THE TRANSIT OF VENUS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:']
cannot but think that in your issue of May 30 you do less than justice to the astronomical accuracy of the Jesuit Father Hell. You say that Father Perry, who will be in command of the party appointed to observe the transit of Venus at Kerguelen, will be "prepared to remove the unfavourable impressions left by the work" of his co-religionist, to whose Lapland observations in 1769 " many astronomers attribute the large error in the resulting determination of the Sun's distance." It is true that up to a recent period some doubt existed as to the accuracy of Father Hell. But Mr. Stone, of Greenwich, in his excellent Rediscussion of the Observations of 1769,' points out that a false assumption had been made as to the meaning of Father Hell's notes, the observer having been prevented by death from giving his own explanation ; this false interpretation is at the very root of the discussion, where an error leads to nothing but confusion. (" Monthly Notices," R.A.S., xxviii., 256.) Mr. Stone proceeds (p. 265),—" I consider that, by simply interpreting strictly the language employed by the observers, I have been led to a solution which satisfies the whole of the ten observed durations."
Mr. Stone's work gained for him the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. This result has been generally accepted, -and has been adopted in the calculations made in preparation for the coming transit.
It is fortunate that Father Hell's original notes still exist, and by the aid of photography have been made accessible to all in- terested in the subject. Had they perished, he might, perhaps, have continued to bear the blame, which must now in justice be shifted to those who accused him of error.-1 am, Sir, &c., S. J. H.
Previous page
