Rough Ways Made Smooth: A series of familiar essays on scientific subjects

by Richard A. Proctor

But another observation between Clavius's and Kepler's may here be noticed. Jensenius, who observed the eclipse of 1598 at Torgau in Germany, noticed that, at the time of mid-totality, a bright light shone round the moon. On this occasion, remarks Grant, the phenomenon was generally supposed to arise from a defect in the totality of the eclipse, though Kepler strenuously contended that such an explanation was at variance with the relation between the values of the apparent diameters of the sun and moon as computed for the time of the eclipse by aid of the solar and lunar tables. The corona, then, must have resembled that seen by Clavius, and since the year 1598 must have been very near the time of fewest spots, this observation accords with the theory we are examining.

The next observation is that made by Wyberd during the eclipse of 1652. Here there is a difficulty arising from the strange way in which the sun-spots behaved during the interval from 1645 to 1679. According to M. Wolf, whose investigation of the subject has been very close and searching, there was a maximum of sun-spots in 1639 followed by a minimum in 1645, the usual interval of about six years having elapsed; but there came a maximum in 1655, ten years later, followed by a minimum in 1666, eleven years later, so that actually twenty-one years would seem to have elapsed between successive minima (1645 and 1666). Then came a maximum in 1675, nine years later, and a minimum in 1679, four years later. Between the maxima of 1639 and 1675, including two spot periods, an interval of thirty-six years elapsed. There is no other instance on record, so far as I know, of so long an interval as this for two spot-periods. In passing, I would notice how little this circumstance accords with the theory that the sun-spots follow an exact law, or that from observations of the sun, means can ever be found for forming a trustworthy system of weather prediction, even if we assumed (which has always seemed to me a very daring assumption), that terrestrial weather is directly dependent on the progress of the sun-spot period. But here the irregularity of the spot changes affects us only as preventing us from determining or even from guessing what may have been the condition of the sun's surface in the year 1652. This year followed by seven years a period of minimum disturbance, and preceded by three years a period of maximum disturbance; but it would be unsafe to assume that the sun's condition in 1652 was nearer that of maximum than that of minimum disturbance. We must pass over Wyberd's observations of the corona in 1652, at least until some direct evidence as to the sun's condition shall have been obtained from the papers or writings of the observers of that year. I note only that Wyberd saw a corona of very limited extent, having indeed a height not half so great as that of many prominences which have been observed during recent eclipses. If the theory we are examining should be established beyond dispute, we should be led to infer that the year 1652 was in reality a year of minimum solar disturbance. Perhaps by throwing in such a minimum between 1645 and 1666, with of course a corresponding maximum, the wild irregularity of the sun-spot changes between 1645 and 1679 would be to some degree diminished.

We are now approaching times when more satisfactory observations were made upon the corona, and when also we have more complete records of the aspect of the sun's surface.

In 1706 Plantade and Capies saw a bright ring of white light extending round the eclipsed sun to a distance of about 85,000 miles, but merging into a fainter light, which extended no less than four degrees from the eclipsed sun, fading off insensibly until its light was lost in the obscure background of the sky. This corresponds unmistakably with such a corona as we should expect only to see at a time of many sun-spots, if the theory we are examining is sound. Turning to Wolf's list, we find that the year 1705 is marked as a year of maximum solar disturbance, and the year 1712 as that of the next minimum. Therefore 1706 was a year of many sun-spots—in fact, 1706 may have been the year of actual maximum disturbance, for it is within the limits of doubt indicated by Wolf. Certainly a corona extending so far as that which Plantade and Capies saw would imply an altogether exceptional degree of solar disturbance, if the theory we are considering is correct.

In 1715 Halley gave the following description of the corona:—'A few seconds before the sun was all hid, there discovered itself round the moon a luminous ring about a digit' (a twelfth) 'or perhaps a tenth part of the moon's diameter in breadth. It was of a pale whiteness or rather pearl colour, seeming to me a little tinged with the colours of the Iris, and to be concentric with the moon.' He added that the ring appeared much whiter and brighter near the body of the moon than at a distance from it, and that its exterior boundary was very ill-defined, seeming to be determined only by the extreme rarity of the luminous matter. The French astronomer Louville gave a similar account of the appearance of the ring. He added, however, that 'there were interruptions in its brightness, causing it to resemble the radial glory with which painters encircle the heads of the saints.' The smallness of the corona on this occasion corresponds with the description of the corona seen in July 1878; and though Louville's description of gaps is suggestive of a somewhat different aspect, yet, on the whole, the corona seen in 1715 more closely resembles one which would be seen at a time of minimum solar disturbance, if our theory can be trusted, than one which would be seen at a time of maximum disturbance. Wolf's list puts the year 1712 as one of minimum disturbance, with one year of doubt either way, and the middle of the year 1817 as the epoch of maximum disturbance, with a similar range of uncertainty. The case, then, is doubtful, but on the whole inclines to being unfavourable. I may remark that because of its unfavourable nature, I departed from the rule I had set myself, of taking only the cases included in my treatise on the sun. For the corona of 1715 is not described in that treatise, as indeed affording no evidence respecting this solar appendage. The evidence given in this case is probably affected in some degree by the unfavourable atmospheric conditions under which Halley certainly, and Louville probably, observed the eclipse. In any case the evidence is not strong; only I would call attention here to the circumstance that if, as we proceed, we should come to a case in which the evidence is plainly against the theory we are examining, we must give up the theory at once. For one case of discordance does more to destroy a theory respecting association between such and such phenomena, than a hundred cases of agreement would do in the way of confirming it.

In 1724, Maraldi noticed that the corona was broadest first on the side towards which the moon was advancing, and afterwards on the side which the moon was leaving. From this we may infer that the corona was only a narrow ring on that occasion, since otherwise the slight difference of breadth due to the moon's eccentric position at the beginning and end of totality would not have been noticeable. Now, the year 1723 was one of minimum disturbance, with one year of doubt either way. Thus 1724 was certainly a year of few sun-spots, and may have been the actual year of minimum disturbance. The corona then presented an appearance according with the theory we are considering.

Few eclipses have been better observed than that of the year 1733. The Royal Society of Sweden invited all who could spare the time to assist, as far as their ability permitted, in recording the phenomena presented during totality. The pastor of Stona Malm states that at Catherinesholm, there was a ring around the sun about 70,000 miles in height. (Of course these are not his exact words; what he actually stated was that the ring was about a digit in breadth.) This is the exact height assigned to the coronal ring by the observers of the eclipse of last year. The ring seemed to be of a reddish colour. Another clergyman, Vallerius, states also that the ring was of this colour, but adds that at a considerable distance from the sun it had a greenish hue. This suggests the idea that the outer corona was seen also by Vallerius, and that it had considerable breadth. The reddish colour of the inner light portion would correspond to the colour it would have if it consisted in the main of glowing hydrogen. If that really was its constitution, then the theory advanced by one observer of the last eclipse, that at the time of minimum solar disturbance the glowing hydrogen is withdrawn from the corona, would be shown to be incorrect. For 1733 was the actual year of minimum solar disturbance. The pastor of Smoland states that 'during the total obscuration the edge of the moon's disc resembled gilded brass, and the faint ring round it emitted rays in an upward as well as in a downward direction, similar to those seen beneath the sun when a shower of rain is impending.' The mathematical lecturer of the Academy of Charles-stadt, M. Edstrom, observed these rays with special attention: he says that 'they plainly maintained the same position, until they vanished along with the ring upon the re-appearance of the sun.' On the other hand, at Lincopia no rays were seen. On the whole it seems clear from the accounts of this eclipse that the inner corona was bright and narrow; rays issued from the outer faint ring; but they were very delicate phenomena, easily concealed by atmospheric haze, and thus were not everywhere observed. As rays were seen in July 1878, there is nothing in the evidence afforded by the eclipse of 1733, occurring at a time of few spots, which opposes itself definitely to the theory we are considering. But the reddish colour of the corona as already noticed is a doubtful feature: in July, 1878, the bright inner corona was of a pearl colour and lustre.

During the eclipse of February, 1766, the corona presented four luminous expansions, and seems to have presented a greater expansion than we should expect in a year of minimum solar disturbance. Such, however, the year 1766 certainly was. The evidence in this case is unfavourable to our theory—not quite decisively so, but strongly. For we should expect that in the year of actual minimum disturbance the corona would be even narrower than in the year 1878, which was the year following that of least disturbance. And again, a strongly distinctive feature in the corona of July, 1878, was the absence of wide expansions, such as were seen in 1870 and 1871. Now if this peculiarity should really be attributed to the relation existing between the corona and the sun-spots, we should infer that in 1766 the corona would have been still more markedly uniform in shape. The existence of four well marked expansions on that occasion forces us to assume that either the relation referred to has no real existence, or else that the corona may change from week to week as the condition of the sun's surface changes, and that in February, 1766, the sun was temporarily disturbed, though the year, as a whole, was one of minimum disturbance. But as the epoch of actual minimum was the middle of 1766, February 1766 should have been a time of very slight disturbance. I do not know of any observations of the sun recorded for the month of February, 1766. On the whole, the eclipse of 1766 must be regarded as throwing grave doubt on the relation assumed by our theory as existing between the corona and the sun-spots; and as tending to suggest that some wider law must be in question than the one we have been considering—if any association really exists.

The account given by Don Antonio d'Ulloa of the appearance presented by the corona during the total eclipse of 1778, is rendered doubtful by his reference to an apparent rotatory motion of the normal rays. He says that about five or six seconds after totality had begun, a brilliant luminous ring was seen around the dark body of the moon. The ring became brighter as the middle of totality approached. 'About the middle of the eclipse, the breadth of the ring was equal to about a sixth of the moon's diameter. There seemed to issue from it a great number of rays of unequal length, which could be discerned to a distance equal to the moon's diameter.' Then comes the part of d'Ulloa's description which seems difficult to accept. He says that the corona 'seemed to be endued with a rapid rotatory motion, which caused it to resemble a firework turning round its centre.' The colour of the light, he proceeds, 'was not uniform throughout the whole breadth of the ring. Towards the margin of the moon's disc it appeared of a reddish hue; then it changed to a pale yellow, and from the middle to the outer border the yellow gradually became fainter, until at length it seemed almost quite white.' Setting aside the rays and their rotation, d'Ulloa's account of the inner corona may be accepted as satisfactory. The height of this ring was, it seems, about 140,000 miles, or twice that of the ring seen in July 1878. As the year 1779 was one of maximum solar disturbance, there were doubtless many spots in 1778; and the aspect of the corona accorded well with the theory that the corona expands as the number of sun-spots increases.

We come now to three eclipses which are especially interesting as having been all carefully observed, some observers having seen all three,—the eclipses, namely, of 1842, 1851, and 1860. Unfortunately the eclipses of 1842 and 1851 occurred when the sun-spots were neither at their greatest nor at their least degree of frequency. For a maximum of sun-spots occurred in 1837, and a minimum in 1844, so that 1842 was on what may be called the descending slope of a sun-spot wave, nearer the hollow than the crest, but not very near either: again, a maximum occurred in 1848, and a minimum in 1856, so that 1851 was also on the descending slope of a sun-spot wave, rather nearer the crest than the hollow, but one may fairly say about midway between them. Still it is essential in an inquiry of this sort to consider intermediate cases. We must not only apply the comparentia ad intellectum instantiarum convenientium, but also the comparentia instantiarum secundum magis ac minus. If the existence of great solar disturbances causes the corona to be greatly enlarged, as compared with the corona seen when the sun shows no spots, we should expect to find the corona moderately enlarged only when the sun shows a considerable but not the maximum number of spots. And again, it is conceivable that we may find some noteworthy difference between the aspect of the corona when sun-spots are diminishing in number, and its aspect when they are increasing. This point seems the more to need investigation when we note that the evidence derived from eclipses occurring near the time either of maximum or of minimum solar disturbance has not been altogether satisfactory. It may be that we may find an explanation of the discrepancies we have recognised, in some distinction between the state of the corona when spots are increasing and when they are diminishing in number.