CMO/OAA Cahier #07

Great Comet in 1680 and Flamsteed vs Newton.

 

This is a translation of the Japanese articles published in the Heavens (Journal of the OAA) in 1985

(I in August 1985 issue, II in the September 1985 issue and III in the November 1985 issue respectively).

 

I.

 

Before the advent of Halley’s Comet in 1985/1986, several books on Halley’s Comet were published also in Japan, though any author has never had any experience of really seeing it. Halley’s Comet must have been so attractive in the sense that its recurrence period is not so much longer or not so shorter than the usual life period of mankind, and above all the Comet has been related with the daybreak of the modern science, namely with the great person: Isaac Newton (1642-1727). The stories of the books so were decorated by the glorification of Newton and Edmund Halley (1656-1742). However from the view-point of the history of Astronomy it should be recalled that the Great Comet which appeared in 1680, two years before Halley’s Comet in 1682, was more important. At the same time one should not forget the role of John Flamsteed (1646-1719).

 

Any modest description of the story says as follows: In December 1680 a great comet appeared in the evening sky, and as pointed out by Flamsteed, this was regarded as the same comet as the one that appeared one month before. So Isaac Newton, considering that it obeyed his theory of universal gravitation, tried to obtain the possible orbit of the comet to the effect that the observation values were quite identical with the calculation values from his proposed parabolic orbit, and so Newton said that the two comets were nothing but one and identical and thus the orbit was correctly determined. Edmund Halley then followed Newton as to the comet in 1982 and predicted its return and if his prediction could be correct, the comets would belong to the kind of planets. It really returned 76 years later, and so Halley was correct and so Newton was also correct. So someone regarded the memorial comet in 1980 as being Newton’s Comet.

 

Do you think this description is simply right? The present writer however is not quite satisfied with this interpretation. This is because the Great Comet in 1680 should be called Flamsteed’s Comet.

 

 　Any reliable book describes that almost all astronomers at that time regarded the two comets in November and December in 1680 as different comets. Here we should recall that Newton himself was the topflight astronomer who believed that the two were very different. The present writer does not say that the comet was Flamsteed’s Comet because Flamsteed regarded the two was identical while Newton first regarded the two as different. If Newton calculated the orbits of the two differently but they naturally proved to be identical, it was OK and it could really be Newton’s Comet. But the real fact was no easy story.

 

Recall first that the images of the planets and comets were quite different at that time. As to the motions of the planets, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion was known as necessary and sufficient laws and a touchstone of any following theory, whereas as to the motions of comets, Kepler’s idea was widely believed that any comet must move on a straight line whose theory was issued by him based on his observations in 1607. On this point Newton, since his second law of motion inevitably depended on Kepler’s three laws, he was urged to believe in Kepler’s idea of straight motion of comets, and furthermore he must have been energetic in deriving the Kepler’s motion from his theory. At least he must have never believed that the comets could belong to the kind of planets. As will be elucidated later he did not believe so for quite a long time (really for several years).

 

On the other hand, Flamsteed looked to have been instinctively confident from the outset that the December 1680 Comet was the recurrence of the November 1680 Comet. The comet passed the perihelion on around 9 December, while Flamsteed wrote as early as on 15 December to James Crompton (1648-1694) his idea clearly. Furthermore he looked to have predicted the recurrence and wrote “I concluded that having past ye Sun it would appear after his setting in December.” In fact he detected a part of the tail above the evening horizon on 10 and 11 December, and on the following 12 December he found the head of the Comet. Flamsteed himself, however, did not watch the Comet in November, but it was observed by Cuthbert, a member of the Observatory. Flamsteed wrote also “by what I learnt from Others” (p315 in Ref 1), and so it must have been possible he also had other data. Contrarily speaking, Flamsteed was not only the first class observer, but also a first class person who could read the astronomical data. In a sense he could be quite revolutionary because he was not polluted by the mechanics. If it was a revolution of Kepler in that he replaced a complete circular orbit of the planets to an elliptic orbit, we can equally say that Flamsteed was revolutionary in the sense he replaced the straight line orbit of the comets into a U-turn orbit which have never been conceived by the forerunners. Unfortunately he first considered, as was severely scolded by Newton, that the Comet returned on this side of the Earth, but this was not so different from the fact that Kepler first made error and trial by conceiving a scythe type orbit or an egg like planetary orbit. The letters of Flamsteed c/o Crompton for Newton were written on 3 January, 12 February, and 7 March 1981, while on the letter on 7 March 1981 Flamsteed attached a Figure where a bird-eye view of the Comet orbit which was not so different from the Figure Newton gave later in the Principia.

 

We should recall here that Newton read all of the Flamsteed letters c/o Crompton, and began to reply from 28 February 1981 through J. Crompton. Newton watched the Comet from the beginning of January 1981, and after 25 February observed in detail by the use of a 6 foot telescope. In his reply he declared that the December Comet was different from the November one, and wrote “I am further suspicious that ye Comets of November & December wch Mr. Flamstead accounts one & ye same Comet were two different ones”(28 February 1981, p342 in Ref. 1), and the long letter is filled up with the objections to Flamsteed. Not necessarily Newton did put forward any new idea, but to one word of Flamsteed, he poured ten criticised words based on several jumble data. Newton was even suspicious about the Flamsteed gathering of the data by Cuthberd and others (Newton spells Cuthbeard)(p344 in Ref. 1). From 16 April 1981 on, Newton began to communicate directly with Flamsteed. The words looked slightly polite, but the attitude pattern remained the same in that he made a bit of excuse for his mistakes but he tried to be thorough in defeating the faults of Flamsteed. Including his uncalled-for advices, almost of all were meaningless nowadays, and so here we just cite Newton’s words to show how his view at that time on the comets was;

 

But what ever there be in these difficulties, this sways most with me that to make ye Comets of November & December but one is to make that one paradoxical. Did it go in a bent line other comets would do ye like & yet no such thing was ever observed in them but rather contrary. The comets of 1665, 1677 & others which moved towards ye Sun, or some of them at least, had they twisted about ye Sun & not proceeding on forward gone away behind him they would have been seen again coming from him. ….. (16 April 1681, Newton to Flamsteed, p364 in Ref. 1)

 

  Newton really observed the 1664/65 comet during December and January and he successively wrote “Let ye Comet of 1664 be considered where the observations were made by accurate men. This was seen long before its Perihelion & long after & all the while (by consent of the best Astronomers) in a line almost straight.” (p365 in Ref. 1). Here it should be remarked that Newton put forward the two kinds of words a bent line and a line almost straight.

 

Newton further suspected Flamsteed’s observation on 12 December (“I fear not altogether right”) and persuaded Flamsteed to re-examine the data recorded on 13 January before the publications as follows “The greatest difference being in Jan 13, it may perhaps be worth your while to examine your own observation of that day before you publish it.” (p365 in Ref. 1)

 

It should be recalled that this malicious situation did not change even if the following famous comet in 1682 came and went away.

 

Note however that both were not necessarily on bad terms each other at first, and Flamsteed himself, though he was very confident in his observations and his intuition, was like a man who wrote “I love peace & I know very well what trouble such a publication of things besides my province might create mee” on 7 March 1981 (Flamsteed to Crompton for Newton, p348 in Ref. 1). Such a dreadful discord occurred later in the 1690s, and around 1681 Newton was still in a position to ask several data from Flamsteed if necessary.

 

Newton wrote still four years later on 12 January 1685 as follows: “I do intend to determine ye 1ines described by ye Comets of 1664 & 1680 according to ye princip1es of motion observed by ye Planets.”(Newton to Flamsteed, p413 in Ref. 1). It is not easy to interpret the word “line”, but since it is connected with the Comet in 1664, it is natural to interpret it was literally the straight line. If so, it is still far from the idea that the comet is a kind of planets even if it should obey the motion law of the planets. This was a reply to a letter of Flamsteed to Newton on 5 January 1985, and since in it Flamsteed wrote “I believe you are endeavouring to define ye curve ye comet described in the æther from your Theory of motion & if my assistance in so usefull a designe might helpe I would lend it most willingly,” the “line” there looks sarcastic to the Flamsteed preceding word “curve” here.

 

Finally however Newton was forced to give his assent to Flamsteed’s firm opinion. It was in the letter on 19 September 1685 of Newton (Cambridge) to Flamsteed (at the Observatory in Greenwich neare London), so that it implied five years were spent. Even then Newton was somewhat embarrassed and wrote that “I have not yet computed ye orbit of a comet but am now going about it: & taking that of 1680 into fresh consideration, it seems very probable that those of November & December were ye same comet, but I am at a loss in ye observation.” (p419 in Ref. 1). As is reported, the remaining paper seems to show that Flamsteed underlined the sentence and especially doubled under the words “ye same comet” proving that he was full at that moment after a long battle.

 

With this, Flamsteed might have been well satisfied, but it is not fair if we diminish the problem to the problem whether the Comets of November and December were identical or not. The true problem was concerned with the U-turn orbit of any comet, and on this Newton did deeply depend on Flamsteed. We should not be deceived if Newton did not show any sign of it.

 

Here we need a bit of mention of Edmond Halley. It was after 1684 that Halley became a minion of Newton, and around 1980/1, Halley was still a follower of Flamsteed. Circa the perihelion of the 1680 Comet, Halley was on the way to Paris, and on the morning of 8 December before the Sunrise Halley observed near Boulogne that the Comet tail rose “as it were perpendicularly from ye Horizon” and informed Flamsteed of the fact (later transcribed it to Newton as described in Flamsteed to Crompton for Newton, 7 March 1681, p350 in Ref. 1). This news was precious to Flamsteed. J. C. Gallet’s result was also communicated from Halley to Flamsteed and Flamsteed also informed Newton about it. Flamsteed at that time looked to be estimating highly Halley, and in a manuscript of a letter written on 17 February 1681 intended to be sent to Halley, Flamsteed wrote about, in addition to his U-turn theory, his intention to send Halley’s precious information to Christopher Wren of the Royal Society. Another important point in this manuscript is that as we can read Flamsteed seemed to have predicted that the November Comet could reappear in December to Halley before the departure of Halley (I conceave the Comet which appeared in November to be the sama wee lately observed, you may be remember that I tould you before you went hence when I had onely heard of it that wee should see it againe when it had passed ye Sun.(p337 in Ref. 1)). It is not known how Halley was of the opinion as to the orbit of any comet as far as the present writer knows. Halley just met the great Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1626-1712) in Paris and communicated Cassini’s opinion to Flamsteed that the November and December Comets “were two different” (p348 in Ref. 1), and Flamsteed also wrote that “Mr Halley thinkes the Comet to be a body that has lost its principle of gravitation” to Newton (p352 in Ref. 1) so that it may be appropriate to think that Halley also considered that any comet moves on a straight line.

At any rate Halley must have learned much from Flamsteed, but almost kept silent during the controversy between Flamsteed and Newton, and hence we should say he profited himself by his silence as to the motion of the Comet in 1862.

 

There remains a question why, though the facts were as abovementioned, such an illusionary story of the tag team of Newton and Halley was constructed. Next we shall see this problem in relation to Newton’s complicated versions of the Principia.

 

Ref 1.  The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, volume II 1676-1687 (Ed. by H. W. Turnbull, Cambridge at the University Press, 1960.)

 

II

 

Isaac Newton’s Philosphopiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica (abbreviated as Principia here) is a big and important book which contains the distinguished law i.e. the second law of motion and first published in 1687. It should be remembered that it was in 1686, the next year of Newton’s assent to Flamsteed that Newton completed the book. In fact, he was able to employ the name of the mathematical principles of natural science because it is not only aimed to describe the physics on the Earth but also expanded to contain the physics of the planetary space. Note also that in order for him to be able to do so, Book III was indispensable and its main part consists of the description of the motion of Flamsteed’s Comet in 1680 which was thus very important to Newton: We should note that Newton must have been thus in debt to Flamsteed or more exactly to the preceding controversy with Flamsteed for five years though Newton gained a matchless position and fame by the publication of the Principia. It was very unfortunate that a terrible conflict between Flamsteed and Newton concerning the observations of the orbit of the moon, and in 1711 Flamsteed was expelled from the Royal Society. Newton’s mortal enemy Robert Hooke was already away (died in 1703) and the Royal Society had fell into the hands of Newton. In 1712 Newton and Halley defiantly published Historia Coelestis without Flamsteed’s approval. In 1713, Principia was revised in a different way (Second Edition). In 1719 Flamsteed died in adverse circumstances. In 1726, when Newton was 84 of age and Halley was 70, they published the Third Edition of the Principia, and altered further the descriptions related with the Flamsteed memorable work. 

 

It is natural that the last edition was regarded as a refined and fixed edition and really the translations of Principia which are available to us are all those translated from the Third Edition. One of the well-known English edition is the one by Florian Cajori (Ref. 2) (California Univ Press, the first edition in 1934) which based on Andrew Motte’s translation in 1729. (They say there is another translation by R. Thorp in 1776). The first American edition was based on A. Motte’s translation and first published in 1846 (By Daniel Adee, NY): Ref. 3.

Japanese translations are twofold, one published in 1971 and the other 1977. These are also translations of the Third Edition.

 

As a matter of fact, with respect to Flamsteed’s Comet, the First Edition of the Principia must have been most important, as easily suspected. But unfortunately as far as the present writer knows, we cannot read the First Edition in translation. Fortunately however, we have a very precious and important work in which all of the foregoing variants of the Latin sentences have been investigated and cited in the foot notes; namely the work by A. Koyré and I. B. Cohen in 1972 (Ref. 4) by which we can narrowly know the form of the First Edition. According to Koyré and Cohen, there seem to exist a lots of versions including the manuscript called  M1, M, E1, E1i, E1ii, E1a, E2, E2i, E2ii, E2a, and E3 where M implies the manuscript, Ek is the kth Edition, Eki is the corrections by tags or lebels, and Eka implies an addition of comments. Especially concerning the 1680 Comet, their variants are extraordinarily complex.

 

Of course, a naïve reading will easily reveal the Third Edition contains a large number of alterations which were made since it also contained the comet in 1723. The following famous statements were also added after E2: “The observations of this comet from the beginning to the end agree as perfectly with the motion of the comet in the orbit just now described as the motions of the planets do with the theories from whence they are calculated; and by this agreement plainly evince that it was one and the same comet that appeared all that time, and also that the orbit of that comet is here rightly defined.” (Ref. 3, p.480.) The newly cited Table just above the sentences contains the data from 3 November to 9 March and the first one was made by Gottfried Kirch about which Newton did not know in 1686. As far as the present writer believes, there is no allusion to the 1682 Comet in the First Edition. Such alterations for a long run, if necessary, must have been made deliberately or on purpose, and we should not be ignorant about how and what they brought about in the meantime.

 

First of all, we pick out the first sentence from Exemplum; “Let the comet of the year 1680 be proposed. The following table shews the motion thereof, as observed by Flamsted, [and calculated afterwards by him from his observations, and corrected by Dr. Halley from the same observations]” (Ref. 3, p.473) where the parenthesis […] is inserted by the present writer because the part was not found in M~ E2, but occurred in E3, and this is the part inserted after the death of Flamsteed. It is apparent that with or without […] the very nuances of the sentences are different. What did Halley added?  Secondly it is interesting to note that Motte wrote Dr. Halley though the original Latin in E3 does not imply. Motte called Flamsted without Mr (though Cajori on the other hand replaced it by Mr. Flamsteed). This is not trivial. This clearly proves that as was brought out the Newton mythology by Halley and J. Keill, the Halley mythology was also being brought about by Motte and others already at the cost of the underestimation of Flamsteed. In the Cajori Edition, the names are written in Italic, the pair Mr. Flamsteed and Dr. Halley looks conspicuous (see e.g. Ref. 2, p. 537, p. 602), but we should say another pair Mr. Huygens and Dr. Halley which are also found in the Cajori Edition (e.g. Ref. 2, p. 558) is ridiculous because we, in the 20th/21st Century, well know now who Christiaan Huygens really is.

 

What did Dr. Halley correct?  Halley learnt the recurrence of comets from Flamsteed and others (J. Cassini was also a curious teacher to Halley: In 1681, Cassini told to him that the 1680 Comet was an incarnation or something like that of the 1577 Comet observed by Tycho as well as the 1665 April Comet). Halley was successful in the 76 year recurrence of the 1682 Comet based on the data, but it is well known that he also overplayed his hand by stating that the 1680 comet was the coming-back of the comets in BC44, 531, 1106 with the period of 575 years.

 

However, Halley lacked and abused the accuracy about the data which are necessary for the prediction of the 575 year period. In this respect we should point out that to do so he made bad use of Flamsteed’s data to the effect that by the “correction by Halley” in the Third Edition the readers of it cannot know the original correct data made by Flamsteed. Fortunately nowadays because of the Koyré and Cohen Edition, we can recover the original data in comparison with Halley’s arbitrary alterations: Apparently Dr. Halley altered the Flamsteed original observational data in order for them to agree with the calculations which are needful for the 575 year period. Occasionally he moved the original Flamsteed data by about 2 minutes of arc notwithstanding that Flamsteed’s accuracy at that time was said within 10 arc seconds.

 

Halley’s action, especially the framing Flamsteed up, was along with the intention of Isaac Newton, whereas because of the meddling of Halley, Newton was forced to be heavily confused. The above–cited famous statement inserted after E2, was included in the inserted paragraphs of 46 lines which was originally just about 5 lines, and they include the notorious description of the 575 year period comet. Furthermore Newton was forced to be afraid to stray between the elliptic orbit and parabolic one, and hence E3 is not easy to read even for the candid readers: Newton feared and tried to diminish the word “parabolic”. He used Flamsteed’s observations on 21 December, 5 January and 25 January 1680/1 to derive the date of the passing the perihelion of the 1680 Comet but strangely preserved the value although he vanished Flamsteed’s original observational data.

 

It is well known that Newton in the First edition admitted Gottfried W. Leibniz’s discovery of the differential method as an independent work, but he erased it in the Final Edition and pretended as if he had not shared the credit and instead it was discovered by himself. The situation was also the same as for Flamsteed. In E1 Newton favourably introduced that Flamsteed elaborately described the positions of the Comet in comparison with the neighbouring two stars and repeated observations, whereas in E1i Newton erased partly and in E1a he completely erased. Secondly, in M1, M, and E1 Newton clearly described that Flamsteed had sent a letter to him reporting that the Comet appeared in November was identical with the Comet which was observed in the following months, and in M1 Newton tried to describe the positions of the Comet on the orbit he assumed and in M and E1, the actual orbit was similar to the orbit he determined and so tried to squeeze the positions of the Comet in November on his orbit and so on, but in E1a Newton completely erased all and eventually inserted the curious description of 575 year period including the new pieces of information by Kirch and others. At least by these alterations, the essential ideas and role Flamsteed played are obscure to the readers of E3. It also gives an impression that in the observations and its arrangements Flamsteed was very inferior to Halley.

 

From the present point of view, the appearance of the Principia looks unnecessarily bulky and misshaped including the notion of fluxion: Especially as far as the Book III Exemplum is concerned, we don’t understand why one needed such a complicated and intricate structure. We don’t understand how further news of observations and re-calculation did add something more than the case of the first intuition of Flamsteed. Since in M1 (though erased after M) already the November Comet was stated as following the parabolic orbit for the succeeding three months and we wonder how any further new information was given in the following editions. Considering the ability of the calculations and observations, the input and output were sufficiently balanced just in M1.

 

Study about Newton began just 40 years ago, and before the time Newton was just like a Saint. Halley was safe for a long time on Newton’s shoulder, while we should say its mythology should also change.

 

To be concluded in the next by stating a bit about John Flamsteed.

 

Ref. 2.  The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton; translated by Florian Cajori, (California Univ Press, the first edition in 1934)

 

Ref. 3.  Newton’s Principia. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton; translated into English by Andrew Motte. First American Edition, carefully revised and corrected (New York, published by Daniel Adee, 45 Liberty Street). See

 http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/is/newton/

 

Ref. 4. Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, The third Edition (1726) with Variant Readings, Assembled and edited by Alexandar Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the Assistance of Anne Whitman (Harvard University Press 1972)

 

III

 

John Flamsteed is familiar with us, the amateur astronomers, from the outset through the Atlas Celeste de Flamsteed. However it may not be so to those scientists and journalists who are not particularly acquainted with the star skies, even they could write about Halley’s comet. N. Calder did not touch on Flamsteed when he wrote about the era of the 1680s concerning the Principia and pointed out the clumsiness of the latter book. The present writer was also disappointed with the description of Collin Wilson who clearly brought a false illusion of Galileo into light, but was very lenient towards Newton and Halley in the 1680s. A lot of books were written about Halley’s Comet, but we should say almost all books, except for a few, must have been inappropriate in treating the 1680 Comet. As far as we know it is because they depend on the easy quotations and are dazzled by Principia’s Third Edition.

 

Some persons criticise that Flamsteed might have been accurate and cautious in observations but a very obstinate person, perhaps deducing something from the fact that Flamsteed was unwilling to give some possibly inaccurate data to Newton who needed obstinately the data for his theory of the motion of the Moon. However to establish the Grand Theory of Motion, it was needless to especially adhere to the strange motion of the Moon. At that time it was premature to try to establish the theory of delicate libration of the Moon, and it was naturally impossible for Flamsteed to well cope with it because it was beyond the application limit. If Flamsteed responds or not, we should say the Theory of Newton could not become better or worse.

 

The conflicts between Flamsteed and Newton were aroused about the discussion on the 1680 Comet in the 1680s, then about the problem of the observational data of the Moon in the 1690s, and in the new century there occurred a battle concerning the Historia Coelestis Britannica. But the last two were utterly unnecessary and as the present writer suspects they were deliberately aroused by Newton. It was apparently a sequela of the preceding long conflict between them related with the 1680 Great Comet.

 

Flamsteed was never stubborn when he communicated with Newton via Crompton. He said readily “I should assent to him” when he was pointed out that the Comet could not U turn before the Sun by Newton, and he was modest in saying “Mr Newton will oblige mee here if hee will please to assist me with his thoughts, for I must confess I feare I shall find it difficult to resolve.” (7 March 1681, Ref. 1 in I, p352). Of course he stuck to his opinion upto the last about the U turn theory of the 1680 Comet, but he was utterly right, and at this moment it was apparent who was most obstinate. It was unfortunate that Flamsteed, through the correspondences with Newton, was gradually depressed. Because of Newton’s paranoiac actions Flamsteed’s adaptable power of thought which was originally flexible must have become to show a kind of rejection symptom. Consequently it was quite natural that epoché of Flamsteed worked against all of Newtonian matters including Halley. It was also an unfortunate loss for Flamsteed. If Flamsteed was free from such a kind of obsession, he must have issued several good flexible ideas concerning astronomy general one after another not only with the comets. The statue of Flamsteed at the old Greenwich Observatory is filled with the atmosphere of anguish, but it is not only because of his illness but with the result of the battle with the “fearful, cautious and suspicious” Newton.*1  Newton was not only intentionally ignored Robert Hooke and burned down all of his portraits, but also tried to get rid of Flamsteed. Because of Newton, the theory of motion was established but at the same time the British Science world remained stagnant for more than two centuries, and hence we should say it was far from the power of the unfortunate Flamsteed.

 

Unfortunately the present writer has not had any opportunity to read Francis Bai1y’s account of John Flamsteed, the first royal astronomer (published in 1835) which is said to have shocked the science world, and hence the present writer is unfit to write more, but even if we come back to the problem of the 1680 Great Comet, we can be allowed to say his maiden ideas about the comets give free play to our imagination about Flamsteed’s “missed opportunities” in his future. We shall close so this article by picking out a few pieces of his words.

 

We first note that in the letter to Halley which was dated 17 February 1681 (as once cited in I when we wrote how Flamsteed predicted the return of the November Comet)*2, Flamsteed expresses that he conceives that the Sun attracts all the planets as well as all like bodys that come within our Solar system vortex more or lesse according to the different substance of theire bodyes and nearenesse or remotenesse from him. As to the body of the Comet, he suggests it might have been a planet belonging formerely to another Vortex now ruined. The reason may be that Worlds may die as well as men. *3 He also gives a picture that the planet might have broken when the Vortex ruined and the remainder might have carry the “humid parts” and further that the humid part of ye body ye comet being outmost might cause it to have a large atmosphere: & from both when it was neare ye Sun the violent action of his raies upon it might carry forth plentifull Streames of matter to a vast distance which caused ye tayle to appeare double the lenghth when neare the Sun it did to the length on its perigee where it lay most convenient to be seene & should on yt account have appeared longest. (p339 in Ref. 1 in I). This kind of opinion was not common at that time, and for example, John Wallis (1616-1703), a famous English mathematician, was one of the rebutters (on 13 August 1681, Wallis to Flamsteed*4). Wallis considered that the comets were not permanent bodies making excursions in certain periods into our System or Solar World. He thought rather that they were made by ye collection of Exhalation or Effluvia from the Æther or Ætherial Bodies. As well, the tail was thought as a tinging of the sunbeams passing through the Head.

 

An interesting fact was that Newton was partially assented*5 to Flamsteed concerning these ideas of Flamsteed (in the letter on 28 February 1681, Newton to Crompton for Flamsteed, p340 in Ref.1): For example Newton wrote “Besides these things wch seem obnoxious to some objections, there are some other parts of his Theory wch I easily approve & think will be hard to object against, as yt ye tayle of ye Comet is a thin vapour, that it rises from ye atmosphere about the head, that ye action of ye Sun’s light conduces to raise it, that it shines not by its own light but only by reflexion of ye Sun’s light, & that ye atmosphere about ye head shines also by the suns light, though perhaps not altogether by it.” It is so unfair to say such opinions belongs to Newton’s Principia, but it should be remembered they originally stemmed from Flamsteed.

 

Finally we should like to close by citing a sentence of Flamsteed, which is the kind that may not be written by such a digital person like Newton:*6

The tayle of ye Comet was nearly but not exactly

in a streight line being a littele curved backward,

towards ye west.

 

(Note)

*1. This was a set of the words given by William Whiston (1667-1752) who succeeded Newton as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics: It conveys the superlative as “the most fearful, cautious and suspicious" among the persons he met in his life.

 

*2. This, also cited in I, was at the hand of Flamsteed, and so it is not the same that Halley received. If Halley might have had, it might have been vanished. However the similar letter looks to have been sent to Newton (not found): In fact in the letter on 28 February 1681 of Newton to Crompton for Flamsteed, as cited in I, Newton wrote several rebuttals (as well as some approvals, see *5 below) as if read the same letter.

 

*3. Furthermore a similar letter must have been sent to J. Wallis: In the letter of Wallis to Flamsteed on 13 August 1681 (see *4 below), Wallis cited the set of Flamsteed words ”Worlds dying as well as men”.

 

*4.  See p339 in Ref. 1 in I

 

*5.  Said somewhere, the original letter written by Flamsteed as to which Newton partially assented was ruined, and hence nobody knows the difference of the summary by Newton from the original sentences of Flamsteed.

 

*6.  This is from an extract by Newton of the letter of Flamsteed to Crompton on 12 February 1681. The description was the one made when the 1680 Great Comet reappeared in the west again. The original letter (several times above-cited) is left which was written on 7 March 1681 by Flamsteed to Crompton for Newton in which Flamsteed also wrote:

On ye 10th after sunset or indeed ye end of daylight I first saw ye tayle ascending up from ye horizon not exactly perpendicular but enclined a little to the right hand, it passed in the Middle betwixt ye tayle of the Serpent of Ophiuchus & ye South wing of Aquila (δ in Bayerus) & reared up to 3 small stars marked Awb in his said Mapps.

 

Masatsugu MINAMI

(uploaded in June 2009)

Back to the Index of the Cahiers

Back to the CMO Home Page / Back to the CMO Façade