.
this view of the supposed new planet with Professor Watson's. If three careful estimates showed Swift the stranger and Theta situated as in fig. 2, it is absolutely certain that either Watson's observation was very far from the truth, or else the strange orb he saw was not the same that Swift saw. On the other hand, if Watson's observation was trustworthy, it is certain that either Swift's three estimates were inexact or he saw a different new body. Again, their accounts of the relative brightness of Theta and the stranger could not possibly be reconciled if we supposed they were observing the same new planet, for Watson says distinctly that the stranger was very much brighter than Theta; while Swift says, with equal distinctness, that the two stars were equally bright.
Fig. 2.—Swift's new Planet?
If we accept both observations, we must consider that the strange orb seen by Swift was not the nearer to the sun, but the other, for Watson, in his letter to Sir G. Airy, says that he saw both Theta and his own new planet, and he could not have overlooked Swift's new planet, if placed as in fig. 2, whereas if the star there marked as the stranger were really Theta, Watson might readily enough have overlooked the other star, as farther away from his newly-discovered planet. According to this view, the actual arrangement at the time of the eclipse was as shown in fig. 3.
Fig. 3.—Suggested explanation of Watson's and Swift's observations.
But this is not quite all. Professor Watson saw another body, which in his opinion was a planet. I have already mentioned that he thought Zeta remarkably bright. It seemed to him a star of nearly the third magnitude, whereas Zeta Cancri is only of the fifth. Nay, speaking of the planet near Theta, and of this star which he took for Zeta, he says, 'they were probably really brighter [than the 4½ and 3½ magnitude respectively], because the illumination of the sky was not considered in the estimates.' Before he had thoroughly examined the pencil marks on his card circles, and made the necessary calculations, he supposed the brighter star to be Zeta, because he did not see the latter star. But when he examined his result carefully, he found that the bright star was set (according to his pencil marks) more than one degree east of Zeta. Writing on August 22, he says, 'The more I consider the case the more improbable it seems to me that the second star which I observed, and thought it might be Zeta, was that known star. I was not certain, in this case, whether the wind had disturbed the telescope or not. As it had not done so in the case of any other of six pointings which I recorded, it seems almost certain that the second was a new star.' It would be easy to understand why Professor Watson had not seen Zeta, for he only swept as far as the star he mistook for Zeta, and, as the accompanying figure shows, Zeta was beyond that star on the west.[6]
Fig. 4 represents the apparent result of the observations made by Professors Watson and Swift, if all the observations are regarded as trustworthy. The six stars shown in the figure were probably the six referred to in the preceding paragraph. The two unnamed ones are well-known red stars.
Fig. 4.—Showing all the stars observed by Watson and Swift.
Let it be noticed, that we cannot reject planet 1, without rejecting all Watson's observations. We cannot reject planet 2, without rejecting all Swift's observations. We cannot set this planet to the left of Theta without throwing doubt on Watson's observations. If Watson swept over Theta westward without seeing 2, Swift must have made some mistake as yet unexplained. As for planet 3, if we admit the possibility that this object really was Zeta, we must admit also the possibility that the object marked as planet 1 was really Theta, or rather we should have to do so, were it not that Watson saw Theta also, and (I suppose) in the same field of view, since he speaks confidently of the inferiority of Theta in brightness.
It should further be noticed, that though Swift's and Watson's observations by no means agree in details, they do in reality support each other (unless Watson should definitely assert that no star as bright as Theta existed either to the west or to the east of that star, at the distance indicated by Swift.) For they agree in indicating the existence of small planets near the sun, such as can only be seen with the telescope.
On the other hand, it is to be noted that other observers failed to see any of these bodies, though they looked specially for intra-Mercurial planets. Thus Professor Hall, of the Washington Observatory, searched over a larger space than is included in fig. 4, without seeing any unknown body. But as he also failed to see many known bodies which should have been seen, it is probable that the search was too hurried to be trustworthy.
It would be satisfactory to be able to say that any of the supposed planets might have been Lescarbault's Vulcan. But in reality, I fear, this cannot have been the case. In the Times, I expressed, in an article dated August 14, 1878, the opinion that the evidence obtained establishes the existence of the planet which had so long been regarded as a myth. That opinion was based on a very careful investigation of the evidence available at the time. But it does not accord with what has since been learned respecting Watson's observations.
We may dismiss planet 3 at once. If Watson is right about this body being distinct from Zeta (a point about which, I must confess, I feel grave doubts), then this must be a planet travelling in an orbit much wider than we can possibly assign to Vulcan. For even at the distance of some seven degrees from the sun it showed no sign of gibbosity. If it had then been at its greatest elongation it would have appeared only half-full. But with the power Watson was using, which enabled him to pronounce that the smaller body near Theta showed no elongation, he would at once have noticed any such peculiarity of shape. He could not have failed to observe any gibbosity approaching to that of the moon when three-quarters full. Moreover on July 29 a planet which has its points of crossing the ecliptic opposite the earth's place on April 3 and October 6, could not appear where Watson saw this body (fully two degrees from the ecliptic) unless either its orbit were far wider than that which Leverrier assigned to Vulcan, or else its inclination far greater. Neither supposition can be reconciled with Lescarbault's observation.
With regard to planets 1 and 2, the case is equally strong against the theory that Vulcan was observed. The same reasoning applies to both these bodies. When I speak therefore of planet 1, it will be understood that planet 2 also is dealt with. First, as this planet appeared with a disc appreciably round, it is clear that it must have been near the point of its orbit farthest from the earth, that is, the point directly beyond the sun. It was then nearly at its brightest. Yet it appeared as a fourth-magnitude star only. We have seen that Lescarbault's Vulcan, even when only half-full, would appear as bright as Mercury at his brightest, if Lescarbault's account can be accepted in all its details. Situated as planet 1 was, Vulcan would have shown much more brightly than an average first-magnitude star. At a very moderate computation it would have been twice as bright as such a star. But planet 1 appeared fainter than a fourth-magnitude star. Assume, however, that in reality it was shining as brightly as an average third-magnitude star. Then it shone with much less than a twentieth of the lustre Vulcan should have had, if Lescarbault's estimate were correct. Its diameter then cannot be greater than a quarter of that which Leverrier assigned to Vulcan on the strength of Lescarbault's observation. In fact, the apparent diameter of planet 1, when in transit over the sun's face, could not be more than a sixteenth of Mercury's in transit, or about two-fifths of a second—roughly, about a 5000th part of the sun's apparent diameter. It is certain that Lescarbault could not have made so considerable a mistake as this. Nay, it is certain, that with the telescope he used he could not have seen a spot of this size at all on the sun's face.
It will be seen that Lescarbault's observation still remains unconfirmed, or rather, to speak more correctly, the doubts which have been raised respecting Lescarbault's Vulcan are now more than ever justified. If such a body as he supposed he saw really travels round the sun within the orbit of Mercury, it is certain that the observations made last July by those who were specially engaged in seeking for Vulcan must have been rewarded by a view of that planet. In July, Lescarbault's Vulcan could not have been invisible, no matter in what part