nd Edition,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109 (1997 Apr.), pp. 353, 368. R.  Baum, The Haunted Observatory: Curiosities from the Astronomer’s Cabinet. New  York: Prometheus Books (2007), p. 101. G.  W. Kronk, Cometography. Volume 2. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press (2003), pp. 694. The Observatory, 16 (1893 Jan.), p. 35. Ibid., p. 35. E. Roberts, “Photographs of Comet Holmes,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 53 (1892 Dec.), p. 66 H.  C. F.  Kreutz, “Elliptische Elemente und Ephemeride des Cometen 1892,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 131 (1892 Nov. 26), pp. 167–168. The Observatory, 16 (1893 Jan.), p. 34. E. Roberts, “Photographs of Comet Holmes,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 53 (1892 Dec.), p. 66. W. H. M. Christie, “Possible Photograph of Comet 1892 III (Holmes),” Astronomische Nachrichten, 132 (1893 Feb. 9), pp. 107–108. The Leeds Mercury (1892 Nov. 29), p. 8, col. 7. K. N. A. Krueger, “Mittheilung betreffend ‘Comet Freeman’,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 131 (1892 Dec. 3), pp. 199–200. Ibid., pp. 199–200. Ibid., pp. 199–200. Ibid., pp. 199–200. Leicester Chronicle and the Leicestershire Mercury (1892 Dec. 3), p. 3, col. 1. H. Sadler, “The Comets,” London Evening Standard (1892 Dec. 8), p. 7, col. 5. J. M. Schaeberle, “Preliminary Note on the Corona of April 16, 1893, Observed at Mina Bronces, Chile,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 5 (1893 Sep. 9), pp. 139–143. J. M. Schaeberle, “A Cometary Structure in the Corona of April 16, 1893,” Astronomy and Astro-­ Physics, 13 (1894 Apr.), pp. 307. J. M. Schaeberle, “Geocentric Positions of the Comet of 1893 April 16,” Astronomical Journal, 14 (1894 May 23), p. 46. Ibid., p. 46. “A Comet in the Corona of 1893 April 16,” The Observatory, 17 (1894 Jul.), p. 254. J.  M. Schaeberle, “The Coronal Comet of April 16, 1893,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 6 (1894 Aug.), p. 238. W. H. Wesley, “The Comet on the Eclipse Photographs of 1893,” The Observatory, 17 (1894 Nov.), pp. 349–353. Ibid., pp. 349–353. “(Seventeenth) Award of the Donohoe Comet-Medal,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 6 (1894 Aug. 15), p. 228. E. W. Cliver, “Was the Eclipse Comet of 1893 a Disconnected Coronal Mass Ejection?,” Solar Physics, 122 (1989), pp. 323, 326. D.  F. Webb and E.  W. Cliver, “Evidence for magnetic disconnection of mass ejections in the corona,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 100 (1995 Apr. 1), pp. 5862, 5865. “Mr Denning’s Comet,” The Western Daily Press (1894 Apr. 17), p. 3, col. 2. K.  N. A.  Krueger, “Mittheilung betreffend ‘Comet Holmes 1894 April 9’,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 135 (1894 Apr. 16), pp. 151–152.

References

283

A.  Berberich, “Bahnbestimmung des periodischen Cometen 1884 II (Barnard),” Astronomische Nachrichten, 123 (1889 Dec. 4), pp. 145–176. A. Berberich, “Ephemeride für die Wiederkehr des Cometen 188411 (Barnard),” Astronomische Nachrichten, 136 (1894 Oct. 29), pp. 333–336. L.  Swift, “Probable Observation of Barnard’s Comet of 1884,” Popular Astronomy, 3 (1895 Sep.), p. 17. Ibid., pp. 17–19. Ibid., p. 18. L. Swift, Astronomical Journal, 17 (1896 Nov. 13), p. 28. K.  N. A.  Krueger, “Ueber die vermeintliche Entdeckung eines Cometen,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 139 (1896 Feb. 5), p. 319. Ibid., p. 319. Ibid., p. 320. A. M. du Celliée Muller, “Mededeeling Omtrent Verschijnselen Waargenomen Bij de Maan,” De Natuur, 13 (1893), p. 21. F.  Hopman, “On Dark Meteors,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 8 (1898 Feb.), p. 127. “Echo Mountain Attractions,” Riverside Daily Enterprise (1895 Jan. 17), p. 2, col. 3. “A Small Comet Discovered,” The New York Times (1896 Sep. 23), p. 1, col. 3. “Prof. Swift Catches Two More Comets,” Los Angeles Herald (1896 Sep. 23), p. 7, col. 1. H.  C. F.  Kreutz, “Entdeckung eines neuen Cometen durch Prof. L.  Swift,” Astronomische Nachrichten, 141 (1896 Sep. 26), pp. 317–318. Ibid., pp. 317–318. L. Swift, “Note From Dr. L. Swift,” Astronomical Journal, 17 (1896 Oct.), p. 8. Ibid., p. 8. L. Swift, Popular Astronomy, 4 (1896 Nov.), pp. 275–276. “Scientific News,” English Mechanic and World of Science, 64 (1896 Oct. 9), p. 181. L. Swift, “Were They Comets?,” English Mechanic and World of Science, 64 (1897 Jan. 15), p. 501. Ibid., p. 501. W. J. Hussey, “Search for Comet or Comets Reported by Swift, Sept. 20,” Astronomical Journal, 17 (1897 Mar.), p. 103. Ibid., p. 103. “Chileans See a Comet,” The Los Angeles Times (1899 Oct. 29), p. 4, col. 3. “Biela’s Comet,” The Scotsman [Edinburgh] (1899 Oct. 30), p. 9, col. 3. “Biela’s Comet,” The Daily Picayune [New Orleans] (1899 Oct. 30), p. 8, col. 3. Ibid., p. 8, col. 3. “Biela’s Comet Not Sighted,” The New York Times (1899 Oct. 31), p. 6, col. 7.

Index

A Abney, W. de W., 187–189 Airy, G.B., 169 Archinal, B., 228, 229 Argelander, F.W.A., 133, 134 Arzáns de Orsúa y Vela, B., 9 Ashbrook, J., 57 Asten, F.E. von, 105 Auwers, G.F.J.A. von, 52, 89, 93 B Backer, D. de, 28 Baily, F., 84 Baldet, F., 53, 54, 62 Barber, J., 106, 122 Barclay, J.G., 121 Barnard, E.E., vii, viii, 130, 131, 161, 163, 174–176, 185, 203, 204, 209, 212, 221, 224, 238–240, 245, 250, 251 Baum, R., 240 Becker, E., 105 Berberich, A., 197, 250, 251 Bessel, F.W., 62–64, 66–68, 72, 77, 87, 88, 95, 135, 260 Biela, W. von, 84, 135 Bigourdan, C.G., 53, 62, 228, 229, 261 Bishop, G., 94, 128 Block, E.E., 170 Bode, J.E., 43, 55–57, 68, 70, 71, 77, 78 Boethin, L., 176 Boguslawski, P.H.L. von, 91 Bond, G.P., 115 Bone, W., 180–182

Bortle, J.E., 110 Botley, C.M., 191 Bouvard, A., vi, 53, 54 Brandes, H.W., 70 Brazell, O., 228, 229 Breen, J., 104 Brook, C.L., 239 Brooks, W.R., vii, 185, 209, 212, 220–223, 234, 253 Brorsen, T.J.C.A., 95, 98, 102, 147 Brown, L.M., 218 Bruhns, K.C., 104, 106, 134, 139, 140 Brünnow, F.F.E., 103, 104 Buckingham, J., 124–127 Burckhardt, J.K., 48–50 Burritt, E.H., 176, 199 Byrne, J., 154 C Calandrelli, I., 99–101 Callager, J., 110 Cassini de Thury, C.-F., 23 Cassini, J., 14, 15 Cassini, J.D., 14–16 Celliée Muller, A.M. du, 252, 253 Chambers, G.F., 86, 121, 124 Chandler, S.C., 170, 175 Christie, W.H.M., 242, 243, 248 Clevers, H., 206–209 Cliver, E.W., 247 Clüver, B., 86 Cohn, B., 23, 26–29 Commelin, C., 6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. W. Kronk, M. Meyer, Catalog of Unconfirmed Comets - Volume 1, Historical & Cultural Astronomy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23171-1

285

286 Cooper, W.F., 169–172 Copeland, R., 232 Corwin, H.G. Jr., 162, 216 Crommelin, A.C.D., ix, 1, 2, 62, 138, 211 Curley, J., 96, 97 D Dalton, J., 83 Dangos, J.A., 47–51 D’Arrest, H.L., 50, 52, 87, 89, 93, 101, 106, 197 Davidson, G., 195 Davis, H., 129 Davis, J.F., 80 Delambre, J.B.J., 62, 85 De la Rue, W., 119 Delisle, J.N., 36 Denning, W.F., viii, 105, 137 de Vico, F., 91, 92, 94, 98, 103, 104 Devoe, J.S., 156–160 Dove, J., 22 Dreyer, J.L.E., 44, 161, 216, 225, 228, 233 Dunlop, J., 89 Dunthorne, R., 96, 106 Duzee, W.S. Van, 144, 145 Dyk, G.J. van, 252 E Ebell, C.W.L.M., 239 Eddie, L.A., 226, 227 Encke, J.F., ix, 49, 50, 54, 70, 117, 128, 134 Erdmann, B., 228, 229 F Fairbairn, R.B., 141, 142 Festou, M.C., 2 Fish, B.M., 151, 152 Fish, M., 151 Fitz, H., 141, 144 Flammarion, C., 191 Flamsteed, J., 96 Flaugergues, H., 84–86, 260 Fontenay, J. de, 14–16 Forster, B.M., 75 Forster, E., 75 Forster, T.F., 75 Forster, T.I.M, 75 Freeman, A., 243, 244 Freitag, R.S., 16 Fujikawa, S., 105

Index G Gambart, J.F.A., 84, 135 Gauss, C.F., 50, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 77, 78, 135 Gautier, R., 214 Giacobini, M., 210 Glasenapp, S.P., 128 Going, J., 107, 255 Goldschmidt, H.M.S., 103–105 Gore, J.E., 190 Gottlieb, S., 162 Gould, B.A. Jr., viii, 97, 177–182, 261 Grant, J., 23, 24, 27–30, 259 Grante, J., 23 Green, D.W.E., viii, x Gregory, E., 52 Griffin, Z.W., 165 Griggs, T., 15 Groot, J., 28 Gundlach, E., 251 Guyot, 191 Gyldén, H., 50, 51 H Haerdtl, E.F. von, 230, 231 Hale, E., 83 Halley, E., 16, 18, 19, 22, 36, 96 Hanow, M.C., 22 Harding, K.L., 77, 78 Harkness, W., 258 Harrison, H., 154–160 Hartwig, C.E.A., 105, 164, 165, 197, 204, 205, 261 Hasegawa, I., 11 Hassenstein, W., 86 Hell, M., 37 Herald, D., 157, 160 Herschel, C., 39, 54 Herschel, F.W., 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 134, 170, 200, 228, 250 Herschel, J.F.W., 42, 44, 46, 200, 212, 225, 228 Hevelius, J., 4–6, 51 Hill, C.B., 196 Hind, J.R., 32, 33, 56, 88, 94, 95, 97–99, 106, 118, 121, 122, 124–126, 128, 178, 179 Holden, E.S., 245, 247 Holmes, E., 241–244, 248 Horner, J.K., 82, 83 Horner, R., 97 Hoskin, M., 39, 40 Hussey, W.J., 257 Huygens, C., 5

Index J Jenkins, T.M., 96–98, 106 Jiang, Y., 15 K Kelder, J., 28 Kepler, J., 1–3, 167, 191 Kiesewalter, J.C.G., 133 Kindermann, E.C., 31–33 King, Robert P. “Bob”, 79 Kirkwood, D., 137, 138 Klein, J.M., vii, 164–168 Klinkerfues, E.F.W., 136–138 Klumpke, D., 229 Knight, W.H., 47 Knobel, E.B., 131 Knox, R., 10, 11 Kobayashi, T., viii Kohoutek, L., 228 Koomen, M.J., x, 208 Kowalczyk, J., 116 Kresák, L., ix, 211 Kreutz, H.C.F., 139, 140, 189, 208, 230, 241, 254 Kronk, G.W., 196 Krueger, K.N.A., 178, 179, 197, 224, 230, 236, 243, 248, 252 L Lalande, J.J.L. de, vi, 51, 56, 95, 115, 135 Lamp, E.A., 204, 205 Landreth, O.H., 147, 152 Lauriat, L.A., 111 Leveau, G., 197 Le Verrier, U.J.J., 103 Lindenau, B.A. von, 62–64 Lindsay, J.L., 129 Ling, A., 228, 229 Littrow, K.L.E. von, 37, 133, 134 Lowe, E.J., 108, 118–120, 250 Lowe, T.S.C., 254 Lynn, W.T., 10, 11 M Malet, E.B., 186 Maraldi, J.-D., 23, 24, 27 Markwick, E.E., 193 Marsden, B.G., 2, 3, 35, 40, 41, 57, 229 Maskelyne, N., 52 Maunder, A.S.D., 8, 9, 241

287 Maunder, E.W., 241 Maury, M.F., 96, 97 Méchain, P.F.A., vi, ix, 54 Messier, C., vi, ix, 38–41, 43, 44, 47, 50, 196 Meyer, M.W., viii Michez, G., 121 Miles, R., 79 Millosevich, E., 224 Minkowski, R., 228 Monck, W.H.S., 138 Montaigne, J.L., 135, 137 Moorland, J.J., 28 Morando, B., 2 Mulhattan, J., vii, 166–168 Mundy, P., 7–9, 259 N Nakano, S., x, 159 Newton, I., 96 Nijland, A.A., 252 Noble, W., 201, 202, 261 O Olbers, H.W.M., 1, 37, 38, 43, 48–50, 55, 56, 60, 63, 66, 67, 72, 76–78, 135, 260 Oldenbourg, H., 14, 16 Oppenheim, H., 172, 173 Oppolzer, T. von, 116 Oudemans, J.A.C., 252 P Palisa, J., 204 Pankenier, D.W., 15 Parkhurst, H.M., 141, 171 Parsons, C.Y., 207, 209 Peirce, B., 86 Pendleton, C.M., 165 Pendleton, J.E., 165 Perek, L., 228 Perrine, C.D., 257 Peters, C.F.W., 137 Peters, C.H.F, 170 Piazzi, G., 43 Pickering, E.C., 251 Pingré, A.G., 15, 32, 47 Pirovano, R., 238 Plummer, W.E., 128 Pogson, N.R., vii, 135–140, 260 Pons, J.L., vi, vii, ix, 2, 54, 60–65, 70, 71, 84, 135, 138, 206, 207, 230, 260

288 Popta, J., 28 Proctor, R.A., 1, 190 R Ragona, D., 99 Rahe, J., 16 Ranyard, A.C., 129–132, 187, 260 Rees, J.K., 258 Reeves, J., 80, 81, 260 Reichenbach, G.F. von, 87 Reissig, vii, 55–57, 259 Rembrantsz van Nierop, D., 5, 6 Ritchie, J. Jr., 185 Rix, H., 233 Roberts, E., 241 Rocher, P., 2 Roemer, E., 214 Rümker, C.C.L., 48, 89, 93, 260 Rümker, G.F.W., 89, 93 Russell, A.S.D., 241 S Sadler, H., 244 Sajnovics, J., 37, 38, 259 Schaeberle, J.M., 167, 245–247, 262 Scheithauer, C.F., 76–78, 260 Schiaparelli, G.V., 133, 134 Schickard, W., 1–3, 259 Scholten, A., 20 Schooling, W., 241, 242, 261 Schulhof, L., 62, 210 Schumacher, H.C., 37, 85, 91, 95 Schuster, A., 186–189 Seargent, D.A.J., 157, 158 Secchi, A., 124 Sekanina, Z., 138 Sekiguchi, R., 11 Semler, C.G., 25–29, 259 Sharland, W.C., 206, 207 Shortt, J., 206, 207 Skiff, B.A., 228, 229 Slančíková, J., x Slater, T., 113, 114, 260 Small, H., 165 Smith, W., 220 Spina, P., 195, 261 Spitaler, R.F., 210, 211, 229–231, 236, 261 Stark, A., 69–72, 78, 260 Steinicke, W., 42, 46, 134

Index Stone, E.J., 122 Struve, F.G.W. von, 251 Struyck, N., 6, 10, 17, 20, 21, 28, 32, 34 Swift, E., 251 Swift, L., vi–viii, 145–151, 161–163, 166, 167, 171, 174, 175, 185, 199, 200, 203–205, 209, 212, 214–216, 220, 221, 224, 225, 250, 251, 254–257, 260–262 T Tacchini, P., 187 Talbot, W.H.F., 80 Talmage, C.G., 121–124, 260 Tebbutt, J., 117, 151, 152, 177–180, 182, 206, 208 Tempel, E.W.L., 105, 115, 116, 133, 134, 151, 214, 260 Tennant, J.F., 129, 130 Thane, L.E., 146 Thirlwall, L.C., 206–209, 261 Thome, J.M., 180 Thulis, J.J.C., 61–63 Tisserand, F., 228 Toscanelli, P. dal P., 1 Tousey, R., x, 208 Tralles, J.G., 71 Trépied, C., 186 Tupman, G.L., 138 Turner, H.H., 130, 131 Tuttle, H.P., 115, 116, 210, 260 V Valz, J.E.B., 116, 133 Villarceau, A.J.F.Y., 115 Vivian, H.T., 172, 173 Voigt, J.H., 12 W Wargentin, P.W., 35 Warner, H.H., vi, 146, 166, 167, 174, 199, 204, 214, 216, 220, 224, 225 Webb, D.F., 247 Weir, G., 110, 111 Weiss, E., 136, 210, 243 Wesley, W.H., 129–132, 246, 247, 260 Williams, M., 110 Wilson, W.E., 232, 233

Index

289

Winnecke, F.A.T., 26, 27, 104, 105, 130, 230 Wolf, M.F.J.C., 235–237, 239 Wutschichowsky, L., 105

Y Yeomans, D.K., 16 Young, J.M., 251

X Xu, Z., 15

Z Zach, F.X. von, 48, 51, 80, 82