Fig. 3.Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
It is infinitely improbable that these coincidences should be accidental; they point undoubtedly to a common origin of the two bodies.
According to the theory now generally accepted, comets enter the solar systemab extra, move in parabolas or hyperbolas around the sun, and, if undisturbed by the planets, pass off beyond the limits of the sun's attraction, to be seen no more. If in their motion, however, they approach very near any of the larger planets, their direction is changed by planetary perturbation,—their orbits being sometimes transformed into ellipses. The new orbits of such bodies would pass very nearly through the points at which their greatest perturbation occurred; and accordingly we find that the aphelia of a large proportion of the periodic comets are near the orbits of the major planets. "I admit," says M. Hoek, "that the orbits of comets are by nature parabolas or hyperbolas, and that in the cases when elliptical orbits are met with, these are occasioned by planetary attractions, or derive their character from the uncertainty of our observations. To allow the contrary would be to admit some comets as permanent members of our planetary system, to which they ought to have belonged since its origin, and so to assert the simultaneous birth of that system and of these comets. As for me, I attribute to these a primitive wandering character. Traveling through space, they move from one star to another in order to leave it again, provided they do not meet any obstacle that may force them to remain in its vicinity. Such an obstacle was Jupiter, in the neighborhood of our sun, for the comets of Lexelland Brorsen, and probably for the greater part of periodical comets; the other part of which may be indebted for their elliptical orbits to the attractions of Saturn and the remaining planets.
"Generally, then, comets come to us from some star or other. The attraction of our sun modifies their orbit, as had been done already by each star through whose sphere of attraction they had passed. We can put the question if they come as single bodies or united in systems."
The conclusion of this astronomer's interesting discussion is that—
"There are systems of comets in space that are broken up by the attraction of our sun, and whose members attain, as isolated bodies, the vicinity of the earth during a course of several years."[6]
In the researches here referred to, it is shown by Professor Hoek that the comets of 1860 III., 1863 I., and 1863 IV. formed a group in space previous to their entrance into our system. The same fact has also been demonstrated in regard to other comets which need not here be specified. Now, the comets of 1812 and 1846 IV. have their aphelia near the orbit of Neptune, and hence the original parabolas in which they moved were probably transformed into ellipses by the perturbations of that planet. Before entering the solar domain, they were doubtless members of a cometary system. Passing Neptune near the same time, and at some distance from each other, their different relative positions with regard to the disturbing body may accountfor the slight differences in the elements of their orbits.
Comets of the Jovian Group.
Besides the eight comets enumerated in Chapter II. whose aphelia are in the vicinity of Jupiter's orbit, five others have been observed which belong apparently to the same cluster. These are the comets of 1585, 1743 I., 1766 II., 1783, and 1819 IV. "The fact that these comets have not been re-observed on their successive returns through perihelion may be explained either by the difficulty of observing them, owing to their unfavorable positions, and to the circumstances of observers not expecting their reappearance, their periodic character not being then suspected, or because they may have been thrown by the disturbing action of the larger planets into orbits such as to keep them continually out of the range of view of terrestrial observers."[7]
Lexell's comet of 1770 is the most remarkable instance known of the change produced in the orbits of these bodies by planetary attraction. This comet passed so near Jupiter in 1779 that the attraction of the latter was 200 times greater than that of the sun. The consequence was that the comet, whose mean distance corresponded to a period of 5½ years, was thrown into an orbit so entirely different that it has never since been visible.
Peters' Comet.
A telescopic comet was discovered by Dr. Peters on the 26th of June, 1846, which continued to be observed till the 21st of July. Its period, according to the discoverer, is about 13 years, and its aphelion, like that of Tuttle's comet, is in the vicinity of Saturn's orbit. It was expected to return in 1859, and again in 1872, but each time escaped detection, owing probably to the fact that its position was unfavorable for observation.
Stephan's Comet(1867 I.).
In January, 1867, M. Stephan, of Marseilles, discovered a new comet, the elements of which, after two months' observations, were computed by Mr. G. M. Searle, of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The perihelion of this body is near the orbit of Mars; its aphelion near that of Uranus,—the least distance of the orbits being about 2,000,000 miles. The present form of the cometary path is doubtless due to the disturbing action of Uranus. The comet completes its revolution in 33.62 years; consequently (as has been pointed out by Mr. J. R. Hind) five of its periods are almost exactly equal to two periods of Uranus. The next approximate appulse of the two bodies will occur in 1985, when the form of the comet's orbit may be sensibly modified.
Elliptic Comets whose Aphelia are at a much Greater Distance than Neptune's Orbit.
In October, 1097, a comet was seen both in Europe and China, which was noted for the fact of itshaving two distinct tails, making with each other an angle of about 40°. From a discussion of the Chinese observations (which extended through a longer period than the European), Laugier concluded that this body is identical with the third comet of 1840, which was discovered by Galle on the 6th of March. If, therefore, it has made no intermediate return without being observed, it must have a period of about 743 years. It is also highly probable, from the similarity of elements, that the comet which passed its perihelion on the 5th of June, 1845, was a reappearance of the comet of 1596,—the period of revolution being 249 years. The elements of the great comet of 1843 are somewhat uncertain. There is a probability, however, of the identity of this body with the comet of 1668. This would make the period 175 years. The third comet of 1862 is especially interesting from its connection with the August meteors. Its period, according to Dr. Oppolzer, is 121½ years.
The Great Comet of 1858
was one of the most remarkable in the nineteenth century. It was discovered on the 2d of June, by Donati, of Florence, and first became visible to the naked eye about the last of August. The comet attained its greatest brilliancy about the 10th of October, when its distance from the earth was 50,000,000 miles. The length of its tail somewhat exceeded this distance. If, therefore, the comet had been at that time directly between the sun and theearth, the latter must have been enveloped for a number of hours in the cometic matter.
The observations of this comet during a period of five months enabled astronomers to determine the elements of its orbit within small limits of error. It completes a revolution, according to Newcomb, in 1854 years, in an orbit somewhat more eccentric than that of Halley's comet. It will not return before the 38th century, and will only reach its aphelion about the year 2800. Its motion per second when nearest the sun is 36 miles; when most remote, only 234 yards.
It remains to describe some of the most remarkable comets of which we have any record, but of which we have no means of determining with certainty whether they move in ellipses, parabolas, or hyperbolas.
In the year 466B.C., a large comet appeared simultaneously with the famous fall of meteoric stones near Ægospotamos. The former was supposed by the ancients to have had some agency in producing the latter phenomenon. Another of extraordinary magnitude appeared in the year 373B.C.This comet was so bright as to throw shadows, and its tail extended one-third of the distance from the horizon to the zenith. The years 156, 136, 130, and 48, before our era, were also signalized by the appearance of very large comets. The apparent magnitude of the first of these is said to have equaled that of the sun itself; while its light was sufficient to diminish sensibly the darkness of the night. The second is said to have filled a fourth part of the celestial hemisphere. The comet of 130 B.C., sometimes called the comet of Mithridates, because of its appearance about the time of his birth, is said to have rivaled the sun in splendor.
InA.D.178 a large comet was visible during aperiod of nearly three months. Its nucleus had a remarkably red or fiery appearance, and the greatest length of its tail exceeded 60°. The most brilliant comets of the sixth century were probably those of 531 and 582. The train of the latter, as seen in the west soon after sunset, presented the appearance of a distant conflagration.
Great comets appeared in the years 975, 1264, and 1556. Of these, the comet of 1264 had the greatest apparent magnitude. It was first seen early in July, and attained its greatest brilliancy in the latter part of August, when its tail was 100° in length. It disappeared on the 3d of October, about the time of the death of Pope Urban IV., of which event the comet, in consequence of this coincidence, was considered the precursor. These comets, on account of the similarity of their elements, were believed by many astronomers to be the same, and to have a period of about 300 years. In the case of identity, however, another reappearance should have occurred soon after the middle of the nineteenth century. As no such return was observed, we may conclude that the comets were not the same, and that their periods are wholly unknown.
The comet discovered on the 10th of November, 1618, was one of the largest in modern times; its tail having attained the extraordinary length of 104°. The comet of 1652, so carefully observed by Hevelius, almost equaled the moon in apparent magnitude. It shone, however, with a lurid, dismal light. The tail of the comet of 1680 was 90° in length. This body is also remarkable for its near approach to the sun; its least distance from thesolar surface having been only 147,000 miles. It will always be especially memorable, however, for having furnished Newton the data by means of which he first showed that comets in their orbital motions are governed by the same principle that regulates the planetary revolutions.
Of all the comets which appeared during the eighteenth century, that which passed its perihelion on the 7th of October, 1769, had the greatest apparent magnitude. It was discovered by Messier on the 8th of August, and continued to be observed till the 1st of December. On the 11th of September the length of its tail was 97°. The comet discovered on the 26th of March, 1811, is in some respects the most remarkable on record. It was observed during a period of 16 months and 22 days,—the longest period of visibility known. On account of its situation with respect to the earth, the apparent length of its tail was much less than that of some other comets; its true length, however, was at one time 120,000,000 miles; and Sir William Herschel found that on the 12th of October the greatest circular section of the tail was 15,000,000 miles in diameter. The same astronomer found the diameter of the head of the comet to be 127,000 miles, and that of the envelope at least 643,000. As a general thing, the length of a comet-train increases very rapidly as the body approaches the sun. But the perihelion distance of the comet of 1811 was considerably greater than the distance of the earth from the sun; while its nearest approach to the earth was 110,000,000 miles. Its true magnitude, therefore, has probably not been surpassed by any other observed; and had its perihelion been very near the sun, it must have exhibited an appearance of terrific grandeur. This comet has an elliptic orbit, and its period, according to Argelander, is 3065 years.
The great comet of 1861 was discovered on the 13th of May, by Mr. John Tebbut, Jr., of New South Wales. In this country, as well as in Europe, it was first generally observed on the evening of June 30,—19 days after its perihelion passage. Sir John Herschel, who observed it in Kent, England, remarks that it far exceeded in brilliancy any comets he had ever seen, not excepting those of 1811 and 1858. According to Father Secchi, of the Collegio Romano, the length of its tail was 118°. This, with a single exception,[8]is the greatest on record. The computed orbit is elliptical; the period, 419 years.
The cosmical masses from which comets are derived seem to traverse in great numbers the interstellar spaces. In consequence of the sun's progressive motion, these nebulous bodies are sometimes drawn toward the centre of our system. If, in this approach, they are not disturbed by any of the large planets, they again recede in parabolas or hyperbolas. When, however, as must sometimes be the case, they pass near Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune, their orbits may be transformed into elongated ellipses. The periodicity of many comets may thus be accounted for.
In the present chapter it is proposed to consider the probable consequences of the sun's motion through regions of space in which cometary matter is widely diffused; to compare our theoretical deductions with observed phenomena; and thus refer to their physical cause a variety of facts which have hitherto received no satisfactory explanation.[9]
1. As comets, at least in many instances, owe their periodicity to the disturbing action of the major planets, and as this planetary influence issometimes sufficient, especially in the case of Jupiter and Saturn, to change thedirectionof cometary motion, the great majority of periodic comets should move in the same direction with the planets. Now, of the comets known to be elliptical, 70 per cent.have direct motion. In this respect, therefore, theory and observation are in striking harmony.
2. When the relative positions of a comet and the disturbing planet are such as to give the transformed orbit of the former a small perihelion distance, the comet must return to the point at which it received its greatest perturbation; in other words, to the orbit of the planet. The aphelia of the comets of short period ought therefore to be found, for the most part,in the vicinity of the orbits of the major planets. This, as already shown in Chapters II. and III., is strikingly the case. The actual distances of these aphelia, however, as compared with the respective distances of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are presented at one view in the following tables:
I.Comets whose Aphelion Distances are nearly Equal to 5.20,the Radius of Jupiter's Orbit.
Comets.Aph. Dist.1. Encke's4.092. 1819 IV4.813. De Vico's5.024. Pigott's (1783)5.285. 1867 II5.296. 1743 I5.327. 1766 II5.478. 1819 III5.559. Brorsen's5.6410. D'Arrest's5.7511. Faye's5.9312. Bicla's6.19
II.Comets whose Aphelion Distances are nearly Equal to 9.54,the Radius of Saturn's Orbit.
Comets.Aph. Dist.1. Peters' (1846 VI.)9.452. Tuttle's (1858 I.)10.42
III.Comets whose Aphelion Distances are nearly Equal to 19.18,the Radius of Uranus's Orbit.
Comets.Aph. Dist.1. 1867 I19.282. November meteors19.653. 1866 I19.92
IV.Comets whose Aphelion Distances are nearly Equal to 30.04,the Radius of Neptune's Orbit.
Comets.Aph. Dist.1. Westphal's (1852 IV.)31.972. Pons' (1812)33.413. Olbers' (1815)34.054. De Vico's (1846 IV.)34.355. Brorsen's (1847 V.)35.076. Halley's[10]35.37
The coincidences here pointed out (some of which have been noticed by others) appear, then, to be necessary consequences of the motion of the solar system through spaces occupied by meteoric nebulæ. Hence the observed facts receive an obvious explanation.
In regard to comets of long period we have only to remark that, for anything we know to the contrary, there may be causes of perturbation far exterior to the orbit of Neptune.
3. From what we observe in regard to thelargerbodies of the universe—a clustering tendency beingeverywhere apparent,—it seems highly improbable that cometic matter should be uniformly distributed in the sidereal spaces. We would expect, on the contrary, to find it collected in groups or clusters. This view is also in remarkable harmony with the facts of observation. In 150 years, from 1600 to 1750, 16 comets were visible to the naked eye; of which 8 appeared in the 25 years from 1664 to 1689. Again, during 60 years, from 1750 to 1810, only 5 comets were visible to the naked eye, while in the next 50 years there were double that number. The probable cause of such variations is sufficiently obvious. As the sun in its progressive motion approaches a cometary group, the latter is drawn toward the centre of our system; the nearer members with greater velocity than the more remote. Those of the same cluster would enter the solar domain at periods not very distant from each other; the forms of their orbits depending upon their original relative positions with reference to the sun's course, and also on planetary perturbations. It is evident also that the passage of the solar system through a region of space comparatively destitute of cometic clusters would be indicated by a corresponding paucity of comets.
4. The line of apsides of a large proportion of comets will be approximately coincident with the solar orbit. The point towards which the sun is moving is in longitude about 260°. The quadrants bisected by this point and that directly opposite extend from 215° to 305°, and from 35° to 125°. The number of cometary perihelia found in these quadrants up to July, 1868 (periodic comets beingcounted but once) was 159, or 62 per cent.; in the other two quadrants, 98, or 38 per cent.
This tendency of the perihelia to crowd together in two opposite regions has been noticed by different writers.
5. Comets whose positions before entering our system were very remote from the solar orbit must haveovertakenthe sun in its progressive motion; hence their perihelia must fall, for the most part, in the vicinity of the point towards which the sun is moving; and they must in general have very small perihelion distances. Now, what are the observed facts in regard to the longitudes of the perihelia of the comets which have approached within the least distance of the sun's surface? But three have had a perihelion distance less than 0.01.Allthese, it will be seen by the following table, have their perihelia in close proximity to the point referred to:
I.Comets whose Perihelion Distances are Less than 0.01.
Perihelion Passage.Per. Dist.Long. of Per.1. 1668, Feb.28d.13h.0.0047277°2´2. 1680, Dec.17230.0062262493. 1843, Feb.2790.005527839
In Table II. all but the last have their perihelia in the same quadrant.
II.Comets whose Perihelion Distances are Greater than 0.01 and Less than 0.05.
Perihelion Passage.Per. Dist.Long. of Per.1. 1689, Nov29d.4h.0.0189269°41´2. 1816, March180.0485267353. 1826, Nov1890.0268315314. 1847, March3060.042527625. 1865, Jan1470.026014115
The perihelion of the first comet in Table III. isremote from the direction of the sun's motion; that of the second is distant but 14°, and of the third 21°.
III.Comets whose Perihelion Distances are Greater than 0.05 and Less than 0.1.
Perihelion Passage.Per. Dist.Long. of Per.1. 1593, July18d.13h.0.0891176°19´2. 1780, Sept.30220.0963246353. 1821, March21120.091823929
With greater perihelion distances the tendency of the perihelia to crowd together round the point indicated is less distinctly marked.
6. Few comets of small perihelion distance should have their perihelia in the vicinity of longitude 80°, the point opposite that towards which the sun is moving. Accordingly we find, by examining a table of cometary elements, that with a perihelion distance less than 0.1 there is not a single perihelion between 35° and 125°; between 0.1 and 0.2 but 3; and between 0.2 and 0.3 only 1.
Thefactthat in several instances meteoric streams move in orbits identical with those of certain comets was first established by the researches of Signor Schiaparelli. Thetheory, however, of an intimate relationship between comets and meteors was advocated by the writer as long since as 1861,[11]—several years previous to the publication of Schiaparelli's memoirs. In the essay here referred to it was maintained—
1. That meteors and meteoric rings "are thedébrisof ancient but now disintegrated comets whose matter has become distributed around their orbits."
2. That the separation of Biela's comet as it approached the sun in December, 1845, was but one in a series of similar processes which would probably continue until the individual fragments would become invisible.
3. That certain luminous meteors have entered the solar system from the interstellar spaces.[12]
4. That the orbits of some meteors and periodic comets have been transformed into ellipses by planetary perturbation; and
5. That numerous facts—some observed in ancient and some in modern times—have been decidedly indicative of cometary disintegration.
What was thus proposed as theory has been since confirmed as undoubted facts. When the hypothesis was originally advanced, the data required for its mathematical demonstration were entirely wanting. The evidence, however, by which it was sustained was sufficient to give it a high degree of probability.
The existence of a divellent force by which comets near their perihelia have been separated into parts is clearly shown by the following facts. Whether this force, as suggested by Schiaparelli, is simply the unequal attraction of the sun on different parts of the nebulous mass, or whether, in accordance with the views of other astronomers, it is to be regarded as a cosmical force of repulsion, is a question left for future discussion.
Historical Facts.
1. Seneca informs us that Ephoras, a Greek writer of the fourth century before Christ had recorded the singular fact of a comet's separation into two distinct parts.[13]This statement was deemed incredible by the Roman philosopher, inasmuch as the occurrence was then without a parallel. More recent observations of similar phenomena leave no room to question the historian's veracity.
2. The head of the great comet ofA.D.389, according to the writers of that period, was "composed of several small stars." (Hind's "Comets," p. 103.)
3. On June 27,A.D.416, two comets appeared in the constellation Hercules, and pursued nearly the same apparent path. Probably at a former epoch the pair had constituted a single comet.[14]
4. On August 4, 813, "a comet was seen which resembled two moons joined together." They subsequently separated, the fragments assuming different forms.[15]
5. The Chinese annals record the appearance of three comets—one large and two smaller ones—at the same time, in the year 896 of our era. "They traveled together for three days. The little ones disappeared first, and then the large one."[16]The bodies were probably fragments of a large comet which, on approaching the sun, had been separated into parts a short time previous to the date of their discovery.
6.The third comet of 1618.—The great comet of 1618 exhibited decided symptoms of disintegration. When first observed (on November 30), its appearance was that of a lucid and nearly spherical mass. On the eighth day the process of division was distinctly noticed, and on the 20th of December it resembled a cluster of small stars.[17]
7.The comet of 1661.—The elements of the comets of 1532 and 1661 have a remarkable resemblance,and previous to the year 1790 astronomers regarded the bodies as identical. The similarity of the elements is seen at a glance in the following table:
Comet of 1532.Comet of 1661.Longitude of perihelion111°48´115°16´Longitude of ascending node87238154Inclination3236331Perihelion distance0.51920.4427MotionDirect.Direct.
The elements of the former are by Olbers; those of the latter by Mechain. The return of the comet about 1790, though generally expected, was looked for in vain. As a possible explanation of this fact, it is interesting to recur to an almost forgotten statement of Hevelius. This astronomer observed in the comet of 1661 an apparent breaking up of the body into separate fragments.[18]The case may be analogous to that of Biela's comet.
8. The identity of the comets of 1866 and 1366, first suggested by Professor H. A. Newton, is now unquestioned. The existence then of a meteoric swarm, moving in the same track, is not the only evidence of the original comet's partial dissolution. The comet of 1866 was invisible to the naked eye; that of 1366, seen under nearly similar circumstances, was a conspicuous object. The statement of the Chinese historian that "it appeared nearly as large as a tow measure,"[19]though somewhat indefinite, certainly justifies the conclusion that its magnitude has greatly diminished during the last 500 years. The meteors moving in the same orbit are doubtless the products of this gradual separation.
9. The repartition of Biela's comet in 1845, as well as the non-appearance of the two fragments in 1865 and 1872,[20]were referred to in a previous chapter.
The comet of Halley, if we may credit the descriptions given by ancient writers, has been decreasing in brilliancy from age to age. The same is true in regard to several others believed to be periodic. The comet ofA.D.1097 had a tail 50° long. At its return, in March, 1840, the length of its tail was only 5°. The third comet of 1790 and the first of 1825 are supposed, from the similarity of their elements, to be identical. Each perihelion passage occurred in May, yet the tail at the former appearance was 4° in length, at the latter but 2½°. Other instances might be specified of this apparent gradual dissolution. It would seem, indeed, extremely improbable that the particles driven off from comets in their approach to the sun, forming tails extending millions of miles from the principal mass, should again be collected around the same nuclei.
The fact, then, that meteors move in the same orbits with comets is but a consequence of that disruptive process so clearly indicated by the phenomena described. In this view of the subject, comets—even such as move in elliptic orbits—are not to be regarded as permanent members of the solar system. Theirdébrisbecomes gradually scattered around the orbit. Some parts of the nebulous ring will be more disturbed than others by planetary perturbation. Portions of such streams as nearly intersect the earth's path sometimes penetrate the atmosphere. Their rapid motion renders them luminous. If very minute, they are burnt up or dissipated without leaving any solid deposit; we then have the phenomena ofshooting-stars. When, however, as is sometimes the case, they contain a considerable quantity of solid matter, they reach the earth's surface asmeteoric stones.
Although numerous instances of the fall of aerolites had been recorded, some of them apparently well authenticated, the occurrence long appeared too marvelous and improbable to gain credence with scientific men. Such a shower of rocky fragments occurred, however, on the 26th of April, 1803, at L'Aigle, in France, as forever to dissipate all doubt on the subject. Similar displays since that time have been frequently witnessed;—indeed scarcely a year passes without the fall of meteoric stones in some part of the earth, either singly or in clusters. It would not comport with the design of the present treatise to give an extended list of these phenomena. The following account, however, includes the most important instances in which the fall of meteoric stones has been actually observed:
(1.) 1478B.C.—According to the celebrated Parian chronicle, an aerolite, orthunder-stone, as it was called, fell in the island of Crete, about 1478 years before the Christian era. This is undoubtedly the most ancient stone-fall on record. Meteoric masses have beenfound, however, the fall of whichprobablyoccurred at an epoch still more ancient.
(2.) 1200B.C.—A number of stones, which wereanciently preserved in Orchomenos, a town of Bœotia, were said to have fallen from heaven about twelve centuries before our era.
(3.) 1168B.C.—A mass of iron, as we learn from the Parian chronicle, was seen to descend upon Mount Ida, in Crete.
(4.) 654B.C.—According to Livy, a number of meteoric stones fell on the Alban Hill, near Rome, about the year 654B.C.
(5.) 616B.C.,January14.—It is related in the Chinese annals that on the 14th of January, 616B.C., a meteoric stone-fall broke several chariots and killed ten men.
(6.) 466B.C.—A mass of rock, described as "of the size of two millstones," fell at Ægospotamos, in Thrace. An attempt to rediscover this meteoric mass, so celebrated in antiquity, was recently made, but without success. Notwithstanding this failure, Humboldt expressed the hope that, as such a body would be difficult to destroy, it may yet be found, "since the region in which it fell is now become so easy of access to European travelers."
(7.) 465B.C.—The famous stone called the "Mother of the Gods," and which is described or alluded to by many ancient writers, was said to have fallen from the skies. The poet Pindar was seated on a hill at the time of its descent, and the meteorite struck the earth near his feet. The stone, as it fell, wasencircled by fire. "It is said to have been of moderate dimensions, of a black hue, of an irregular, angular shape, and of a metallic aspect. An oracle had predicted that the Romans would continue to increase in prosperity if they were putin possession of this precious deposit; and Publius Scipio Nasico was accordingly deputed to Attalus, King of Pergamus, to obtain and receive the sacred idol, whose worship was instituted at Rome 204 years before the Christian era."—Edinburgh Encyclopedia.
(8.)A.D.921.—An immense aerolite fell into the river (a branch of the Tiber) at Narni, in Italy. It projected three or four feet above the surface of the water.
(9.) 1492,November7.—An aerolite, weighing 276 pounds, fell at Ensisheim, in Alsace, penetrating the earth to the depth of three feet. This stone, or the greater part of it, may still be seen at Ensisheim.
(10.) 1511,September14.—At noon an almost total darkening of the heavens occurred at Crema. "During this midnight gloom," says a writer of that period, "unheard-of thunders, mingled with awful lightnings, resounded through the heavens.... On the plain of Crema, where never before was seen a stone the size of an egg, there fell pieces of rock of enormous dimensions and of immense weight. It is said that ten of these were found, weighing 100 pounds each." A monk was struck dead at Crema by one of these rocky fragments. This terrific display is said to have lasted two hours, and 1200 aerolites were subsequently found.
(11.) 1637,November29.—A stone, weighing 54 pounds, fell on Mount Vaison, in Provence.
(12.) 1650,March30.—A Franciscan monk was killed at Milan by the fall of a meteoric stone.
(13.) 1674.—Two Swedish sailors were killed on shipboard by the fall of an aerolite.
(14.) 1751,May26.—Two meteoric masses, consisting almost wholly of iron, fell near Agram, the capital of Croatia. The larger fragment, which weighs 72 pounds, is now in Vienna.
(15.) 1790,July24.—Between 9 and 10 o'clock at night a very large meteor was seen near Bordeaux, France. Over Barbotan a loud explosion was heard, which was followed by a shower of meteoric stones of various magnitudes.
(16.) 1794,July.—A fall of about a dozen aerolites occurred at Sienna, Tuscany.
(17.) 1795,December13.—A large meteoric stone fell near Wold Cottage, in Yorkshire, England. "Several persons heard the report of an explosion in the air, followed by a hissing sound; and afterward felt a shock, as if a heavy body had fallen to the ground at a little distance from them. One of these, a plowman, saw a huge stone falling toward the earth, eight or nine yards from the place where he stood. It threw up the mould on every side; and after penetrating through the soil, lodged some inches deep in solid chalk-rock. Upon being raised, the stone was found to weigh 56 pounds. It fell in the afternoon of a mild, but hazy day, during which there was no thunder or lightning; and the noise of the explosion was heard through a considerable district."—Milner's Gallery of Nature, p. 134.
(18.) 1796,February19.—A stone of 10 pounds' weight fell in Portugal.
(19.) 1803,April26.—This remarkable shower was referred to on a previous page. At 1 o'clockP.M., the heavens being almost cloudless, a tremendous noise, like that of thunder, was heard, and at the same time an immense fire-ball was seen moving with great rapidity through the atmosphere. This was followed by a violent explosion, which lasted several minutes, and which was heard not only at L'Aigle, but in every direction around it to the distance of 70 miles. Immediately after, a great number of meteoric stones fell to the earth, generally penetrating to some distance beneath the surface. Nearly 3000 of these fragments were found and collected, the largest weighing about 17 pounds. The occurrence very naturally excited great attention. M. Biot, under the authority of the government, repaired to the place, collected the various facts in regard to the phenomenon, took the testimony of witnesses, etc., and finally embraced the results of his investigations in an elaborate memoir.
(20.) 1807,December14.—A large meteor exploded over Weston, Connecticut. The height, direction, velocity and magnitude of this body were discussed by Dr. Bowditch in a memoir communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1815. The appearance of the meteor occurred about 6h. 15m.A.M.,—just after daybreak. Its apparent diameter was half that of the full moon; its time of flight, about 30 seconds. Within less than a minute from the time of its disappearance three distinct reports, like those of artillery, were heard over an area several miles in diameter. Each explosion was followed by the fall of meteoric stones. Unlike most aerolites, these bodies when first found were so soft as to be easily pulverizedbetween the fingers. On exposure to the air, however, they gradually hardened. The weight of the largest fragment was 35 pounds.
(21.) 1859,November15.—Between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning an extraordinary meteor was seen in several of the New England States, New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. The apparent diameter of the head was nearly equal to that of the sun, and it had a train, notwithstanding the bright sunshine, several degrees in length. Its disappearance on the coast of the Atlantic was followed by a series of the most terrific explosions. It is believed to have descended into the water, probably into Delaware Bay. A highly interesting account of this meteor, by Professor Loomis, may be found in theAmerican Journal of Science and Artsfor January, 1860.
(22.) 1860,May1.—About 20 minutes before 1 o'clock,P.M., a shower of meteoric stones fell in the southwest corner of Guernsey county, Ohio. Full accounts of the phenomena are given inSilliman's Journalfor July, 1860, and January and July, 1861, by Professors E. B. Andrews, E. W. Evans, J. L. Smith, and D. W. Johnson. From these interesting papers we learn that the course of the meteor was about 40° west of north. Its visible track was over Washington and Noble counties, and the prolongation of its projection, on the earth's surface, passes directly through New Concord, in the southeast corner of Muskingum county. The meteor when first seen was about 40 miles from the earth's surface. The sky, at the time, was for the most part covered with clouds over northwestern Ohio, sothat if any portion of the meteoric mass continued on its course it was invisible. The velocity of the meteor, in relation to the earth's surface, was from three to four miles per second; and hence its absolute velocity in the solar system must have been somewhat greater than that of the earth.
"At New Concord,[21]Muskingum county, where the meteoric stones fell, and in the immediate neighborhood, there were many distinct and loud reports heard. At New Concord there was first heard in the sky, a little southeast of the zenith, a loud detonation, which was compared to that of a cannon fired at the distance of half a mile. After an interval of ten seconds, another similar report. After two or three seconds another, and so on with diminishing intervals. Twenty-three distinct detonations were heard, after which the sounds became blended together and were compared to the rattling fire of an awkward squad of soldiers, and by others to the roar of a railway train. These sounds, with their reverberations, are thought to have continued for two minutes. The last sounds seemed to come from a point in the southeast 45° below the zenith. The result of this cannonading was the falling of a large number of stony meteorites upon an area of about 10 miles long by 3 wide. The sky was cloudy, but some of the stones were seen first as 'black specks', then as 'black birds', and finally falling to the ground. A few were picked up within 20 or 30 minutes. The warmest was no warmerthan if it had lain on the ground exposed to the sun's rays. They penetrated the earth from two to three feet. The largest stone, which weighed 103 pounds, struck the earth at the foot of a large oak-tree, and, after cutting off two roots, one five inches in diameter, and grazing a third root, it descended two feet ten inches into hard clay. This stone was found resting under a root that was not cut off. This would seemingly imply that it entered the earth obliquely."
Over thirty of the stones which fell were discovered, while doubtless many, especially of the smaller, being deeply buried beneath the soil, entirely escaped observation. The weight of the largest ten was 418 pounds.
(23.) 1860,July14.—About 2 o'clockP.M.on the 14th of July, 1860, a shower of aerolites fell at Dhurmsala, in India. The fall was attended by a tremendous detonation, which greatly terrified the inhabitants of the district. The natives, supposing the stones to have been thrown by some of their deities from the summit of the Himalayas, carried off many fragments to be kept as objects of religious veneration. Lord Canning and Mr. J. R. Saunders succeeded, however, in obtaining numerous specimens, which they forwarded to the British Museum and several European cabinets. They are earthy aerolites, of a specific gravity somewhat greater than that of granite.
(24.) 1864,May14.—Early in the evening a very large and brilliant meteor was seen in France, from Paris to the Spanish border. At Montauban and in the vicinity loud explosions were heard,which were followed by showers of meteoric stones near the villages of Orgueil and Nohic. The principal facts in regard to the meteor are the following: