would have revealed the disturbing planet.
On the other hand, the astronomer could not determine the direction of an intra-Mercurial planet within a considerably larger space on the heavens, while the search over the space within which such a planet was to be looked for was attended by far more serious difficulties than the search for Neptune. In fact, it seems as though, even when astronomers have learned where to look for such a planet, they cannot expect to see it under ordinary atmospheric conditions when the sun is not eclipsed.
Let us consider the history of the search for an intra-Mercurial planet from the time when first the idea was suggested that such a planet exists until the time of its actual discovery—for so it seems we must regard the observations made during the total eclipse of July, 1878.
On January 2, 1860, M. Leverrier announced, in a paper addressed to the Academy of Sciences, that the observations of Mercury could not be reconciled with the received elements of the planet. According to those elements, the point of Mercury's orbit which lies nearest to the sun undergoes a certain motion which would carry it entirely round in about 230,000 years. But to account for the observed motions of Mercury as determined from twenty-one transits over the sun between the years 1697 and 1848, a slight increase in this motion of the perihelion was required, an increase, in fact, from 581 seconds of arc in a century to nearly 585. The result would involve, he showed, an increase in our estimate of the mass of Venus by a full tenth. But such a change would necessarily lead to difficulties in other directions; for the mass of Venus had been determined from observations of changes in the position of the earth's path, and these changes had been too carefully determined to be readily regarded as erroneous. 'This result naturally filled me with inquietude,' said Leverrier later. 'Had I not allowed some error in the theory to escape me? New researches, in which every circumstance was taken into account by different methods, ended only in the conclusion that the theory was correct, but that it did not agree with the observations.' At last, after long and careful investigation of the matter, he found that a certain slight change would bring observation and theory into agreement. All that was necessary was to assume that matter as yet undiscovered exists in the sun's neighbourhood. 'Does it consist,' he asked, 'of one or more planets, or other more minute asteroids, or only of cosmical dust? The theory tells us nothing on this point.'
Leverrier pointed out that a planet half the size of Mercury between Mercury and the sun would account for the discrepancy between observation and theory. But a planet of that size would be a very conspicuous object at certain times, even when the sun was not eclipsed; and when favourably placed during eclipses would be a resplendent orb which would attract the notice of even the most careless observer. For we must remember that the brightness of a planet depends in part on its size and its distance from the earth, and in part on its distance from the sun. A planet half as large as Mercury would have a diameter about four-fifths of Mercury's, and at equal distance would present a disc about two-thirds of Mercury's in apparent size. But supposing the planet to be half as far from the sun as Mercury (and theory required that the planet should be rather nearer the sun), its surface would be illuminated four times as brightly as that of Mercury. Hence, with a disc two-thirds as large as Mercury's, but illuminated four times as brightly, the planet would shine nearly three times as brilliantly when seen under equally favourable conditions during eclipse. In such an inquiry, the mean distance of the two bodies need not be specially considered. Each planet would be seen most favourably when in the part of its path remotest from the earth, so that the planet nearest to the sun would on the whole have the advantage of any difference due to that cause. For, of course, while Mercury, being farther from the sun, approaches the earth nearer when between the earth and sun, he recedes farther from the sun for the same reason when on the part of his path beyond the sun.
It was perfectly clear that no such planet as Leverrier considered necessary to reconcile theory and observation exists between the sun and Mercury's orbit. It appeared necessary, therefore, to assume that either there must be several smaller planets, or else that a cloud of cosmical dust surrounds the sun. Now it is to be noticed that in either case the entire mass of matter between Mercury and the sun must be greater to produce the observed disturbance than the mass of a single planet travelling at the outside of the region supposed to be occupied either by a group of planets or a cloud of meteorites.
Leverrier considered the existence of a ring of small planets afforded the most probable explanation. He recommended astronomers to search for such bodies. It is noteworthy that it was in reference to this suggestion that M. Faye (following a suggestion of Sir J. Herschel's) proposed that at several observatories, suitably selected, the sun should be photographed several times every day with a powerful telescope. 'I have myself,' he says, 'shown how to give these photographs the value of an astronomical observation by taking two impressions on the same plate after an interval of two minutes. It will be sufficient to superpose the transparent negatives of this size taken at a quarter of an hour's interval, to distinguish immediately the movable projection of a small planet in the middle of the most complex groups of small spots.'
It was while Leverrier and Faye were discussing this matter, that news came of the recognition of an intra-Mercurial planet by Lescarbault, a doctor residing at Orgères, in the department of Eure et Loire. The story has been so often told that I am loth to occupy space with it here. An account is given of the leading incidents in an article called 'The Planets put in Leverrier's Balance,' in my 'Science Byways,' and a somewhat more detailed narrative in my 'Myths and Marvels of Astronomy.' Here, it will suffice to give a very slight sketch of this interesting episode in the history of astronomy.
On January 2, 1860, news reached Leverrier that Lescarbault had on March 26, 1859, seen a round black spot on the sun's face, and had watched it travelling across like a planet in transit. It had remained in view for one hour and a quarter. Leverrier could not understand why three-quarters of a year had been allowed to elapse before so important an observation had been published. He went to Orgères with the idea of exposing a pretender. The interview was a strange one. Leverrier was stern and, to say the truth, exceedingly rude in his demeanour, Lescarbault singularly lamb-like. If our chief official astronomer called uninvited upon some country gentleman who had announced an astronomical discovery, and behaved as Leverrier did to Lescarbault, there would most certainly have been trouble; but Lescarbault seems to have been rather pleased than otherwise. 'So you are the man,' said Leverrier, looking fiercely at the doctor, 'who pretends to have seen an intra-Mercurial planet. You have committed a grave offence in hiding your observation, supposing you really have made it, for nine months. You are either dishonest or deceived. Tell me at once and without equivocation what you have seen.' Lescarbault described his observation. Leverrier asked for his chronometer, and, hearing that the doctor used only his watch, the companion of his professional journeys, asked how he could pretend to estimate seconds with an old watch. Lescarbault showed a silk pendulum 'beating seconds,'—though it would have been more correct to say 'swinging seconds.' Leverrier then examined the doctor's telescope, and presently asked for the record of the observations. Lescarbault produced it, written on a piece of laudanum-stained paper which at the moment was doing service as a marker in the Connaissance des Temps. Leverrier asked Lescarbault what distance he had deduced for the new planet. The doctor replied that he had been unable to deduce any, not being a mathematician: he had made many attempts, however.[5] Hearing this, Leverrier asked for the rough draft of these ineffective calculations. 'My rough draft?' said the doctor. 'Paper is rather scarce with us here. I am a joiner as well as an astronomer' (we can imagine the expression of Leverrier's face at this moment); 'I calculate in my workshop, and I write upon the boards; and when I wish to use them in new calculations, I remove the old ones by planing.' On adjourning to the carpenter's shop, however, they found the board with its lines and its numbers in chalk still unobliterated.
This last piece of evidence, though convincing Leverrier that Lescarbault was no mathematician, and therefore probably in his eyes no astronomer, yet satisfied him as to the good faith of the doctor of Orgères. With a grace and dignity full of kindness, which must have afforded a singular contrast to his previous manner, he congratulated Lescarbault on his important discovery. He made some inquiry also at Orgères, concerning the private character of Lescarbault, and learning from the village curé, the juge de paix, and other functionaries, that he was a skilful physician,