HERSCHEL’S SPURIOUS MOONS OF URANUS: THEIR ...old.narit.or.th/en/files/2020JAHHvol23/2020JAHH...23...schel, and two by his sister, Miss Caroline It is possible that others remain

Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage 23(1) 119‒162 (2020)

Page 119

HERSCHELrsquoS SPURIOUS MOONS OF URANUS THEIR IMPACT ON SATELLITE ORBITAL THEORY CELESTIAL

CARTOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE

Clifford J Cunningham 5201 North Spring View Drive Tucson AZ 85749 USA

Email CliffCunninghamusqeduau Abstract Positing unobserved satellites and attempting to establish a mathematical framework to explain the orbits of planetary satellites was inspired by the law of planetary distances made popular by Johann Bode Director of Berlin Observatory although applying orbital proportionality to posit the existence of more satellites predates Bodersquos Law by nearly a century Whatever its merits Bodersquos Law has played an important role in the history of astronomy but the application of a power-law approach to planetary satellite orbits has received scant attention Several German-language papers of the late eighteenth century never before printed in English are used here to study this issue This paper examines that topic in the context of Uranus and goes further in offering the first comprehensive study of the four spurious satellites claimed by William Herschel and how they were representedmdashor misrepresentedmdashin both literature (covering seven languages) and maps of the Solar System for a century after their lsquodiscoveryrsquo

Keywords Uranus satellites of Uranus William Herschel poetry Bodersquos Law 1 DISCOVERY AND NAMING OF THE URANIAN SATELLITES

11 The Discoveries of William Herschel and William Lassell

As Gossin (2007 92) has observed

Although Herschel died in 1822 his dis-coveries and theories continued to exert a strong influence throughout the nineteenth century essentially forming the basis for Victorian cosmology

This cosmology was not confined to his work on nebulae or the Sunrsquos motion through spacemdashit was founded first upon his Solar System studies Nowhere is his lsquostrong influencersquo felt more than in his 1781 discovery of Uranus (Schaffer 1981 Wurm 1791) and subsequent observations of that planet and its satellites

After William Herschel (Figure 1) discover-ed Titania and Oberon on 11 January 1787 (Her-schel 1787 125‒129) he asserted the exist-ence of four other Uranian moons between 1790 and 1794 Herschel (1798 66) left no doubt about the reality of the four new satellites

hellip in such delicate observations as these of the additional satellites there may possibly arise some doubts with those who are very scrupulous but as I have been much in the habit of seeing very small and dim objects I have not been detained from publishing these observations sooner on account of the least uncertainty about the existence of these satellites but merely because I was in hopes of being able soon to give a better account of them with regard to their peri-odical revolutions

Johann Bode (1747ndash1826 1798) Director of Berlin Observatory was quick to relate these discoveries to a German audience with a letter

in Franz von Zachrsquos journal Allgemeine Geo-graphische Ephemeriden (General Geographi-cal Ephemerides) dated 15 May 1798 Much of the subsequent work on the satellites was performed in Germany A table from Grant (1852 283) summarises the observations and elements of the six satellites as determined by Herschel (see Table 1)

The four spurious satellites were thought to have sidereal periods of 589 days (interior to Titania) 1096 days (between Titania and Ober-on) 3808 and 10769 days (exterior to Oberon)

On 22 February 1789 Herschel also made a sketch of the rings of Uranus His lsquodetectionrsquo Figure 1 A 1785 portrait of William Herschel by Lemuel Francis Abbott (httpsenwikipediaorgwikiWilliam_ Herschel)

Clifford Cunningham Herschelrsquos Spurious Moons of Uranus

S Page 120

Table 1 A table summarising the observations and elements of the six satellites as determined by Herschel (after Grant 1852 283)

of the rings was published in 1797 but like the additional four moons not confirmed by anyone else As the discoverer of Uranus in 1781 Her-schelrsquos authority was such that no one could gainsay his discoveries of more moons and rings around the planet thus ensuring decades of confusion and misinformation about the Uran-ian system For example the lsquorings of Uranusrsquo were well enough known to feature in a poem more than seventy years later (see Section 5)

The English astronomer William Lassell (1799ndash1880) began searching for more Uranian moons in 1845 (Dawes 1847 135ndash138) He discovered two more lsquorealrsquo satellites of Uranus (Ariel and Umbriel) In 1851 he realised that their orbital periods did not match those of any of Herschelrsquos four supposed ones Lassellrsquos observations thus failed to support Herschelrsquos observations Ariel and Umbriel which Herschel certainly ought to have seen if he had seen any satellites beside Titania and Oberon did not correspond to any of Herschelrsquos four additional satellites in orbital characteristics It was there-fore concluded that Herschelrsquos four satellites were spurious probably arising from the mis-identification of small stars in the vicinity of Uranus as satellites This is how Lassell (1853 36) couched it in the florid prose of the day

I think it is high time that Uranusrsquos estab-lishment should be reduced He has been luxuriating these many years with a retinue that I really believe does not belong to him and therefore he must be cut down to four attendants until some astronomer arises rich enough to present him with some more I am fully persuaded that either he has no other satellites than these four [viz the two first seen by Herschel and two others added by himself] or if he has they remain yet to be discovered

Herschelrsquos biographer Edward Singleton Holden (1881) from the US Naval Observatory conjectured that Herschel may have seen Ariel on 27 March 1794 and Umbriel on 17 April 1801 but subsequent study has not concurred with this explanation (which may have been motivat-ed in part to absolve Herschel of blame) A detailed examination of the history of Uranian satellite observations is beyond the scope of this paper it has been thoroughly given by Grant (1852 282ndash286) Loomis (1852) and in a more summarised way by Kragh (2008)

That the presence of Uranian moons was considered important may be understood in the words of William Guthrie (1815 4) who wrote that

hellip the discovery of six satellites attending it confers upon it a dignity and raises it to a conspicuous situation among the great bodies of our solar system

Every astronomer accepted the existence of the six satellites including Bode (1816 343)

The celebrated French celestial mechani-cian Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 ndash1827 1801) touched upon the orbital problem posed by the six Uranian satellites in a longer paper devoted to the satellites of Saturn Central to his con-cern was the fact that while the (real and sup-posed) Uranian moons have a small inclination with respect to the planet itself Uranus has an axial tilt of 9777deg In trying to explain the anomalously high inclinations to the plane of the ecliptic of the outermost moon of Saturn and the six Uranian moons Laplace was misled to a startling conclusion about gravity itself

Laplacersquos analysis demonstrates how that anomaly can follow from the weakening of the force of gravity given the distances and ratios of the masses (Gillespie 2018 193)

Laplace wrote this about the Uranian satellites

The same analysis applied to the satellites of Uranus shows that its action can only keep the first five in terms of its equation It is probably not sufficient for this purpose with respect to the sixth satellite but if the mass of satellite number five surpasses one twenty-thousandth part of that of the planet then its action combined with that of Uranus is sufficient to maintain the orbit of the sixth in terms of other orbits in accordance with the observations of Herschel (Laplace 1801)1

This was summarized for the English read-ership in the very popular annual almanac Timersquos Telescope (1814 324)

Laplace imagines that the first five satellites of the Georgian planet may be retained in their orbits by the action of the equator and the sixth by the action of the interior sat-ellites and hence he concludes that this planet revolved about an axis very little inclined to the ecliptic [ie nearly parallel with the plane of the Solar System] and that

Satellite Number

Date of Discovery Distance from Uranus (Prime)

Periodic Time Date Month Year d h m

1 18 January 1790 255 05 21 25 2 11 January 1787 3309 08 17 01 3 26 March 1794 3857 10 23 04 4 11 January 1787 4423 13 11 05 5 09 February 1790 8846 38 01 49 6 28 February 1794 17792 107 16 40


S Page 121

the time of its diurnal rotation cannot be much less than that of Jupiter and Saturn

The real diurnal rotation rates are Jupiter (041 days) Saturn (045 days) and Uranus (072 days) 12 Satellite Ordering and Nomenclature

The work of Laplace (1808 242) was translated for an English readership by James Wallace (1812 391)

Laplace says that if we take for unity the semi-diameter of Uranus to be 6primeprime or 1primeprime944 seen at the mean distance of the planet from the sun the distances of his satellites will be 13120 17022 19845 22752 45507 91008 and the durations of their sidereal revolutions 58926 days 87068d 109611 d 134559 d 380750 d and 1076944 days respectively These durations as Laplace remarks with the exception of the 2d and 4th have been concluded from the greatest observed elongations and from Keplerrsquos rule as regards the primary planets a rule which observation has confirmed with regard to the 2d and 4th satellites of Herschel so that it should be considered as a general law of the motion of a system of bodies round a common focus

To make it clear what the 2d and 4th satell-ites are Wallace explains

Here as in Jupiterrsquos satellites these two are called 1st and 2nd satellites and are so in the order of discovery but from the four other satellites which Herschel has discovered hellip this order is changed and the 1st is now the 2d and the 2d the 4th

After his discovery of the four lsquonewrsquo moons Herschel (1798 66) wrote that Titania would henceforth be known as the second satellite and Oberon would be known as the fourth satellite But as noted by Grant (1852 282) he did not

hellip invariably adhere to this nomenclature for in all discussions relating exclusively to the two old satellites he applied to them their original appellations hellip

as the first and second satellites

The English writer Charles Bucke (1781ndash1846) of Pulteney Terrace London was not content with a merely numerical designation for the six satellites and he further rejected Georg-ian opting for the name Herschel as proposed by the French to denote the planet Bucke (1830 450) further named ldquohellip those [satellites] of Herschel Urania Calliope Clio Melpomene Psyche and Eratordquo

The proper attribution as to who actually discovered the satellites was broached by AM Mattison (1866 247) of New York in a revised version of Elijah Burrittrsquos famous 1833 work Geography of the Heavens

Uranus is attended by six moons Four of

them were discovered by Sir William Her-schel and two by his sister Miss Caroline Herschel It is possible that others remain yet to be discovered

This is a case of alternative facts nineteenth-century style Caroline Herschel (1750ndash1848) had nothing whatever to do with the discovery of the moons A pseudo-scientific work by George Stearns (a resident of Rockbottom Massachusetts) discussed the Uranian satellites more extensively than any other work in the nineteenth century Before launching into his own idea of nomenclature Stearns (1888 180) tries to give Caroline Herschel her proper due He begins with purple prose worthy of a Victorian novelist as he decries the ldquohellip demeanor of living astronomers helliprdquo

They have tacitly torn a wreath from the brow of the one notable feminine astronomer of modern times In the recent lists of Uranusrsquos satellites Sir William Herschel is credited with the discovery of each and all whose existence is thought to be verifiable Yet Sir William himself testified that two were discovered by his sister the very two which none but her brother has re-discov-ered

Having chivalrously rescued Carolinersquos honour Stearns (1888 181) goes on to name her two satellite discoveries

Now as foremost herald of the mathematical evidence that Miss Herschelrsquos discovery was genuine I respectfully submit to the civilized world the propriety of naming its stellary ob-jects for their discoverer The proper con-ventional name of Uranusrsquos first-born satellite is ldquoCarolinerdquo

The other satellite which glitters in the conceptive wreath of which Miss Herschel has been rudely despoiled if real is posited at half the distance from Uranus which is certified of his first-born Being twice as far from Uranus as is Oberon between which and Uranus three junior satellites are collocated one on each side of ldquoLucretiardquo as I am inclined to name the hitherto unnamed satellite of Miss Herschelrsquos discovery for a casual side-hint of her neglected memory

In a footnote the author informs the reader that ldquoMiss Herschel was double-named Caro-line Lucretiardquo Unfortunately for both Mattison and Stearns the discovery of Uranian moons by Caroline was just as spurious as the moons themselves How such a belief ever began can best be ascribed to the over-feverish imagin-ation of Victorians prone to melodrama

In the twenty-first century nearly all the moons of Uranus are named after characters in the plays and poems of William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope (Barton 1946 Case 2020) There is a link between the names given to Lassellrsquos discoveries and the spurious moons of


S Page 122

Uranus A certain Mr W Forgan (1899) wrote to Jane the daughter of Lassell asking why her father named one of the moons Umbriel Her response on 25 October 1899 showed it was due in part to the legacy of William Herschel

In reply to your query as to the occasion of one of the satellites of Uranus being called ldquoUmbrielrdquo I may say that the name was given by Sir John Herschel to whom my father applied in order that there might be some distinctiveness to separate these sat-ellites from those that Sir W Herschel had been supposed to discover inasmuch as their periods did not agree with any of those four mapped out by Sir William

Sir John fixed upon the names ldquoUmbri-elrdquo and ldquoArielrdquo because they were difficult to see and the one was much darker than the other I have no doubt the name was taken from Popersquos writings but I do not recollect that this was positively so

John Herschel (1792ndash1871) did in fact write about the moons being difficult to see and be-ing cautious did not fully subscribe to the suite of six claimed by his father

With the exception of the two interior sat-ellites of Saturn the attendants of Uranus are the most difficult objects to obtain a sight of of any in our system Two undoubtedly exist and four more have been suspected (Herschel 1842 282)

The origin of the planetary satellites has al-so been the subject of debate The French naval engineer Pierre-Francois Lancelin (1770ndash1809 1805 146) applied speculative lsquophysico-math-ematicalrsquo calculations to the satellites of Uranus and F Bresson (1843 140) in a report on a theory by Mr Boutigny related that the planets originated by explosions from the Sun Boutigny

hellip supposes satellites formed in the same way thus the moon would be the product of an explosion of the earth as the satellites of Uranus Saturn and Jupiter would come from these celestial bodies

The origin of the satellites is a continuing topic of study It has been shown that regular satellites of Saturn Uranus and Neptune can be formed from a circumplanetary particle disk with-in the Roche limit inside which planetary tides prevent aggregation As the tidal disk spreads beyond the Roche radius satellites form and migrate away (Crida and Charnoz 2012)

Alternative models for the origin of the reg-ular satellite systems and particularly that of Uranus have been proposed by Pletser (1986) and Prentice (1977 1986) Their papers are im-portant from the historical point of view as they were submitted for publication prior to the visit of the Voyager 2 spacecraft in January 1986 Both authors predicted the existence of moons interior to the orbit of Miranda Pletserrsquos idea is

that the satellites form at maxima points in the radial density distribution of a gas nebula that may have once surrounded Uranus Prenticersquos idea (1989) is that the regular satellites of Uran-us as well as those of Neptune condensed from concentric families of orbiting gas rings that were shed by the gaseous clouds that contract-ed to form the outer envelopes of each parent planet This lsquogas ring modelrsquo of satellite forma-tion is an extension of his quantified reform- lation of the original nebula hypothesis of La-place (1796) for the formation of the planetary system (Prentice 1978) In the case of Uranus Prentice (1977) predicted that the Voyager 2 spacecraft would discover two new satellites or satellite belts located at about 2frac12 and 3frac12 RU (RU = Uranus equatorial radius) He refined these values to 26 RU and 34 RU just before the Uran-us encounter (Prentice 1986) Pletser (1986) predicted two new moons to exist at 23 and 41 RU The largest of the 10 new moons of Uranus discovered by Voyager 2 namely Puck orbits at a distance 34 RU from the planet centre The next-largest moon Portia orbits at distance 26 RU It is correct therefore that Puck be salut- ed as Herschelrsquos long-awaited 6th moon of Uran-us 2 THE APPLICATION OF ORBITAL PROPORTIONALITY TO PLANETARY SATELLITES

21 Origin of the Proportionality Concept

In 1736 the English poet and cleric Moses Browne (1703ndash1787) wrote a poem about the Universe when Saturn was considered the most distant planet He mentions five satellites of that planet and the expectation of more marking this as the first poem to specifically posit the exist-ence of more Saturnian satellites

But look we on to Saturnrsquos out-most Star Whose Beams remote but faintly reach so far Evrsquon here thrsquo afflicted Eye with pleasrsquod Amaze A fresh Supply of Lunar Orbs surveys The weakenrsquod Sight can only five attain For new Discovery others may remain Some famrsquod Observers with Suspicion strong Deem that more Moons to this fair World belong

Browne (1752 61) buttresses his argument by adding a footnote

This was the Opinion of Mr Huygens and Dr Harris Between the 4th and 5th of Saturnrsquos Satellites (say they) there is a Distance not at all proportionable to that between all the others where may probably be a 6th Moon or perhaps another may lie without the 5th which yet may have escaped us Cosmotheo p 114 Ast Dial P 133

In 1698 the Dutch astronomer Christian Huygens (1629ndash1695) wrote about the likeli-hood of more Saturnian satellites To this date nearly a century before Bodersquos Law may be


S Page 123

traced the first application of orbital propor-tionality to the probable existence of more plan-etary satellites It is quoted here from the post-humous English translation referred to by Browne where Huygens (1722 114‒115) mentions first his discovery of Titan

The outermost but one and brightest of Saturnrsquos it chancrsquod to be my lot with a Telescope not above 12 foot long to have the first sight of in the Year 1655 The rest we may thank the industrious Cassini for He has often and particularly in the Year 1672 shewrsquod me the Third and Fifth The First and Second he gave me notice of by Letters in the Year 1684 but they are scarce ever to be seen and I canrsquot positively say I had ever that Happiness but am as satisfied that they are there as if I had not in the least suspecting the Credit of that worthy man Nay I am afraid there are One or Two more still behind and not without reason For between the Fourth and Fifth therersquos a Distance not at all proportionable to that between all the others Here for ought I know there may be a Sixth or perhaps there may be another without the Fifth that may yet have escaped us for we can never see the Fifth but in that part of his Orbit which is towards the West

To complete the references given by Browne John Harris (1666ndash1719) Fellow of the Royal So-ciety wrote

lsquoTis highly probable that there may be more Satellites than these five moving round this remote Planet but their Distance is so great and their Light may be so obscure as that they have hitherto escaped our Eyes and perhaps may continue to do so for ever for I dont think that our Telescopes will be much farther improved (Harris 1719 133)

Eighty-seven years after Huygens had laid the foundation a German dabbler in astronomy put the first numbers to the proportionality of satell-ite orbits 22 Graf von Platen

Ernst Franz Imperial Count (Reichgraf) von Platen-Hallermund (1739ndash1818) was born and lived in Hannover Germany He was Palatine Privy Councilor in the Holy Roman Empire and a postmaster Platenrsquos contributions to Bodersquos Yearbook (Berliner Astronomische Jahrbuch) which spanned the years 1789ndash1793 are characterised by too vivid an imagination Platen gave Bode communications dated 31 August 1785 and 26 August 1786 which were combined into a paper that was published in the 1787 Yearbook In this paper Platen applied a syst-em of ratios that he believed governed the dist-ances of the outer satellites of the planets from their respective primaries Here he considers Jupiter and Saturn Johann Wurm extended this concept to Uranus Thus Platenrsquos paper estab-

lished the basis upon which Wurm wrote his paper about the Solar System (see Section 23 below) Platenrsquos central argument was this

First problem Known is the distance of the planets from their outermost satellites the ratio of their distances from the Sun here-from the ratio of their diameters shall be found

The planets are Earth and Jupiter According to the observations the diam of Jupiter is 37frac14primeprime The dist of the 4th satellite 8prime 16primeprime thus 27 radii The distance between Moon and Earth is 59 radii of the Earth The distances of Earth and Jupiter from the Sun are in a ratio of 15⅕ To solve the problem you divide the product of the two latter by the first

2759 = 5⅕11⅓ and the diam of Jupiter is greater by this than that of Earth Saturnrsquos diam is 18frac12primeprime the distance to its 5th satellite is 8prime 42primeprime thus 56 of its radii The distance of Earth and Saturn from the Sun are like 19frac12 thus

5659 = 9frac1210 This corresponds to the tables according to which the diameter of Saturn is ten times greater than that of the Earth It follows that the distances of the outer satellites (but not of the others) from the planets and the latter from the Sun are in the same ratio

In the conclusion of the paper Platen (1787 127ndash128) applied his system to find the paral-lax of the Sun and the mass of the planets but for our purposes his discovery can be expressed quite simply as Wurm does in his follow- up paper the outermost distances of satellites from their main planets are in the ratio as the distances from the Sun of its main planets 23 Johann Wurm

Johann Friedrich Wurm (1760ndash1833) was born in Nuumlrtingen in Baden-Wuumlrttemberg In an age of limited vocational opportunities Wurm be-came a Protestant vicar but by 1800 he had become Professor for both Classical Languages and Mathematics at the Grammar School in Blaubeuren In 1807 he was employed in the same capacity in Stuttgart and he stayed there until retiring in 1824

In the paper he initially wrote about Bodersquos Law of planetary distances (Wurm 1787a) he was the first to put the lsquoLawrsquo in the form of an equation Far from a slavish proponent of the relationship popularised by Bode he pointed out it was not really valid because it should predict a distance of 5frac12 instead of 4 for Mer-cury (a distance half-way between its real dist-ance and that to Venus) He made the point again in Wurm (1803)

In 1787 Wurm wrote two papers for Bodersquos Astronomische Jahrbuch (Astronomical Year-


S Page 124

book) in which he refers to Bode as lsquoYour Hon-ourrsquo In one he explicitly referred to the paper by Graf von Platen quoted in Section 22

I would like to add the following to the above treatise I thought it was also possible to apply the above formula by which the distance of the main planets from the Sun is determined also to the distances of the satellites from their main planets and therefore be a more general law of our system The deviation of the observations from the calculation are as can be seen from the following comparison overall not greater than in the case of the main planets and must partly be ascribed to the inac-curacy of the measuring especially in the case of the moons of Saturn I give the distances in diameters of Jupiter and Saturn

Already a superficial comparison of the distances of satellites leads to a certainly existing ratio YH [Your Honour] ndash has al-ready suspected (Steink sect 456) a missing satellite between the IV and V satellite of Saturn where I place B Maybe the sat-ellites of Saturn A and B and A of Jupiter have qualities hitherto hidden from us (such as their surface size inability to reflect light) or have we really seen sometimes the shadow of such a satellite before the disk of its planet and mistaken it for spots Schroe-terrsquos observations on Jupiter (Jahrb f 89) make such a suspicion possible The ratio of Count Platen does not permit to expect one beyond the satellites of Jupiter and Sat-urn (Wurm 1787a 172ndash173)

Wurm (1787b) fully explicated his ambi- tions in this regard with his second paper for Bodersquos Yearbook of 1790 He begins with a direct application of Bodersquos Law to the planetary satellites He makes three propositions and from these draws six conclusions In point one he gives the algebraic form of Bodersquos Law an equation he created In the second point he refers the reader to Count von Platenrsquos paper quoted here in Section 22 and in the third he essentially says the orbital structure of the Sol-ar System is exactly the same as the orbital model for each of the planets making each a miniature Solar System

I) The main planets of our Solar System seem to observe a certain law in regards of their distances from the Sun according to which always the mean distance x = a + (2n‒2 b) being a = the distance of the first or innermost planet b = the difference between the first and the second distance and n = the number or order of the planet beginning with the first This law seems to be valid not only for the main planets but also for the satellites and accordingly to have a triple application in our Solar System

II) The outermost distances of satellites from their main planets are in the ratio as the distances from the Sun of its main planets

This was discovered by Count von Platen (Astron Jahrb f 1789 p 128)

III) And the single satellites of each main planet seem to a) be in that ratio among themselves and b) namely in such a way that the distance of the outermost satellite to the distance of the prepreceding is in the same ratio as the distance from the Sun of its main planet to the distance from the Sun of the prepreceding planet ampc In such a way the distances of single satellites run parallel with the distances of the main planets as far as Mercury and the number of satellites as well as the distance of each is determined by it and the satellite systems seem to be only on a smaller scale built after exactly the same model as the Solar System from Mercury on to the main planet of each satellite system

Wurm next moves on to his conclusions which include the fact Jupiter has six satellites (he is here positing the existence of two satellites not yet seen) and Saturn has seven satellites (seven were in fact known at this time the count as of 2020 is 82 moons) He further makes the astonishing claim that Earth has not one but three satellites and Mars has not two but four moons simply because they are the third and fourth planets from the Sun respect-ively Under this scheme Uranus has eight moons only two were known in 1787 when Wurm was writing but the announcement in the following decade by Herschel of another four seemed to bolster the case made by Wurm

From the previous sentences the following conclusion can be drawn (ibid)

1) Each planet has so many satellites as there are main planets from Mercury to itself is the sixth the seventh planet thence that one has 6 and this one 7 satellites

2) The satellites of different planets have exactly the same distance if one restores their apparent distances in planetary radii to a common measure For example if one looks for the distances of the fourth satellite of and the fourth satellite of from their main planets in Earth radii (see below) both have the same distance from their main planets both are 9161 Earth radii away from the latter as is the fourth satellite of Mars of Uranus (see table)

3) And a particular matter no less strange is that seen from the Sun the radius of each satellite system (or the distance of each outermost satellite) appears under one and the same visual angle This is = 8prime 31primeprime if the mean solar parallax is assumed = 8primeprime5 and the mean distance of the Moon = 6012 Earth radii for the distance of each outer-most satellite in planet radii multiplied by the apparent heliocentric radius of each planet is always 8prime 31primeprime I calculated the apparent heliocentric or radius of each planet seen in


S Page 125

its minor distance from the Sun on which the following is based from de Lalandersquos data as follows for 9primeprime04 11primeprime41 8primeprime5 3primeprime74 18primeprime62 8primeprime999 Uranus (accord-ing to Mr Herschel) 1primeprime956 For the mean distance of the Moon I take 6012 Earth radii as the mean value of its greatest and smallest calculated distance from Mayerrsquos parallax 54prime 13primeprime and 60prime 29primeprime For the dist-ances of the other single satellites of each main planet is the heliocentric angle of vis-ion different but is for satellites of the same order (the 4th of and the 4th of ampc) as are the distances of the solar distances of their main planets reversed

4) The radius of an entire satellite system (or the distance of each outermost satellite) is to the solar distance of the main planet as 1 40364 (the Sunrsquos parallax as assumed above) To the same degree as the radius of the Moonrsquos orbit is smaller than the radius of the Earthrsquos orbit (according to the already mentioned ratio) to the same degree is the radius of each outermost satellite orbit con-tained in the radius of the orbit of the main planet

5) From sentence II the following easy rule can be derived the distances of two outer-most satellites in planet radii are in reversed ratio as (the tangents or here as) the app-arent heliocentric radii of their main planets According to this I calculated the following table taking into account my third sentence so that I first sought the distance of each outermost satellite by comparison with the Moonrsquos distance = 6012 planet radii and then determined that of the other satellites of each planet from sentence III The distance of each satellite in Earth radii can be found if one multiplies its distance in planetary radii (radius of its main planet) by the value of the diameter of the main planet against the Earth As unorderly as the distances of the satellites in planetary radii appear the more regular it becomes when they are down to the common measure of Earth radii for a more convenient comparison ndash Since I bas-ed the table when I calculated it according to the second and third sentence on the true observed mean distances from the Sun of the main planets and not as they follow from the formula sentence I one can see from the relative distances partly of the out-ermost partly of the middle satellites exact-ly those deviations from the formula which occur with the main planets I assumed the distance from the Sun of the unknown planet R between and = 295 as average val-ue from the deviations of some neighbouring planets the number and distances of its satellites can only be determined since the apparent radius is unknown in Earth radii [see Table 2 where R is given as Ceres]

Wurm finally moves to close his paper in a way that is surprisingly modern He not only puts forward the evidence that supports his

theory but offers two important points that are unfavourable to it Even he is struck by the art-ificiality of the scheme which he is quite correct to call attention to And his result that Earth has three moons is candidly described as ldquofool-ishrdquo even though he grasps at a straw by men-tioning the claim of Jacques Cassini (1677ndash1756) that the comet of 1737 could be con-sidered a second moon of our planet

Now I come to comparing my ideal with the observations Maybe the incompleteness of the latter benefited me when harmony can-not be shown everywhere and must be left for the uncertain future

A) Favourable to my ideal are the following experiences independent from the above sentences and conclusions

1) The distances of the outermost satellites of and Uranus are in a similar ratio as the solar distances of their main planets as was shown by Count von Platen

2) When calculating the visual angle under which the radius of the orbit of the outermost known satellite of and Uranus seen from the Sun must appear one finds a strange similarity for according to the ob-servations that of the three satellites is always between 8ndash9prime These two features no 1 and 2 generalised lead to Platenrsquos sentence no II The following remarks de-duced from experience can lead to my sentence III

3) One reduces the distances of several known satellites to a common measure like eg Earth radius it will show that in various planets occur almost the same satellite distances

The above given distances of my second and third satellite of Uranus presume a ratio of their orbital periods of 8⅓ and 13frac12 But according to Mr Herschelrsquos preliminary determinations the orbits of those two moons discovered by him are 8frac34 and 13frac12 days

B) I recognise the following factors as un-favourable to my ideal

1) That the symmetries in my plan are may-be too artificial and artificially amassed but on this experience must have the last word

2) That very many satellites must remain invisible to us and what might be the most important objection among all that also two moons of our Sun are said to have remained unknown hitherto whose invisibility I must admit it I cannot explain satisfactorily just as one might find in the case of a non-appearance of other satellites other explana-tions or refer to astronomical posterity But maybe in Nature also here and there some of the inner satellites might be lacking es-pecially of the lower planets that do not need them so much but still in general show a distribution according to the laws of my syst-


S Page 126

Table 2 Table of the distances of the planets from Mercury to Uranus (after Wurm 1787b 192)

em Saturnrsquos ring shows that not each and every planet must have the same features If the idea of several moons of Earth is fool-ish I am at least not the only one who has hit on it I found only recently that Cassini (Mem de lrsquoAcad pour [for] 1737) was inclined to consider a certain comet as a second moon of Earth and that a German astronomer Andr[eas] Mayer [1716ndash1782] of Greifswald agrees with this hypothesis in his dissertation Hypothesis Cassiniana de Secundo Telluris nostrae satellite 1742

After he submitted the two papers to Bode Wurm (1787c) wrote Herschel a very formal letter from Oberensingen in BadenndashWuerttem-berg We gather from the text that he sent this letter via the German astronomer Johann Schroeter (1745ndash1816) who was already in correspondence with Herschel Even though he had already gone ahead with his papers doubts nagged at Wurm and he is willing to admit to Herschel that his hypothesis is nothing more than an astronomical fantasy that could vanish in the face of hard data He mentions in the first paragraph the British Astronomer Royal James Bradley (1693ndash1762)

Please excuse that I dare to disturb you with this letter which is induced by certain astro-nomical fantasies (I do not consider them any more than that) The situation that for-bids me to engage in practical astronomy might serve as my excuse for dwelling on such thoughts I have been searching for some time now for a theory abstracted from the ratio of the distances of the main planets to calculate the number and distances of the moons of all known planets For Jupiter Saturn and Uranus this yields the following table and the comparison with the observa-tions The observed distances of the moons of Saturn are based on Bradleyrsquos and Cas-sinirsquos data since according to these the distance of the first = 4893 and according to those = 450 Saturn radii

Some of these theoretical satellites are yet to be discovered or their visibility must be comprised by other circumstances What

is most important to me the distance of the two moons of Uranus which Your Honour recently discovered whose period of revolu-tion is according to your observations 13frac12 and 8frac34 days Now my second and third satellite of Uranus yield due to the distances the ratio of the revolution 13frac12 and 8⅓ days Therefore could I not ask Your Honour to communicate the distances of those two moons you observed I asked Mr Bode in Berlin to ask you and now I am employing Mr Schroeter to ask you directly If the ob-servations refute me my ideas shall vanish into nothingness from where they originated

By the way my above theoretical dist-ances are based on some variable not ex-actly known values like the parallax of the sun and therefore differences are possible ndashndashndash I would be very much obliged if you could communicate the apparent diameters of the main planets you observed which would be very useful for my theory (because the pres-ent data needs correction) or the observed distances of the moons of Jupiter and Sat-urn If you chose to honour me with an answer this would best be done via Mr Schroeter

Herschelrsquos response if any is unknown but the British press was favourably inclined to the announcement of Herschelrsquos four new satellites with regard to Wurmrsquos work (The Monthly Magazine 1798 53ndash54) Indeed the most immediate effect of Herschelrsquos spurious moon announcement was to lend credence to Wurmrsquos hypothesis

This circumstance [discovery of four satel-lites] gives a strong colour of probability to the hypothesis of the celebrated astronomer WURM who conjectures the number of satellites to amount to eight and has even calculated their several distances from the planet According to WURM the two sate-llites first discovered by HERSCHEL are the second and third in order of distance The following table exhibits WURMrsquos system with the period of their several circumvolu-tions as computed by Major [Franz] VON ZACH of Weimar [see Table 3]

Planet 1) Mercury 2) Venus 3) Earth 4) Mars 5) Ceres 6) Jupiter 7) Saturn 8) Uranus

a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b

1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127

The calculations by Zach (1798 224‒225) mentioned here were published in a footnote to a short article (in a journal Zach edited) about the Uranian moons by Johann Friedrich Blumen-bach (1752ndash1840) The figures listed by Zach are given to two decimal places for the first two satellites but in his letter to Herschel Wurm (1787c) gives all but the last two entries such accuracy 527 985 1362 2076 4020 7087 1299 and 2611 It appears that the first book to mention the eight Uranian moons was in Span-ish They are included in a dictionary by Math-urin-Jacques Brisson (1802 381‒383) but he admits ldquoThe duration of the revolution of the seventh and eighth satellites is not yet knownrdquo The French philosopher Charles Fourier (1772ndash1837 Figure 2) also accepts eight moons but questions Wurmrsquos hypothesis on gravitational grounds

Why does Herschel have eight moons when it is sixteen times smaller than Jupiter which has only four Ought not the giant Jupiter to have the larger number of moons In terms of size it could control sixteen more than Herschel This distribution runs curiously contrary to the theorem of the direct attract-tion of masses (Fourier 1841)

24 Johann Salomo Christoph Schweigger

As I indicated in Cunningham (2017) Johann Schweigger (1779ndash1857 Figure 3) wrote a long paper dealing with the distances of the planets from the Sun and the satellites from their plan-ets Published in 1814 it was part of his lsquocrystal electrical theory of matterrsquo which he outlined in a letter to the Danish scientist Oslashrsted on 16 November 1812 At the center of his theory were the lsquofour magnetic poles of the Earthrsquo which the Norwegian physicist and astronomer Christopher Hansteen (1784ndash1873) had purport-edly determined While this conjecture from Romantic science is not supported by what became modern scientific study Schweigger was a well-respected German chemist and physicist as editor of the influential Journal fuumlr Chemie und Physik from 1811 to 1824 Para- doxically Herschel spurious claims were used by Schweigger to make a startling claim of his own one that was confirmed by future ob-servations Schweigger (1814 28ndash29) provided the details listed in Table 4 and he wrote

What I have previously quoted as the be-ginning of the imitation of the harmonic triad of movements namely that the orbital period of the third Saturn moon is about half of thatof the fifth we notice the same approxi-mately in the first and third Uranus moons found so far The latter uses almost twice as much time to circulate as the former By this we receive information needed to determine the not yet observed satellites by calculation

For it becomes the same harmonic law

Table 3 A table of Uranian satellites by Zach (1798 225) Satellites II and III are the real satellites discovered by Herschel (Titania and Oberon) Contrast this with the data in the table by Schweigger (in Section 24) where the first two satellites listed are interior to Titania

Number of

Satellites

Distance in Semi-diameters of the

Planet

Period of Circumvolution

(days) I 527 3frac12 II 985 8frac34 III 136 13frac12 IV 207 25⅓ V 402 68frac12 VI 708 160frac14 VII 1299 398frac12 VIII 2611 1136

of motion as in the other series of satellites therefore instead of the first Uranus moons listed here two must precede them whose

Figure 2 Charles Fourier (https enwikipediaorgwikiCharles_FouriermediaFileHw-fourierjpg)

Figure 3 Johann Schweigger (httpsenwikipediaorgwiki Johann_Schweigger)

Table 4 Details of the Uranian satellites (after Schweigger 1814 28)

No Mean Distance (Uranus semi-diameters)

Period of Revolution (Days)

I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128

Mean distance and Period of revolution I 67545 21767 days II 107221 43534

What Schweigger is claiming here is that there are two satellites orbiting Uranus closer than Ti-tania (the closest real moon found by Herschel) while Herschel and Wurm each only claimed one moon interior to Titania After Herschel the first to claim an actual observation of a moon interior to Titania was Otto Wilhelm Struve (1819ndash1905) Using the famous Pulkovo Ob-servatory refractor he found a period mid-way between the two postulated by Schweigger namely 3 days 22 hours 10 minutes (Struve 1847) Even though this is quite far from the period assigned by Herschel (5 days 21 hours 25 minutes) Struve believed that the difference was due to an erroneous estimate of the semi-major axis thus he identified this interior sate-llite as the one Herschel also claimed to have seen

Despite the unscientific nature of the con-cepts employed by Schweigger he correctly predicted within about 15 the orbital period of the moons discovered by Lassell 37 years later He lived long enough to see his prediction con-firmed a fact he triumphantly noted in his 1852 paper (published in 1853) ldquoAbout the Connec-tion between the First Two Satellites of Uranusrdquo Astronomical predictions based on false prem-ises have a long history For example Johannes Faulhaber a mathematician in Ulm predicted in 1617 that a comet would make an appearance in September 1618 and ldquoWhen he perceived in August the presence in the heavens of the first comet of 1618 Faulhaber boasted that his prophecy had come truerdquo The basis for his prediction It was

hellip founded upon Faulhabers mystic-cabal-istic number speculation whose mathematical foundations Faulhaber had published in several works in previous years (Granada 2018 281)

Following his fortuitous prediction of two in-terior satellites based on his equally baseless mathematical reckoning Schweiggerrsquos 1814 pa-per delves into the magnetic connection be-tween the orbital periods of the eight Uranian moons This magnetic affinity of the planets also has a long history

Kepler in the Astronomia nova (1609) had explained elliptical motion by physical cause particularly by the action of a magnetic sun on magnetic planets (Regier 2018 234)

But two centuries later this metaphysical way of looking at the cosmos had been discarded by most of mainstream astronomy So Schweig-gerrsquos work was disregarded by all but the most ardent of those working within the circles of Romantic science It was however taken up half a century later by an American physics professor who became beguiled by what he termed ldquohellip the harmonious system of the solar worldrdquo (Hinrichs 1865 285) 25 James Utting and J Cullimore

James Utting (1782‒1860) was a land surveyor and engineer who had an office in Lynn Regis (Kingrsquos Lynn) in Norfolk He contributed many missives about astronomical matters to English periodicals especially in the 1820s

In 1823 he unveiled a grand lsquoplanetary an-alogyrsquo that included the satellites of the Solar System He wrote that this

hellip beautiful analogy which obtains in the motions of the planetary orbs has I believe never been described by any astronomical writer or is not generally known

In Utting (1823a 119ndash121) and a postscript (Utting 1823b 214) he describes how this analogy applies not just to the planets but to their satellites The following quote is from Utting (1823a 119)

if the velocity of a satellite be multiplied by the square root of its mean distance from its primary a constant product will be produced in each respective system of satellites and if this constant product be multiplied by the square root of the reciprocal of the sunrsquos attractive power and that of their respective primaries the same result will be produced as that which obtains in the planetary motions Thus a constant product or quan-tity obtains in the motions of the planets and their respective systems of satellites The hellip table [Table 5 below] exhibits the result of my calculations in elucidation of this analogy

The London amateur astronomer J Culli-more (1850 48) wrote about such varied topics

Table 5 The satellites of Uranus (after Utting 1823 121)

No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of

the Mean Distance (miles)

Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)

Constant Product for

each System of Satellites

(miles)

Square Root of the Sunrsquos Mass



(miles) 1 5middot9087328 222960 472middot186 times 237089 = 111950150 times 139middot6567 = 15634588170 2 8middot7306375 289240 537middot812 times 208159 = 111950150 times 139middot6567 = 15634588170 3 10middot9911093 337230 580middot714 times 192780 = 111950150 times 139middot6567 = 15634588170 4 13middot4927396 386630 621middot797 times 180043 = 111950150 times 139middot6567 = 15634588170 5 38middot1792417 773480 879middot476 times 127292 = 111950150 times 139middot6567 = 15634588170 6 107middot9892458 1546980 1243middot775 times 90008 = 111950150 times 139middot6567 = 15634588170


S Page 129

as the asteroids and Biblical chronology He also waded into the murky waters of satellite anal-ogy as related in the pages of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1851)

Mr Cullimore remarks that on comparing the distances of the moon and of the ex-ternal satellites of Jupiter and Saturn with the distance of each planet respectively from

the sun the ratio is nearly the same ie about 1400 This remarkable analogy leads him to suspect that the law may be more general and that it would be worth while to look for an exterior satellite of Uranus and of Neptune at the same relative distance

26 Gustavus Hinrichs

Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs (1836ndash1923 Figure 4) Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Iowa State University in Iowa City wrote extensively on the nebular hypothesis and how that determined the distances of the planets from the Sun and the distances of the satellites from their primaries

In his treatment of the Uranian system Hinrichs relies on the work of Schweigger which he treats by discussing the supposed ldquohellip dup-lication of the periodic time helliprdquo of the satellites Hinrichs (1865 280) begins by looking at the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn where he dis-cerns the ratio of periodic times to be 85 In the case of Saturn

Mimas has approached Saturn the most and thus this proportion (now 5434 = 8504) has been brought about For the fourth and second we had originally Dione Enceladus = 6847 = 855 or likewise sufficiently near 85 that the duplication of the periodic time should become almost rigorous

He then turns his attention to Uranus

The lunar world of Uranus is particularly not-ed for such duplications from the fact that Schweigger as early as 1814 on such grounds predicted the existence and gave the orbits of the two innermost moons of Uranus which were discovered by Lassell in 1851 The coincidence is very remarkable as will be seen from the following [where moon I is Ariel and moon II is Umbriel]

Schweigger 1814 Lassell 1851 Uranus I moon 21767 days 25117 days II moon 43534 days 41445 days

and the IV (or II of Herschel) having a period of 87068 days approximates to the further duplication of the periodic times Also the period of III is about half the IV period the

Figure 4 Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs (httpsenwikipedia)

former being 58926 days the latter 109611

Taking only the first two decimals we find by means of continued fractions the following approximations [see Table 6] hellip thus proving that only the fourth (Herschel II) and second (Lassell II) have periodic times nearly in the ratio of 2 to 1

Hinrichs does not explain why the ratio for the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn comply with a ratio of 85 while the Uranian system is governed by 21 Hinrichsrsquo adherence to Schweiggerrsquos scheme had its limits though and he concluded that while it had merits it also had flaws

The other instances adduced by Schweig- ger and especially the first do not seem to have any claim to be considered as real duplications Still it is evident that the con-figuration of the Uranian-system is such as approaches to simple ratios between the per-iodic times and if the perturbing force aris-ing here-from is greater than the effect of resistance these ratios and the correspond-ing configuration would become permanent

What did he mean by resistance Hinrichs (1865 277‒278) says without citing any evi-dence that Uranus is the oldest of the planets He bases his theory on the existence of the ether [a space-filling substance widely accepted at the time] whose resistance to the motion of the plan-ets towards the Sun and the satellites towards their planets caused their departure from exact conformity with Bodersquos Law He also bases his calculations on the existence of eight satellites

Table 6 The orbits of the Uranian satellites expressed as continuing fractions (after Hinrichs 1865 280)

II to I or 441251 = 11 21 32 53 2817 3320 etc IV to II or 871441 = 21 199 2110 4019 6129 etc V to III or 1096589 = 11 21 137 9350 199107 etc


S Page 130

Table 7 Uranian satellite distances according to Hinrichs (1865 278) Note that he quotes lsquoobservedrsquo distances for eight satellites even though only four of them actually exist

only half of which are real Upon this lsquodeck of cardsrsquo he erects a vast edifice of lsquoplanetologyrsquo In the equations given in the following passage lsquoarsquo is defined as the lsquoequatorial semi-axisrsquo

The lunar system of Uranus is exceedingly important on account of the plane and direction of its motions We have tried to show that this very position affords one of the most conclusive confirmations of the nebular theory (American Journal of Science and Arts xxxvii 50) Here we will consider the arrangement of the individual members of the system

We know it to be the oldest because it is the most distant system of which we have definite knowledge The original distances and the original harmony of these distances is therefore here most deranged We cannot even with any degree of certainty consider the moons to be now in the same order of succession as at first At the same time observation has yet hardly determined the number much less the exact distance of the different moons

We have seen that the nearest luminar- Figure 5 James Challis late in life In 1828 he gave a lecture about the Uranian moons (courtesy Institute of Astronomy Library University of Cambridge)

ies may be equi-distant and that the farthest may succeed at distances that form a geo-metrical progression [Table 7] If the dist-ances as given by Herschel and the time of revolution as given by Lassell are exact we may represent the distance of the first six moons by

at = 75 + 3t

and the distance of the sixth seventh and eighth by

at = a62t‒6

Hinrichs (ibid) concludes by saying

If these observed distances really are cor-rect then this remarkable discontinuity will enable us to determine the lunar masses [that is the masses of the Uranian satellites] long before observation can ascertain them

Hinrichs is best known as a speculative chemist and for his anticipation of the periodic table of elements (see Scerri 2007 86‒92) 27 James Challis

The English astronomer James Challis (1803ndash1882 Figure 5) who became Director of Cam-bridge Observatory in 1836 was quite explicit actually stating where additional moons that he desired would be found He revealed his find-ings at a meeting of the Cambridge Philosophi-cal Society on 8 December 1828

The great distance of Uranus and the ap-parent smallness of his satellites which have never been seen but by the most powerful telescopes leave us at liberty to suspect that there are others besides those already discovered We know how the law of Bode rendered probable the existence of a planet between Mars and Jupiter The same law extending to the satellites of Uranus authorizes the conjecture that there are two between the fourth and fifth and one between the fifth and sixth making in all nine (Challis 1830 174)

How was this remarkable assertion regarded at the time His study was enough to con-vince the usually skeptical editors of the Edin-burgh Journal of Science (1829 174) who wrote

from the results of his calculations it ap-pears incontestable that this curious anal-ogy hitherto entirely unexplained obtains in the secondary as well as in the primary systems

The Editor of the The British Critic (1831 84) was more circumspect writing

Without asserting that Mr Challis has est-ablished his point conclusively we repeat that there is enough of prima facie evidence to make extremely interesting and research-es for these yet undiscovered bodies of our system of which the existence is thus in-dicated

Towards the end of the century Challisrsquo serious-

No Distance Calculated Obs-

ervrsquod Differ- ence

I 75 + 0 times 3 = 75 75 00 II 75 + 1 times 3 = 105 105 00 II 75 + 2 times 3 = 135 131 + 04 IV 75 + 3 times 3 = 165 170 ‒ 05 V 75 + 4 times 3 = 195 198 ‒ 03 VI 75 + 5 times 3 = 225 227 ‒ 02 VII 2 times 225 = 450 455 ‒ 05 VIII 4 times 225 = 900 910 ‒10


S Page 131

ly misguided paper that attempted once again to apply Bodersquos Law to the satellites was crit-iqued mercilessly by the retired Greenwich ast-ronomer William Thynne Lynn (1835ndash1911)

For Uranus Challis obtained conformity with a series of the same form as that for Jupiter (a a+b a+rb a+r2b) adding two more terms of the form a+r5b a+r7b But this is by accepting the whole of the six satellites an-nounced by Herschel four of which have long since ceased to be regarded as real Challis remarks that their existence had been doubted but thinks that the conformity of their distances to this law confirms their real-ity though they were probably smaller than the two which were undoubted (Lynn 1893)

Challis prepared a table for the six satellites of Uranus (see Table 8)

Challis notes that the ldquohellipdifferences are least for the second and fourth satellites point-ing them out as maximum causes of derange-mentrdquo He posits that as with the satellites of Jupiter ldquohellip large bodies of a system derange the law of distances by their gravitationrdquo (Chall-is 1830 179) This concept presaged his later work on a wholly discredited mechanical theory of gravitation (Taylor 1876) Challis is the same person who missed discovering Neptune even though he specifically searched for it and act-ually saw it during the search

One other author in the mid-nineteenth cen-tury touched on the origin of the Uranian sat-ellites The sham clairvoyant Andrew Jackson Davis (1826ndash1910) born in New York state presumably wrote this at the age of 20

By virtue of inherent motion six satellites were successively developed The most rar-ified accumulation was the sixth satellite and the most unrefined and dense was that nearest to the planet-- And each satellite was gradually and steadily produced by the established laws of association and conden-sation (Davis 1847 168)

The search persisted into the late nineteen-th century Pliny Earle Chase (1820ndash1886) of Haverford College in Pennsylvania wrote ldquoThe satellite-systems of Jupiter Saturn and Uranus all present unmistakable evidences of harmonic influencesrdquo (Chase 1877) He regaled a meet-ing of the American Philosophical Society on 19 January 1883 with his nonsensical application of harmonics to every aspect of the Solar System

The Society had awarded him a medal in 1864 for his work On the Numerical Relations of Gravity and Magnetism indicating he was likely influenced by the magnetic efforts of Schweig-ger Attempts to apply distance laws to the Uranian satellites is not confined to the distant past See for example Nieto (1972) Prentice (1977) Pletser (1986) and Patton (1988) Simi-larly the spacing of the planets themselves is

still being written about (Chambers 1998) 3 THE DESIRE FOR MORE URANIAN SATELLITES

Psychologically the issue of the number of Uran-ian moons has been used as a case study in lsquodesire theoryrsquo by Thomas Scanlon Professor of Moral Philosophy at Harvard University

It sounds odd to say that if I happen to have a desire that Uranus should have six moons then my life will be better if it turns out that this is in fact the case (Assuming of course that I am not an astronomer and have not invested any effort in trying to de-termine how many moons Uranus has or in developing cosmological theories which would be confirmed or disconfirmed by such a fact) (Scanlon 2003 172)

The notion that planets more distant from the Sun are endowed with more moons can be traced to the Frenchman Bernard Fontenellersquos famous book Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds where Fontenelle (1657ndash1757) writes

hellip the disposing of these Moons was not a work of Chance for they are only divided among those Planets which are farthest dist-

Table 8 A table of six Uranian satellites (after Challis 1830 173)

Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352

ant from the Sun the Earth Jupiter Saturn indeed it was not worth while to give any to Mercury or Venus they have too much Light already (Fontenelle 1715 126)

Fontenelle is basing his belief on more moons for ever more distant planets on the no-tion that they will provide more light to the prim-aries It appears the original source for this no-tion comes from Anton Maria Schyrleus of Rhei-a (1604ndash1660) a Professor of Philosophy at Trier In 1643 he wrote a book claiming Jupi-ter had nine satellites with six surrounding Sat-urn and several around Mars In the case of Sat-urn for example he noted it receives only a hundredth the light Earth does and so needed more moons to illuminate it The illumination trope runs throughout the literature dealing with the Uranian satellites but it was not a require-ment as orbital proportionality weighed even more heavily on those who applied mathematics to the Uranian system The German chemist Ernst Gottfried Fischer (1754ndash1831) who be-came a Professor of Physics at the University of Berlin in 1810 reinforced the hypothesis that the further away a planet is the more moons


S Page 132

Table 9 Details of the Uranian satellites (after Fischer 1787 219)

No Ratios Time Determination Based on II

Time Determination Based on III

I 46 6frac14 6 II 64 8frac34 8frac14 III 103 14 13frac12 IV 253 34frac12 33 V 911 124frac12 119 VI 4096 560 536

it will have Shortly after Herschel announced the discovery of two Uranian moons he postu-lated Uranus to have six moons (Fischer 1787)

3) This assumption according to abovendashmentioned calculation contradicts the great-est probability of the second and third But since the difference 64103 is slightly larger than 8frac3413frac12 this yields divergent times depending on whether the calculation is based on the second or third moon hellip [see Table 9 above] or in rounded numbers I 6 days II 8d III 14d IV more than a month V 4 M VI 1 frac12 years A wide spread in which Uranus at the distance from the rest of the planetary system would have much to observe and calculate And the most distant moon would divide its long year into periods that are not too small

As early as 1792 the desire for more sate-llites was made explicit by an English author who used only the initials JD (1792 13) In a passage that assumes Uranus to be inhabited by giants the writer states

hellip it is already discovered that they have two Moons to supply them with Light and they may have many more which fourteen Years Time may discover as during that Time it will be approaching nearer us

John Payne (1794 viii) who also wrote An Epitome of History in 1794 likewise expected more satellites In a table of the planets he writes ldquoGeorgium Sidus to which planet two Moons only are as yet discoveredrdquo

The exact number of Uranian moons has been misrepresented from the earliest days Fraser (1796 18) writes ldquohellip the ingenious dis-coverer of this planet has already found out three moons that revolve around himrdquo Two years later The Monthly Visitor (1798 159) also claimed Uranus has three moons and the three-moon system was reaffirmed in The Cabinet of Nature (1815 6) Perhaps this book is the source Edgar Allen Poe used in his poem about the three moons of Uranus (see Section 5)

The need for more satellites persisted into the nineteenth century The English natural philosopher Margaret Bryan (1805 124) used the very same argument proposed by Fischer to posit the existence of more satellites

Only six Moons have as yet been perceived to attend this planet though on Account of its remote situation in respect to the Sun it

may have more

Byran surely felt justified in her assertion of 1805 for in her earlier edition of 1799 the sen-tence reads the same with the word ldquotwordquo in place of ldquosixrdquo This is followed by a footnote ldquoSince this was written I find Dr Herschel has discovered six of the Moons belonging to the Georgium Sidusrdquo (Bryan 1799 125)

Just a year later Robert Patterson (1743ndash1824) Professor of Mathematics in the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania had this to say about more Uranian moons

On account of the immense distance of the Georgian planet from the source of light and heat to all the bodies in our system it was highly probable that several satellites or moons revolved round it accordingly the high powers of Dr Herschelrsquos telescopes have enabled him to discover six and there may be others which he has not yet seen (Patterson 1809 34)

The distance of Uranus from the Sun was also given as the reason for more moons by Albert Picket (1810 180) ldquoDo we not see that the farther a planet is from the sun the greater apparatus it has for that purposerdquo Not only were the moons eagerly anticipated they were actually of some practical use according to Olin-thus Gregory (1774ndash1841)

Georgium Sidus has six satellites already discovered which are probably of very great utility to his inhabitants For it is very rea-sonable to conclude that there is scarcely any part of this large planet but what is constantly enlightened by one or other of these moons (Gregory 1811 43)

Thomas Wood (1811 221) wrote in a Bibli-cal essay on creation

As the indefatigable Dr Herschell (sic) has already discovered six satellites belonging to this planet does not its immense distance from the sun leave some ground for con-jecture that there may remain some undiscovered and that his attendants are as numerous if not more so than those of Saturn

According to the French novelist Jacques-Henri Bernardin de Saint-Pierre (1737ndash1814) more were indeed found In a footnote to a lengthy description of the inhabitants of Uran- us and its animal life (including dogs) Saint-Pierre offers a table of the period of revolution


S Page 133

of each of the six satellites He then makes an astonishing assertion

The above distances are not marked in the French publication called Connoissance des Temps where I must confess that there seems a good deal of intentional obscurity and hesitation in regard to the discoveries of this great man and another astronomer has lately discovered two new satellites (Saint-Pierre 1815 308)

Unfortunately we are not told who discover-ed more Uranian moons and an archival search has not revealed any further information on this assertion However in 1821 the Uranian moons featured in a fabulist book where the planetary system was surveyed by a spirit The anony-mous British author posits a series of transpar-ent satellites that serve as a communications bridge between the most distant moons of each planet so in this book Uranus acquires three more satellites

As to the Georgian planet its outermost moon may be attained by means of a series of six transparent satellites of which three proceed from the outermost moons of both that planet and Saturn in a direction towards each other and here (namely the outermost of the Georgian moons) the communication from planet to planet ceases as far as blessed spirits are concerned (Anon 1821 184‒185)

Nathaniel Bowditch (1825 19) was the first to claim the existence of yet another Uranian moon when he wrote that Herschel deserved particular notice for a host of discoveries including ldquohellip his discovery of the planet Uranus its seven satellites and two satellites of Saturnrdquo

The writer George Miller (1826 270) editor of The Cheap Magazine in Dunbar Scotland gave two reasons for his belief in more moons

Six satellites have already been discovered attending on this distant planet but on account of its immense distance from the sun and recentness of its discovery it is extremely probable that this planet has a more numerous retinue attending him than we are yet acquainted with

The expectation of and desire for more Uranian satellites became a flourishing industry in the 1830s The English author Frances Bar-bara Burton who wrote several popular books on astronomy was not content with only six moons She eagerly anticipated a seventh in her book Distant Glimpses

The discovery of Herschel being recent and his distance immense only six Moons be-longing to that planet have been hitherto discovered but the undue distance between the fourth and fifth Moon renders the ex-istence of an intervening orb probable (Bur-ton 1834 99)

Incredibly and without giving any attribu-tion Burton announced that the much-desired seventh moon had been discovered She did this first in a revised 1837 version of her Distant Glimpses where she inserted an asterisk after ldquosixrdquo reading ldquoSince the above was written the discovery of the intervening Moon has been announcedrdquo (Burton 1837 99) Apparently she was unaware of the claim by Bowditch a decade earlier even when she published again

The discovery of Herschel as a planet being recent six moons only were discerned as belonging to him until about three years ago when a seventh was found to revolve around him between the orbits of the 4th and 5th moons The great distance between these two moons had always rendered the ex-istence of this 7th moon probable (Burton 1838 68)

Where did she get this extraordinary in-formation The only scientific paper of 1835 on the moons was that of John Herschel (1835 24) but he clearly stated regarding Titania and Oberon ldquoOf other satellites than these two I have no evidence but if any exist I hope soon to procure a sight of themrdquo Regarding timing it is useful here to note Herschel dated his paper 9 November 1833 it was read at the Royal Ast-ronomical Society meeting of 14 March 1834 but not printed until 1835 Did Burton misread his paper or perhaps get a distorted report about his 1834 presentation

On the other side of the Atlantic RW Haskins (1838) offered a reasoned and sober assessment in his article for a magazine in New York Likely relying on the statement of Her-schel just given he wrote ldquoAll then which is known with certainty respecting the attendants of Uranus is that it has two satellitesrdquo

The Reverend Alexander Duncan (1834 79) a minister in Mid-Calder Scotland used an anal-ogy with Saturn that was echoed by Thomas Dick (see below)

Saturn is found to have no less than seven moons and Uranus or the Georgium Sidus six Till lately however Saturn was suppos-ed to have only five and not merely analogy but facts warrant us to conclude that the Georgium Sidus has more than sixndashfor the nearest which has been discovered is at a far greater distance from that planet than the first second and third of Saturnndashthe sixth and seventh though so named being still nearer the primary than the first so that no less than five of Saturnrsquos moons revolve round him nearer then the first of the six assigned to the Georgium Sidus which takes near six days to perform its revolution whereas the fifth in a direct line from Saturn takes but four days and a half The outer-most of the Georgium Sidus requires 107 days and may therefore be considered as


S Page 134

the last of a series several of which have not been discovered

The popular astronomy writer Thomas Dick (1774ndash1857) also expected a new moon to be found between the fourth and fifth moons but upped the ante with yet another possibility

It is probable that this planet [Uranus] is attended with more satellites than those which have yet been discovered It is not unlikely that two satellites at least revolve between the body of the planet and the first satellite for the third satellite of Saturn is not nearly so far distant from the surface of that planet as the first satellite of Uranus is from its centre hellip It is likewise not improbable that two satellites may exist in the large spaces which intervene between the orbits of the fourth and fifth and the fifth and sixth satellites (Dick 1838 265)

The example of the Saturnian system was used later as an example of how more satellites could complete a pre-ordained conception of what distances satellites should be from their primary planet and it also makes a direct com-parison between primary planets orbiting the Sun and satellites orbiting primary planets In a description of the eighth satellite of Saturn Hy-perion the English chemist William Thomas Brande (1788ndash1866) wrote

Prior to its discovery the interval between Titan and Iapetus was so great as to destroy the analogy which seemed to prevail in the other cases and to leave as it were a large gap in the system similar to that in the solar system between Mars and Jupiter before the discovery of the small planets From this circumstance and also from the smallness of Hyperion Sir J Herschel has surmised the probability of other minute satellites revolving at the same mean distance (Brande 1842)

The Englishman William Henry Smyth (1844 208) lent his considerable weight as a prominent populariser of astronomy to the de-sire for more moons when he wrote ldquoSo far from doubting there being six satellites because everybody cannot see them it is highly prob-able that there are still morerdquo

Desire of another order was present in the writing of the American John Stevens Abbott (1805ndash1877) who even ventured to assign a size to the satellites

The magnitude of the satellites of Herschel has never yet been precisely ascertained It is probable however that these satellites are considerably larger than our moon else they could hardly be seen even with the telescope at such a vast distance from the Earth If these six moons are three thou-sand miles in diameter they will sustain unitedly a population of more than sixty times as many as now dwell upon the Earth

(Abbott 1847 73)

The existence of another Uranian satellite on dynamical grounds had also been posited Just after the discovery of Neptune an article signed by lsquoDOrsquo [the American astronomer Denison Olmsted (1791ndash1859)] relates one of the theories to explain the perturbations of the motion of Uranus ldquo the hidden influence in question has been ascribed to a great satellite of Uranus hitherto undiscoveredrdquo The theory was discarded as such an object would not ac-count for the slow perturbations observed and

hellip in order to produce effects on Uranus so great as those to be accounted for a very large satellite would be required of such a magnitude indeed that it would not fail to be seen with the telescope (Olmsted 1847 128)

The desire or at least the expectation of more satellites continued into the mid-nineteenth century By this time the six moons of Uranus announced by Herschel were joined by the two found by Lassell inflating the number even more For the Scottish geologist Hugh Miller (1802ndash1856) even eight was insufficient and he repeats Fisherrsquos old canard that more distant planets are endowed with more satellites

It is now further known that Saturn has eight moons and Uranus also eight not only not a few of the moons of Neptune but even some of the moons of Uranus may be still to find The general fact still holds good that in proportion as the larger planets most distant from the sun require in consequence moons to light them the necessary moons they have got (Miller 1855 10)

The number of Uranian moonsmdashboth dis-covered and hoped formdasheven became the butt of comedy in a novel of the time ldquoMrs Huggins had as many satellites as the Georgium Sidusrdquo (Anon 1835 59) By the end of the nineteenth century the six moons became literary short-hand for the most esoteric aspects of astron-omy (A Family Paper 1893 283)

There was a time when the hunting of asteroids was the athletic sport with which the tired astronomer refreshed his mind and muscles writes a humorist in the Washing-ton ldquoStarrdquo Wearied with prolonged calcula-tions as to the weight of a ton of coals on the surface of Jupiter or the density of beer on the surface of the sixth moon of Uranus the astronomer would take his telescope and in the bright crisp winter night stalk the timid asteroid through the starry jungles of the skies

The desire for another Uranian satellite actually became a necessity in the 1970s as a theory developed at that time to explain the existence of the six Uranian rings hinged on ldquohellip an inner satellite not yet discovered helliprdquo with a semi-major axis close to 103000 km (New


S Page 135

Scientist 1978 228) The lsquorealrsquo sixth moon of Uranus Puck was discovered in 1985 but its semi-major axis is only 86010 Of the 27 moons of Uranus known as of 2020 Mab (at 97700 km) is closest to that hoped-for 103000km Mab has the same orbit as the μ ring of Uranus discovered in 2005 by the Hubble Space Telescope and is the likely source of its dust The number of Uranian rings now stands at 13 far more complex than the 1978 theory was attempting to explain 4 NINETEENTH CENTURY AUTHORS WHO PUBLISHED TABLES OF URANIAN SATELLITES

The first publication of a Uranian six-satellite table in an English book appeared in Thomas Hodsonrsquos The Accomplished Tutor or Com- plete System of Liberal Education (1802 218) This is shown in Table 10 From his identifi-cation as being at the lsquoMiddle Templersquo it seems likely he was a lawyer by profession

A German book also published in 1802 does not give the periods but uses the same figures in the right column expressed a different way Bieberstein and Marschall (1802 211) double the figures as distances in seconds from the planet So the first satellite is 0prime 25primeprime and the last is 2prime 56primeprime This appears to be the first six-satellite Uranian satellite table in a German pub-lication

It was followed up a year later by Bode (1803 503) who used the identical figures for the periods given in Hodson He expressed the distances in terms of diameters instead of semi-diameters resulting in the same distances (eg 44 for satellite 6) The table by Wallace (1812) gives the same periods but the distances from the planet are in a different format from the Bieberstein book Here seconds are not con-verted into minutes and seconds for the final two entries and the numbers have a greater stated accuracy of tenths or in the case of satellite 3 hundredths of a second

In Spanish Mathurin-Jacques Brisson (1803) published data on the six satellites and expressed their distances from Uranus in leagues to the preposterous accuracy of half a league (see Table 11)

A table published in Italy was the first to express the distances of the satellites from Uranus in Italian miles Antonio Traversi (1806 348) offered a table with four columns of distance data (see Table 12)

Heinrich Wilhelm Brandes (1777ndash1834) was the first to express the distances in German miles (Table 13)

Adam Clarke (1811) offered the first table

Table 10 The first table in an English-language book listing six satellites of Uranus (after Hodson 1802 218)

No

Periods Distances in Semi-Diameters of the Georgian

Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88

Table 11 Distances of the satellites from Uranus according to Brisson (1803 81)

No Distances in Diameter of Uranus

Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790

with the distances in English miles (see Table 14)

James Smith (1815) offered another table with the distances in English miles (Table 15) but his values are larger than Clarkersquos figures These mileage figures also differ from those in later tables by Burton 1838 and Ewing 1839

Thomas Ewing (1816 21) of Edinburgh published his own table of the satellites Ew-ing who is described on the title page of his book as a ldquohellip teacher of elocution grammar and composition geography history and astronomy helliprdquo offered period of rotation figures that curi-ously evolved over time In an edition of his book published 23 years later the period of the sixth satellite for example was 107 days 16 hours 40 minutes 0 seconds while in 1816 he gave 107 days 16 hours 39 minutes 22 sec- Table 12 The distance of the Uranian satellites expressed in arc-seconds in semi-diameter in Leghe (1 league = 4444km) and finally in Italian miles where 1 mile = 1852km (after Traversi 1806 348)

No

Distance from Uranus In Arc-

sec In Semi-diameter

In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484

Table 13 The distances of the Uranian satellites expressed in German miles (after Brandes 1813 363)

No Distance from Uranus Period of Revolution (Millions of German Miles) Days Hours

I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136

Table 14 Details of the Uranian satellites with distances expressed in English miles (after Clarke 1811)

No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus

Distance from Uranus at Mean

Distance of Uranus from

Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s

(Semi-diameters of Uranus)

prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

I 05 21 23 22 05 21 25 00 13144310000 0 25frac12 226450 1726834984 1918315472 II 08 16 57 43 08 17 01 19 1710310000 0 33 293053 1726768381 1918382075 III 10 22 58 20 10 23 04 19896910000 0 3835 342784 1726718650 1918431806 IV 13 10 56 29 13 11 05 01 22783510000 0 4215 392514 1726668920 1918431536 V 38 00 39 04 38 01 49 00 455671000 1 2825 785028 1726276406 1918874050 VI 107 07 35 10 107 14 40 00 911341000 2 5645 1570057 1725491377 1919659079

onds Others changed their time by several minutes (Ewing 1839 20)

In Italy Niccola Covelli (1790ndash1829 1818 371) expanded on a table given in France by Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774ndash1862 1811 80) which in turn was copied from Hassenfratz (1803 187ndash188) In the Hassenfratz table the periods and distances were expressed in decimal notation (eg 58962 and 13120 for the first satellite) Covelli a Professor of Chemistry and Botany (Nella Regia Scuola Veterinaria) adopted this format and the exact figures but Table 15 Details of Uranusrsquo satellites (after Smith 1815 563)

No

Period of Revolution

Distance from Uranus

Days Hours Minutes Miles 1 05 21 25 230334 2 08 18 00 298838 3 10 23 04 348398 4 13 12 00 399434 5 38 01 49 798920 6 107 16 40 1597736

Table 16 The period of revolution is followed by the mean distances of the satellites expressed three different ways (after Covelli 1818 371)

No

Sidereal Revo-lution

Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet

In Parts of the Average

Distance from the

Earth to the Sun = 1

In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746

Table 17 The period of revolution and distances of the six Uranian satellites (after Polehampton and Good 1818 168)

No Sidereal Revolution Mean Distance d h m s Days

I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008

he added two more columns to the right (see Table 16)

The Reverend Edward Polehampton (a Fellow of Kingrsquos College Cambridge) and the Editor of The Pantalogia John Mason Good (1764ndash1827) provided a table with supposedly high-precision figures whose origin was not giv-en (Polehampton and Good 1818 168) This is shown here as Table 17 The figures used by these authors match exactly those in a German book by Johann Gottlieb Friedrich von Bohnen-berger (1765ndash1831) a Professor of Mathemat- ics and Astronomy the University of Tuumlbingen (see von Bohnenberger 1811 178) Bohnen-berger expressed the revolutions only in the dayhrminsec format It appears Polehampton and Good took the figures expressed in deci-mal format from a table in Laplacersquos Exposition du Systeacuteme du Monde (1808 135) so there were two sources for their table

Unfortunately Polehampton and Good made a serious error in the revolution of the first sat-ellite giving 24h instead of 21h and the entry for the sidereal revolution of the sixth moon contained a typo 407 instead of 107 Harding and Wiesen (1830 96) used the same figures as Polehampton and Good except for adding yet another typo for the 4th satellite (198 in-stead of 298 seconds) in the sixth satellite the seconds figure differed ever so slightly 561 and 562

The Polehampton and Good numbers later appeared in English in the periodical The Phil- osophical Magazine (1812) It was communicat-ed by Francis Baily (1774ndash1844 President of the Astronomical Society of London) who re-used the table in 1827 (see below) These rev-olution figures (copied from Bohnenberger) are in fact the most lsquoprecisersquo figures quoted by any author this table had a long life as it was pub-lished nearly twenty years later by the Scottish writer Alexander Jamieson (1782ndash1850 1837 73) But Jamiesonrsquos retained the two typos He repeated the 407 figure of Polehampton and Good for satellite six and the wrong sidereal period of the first satellite (24 hours instead of


S Page 137

the correct 21 hours) With the typos corrected these figures were quoted nine years later by Baily (1827) but he opted to round the num-bers to the nearest minute

During his tenure at the University of Erlan-gen the German chemist and natural scientist Karl Wilhelm Gottlob Kastner (1783ndash1857 1833 134) used nearly identical numbers as Baily just differing by one second for the 4th and 5th satellites Baily was not the first to use these rounded figures A pastor who studied at the University of Leipzig and later wrote several books on astronomy Gottlob Leberecht Schulze (1779ndash1856) used the identical table published by Baily in 1827 except he does not include the decimal version of the revolution column Later in the book Schulze (1821 294) gives the distances of the satellites in figures that differ from those of any other table that are express-ed in millions of German miles Johann Heinrich Moritz von Poppe (1822) also expressed the distances of the satellites in German miles but his figures differ from those of Brandes and Schulze (see Table 18)

In America John H Wilkins (1825 31) of Boston listed data on their distance from Uran-us inclination of the orbits from the orbit of Uranus and their period of revolution The most interesting was the inclination which was given as 99deg 43prime 53primeprime or 80deg 16prime 7primeprime for all six with no explanation given for these two rather precise figures In Italy Thomas Keith (1826 188) pub-lished a table with an astonishing level of accu-racy quoting a sidereal revolution for satellite 4 to the half second Aside from this absurdity his figures are the same as those given by Wal-lace in 1812

The table of Uranian satellites by Burton (1838 68) was surely one of the most confused and inventive of all these tables She insisted a seventh moon had been discovered but gives no data to support her claim (Table 19) The periods of revolution are given to extraordinary precision of half a second but again the source of the data is lacking Table 19 also contains a major typographical error as the word lsquoSaturnrsquo takes the place of lsquoHerschelrsquo (= Uranus) in the right hand column

In the same year Dr Karl Friedrich Merle-ker (1839 57) in Konigsberg published a table that was derived from one published by Gott-hard Oswald Marbach (1837 18) The one by Merlerker used the identical figures but added a column on the orbital period in days

In 1854 the Encyclopedia Britannica lsquohedged its betsrsquo by quoting two distinct elements of the six Uranian satellites It did not offer the exact source of Jean Baptiste Delambrersquos figures but it was in fact Delambre (1749ndash1822 1814 511)

Table 18 Distances of the Uranian satellites expressed in German miles (after Schulze 1821 184 and Poppe 1822 265)

No Distance (German miles) Schulze Poppe

I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000

Unfortunately Delambre seems to have in-cluded a typo in his table as he incorrectly assigns a value of only 11 hours for the period of the fourth satellite when surely 13 hours was meant 13 is quoted by everyone else and this does in fact refer to one of the lsquorealrsquo satellites namely Oberon

The noted German astronomer Joseph Litt-row (1781ndash1840 1834 340) used the same fig-ures for the mean distances and sidereal per-iods as Laplace in his table The only difference was that he adopted a conservative ap- Table 19 Orbits and distances of the six Uranian satellites plus the listing of a seventh satellite (after Burton 1838 68)

No


Distance from Saturn [sic]

d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7

proach in using just two decimal point accuracy for the periods (eg 589 for satellite 1) and one decimal point accuracy for the distances (eg 131 for satellite 1)

The French historian Agricole Joseph Fortia drsquoUrban (1756ndash1843 1826 381) combined the figures given by Delambre in 1814 with different figures in a different format given in the Almanach du Bureau des Longitudes (1826 132) Fortia drsquoUrban noted that the figure for the fourth satellite (11 days instead of 13) quoted by De-lambre was a typographical error (Table 20) Table 20 Distances and periods of revolution of the Uranian satellites from two sources Jean Baptiste Delambre (1814) and Almanach du Bureau des Longitudes (1826) (after Fortia drsquoUrban 1826 381)

No

Distance Period of Revolution In

arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138

Table 21 The number of revolutions of each satellite followed by its orbital period (after Utting 1840 60)

No Number of Revolutions

Sidereal Period in Days

1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425

Table 22 A table of eight Uranian satellites only half of which were real The final column is a unique feature Galbraith amp Haughton (1855 143) explain it is ldquohellip the ratio of the square of the periodic time in hours to the cube of the distance in Uranian radii and the constancy of the ratio proves that Keplerrsquos Third Law is applicable to the satellites of Uranusrdquo

No Periodic Time

Distance in Uranian Radii

T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833

The same figures for the mean distances and

the sidereal periods according to Laplace were published by Valentin Bagay (1829 114) The only difference is that he rounded up the periods to three decimal places James MrsquoIntyre on the other hand quoted the figures given by De-lambre (MrsquoIntyre 1823 38)

James Utting (1840) offered this table (Table 21) of the Uranian satellites Unlike most au-thors who published tabular data on the satel-lites Utting gives his source ldquoThe decimals are extended to two places of figures more than are given in Mr Bailyrsquos tablesrdquo He computed the data by dividing 91640740 days by the number of revolutions of each satellite Utting believed the number of days just quoted was ldquohellip the shortest period in which a conjunction can take place helliprdquo between the Sun Moon planets and satellites of the entire Solar System

The French author A Mutel (1841 500) pub-lished a table that followed most other authors closely except that for the 6th satellite he quoted

106 instead of 107 for its period in days Unlike others however he put a question mark beside the four moons that later proved spurious Like Brandes in 1813 and Poppe in 1822 Johann Samuel Traugott Gehler (1842 1611) express-ed the distance of the satellites in German miles but his figures were somewhat different His figures for the sidereal period likewise did not exactly match those of anyone else in the nineteenth century

Hiram Mattison of New York (1811ndash1868 1849 107) author of several popular astronomy books also gave a table of the Uranian satel-lites and like Bryan listed the actual distance in miles from the primary planet although their figures do not match exactly Clearly his figure for the periodic time of the 6th satellite contains an error as it is meant to be 107 not 117 To confuse matters even further two Fellows of Trinity College Dublin the Reverend Joseph Galbraith and Professor of Geology and the Reverend Samuel Haughton (1821ndash1897 1855 143) published a table with orbital data on eight Uranian moons (Table 22) This is the first table to add data on the new 1st and 2nd satellite these were the real ones discovered by Las- sell Ariel and Umbriel

In Italy the Director of Naples Observatory Ernesto Capogravecci di Belmoacutente (1798ndash1864 1853 167) published a set a figures that came from the French astronomer Franccedilois Arago (1786ndash1853) A posthumous publication by Arago (1857 505) gives the distances and rev-olution period of eight satellites to the prepost-erous accuracy of seconds for the revolutions The Danish naval officer and astronomer Johan Cornelius Tuxen (1820ndash1883 1862 284) while not offering a table concurs that Uranus has eight moons

To show that the confusion over the Uranian satellites persisted well into the late nineteenth century consider Table 23 from the 1860s Will-iam Augustus Norton (1810ndash1883 18674) Professor Civil Engineering in Yale College delivered the High Victorian verdict on the num-ber of Uranian satellites there were eight

Table 23 A table of eight Uranian satellites Columns first give the names of the four real satellites with dots for the spurious ones still assumed to be real This is followed by Mean Distance Sidereal Revolution and uniquely Passage through the Ascending Node Greenwich Time The table concludes with a note on their retrograde motion (after Norton 1867 4)

Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution

Passage through Ascending Node Greenwich Time

Inclination to the

Ecliptic d h m Year Month d h m 1 Ariel 744 2 12 28

The orbits are inclined at an angle of about 79deg to the ecliptic in a plane whose ascending node is in longitude 165deg 30prime (equinox of 1798) Their motion is retrograde Their orbits are nearly circular

2 Umbriel 1037 4 3 27 3 helliphelliphellip 1312 5 21 25 4 Titania 1701 8 16 56 1787 Feb 16 0 10 5 helliphelliphellip 1985 10 23 3 6 Oberon 2275 13 11 7 1787 Jan 7 0 28 7 helliphelliphellip 4651 38 1 48 8 helliphelliphellip 9101 107 16 39


S Page 139

Table 24 Here are listed six Uranian satellites but unlike other tables of the infamous six that include four spurious entries three of these are real while the other three are spurious (after Bartlett 1871 136)

Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance

Epoch of Passing Ascending Node Greenwich Time

Nodes and

Inclination d h m s Year Month d h m 1 4 1

Inclination of orbits to the ecliptic 78deg 58prime ascending node in longitude 165deg 30prime (Equinox of 1798) Motion retrograde and orbits nearly circular

2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910

Given the date it is likely that Nortonrsquos table

comes from Arago although he had the for-bearance to eliminate the times to the second The noted mathematician and astronomer Will-iam Bartlett (1804ndash1893 1871 136) a Profes-sor at the US Military Academy based Table 24 on the one just given by Norton but he omitted the real satellite Ariel from the list as well as the so-called first (spurious) satellite of Herschel thus keeping the satellite count at the traditional six but annoyingly with three real satellites and three spurious ones

The passage of time did not seem to make matters any clearer A table by the American Reverend Joseph W Spoor (1874) is rife with typographical errors In the period of the fifth satellite he quotes a time of 84 minutes which of course cannot be as 59 is the highest pos-sible number And in the days listed for the fourth satellite he wrote 11 instead of 13 days

From these various tables and their dispar-ate figures one can discern the source of the data in a few instances In the case of Britan-

nica it is made clear that the sources are La-place and Delambre But even here the sidereal revolutions are given in two different formats one decimal and the other expressed in days hours minutes and seconds thus making a direct comparison difficult Baily on the other hand gives both formats without saying where he derived his data Grant says his data (in days hours and minutes) come directly from those given by Herschel The table by Wall- ace conforms to the table of Grant except in the case of the distance of the sixth satellite (1768 versus 1779) The table of 1810 pub-lished by Adam Clarke of London also closely follows that of Wallace Whatever their source the tabular data for the four spurious satellites have one thing in common a total lack of scientific basis No author gives any indication how the numerical values they present were arrived at

Table 25 offers a comprehensive list of all the authors considered in Section 4 who pub-lished Uranian satellite tables

Table 25 Nineteenth century authors who published tables of Uranian satellites 1802‒1872

Name of Author Date Language Thomas Hodson 1802 English

Carl Wilhelm and Ernst Franz Bieberstein 1802 German Johann Bode 1803 German

Mathurin-Jacques Brisson 1803 Spanish Antonio Traversi 1806 Italian

Adam Clarke 1810 English J-J Biot 1811 French

James Wallace 1812 English Francis Baily 1812 English

Heinrich Wilhelm Brandes 1813 German Jean Baptiste Delambre 1814 French

James Smith 1815 English Thomas Ewing 1816 English Niccola Covelli 1818 Italian

Edward Polehampton and John Mason Good 1818 English Giuseppe Settele 1819 Italian

Gottlob Leberecht Schulze 1821 German Johann Heinrich Moritz von Poppe 1822 German

Thomas Keith 1826 Italian Agricole Fortia dUrban 1826 Italian

Valentin Bagay 1829 French Karl Ludwig Harding and G Wiesen 1830 German

Karl Wilhelm Kaestner 1833 German Joseph Littrow 1834 German

Gotthard Oswald Marbach 1837 German Karl Friedrich Merleker 1839 German

Thomas Ewing (revised) 1839 English James Utting 1840 English


S Page 140

A Mutel 1842 French Johann Samuel Gehler 1842 German

Hiram Mattison 1849 English Ernesto Capogravecci di Belmoacutente 1853 Italian

Joseph Galbraith amp Samuel Haughton 1855 English William Bartlett 1871 English William Norton 1872 English

5 THE CONFUSION OF POETS

The vast majority of the reading public in the time period considered in this paper garnered some knowledge of the Uranian satellites from popular science books but it was not the only source Their understanding was shaped and reinforced by poetry With the mathematization of astronomy and physics in the past century ldquohellip poetic images serve popular science trans-lation helliprdquo (Matlack 2017 60) but this transla-tion was also a potent force during the life of William Herschel and onwards through the nineteenth century Poetry was not just a lit-erary pursuit but one that was often used as a vehicle for astronomical thought and inspira-tion One of the greatest of the Romantic poets was Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772ndash1834) who wrote that poetic feelings remain ldquo near the fixed and solid trunkOf Truth and Naturerdquo (Coleridge 1802) No one better exemplified the search for Truth in Nature than Herschel The discovery of Uranus itself was heralded in several poems (Cunningham 2018 312‒323) but what about satellites of this distant planet described by Coleridge (1793) as being ldquohellip at the threshold of the sun-trod domesrdquo The mere idea of six more satellites in the sky drove some Victorians to the heights of Romanticism Here is Thomas Dick (1841 341ndash342)

Let us suppose one satellite presenting a surface in the sky eight or ten times larger than our moon a second five or six times larger a third three times larger a fourth twice as large a sixth somewhat smaller and perhaps three or four others of different apparent dimensions let us suppose two or three of those of different phase mobbing along the concave of the sky at one period four or five of them dispersed through the heavens one rising above the horizon one setting one on the meridian one towards the north and another towards the south at another period five or six of them displaying their lustre in the form of a half moon or a crescent in one quarter of the heavens and at another time the whole of these moons shining with full enlightened hemispheres in one glorious assemblage and we shall have a faint idea of the beauty variety and sub-limity of the firmament of Uranus

Another Victorian flight of fancy was em-bodied in the lsquoplurality of worldsrsquo concept Here is the relatively restrained voice of Johann Georg Heck (1852 149)

Whether the ring and the seven moons of

Saturn and whether Uranus and Neptune with their moons are habitable are quest-ions which must be left unanswered

Dick (1838 263) by contrast did not feel con-strained by reality when he wrote about the satellites

Supposing them on an average to be 3000 miles in diameter-and they can scarcely be conceived to be less-the surfaces of all the six satellites will contain 169646000 square miles or about 3frac12 times the area of all the habitable portions of the earth and which would afford scope for a population of 47500992000 or above forty-seven thou-sand millions which is about sixty times the present number of the inhabitants of earth

Confusion reigned for a century over the number of moons Uranus possessed and it was made most evident in the poetry of the period Examples given here from 1793 to 1895 show that the lsquomoon countrsquo ranged from two to 20 As late as the 1880s the number of Uranian moons in poetry failed to reflect the fact most astron-omers accepted only four This paper has ident-ified 46 poems and one theatrical production in seven languages that relate to the Uranian satellites in the span from 1788 to 1895 51 The Early Years 1788ndash1822

The first poem to allude to the satellites was by the Jesuit Georg Aloysius Szerdahely (1740ndash1808) a Professor of Rhetoric who taught aes-thetics at the University of Buda in Hungary He was knight of St Stephen and mitred abbot at St Maurice In a book published in 1788 Szer-dahely (1788 172) tells of the Muse of Astron-omy Urania and the recent discovery of the planet Uranus by Herschel In the same stan-za he includes these lines which are translated from Latin (the original is in Note 2)

He has given us Eyes and makes Stars to be now closer to Astronomers Also he brings back [stars] that were once lost and new ones too which have never been seen he shall grant I am deceived or else she has gotten guards ndashperhaps an attendant wanders and one or two act as guards

The ldquoEyesrdquo refer to Herschelrsquos telescopes and ldquobrings back [stars]rdquo refers to earlier sightings of Uranus by John Flamsteed (1646 ndash1719) and Tobias Mayer (1723ndash1762) as is made clear in other footnotes In a footnote to the lines just quoted Szerdahely states that Herschel had


S Page 141

recently discovered two satellites

Concerning its attendants [ie satellites] re-cently found by Herschel (someone will say that eunuchs have been granted to the Virgin Urania by her father Uranus or else by her master Phoebus [Apollo as leader of the Muses]) the civil newspapers have made announcement Or are they really attend-ants of Urania3

The British were quite proud of the fact that a planet had been named after their monarch as evidenced by this verse remarking on the moons of Uranus It is signed with a ghost-name in Latin to reflect the name of the pub-lication in which it appeared (Stocktoniensis 1793 216) Titled The Solar System this is the first poem to specifically mention the two moons of Uranus that Herschel correctly identified and was written before knowledge of the four spur-ious moons became known to the poet

Then Georgium Sidus circumvolves the whole And two satellites about him roll

It appears that the first poem noting the six moons of Uranus was by William Colquitt (1802 22) ldquohellip late of Christ College Cambridgerdquo In a poem titled The Astronomer he writes

The Georgium too to terminate the bound Has six satellites revolving round Their phases and their looks will he display And with his telescope shew night and day

An Italian poem of the same year alludes to the Uranian moons Evocatively Romantic in nature it was written in Italian by Angelo Maria Ricci (1776ndash1850) Here is an English transla-tion

The lazy Uranus where the sharp frost Harnesses waves of marble rivers Mirror of following icy moons (Ricci 1802 65)4

Even though Erasmus Darwin (1731ndash1802) in his famous work The Temple of Nature did not include the number of ldquonew guardsrdquo he surely meant to reflect the six moons discovered by Herschel whose name is also used here to des-ignate Uranus This comes from Canto 4 of his 170-page poem that was completed in 1801

Delighted Herschel with reflected light Pursues his radiant journey through the night Detects new guards that roll their orbs afar In lucid ringlets round the Georgian star (Darwin 1803 138)

The second Italian poem that mentions the Uranian moons appeared in a book of celestial poetry by Giuseppe Saverio Poli (1746ndash1825) Poli a physicist biologist and natural historian wrote

Uranus shines in this heaven And is surrounded by moons too (Poli 1805 88)5

Mr A Crocker updated a 1727 poem by the deceased Henry Baker (1698 ndash1774) to include the new planet and its six moons

The Georgian planet takes his distant flight Cheerless to all would be his darksome tour Did not six moons illume his midnight hour (Crocker 1808 31)

In the original poem The Universe Baker des-cribed Saturn as ldquohellip farthest and last helliprdquo in the Solar System

The English schoolmistress Richmal Mang-nall (1769 ndash1820 Figure 6) of Crofton-Hall near Wakefield in Yorkshire popularised a poem titled The Planetary System

The Georgium Sidus next appears By his amazing distance known The lapse of more than eighty years In his account makes one alone Six moons are his by Herschel shown Herschel of modern times the boast Discovery here is all his own Another planetary host (Mangnall 1808 341)

Figure 6 The Yorkshire schoolmistress Richmal Mangnall (httpsenwikipediaorgwikiRichmal_Mangnallmedia FileRichmal_Mangnalljpg) Her book Historical and Miscellaneous Quest-ions first published privately in 1798 was a nineteenth century best seller and became gen-erally known as lsquoMangnallrsquos Questionsrsquo It was the stand-by for generations of governesses and other teachers It appeared in 84 editions by 1857 so the poem from which the above was extracted was read by generations of young people in Great Britain and elsewhere The 1800 edition the first printed by a noted London publisher mentions the six moons of Uranus (Mangnall 1800 207) but does not include The Planetary System poem


S Page 142

The last two rhyming lines of a 6-line poem by the American writer Benjamin Workman ex-tolls the six moons even though the Solar System map in his 1809 book was from an earlier edition as it depicts only two moons

Saturn boasts a vast ring his attendants are seven

Last Herschel with six moons rolls through the heaven

(Workman 1809 8)

Another poem of the same year by Joel Barlow (1754ndash1812 Figure 7) mentions the moons without enumerating them

Herschel ascends himself with venturous wain And joins and flanks thy planetary train Perceives his distance from their elder spheres And guards with numerous moons the lonely

round he steers (Barlow 1809 306)

This passage follows a few lines about the sate-llites of Jupiter and the ldquosilver hornsrdquo of Saturn

Figure 7 American poet diplomat and French politician Joel Barlow (httpsenwikimediaorgwikiJoel_BarlowmediaFileJoel_Barlow_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_13220png)

discovered by Galileo which were later under-stood to be the rings Barlow was living in Wash-ington DC when he wrote this in 1809 two years later he was appointed US Minister to France

In 1810 Paul Philippe Gudin de la Brenell-erie published a lengthy prose poem titled Lrsquoast-ronomie It included a few lines about the Uran-ian satellites He writes that Herschel armed with a powerful telescope looks at Uranus and

Discovers by his side a first satellite A second is seen four others more distant Fleeing from his view are still met (Gudin 1810 61)6

The next year a Latin poem that encompas- sed the entire Solar System was published in The Monthly Correspondence (December 1810 576‒578) It was penned by Pastor Gottlob

Leberecht Schulze (1779ndash1856) graduate of the University of Leipzig Here are the lines dealing with Uranus and his ldquosix companionsrdquo translated from Latin as 3 times 2 (ter duo)

Uranus comes along after whom you father of Astronomers

Worthy Herschel you who touch the stars with your head

First recognized wandering around He is bidden to be

Most distant of all perhaps it is a punishment For the Giants and Titans gave birth to the terror Of Gods and Men He and his six companions Fly about perhaps more will be revealed He finishes his path in more than ten times eight

years7

Like Crocker Richard Lobb modified an ear-lier poem ldquoThe lines which Mallet applied to Saturn are now with a little change more app-licable to the Georgium Sidus or Herschel plan-etrdquo He refers here to David Mallet (1700ndash1765) who published The Excursion in 1728 No particular number of moons is mentioned

Last outmost Herschel walks his frontier round The boundary of worlds with his pale moons Faint glimmering through the darkness night has

thrown Deep dyed and dead orsquoer this chill globe forlorn (Lobb 1817 70)

Perhaps indicative of the state of poetry in the early nineteenth century David Lynch also took the easy way out by modifying an earlier poem Secretary to the Gaelic Society of Dub-lin Lynch too updated the 1727 poem about the cosmos by Henry Baker Here he adds the dis-coveries of not only the spurious moons of Uranus (using the awkward word lsquosatellitaryrsquo) but a spurious planet with seven more moons too

Beyond the utmost range of Saturnrsquos bound Outside whose orbit Ouranos is placed With six satellitary planets graced Embracing all our solar systemrsquos spheres Hercrsquoles revolving round the whole appears While seven attendant Moons their aid unite Trsquoillume his orbs with their reflecting light (Lynch 1817 79)

To Lynchrsquos credit he inserts a note on page 4 that Hercules is an imaginary planet whose existence he took from the book Astronomy by the Reverend Thomas Smith

Crocker and Lynch were not the only ones lsquowho put new treads on old tiresrsquo The annual publication Timersquos Telescope (1821) took a lib-erty with the poem ldquoThe Excursionrdquo (Canto II) by David Mallet replacing ldquoSaturnrdquo with ldquoHerschelrdquo

Last outmost Herschel walks his frontier round The boundary of Worlds with his pale Moons

In Italy Giuseppe Settele (1819 249) gave the same numbers as listed by Laplace for the six satellites An unpublished poem whose text


S Page 143

I located in the Herschel Archives at the Ran-som Center in Austin was written by William Rogerson (1820) of Pocklington in Yorkshire This full description of the career of Herschel which Rogerson sent to the great man ldquo as a token of the regard I feel for you and the noble Science of Astronomy helliprdquo includes a few lines about Uranus

But O great Sage What praise to thee is due Who found Urania in the new heavrsquonly blue And after that by greater powers did see Six satellites around his body flee (Rogerson 1820)

Less than stellar prose by William Rawlins (1822 ii) marked Herschelrsquos death but at least it alluded to the Uranian moons in the words ldquohellip with all its trainrdquo

Herschel alas great astronomic sage Has sunk in death yet full of honoured age Through widest space the heavenly orbs he

viewed The cometrsquos track and stars unnumbered

shewed Ouranus first he saw with all its train And fires volcanic found in Lunarsquos plain

52 The Middle Years 1824 ndash1847

There are 13 examples in the middle years of Uranian moon poetry plus one example from the theatrical realm Two years after Herschelrsquos death Dr Simeon Shaw Master of the Grammar School at Hanley in Staffordshire took a true leap of faith with his assertion that Uranus had not two or six moons but eight

While at the verge of Solrsquos extended bound In eighty years with most continuous round And calmest lustre round the distant pole With eight attendant moons we view Uranus roll (Shaw 1824 47)

The American poetess Lydia Howard Sig-ourney (1791ndash1865 Figure 8) was content with just six in her poem titled ldquoThe Georgian Planetrdquo

Slowndashmoving Orb majestic and remote Which Galileorsquos glass had failrsquod to note Thou who with swiftndashwingrsquod Mercury art given To mark the grand antithesis of heaven Keepsrsquot thou like armed sentinel the ground Where rival systems press our solar round Readsrsquot thou from them with ever sleepless eyes What thy own zodiacrsquos fainter page denies Or callrsquost thy six torchndashbearers forth to light The guarded frontier through the watchful night (Sigourney 1827 88)

From Spain comes a poem Physico-Astro-nomical in seven cantos by the mathematician and politician Lieutenant General Gabriel Cίscar (1760 ‒1829) An English translation from Canto 3 reads

And Herschel discovered with a telescope [Uranus] surrounded by six retrograde moons (Ciscar 1828 85)8

Figure 8 Lydia Howard Sigourney wrote ldquoThe Georgian Planetrdquo when in her mid-30s (httpsenwikipediaorgwikiLydia_ SigourneymediaFileLydia_Sigourneyjpg)

The most famous French poet to immort-

alize the moons of Uranus was Victor Hugo (1802ndash1885 Figure 9) author of The Hunch-back of NotrendashDame and Les Miseacuterables This appears in his second Mazeppa poem written in homage to Ivan Mazeppa (1640ndash1709) the chieftain of the Zaporogean Cossacks It was made into Symphonic Poem No 6 by Franz Lizst in 1851 Originally published in French in 1828 the English translation quoted here comes from Hugo (1832 162)

The six moons of Herschel old Saturnrsquos ring the pole with nightrsquos aurora encircling its boreal

brow All this he sees and your tireless flight Forever expands this limitless worldrsquos ideal

Horizon9

Figure 9 The famous French author Victor Hugo (httpsenwikipediaorgwikiVictor_HugomediaFileVictor _Hugo_by_C389tienne_Carjat_1876_-_fulljpg)


S Page 144

The ldquotireless flightrdquo referred to relates to an ex-perience of the young Mazeppa when he was lashed to a horse and sent off across the plains of Russia because he had been caught having an affair with his masterrsquos wife

Reverend Legh Richmond wrote a poem about the Solar System to educate his children and included it in a book of Richmondrsquos mem-oirs by the rector of Emberton Thomas Fry It was likely written between 1815 and 1825

Call it Uranus Herschell or Georgium-sidus A sight of his disc without help is denied us

Six bright beaming moons shed their rays orsquoer his night

Like himself from the Sun all deriving their light (Fry 1833 37)

Figure 10 Count Pierre Antoine Noeumll Bruno Daru (httpsenwikipediaorgwikiPeirre_compte_DarumediaFilePierre_Darujpg)

The concept of planetary satellites provid-ing illumination to their primaries goes back at least as far as George Cheyne (1715 240) who wrote about Jupiter thus ldquoIn what a dis- mal state of cold and darkness especially would he be in Were it not for his Moons or Sat-ellitesrdquo The concept is taken up again in poems of 1870 and 1885 as discussed below

In French there was a long poem by Count Pierre Antoine Noeumll Bruno Daru (1767ndash1829 Figure 10) LrsquoAstronomie that includes these lines in Chant Cinquiem

The Earth loves in Phoebe [the Moon] her faithful companion

Four stars are following the sparkling Jupiter Saturn girded with heavenly headband

Sees seven brilliant guards revive his torch They are ahead of him follow him and his father

[Uranus] Twice distant from the god who enlightens us Escorted by six friendly globes For the deep nights borrows the solar clarity Far far away from Uranus and his satellites Which objects [the comets] are tracing these

weird orbits By error one thought them for a long time lost But towards our sun like us attracted They flee and in turn seek his presence And faster than lightning on their immense

ellipse From the world limits they run to their king Raising their mane object of our terror (Daru 1830 187)10

It is the second poem to mention the bizarre (retrograde) orbits of the six satellites

A rather prosaic notice of the six moons comes in this poem Natal Love by Richard Smetham (1838 34)

Last in the Solar train Uranus shines By borrowrsquod rays and six attendant moons Who distant far beyond great Saturnrsquos ring His circle draws

Of all the poems about the Uranian moons the most bizarre is by an anonymous British author of 1839 in a book-length poem entitled Im-mortality in Six Books This is from Book IV which begins with a view of the Uranian satel-lites from the top of a mountain It is explained at the conclusion of Book III that because Uran-us is the outermost planet ldquoItrsquos force as oft will duplicate in speedThe cannon-ball as this the generous steedrdquo Thus the moons des-cribed in Book IV are likewise moving at lsquodouble speedrsquo The figure Zobieski is introduced in Book I as a Pole appearing to the narrator of the poem as ldquoA faultless form hellip [of] youth beauty and vigourrdquo (Anon 1839 5) They met on a planet he had been whisked to by Death personified Zobieski who had died on Earth in a noble fight now takes the narrator on a tour of the Solar System beginning with Mercury After visiting Saturn they are transported to a ldquohellip distant place in the expanse of Heaven helliprdquo from which they spy Uranus from afar The portion of the poem quoted below sees them asking the beings encountered at this distant remove from Uranus if they know anything of that planetrsquos moons

Placed on a mountainrsquos elevated view Commanding bright extensive plains below And of the heavens uninterrupted view Where far Uranusrsquo moons their double speed

pursue Upon the summit of the mountain were Astronomers intently noting there Thrsquo Uranian moons it being then the time When that fair planet in its course sublime Convenient moved Zobieski introduced Without the formal prayer to be excused


S Page 145

Himself and me and straight inquiry made If any lsquomongst their learned party had To those gay satellites a traveller been Or if they ever had such traveller seen As he was urged by strong desire to know Who are their habitants and what they were

below (Anon 1839 91‒94)

The narrator is told that each ldquosubaltern worldrdquo are now inhabited by men ldquoWho while on earth were to all thought the foesrdquo These self-important individuals have now found a new purpose in life on the bleak moons of Uranus referred to as ldquoattendant worldsrdquo

But now on these attendant worlds they find All mutually dependent on their kind Where each has to improve a vacant mind There also those from penal worlds who come In countless numbers who pursuant their doom A thousand years to bleakest moons are sent

The narrator is next given a description of the meteorology of the satellites ldquoThough these unclouded moons seem ever clear They have a light transparent atmosphererdquo (page 94) He is told the thin dry air of the moons acts as a taming effect on ldquohellip gravest emotions hellip [which] leads to thought helliprdquo and a thirst for knowledge amongst the inhabitants of the Uranian moons The passage ends with an unexpected dash of real astronomy

ldquoWe now our observations made And seen a Georgian moon move retrograderdquo Said the wise searcher of the skies ldquowe will The rites of hospitality fulfil If these good strangers with us will descend Unto the plainrdquo (Anon 1839 95)

After such a fantastical journey subsequent poems about the Uranian moons until that of Carlo Ferri in 1860 seem pedestrian

The Reverend Clement Dawsonne Strong (1844 5) was one of many ministers who felt compelled to write celestial poetry He was the curate of Brampton Abbotts Herefordshire late of Magdalen Hall Oxford After mentioning the seven planets Strong turns his attention to the satellites in the first of six Cantos He refers to them as the ldquocarrdquo of Uranus and is the first to number just three moons While the earlier sources for just three moons mentioned previ-ously may have been a factor he quite likely got the idea of only three moons from a recent study by the Scottish-German astronomer Joh-ann Lamont (1805ndash1879) whose work translated in an English publication states ldquo I have not as yet discovered more than three of the satellitesrdquo (Lamont 1838 51) This was in a paper devoted to determining the mass of Uran-us from observations of its satellites He claim-ed to have seen ldquohellip the second the fourth and the sixth helliprdquo moons with the 11-inch refractor at

the Royal Observatory of Munich (ibid) The sixth satellite was he wrote seen only once (on 1 October 1837) and thus was not used in the mass calculations

In the same year Strong wrote his poem a book in Dutch by the Director of Leiden Obser-vatory Frederik Kaiser (1808ndash1872) reinforced the likelihood of three moons

With Uranus the older Herschel thought he had six guards but those guards are so faint and difficult to observe that later astrono-mers though equipped with the greatest tools were unable to find more than three of them (Kaiser 1844 178)

Alluding to their unusual retrograde orbits Kais-er (ibid) states ldquoThere are however reasons for not questioning the truth of Herschelrsquos discov-eryrdquo The lines by Strong (ibid) read

And ersquoen to ancient Uranus his car Remotely toiling throrsquo the void expanse Those sunbeams reach and thorsquo his circuit far Outmeasures all the rest Omnipotence [space Doth guide them struggling through thrsquo Empyrean Until they gladden on his rolling side And with a garb of light his form embrace Nor do the shades of Ereb there abide Unbroken for the silvery array Of threefold lunar crescents turneth night to day

A note tells us that ldquoErebrdquo refers to Erebus which ldquohellip according to Hesiod together with Night were the offspring of Chaos and exer-cised dominion in the infernal regionsrdquo (Strong 1844 108)

A book in Latin and English by Thomas For-ster (1845 230) appeared in 1845 It included the brief Epigramma de Systemate Solari with these lines (in English)

Uranus has six [bodies around it] ‒ which in the clear [air] it makes to circle far away

into the deep blue [sky] For him [ie Uranus] there is a cold world with scanty light11

In a poem entitled The Wonderful Clock Baltimore poet and medical doctor John Lof-land (1846 86) used two names for the primary planet but not the name Uranus as generally accepted in America It is also notable for men-tioning the retrograde motion of the satellites

While Herschel Georgium Sidus in the rear Rolls on in honor of old George the Third With his six moons reversed in motion all

The sextet was also immortalised by the English poet Philip James Baily (1816ndash1902 1847135) who adopts the name accepted on the Continent not the English one

And you ye planetary sons of light From him who hovereth mothndashlike round the

sun To sixndashmooned Uranus Lightrsquos loftiest round (Baily 1847 135)

James Robinson Planche (1825ndash1871) who


S Page 146

attained the dignified position of Somerset Her-ald in the College of Arms wrote a satirical play in 1847 entitled The New Planet about Neptune A gathering of the planets and asteroids takes place at which Mercury announces ldquoAnd herersquos Uranus hobbling up at lastWith his six satellites to hold him fastrdquo The new planet (Plan) says ldquoI feared you would not comerdquo Uranus replies

Ura Yoursquore very kind I am a little my son Time behind

But such a distance and so dark odd zoons

I took the liberty to bring my moons Plan Irsquom glad to see them sir Ura Theyrsquore very small No man but Herschell ever saw them all Plan Indeed Ura Itrsquos fact Some chaps below odd rot lsquoem Are bold enough to say I havent got lsquoem A pack of fools (Planche 159ndash160)

Thus the moons of Uranus became so famous they actually were included in a theatrical production in London which had its premiere at the Theatre Royal Haymarket on 5 April 1847 The six moons were represented on stage by a ldquohellip small set of lightsrdquo This is the only play that I have identified that mentions the Uranian moons and even makes mention of the fact many people did not believe in the existence of all six This was four years before Lassellrsquos research proved only two of Herschelrsquos moons were real In a career of 50 years Planche wrote more than 180 pieces for the stage 53 The Later Years 1848 ndash1895

Prior to 1848 only Shaw (1824) and Strong (1844) deviated from the six-moon trope (not counting the 1793 poem written before Hers- chel announced four more satellites) Of the 19 poems in this later period only eight are unequivocal that the number is six with num-bers ranging to 20 or more As mentioned in Section 2 the famous prose poem Eureka by Edgar Allan Poe (1809ndash1849) begins this period of increasing poetic instability by ascribing only three moons to Uranus

Uranus adopting a rotation from the coll-ective rotations of the fragments composing it now threw off ring after ring each of which becoming broken up settled into a moon ndash three moons at different epochs having been formed (Poe 1848 73)

The same year two memorial Latin verses about the Solar System appeared Each in-cludes a line about the six moons From the German philosopher and translator Joseph Emil Nuumlrnberger (1779ndash1848) we read

Uranus is wreathed by six outward moons (Nuumlrnberger 1848 321)12

Pastor Fleischhauer of the Leipzig Astro-

nomical Society did much the same thing in a longer poem Systems Solare where he wrote

Uranus is girded by six moons (Fleischhauer 1848 124)13

The following year saw a 28-line childrenrsquos poem titled Planets by Louisa Watts (1849 122) who wrote poetry to instruct young people in the study of nature This is the third stanza

The earth you know has but one moon And Jupiter has four Herschel has six and it is known That Saturn has one more

An 1850 book by Fleischhauer (1850 358‒ 359) includes an astronomical poem in Ger- man (Die Sonnenweltordnung The Sun World Order) that mentions the six moons

With Uranus Herschel found surrounded by six moons14

A poem from the 1850s is the only one to hedge its bets on the number of Uranian moons and may have got the idea for only three moons from Poersquos work five years earlier The foll-owing lines come from a poem of 1853 titled Great Things by the English poetess Ann Taylor (1782ndash1866) Like the Poe work just quoted it includes now-obsolete Victorian punctuation (Maliszewski 2013 127) In the case of Poe the semi-colash and here the commash

Uranus comes next and lsquotwas fancied that he Was the last with his moonsndashperhaps six

perhaps three (Taylor 1868 67)

An anonymous poem from this era in a book by Thomas Urry Young (1852 239) in-cludes these four rhyming lines

Then Saturn who with wonrsquodrous rings And seven fair moons is graced Herschel with his six moons appears Next in the system placed

An American poet Seabred Dodge Pratt (1852 117) penned these lines extracted from a poem entitled The Skeptic Going a step be-yond the usual rote line about Uranus Pratt inserts its orbital period (the real figure being 84) to impart some knowledge to his readers

Venus who twinkles in loveliness in The gray twilight of the fading west her Brother Herschel that with six moons in more Than eighty years performs his tedious journey

A most unusual number of satellites is featured in an Italian poem The Worlds by Carlo Ferri (1860 170)

Ir piu veloci Maradino e Steno E avvicinaro i sospirati lidi Che un amosfera luminosa avieno A riparar del sole ai raggi infidi E sebben vuolsi dalla terra sieno Sei satelliti soli a Urano fidi Ne vide Maradino oltra di venti


S Page 147

Tutti la luce a propagare intenti

A literal translation to covey the sense of the old Italian is Maradino and Steno go faster and they (Maradino and Steno) approached the yearned-for shores (figurative for destinations) which had a luminous atmosphere to shelter them from the treacherous Sunrsquos beams and although from the Earth the existence of only six satellites orbiting Uranus is acknowledged Maradino spotted more than twenty all of them intent on propa-gating their light

In Cronaca Giornale generale della biblio-grafia italiana (1861 37‒39) there is a contemp-oraneous review of Ferrirsquos ldquohellip fantastic and pol-itica helliprdquo poem where Maradino is described as an astronaut hero and his appearances in var-ious Cantos are described further For Canto I he visits Mars For the ldquodreamrdquo Canto VII he is immersed in a revolution on Jupiter On to Saturn in Canto IX Uranus (ldquohellip where evil in-creases helliprdquo) in Canto X and to Neptune in Can-to XI now accompanied by Steno The review does not refer to Maradinorsquos existence outside the poem as he is fictional invented for that poem

This was not the first Italian poem imbued with science fiction elements that incorporated Uranian satellites In a very long poem by Luigi Crisostomo Ferucci (1852 58) we are told

Franceso Ferruccio appeared to the poet from a luminous disk and declared to him how he is one of five satellites of the planet Uranus where the slothful are kept

It is the only poetic reference to five satellites and came just a year after Lassellrsquos discoveries so it must represent the very fluid nature of the number of Uranian moons that his work stirred up at this time

Did Benjamin Charles Jones (1864) read Ferrirsquos poem Unless he invented it indepen-dently Jones also writes that Uranus has 20 moons It is included in a vast 6-volume work on ancient and modern poetry theology and the dramatic arts published between 1862 and 1867 The first volume received a scathing review in The Spectator (1862 304)

Mr BC Jones is doing whatever in him lies to throw discredit on the masterpieces of the Greek drama Anything more offensively vulgar than his humour or less artistic than his manner of treatment can hardly be im-agined

Yet Jones is at least more accurate than Pratt regarding the orbital period of Uranus 30700 days being 84 years

Now dull Uranus distant far From heat of sun than others are Shows his orbits extended phase Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred days Moons he has six at least they say

Some think that twenty have he may But granting six to be his share I think the number very fair (Jones 1864 889)

An 1867 poem by George Gilfillan (1813ndash1878) of Dundee Scotland perpetuated belief in the six moons It also shows that Gilfillan knew the discoveries of Herschel quite well since it also includes mention of the rings of Uranus he claimed to have seen in 1789

His name is Uranus among the gods The lone Siberia of the starry waste The planet penult of our system great Girt by six feeble moons and darkened rings Which like the followers of a ruined chief Mingle their faded light with his sunk eye (Gilfillan 1867 108)

Also in 1867 Edward Edwin Foot (1867 143) of Ashburton Devonshire wrote this in the first canto of his allegorical poem about the god Bacchus

The Georgian Planet stripling of the air In grand habiliments forth did repair Unto the scene of grief not over tall Yet bore the image of his master Sol He saw the corpse and plainly did foreshow (Though stratagem allowed no tears to flow) His feelings at the sight of death but hendashndash Child of the skiesndashndashbore up courageously He (with his satellitesndashndashsix beauteous lads Esteemed much among the greatest godsndashndash Attending in their robes of lightish-blue lsquoTerwoven with fine gimp of golden hue) Attractrsquod the grave attention of old Mars Who hailrsquod him as the ldquoHerschel of the Starsrdquo

A footnote to this passage explains that ldquostrip-lingrdquo is intended to signify its more recent dis-covery in the heavens than that of the other planets Footrsquos poem also elevates the moonsrsquo appearance dramatically Compare for ex-ample his description of ldquosix beauteous ladsrdquo to the description by Gilfillan of ldquosix feeble moonsrdquo The colour of the robes may be an allusion to the colour of Uranus in a telescope although the ldquogolden huerdquo must be ascribed to artistic license

The 8-moon fantasy appears in a Dutch lyric poem from 1869 entitled The Planets by Jan Jakob Lodewijk ten Kate (1819ndash1889 Figure 11) In the section on the planet Uranus he mentions ldquoAcht Satellietenrdquo which translates as ldquoeight satellitesrdquo (Kate 1891 12)

The numerous satellites of Uranus feature yet again in a poem by the Englishman John Thomas Beer (1870) who owned a store on Boar Lane in Leeds advertised as ldquoGeneral outfitter tailor and woollen merchantrdquo He was one of many Victorians who were moved to create astronomical poetry in this case a 240-page work entitled Creation five lines of which deal with Uranus


S Page 148

How glorious must he [Uranus] shine in company

With all his satellites Surrounded thus By bright auxiliary worlds which compensate For that more brilliant source so far removed He loses little by the seeing loss (Beer 1870 120)

Like the poem from 1840 it seems to suggest that satellites emit their own light to brighten the darkness for their parent planet Whatever sun-light they do reflect onto Uranus would hardly compensate for the feeble rays of the Sun at that distance Nonetheless they feature thus once again presumably with even greater brightness in a poem written 15 years after Beerrsquos work

The six moons discovered by Herschel were joined by the two discovered by Lassell in the Figure 11 An 1875 oil painting of Jan Jakob Lodewijk ten Kate by Johann Heinrich Neuman (httpscommons wikimediaorgwikiFileJan_Jacob_Lodewijk_ten_Kate_ (1818-89) lengthy poem Stellario by Alfred Dawson (1885) of Christrsquos College Cambridge Dawson spends several lines to set the gloomy prospect of the realm of Uranus

Scarcely is there discernrsquod a solar ray Dark as our darkest night would be the day But that upon our systems verge extreme Ever the starry hosts more brightly beam Whilst upon Uranus eight moons attend And to it their reflected radiance lend (Dawson 1885 360)

A poem simply titled The Universe was published by an author known only as EAR in 1885 A contemporary review of the poem sum-marises the precis of the poem The star Arc-turus is said to be on a collision course with the

Solar System which it thus threatens to destroy and

The Spirit of the System suddenly called from remote space by a comet summons the sun and planets to a council ndash which resembles in certain respects a meeting of College tutors and lecturers (The Oxford Magazine 1886 393)

The ldquoSystem Spiritrdquo asks what news Uranus brings

Great Sire I have none Not to me Has aught befallen of a record worth Recountment to your Highness Ever still I roll my backward orbit through the night Eccentric and reverse My four strange moons My sole companions on my frigid course Attend my steps with constant servitude (EAR 1885 14‒15)

Even though the poet got the correct moon count (for the first time in a century of Uran- ian poetry) The Oxford Magazine (1886 394) was not impressed with the poem ldquoThe whole thing falls flat or as the Americans say ends in a fizzlerdquo

The final poetic tribute to the six moons came from an obscure American poet Cornelius P Schermerhorn (1888 13) in a composition entitled Atomic Creation which curiously adds six years to the orbital period of Uranus

Next Georgium Sidus came Six moons this world doth light Around the glowing orb of flame In ninety years performs his flight

It took more than a full century after Her-schelrsquos announcement of six moons of Uranus for the count to consistently be reduced by two in the realm of poetry In the words of the poet Powell R Crosby (1895 118)

Four moons upon thine icy night Throw down their pale and sickly light

The confusion of poets had finally ended 6 DEPICTIONS OF THE URANIAN MOONS

John Newbury (1713ndash1767) started a publishing business in Reading in 1740 eventually produc-ing some 500 books One of his most popular series begun in 1761 was written by a char-acter dubbed ldquoTom Telescoperdquo One of these books was updated after Newburyrsquos death under the pseudonym William Magnet (1794) and in-cludes the first map (Figure 12) to depict only the first two moons discovered by Herschel seen here orbiting the Georgian Planet

A 1795 painting by John Russell (1745ndash1806) shows William Herschel holding a map (Figure 13) In the detailed view (Figure 14) the words above the map read ldquoThe Georgian Plan-et with its Satellitesrdquo Here we see the first two satellites he discovered Titania and Oberon


S Page 149

Figure 12 The first map to depict only the first two moons discovered by Herschel (after Magnet 1794)

This detail from a hand-coloured map (Fig-ure 15) that appeared in Philadelphia in 1805 specifically identifies the ldquoGeorgian planet amp his two Moonsrdquo

The first book to contain a map showing the six satellites was the one by Hassenfratz pub-lished in 1803 (see Figure 16)

An 1810 German language book by Fried- rich Theodor von Schubert (1758ndash1825) was the first to provide a map showing the relative distances of the six satellites from Uranus (Fig-ure 17)

Almost every American geography book published in the first decades of the nineteenth century reported six satellites for Uranus (Vin-ing 1983) A high school geography book by

the American author Samuel Griswold Good-rich (1793ndash1860) was the first such book to sug-gest Uranus may have fewer than six sat-ellites He wrote it has ldquohellip certainly two probab-ly five or six helliprdquo moons (Goodrich 1842 18) Several of these geography books included maps of the Solar System depicting not just the primary planets but their satellites Two are considered here In a book by the geographer William Channing Woodbridge (1794 ndash1845) we see six satellites hovering around the primary planet named Herschel (Figure 18)

In a book by the American lexicographer Joseph Emerson Worcester (1784ndash1865 1822) the six moons are shown in clearly outlined cir-cular orbits around Uranus (Figure 19) A sim-ilar diagram showing the circular orbits appear-


S Page 150

Figure 13 A 1795 painting of William Herschel by John Russell (courtesy Herschel Museum Bath)

Figure 14 Detail of the Russell painting showing the two satellites Herschel discovered in 1787

Figure 15 An American map printed in Philadelphia in 1805 shows just the first two moons (in the collection of the author)


S Page 151

Figure 16 The first map to depict six Uranian satellites (after a fold-out map at the end of Hassenfratz 1803)

ed in England as early as Tiberius Cavallo (1803) and the same mode of depiction was used in other countries such as the Italian publication by Giacomo Mikocz (1833 163)

Another publication took this view to the next logical step In a book by Charles Delau-nay that was translated into Italian by Curzio Buzzetti (1860 565) the author offers a zoom- in view of the satellite system showing the relative distances of the satellites from Uranus (see Figure 20)

The French writer Ameacutedeacutee Guillemin (1826ndash 1893) went to the ultimate limit by offering not just a perspective view of the Uranian satellites but eight of them the four real ones discovered by Herschel and Lassell and Herschelrsquos four

spurious moons A footnote reads

That the number of Satellites is limited to four has been established by Mr Lassell quite recently―indeed since the diagram was engraved (Guillemin 1867 262)

Even though the editor of this translated book J Norman Lockyer discredited Figure 21 it was used again seven years later by Spoor (1874 64) Despite its dramatic aspect this depiction lacks the proportionality of the orbits

Few authors attempted a pictorial depiction of the Uranian satellites The most visually eff-ective of these was in a book by Charles F Blunt (1840 39) who showed not only the Uranian system but Earth and Moon at right for a size comparison (Figure 22)


S Page 152

Figure 17 The first map to depict the proportions of the Uranian satellites This appeared as Figure 9 in Schubert (1810) on an unnumbered foldout page Portions of other figures on the same page appear to the right of this image

Orreries transformed maps into three-di-mensional objects These physical manifesta-tions of the Solar System were popular in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries Her-schel himself commented on orreries During a visit to Herschel in July 1810 John Evans (1817 360) had this exchange with him

Mentioning an excellent orrery I had lately purchased he replied with great good humour lsquoOrreries are pretty play-things ndash MY orrery is up therersquo ndashpointing to the sky

The year 1833 was a banner year for large orr-eries Mr Ebenezer Henderson (1809ndash1879 1833) of Liverpool finished one after four years of effort and one by the renowned Scottish instrument-maker John Fulton (1803ndash1853) was also finished Fultonrsquos resided in the Old Mus-eum Glasgow (Clarke 2013 140) Both show six moons surrounding Uranus (Figure 23)

Perhaps the largest audience to ever lsquoseersquo the six moons of Uranus were those who visited James Russellrsquos Planetarium (actually a large orrery) at the ldquohellip rooms of the American Instit-ute in the rear of City Hallrdquo A correspondent of a New York City literary magazine entitled The Knickerbocker (1843 95) writes that the planetarium was ldquohellip composed of highly-polished steel brass and solid cast iron helliprdquo weighing two tons He enthuses that ldquohellip the effect is indescribably impressive and sublime helliprdquo and goes on to describe ldquoThe zodiacal table sup-orting the whole machinery is more than sixteen feet in diameter rdquo The whole Solar System is

Figure 18 The six satellites hover around Uranus in this map (after Woodbridge 1825 16)


S Page 153

Figure 19 Generic orbits are given for the six satellites in this map from an unnumbered page at the beginning of Worcester (1827) Figure 20 Specific orbits for the six satellites are given in this map (after Buzzetti 1860 565)

Figure 21 A dramatic perspective view of the 8-moon Uranian system from Guillemin (1867 262)


S Page 154

Figure 22 The Uranian system with Earth and the Moon at right From Blunt (1840 39) represented including ldquohellip Uranus with his six satellitesrdquo Planetary satellites were represented by globes made of ivory in this second and larger version of the planetarium dating from 1842 an earlier one having been constructed by the James Russell in 1837 The larger version was exhibited by the Irish science populariser Dionysus Lardner (1793ndash1859) as part of his astronomy lectures throughout the United States in 1843 and 1844 Parts of the planetarium which was destroyed by fire in October 1844 were found in the library of Wesleyan Observa-tory in Connecticut in 2015 (Wells 2017) 7 CONCLUSIONS

The image shown in Figure 24 speaks volumes

Figure 23 Fultonrsquos Orrery now in the collection of the Kel-vingrove Art Gallery and Museum Uranus is at far right (courtesy Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum)

about the subject of this paper Here from 1827 we see six moons hovering like bees around the orb of Uranus Their placement is clearly a matter of whimsy which in hindsight is quite appropriate since four of them have no more material existence than the sprites in Shakespearersquos A Midsummer Nightrsquos Dream which was the source of the names Titania and Oberon (Blunck 2010 Mozel 1986)

The German scientist Alexander von Hum-boldt (1769ndash1859) threw caution to the wind in his admiration of Herschel

During the fiftyndashsix years which have elaps-ed since the last discovery of a Uranus sat-ellite (the third) the existence of six satellites has frequently been unjustly doubted the observations of the last twenty years have gradually proved how trustworthy the great discoverer of Slough [Herschel] has been in this as in all other branches of planetary astronomy Those satellites which have been seen again up to this time are the first second fourth and sixth Perhaps it may be ventured to add the third after the observa-

Figure 24 Six moons hover around Uranus in this fanciful sketch (after The Worthies of the United Kingdom 1827 15)

tions of Lassell on the 6th November 1848 (Humboldt 1852 526)

Humboldt thus places himself in the same role as Uranus in the theatrical play by Planche where the lsquoplanetrsquo derides those who doubt he has six attendants The same year Robert Grant (1814ndash1892) produced his influential book A History of Physical Astronomy which displayed the caution that Humboldt should have clothed the discussion in ldquo the existence of which might be regarded as problematical helliprdquo writes Grant (1852 285) in his discourse on the Uranian moons

Just a year after Grant wrote the asteroid-discoverer Hermann Goldschmidt (1802ndash1866) claimed to have seen five planets orbiting the star Sirius but like Herschelrsquos four moons no one saw them because they did not exist (Stan-dage 2000 183)


S Page 155

The spurious moons of Uranus had a long life but they finally met their match in Lassell (1853 36) However even he had a rocky road to acceptance of his discoveries The final judg-ment was made by the great Canadian-Ameri-can astronomer and mathematician Simon New-comb (quoted in Denning 1881 4837) when he stated ldquo none of Sir William Herschelrsquos sup-posed outer satellites can have any real exist-encerdquo The matter was described in a some-what florid style in the Edinburgh Review (1884 357) as the discoveries of Lassell were put in context ldquoHe dispelled the lsquoghostsrsquo of four Uran-ian moons which had by glimpses haunted the usually unerring vision of the elder Herschelrdquo

It was not until the late nineteenth century that we see publications nearly consistently re-ferring to four moons of Uranus two discovered by Herschel and two by Lassell Perversely a book from the centuryrsquos last decade by Thomas Edie Hill (1890 200) still insists Uranus has six moons As of 2018 there are 27 known moons orbiting Uranus so the desire for more satellites that began in 1792 has been amply fulfilled

This paper has traced the application of or-bital proportionality to the probable existence of

more planetary satellites from its origin in 1698 through the centuries While it may have been based entirely on numerology mixed in with no-tions of magnetic and other forces it did lead Schweigger to a nearly correct value for the orbital period of the innermost moon of Uranus The desire for ever more Uranian satellites bas-ed on the equally false premise that more dist-ant planets possessed more attendants to pro-vide light to their primaries has also seen com-prehensive attention here for the first time in historical astronomical study

Finally research for this paper has uncover-ed 47 examples of verse (plus one in a theatri-cal play) in seven languages that explicitly men-tion or allude to the moons of Uranus in the century after Herschel announced the discovery of the first two English (31) Latin (5) French (3) Italian (4) Dutch (1) German (1) and Span-ish (1) These poets are listed in (Table 26) Com- bined with my discovery (Cunningham 2018) of another 47 poems relating to William Herschel dating from 1783 to 1867 these 85 poems (tak-ing nine overlapping entries into account) deal-ing with Herschel and the Uranian moons open an entirely new aspect of Herschel studies

Table 26 Poets who wrote about the Uranian moons 1788‒1895 Entries with an asterisk are included in the list of poetry about William Herschel compiled in Cunningham (2018)

Author Number of Moons Year Language Szerdahely None given 1788 Latin

Stocktoniensis 2 1793 English Colquitt 6 1802 English

Ricci None given 1802 Italian Darwin None given 1803 English

Poli None given 1805 Italian Crocker 6 1808 English

Mangnall 6 1808 English Workman 6 1809 English

Barlow None given 1809 English Polenz 6 1810 Latin Gudin 6 1810 French Lobb None given 1817 English

Rogerson 6 1820 English Rawlins None given 1822 English

Shaw 8 1824 English Richmond 6 c 1825 English Sigourney 6 1827 English

Hugo 6 1828 French Cίscar 6 1828 Spanish Daru 6 1830 French

Smetham 6 1838 English Anon None given 1839 English

Strong 3 1844 English Forster 6 1845 Latin Lofland 6 1846 English

Baily 6 1847 English Planche 6 1847 English

Poe 3 1848 English Nuumlrnberger 6 1848 Latin

Fleischhauer 6 184850 Latin Watts 6 1849 English

Fleischhauer 6 1850 German Young 6 1852 English Ferucci 5 1852 Italian

Pratt 6 1852 English


S Page 156

Taylor 3 or 6 1853 English Ferri More than 20 1860 Italian

Jones 6 or possibly 20 1864 English Gilfillan 6 1867 English

Foot 6 1867 English Kate 8 1869 Dutch Beer None given 1870 English

Dawson 8 1885 English EAR 4 1885 English

Schermerhorn 6 1888 English Crosby 4 1895 English

8 NOTES

1 The original French text reads

La mecircme analyse appliqueacutee aux satellites drsquoUranus fait voir que son action seule peut maintenir les cinq premiers dans le plan de son eacutequateur Elle est probablement insuffisante pour cet objet relativement au sixiegraveme satellite mais si la masse du cinquiegraveme surpasse la vingtndashmilliegraveme partie de celle de la planegravete alors son action reacuteunie agrave celle drsquoUranus suffit pour maintenir lrsquoorbite du sixiegraveme dans le plan des autres orbites conformeacutement aux observations drsquoHerschel

2 Here is the Latin original

Ille dedit nobis Oculos et Sidera quo sint Astronomis iam nunc proximiora facit Is quoque quae quondam perierunt Astra reducet Et nova quae nunquam visa fuere dabit Fallor an Excubias nacta est fortasse satelles Errat et excubias unus et alter agit


De duobus eius Satellitibus (Eunuchos ab Urano Patre vel Phoebo Magistro datos Virgini Uraniae aut sponte assumtos dicet aliquis) nuper ab Herschelio detectis Famam fecerunt Ephemerides politicae An autem sunt reapse Satellites Uraniae

4 Here is the Italian original

del pigro Urano ove lrsquoacuto gelo I flutti imbriglia marmorei fiumi Specchio delle seguaci algide lune


Per esso Urano in questo ciel fiammeggia Ed e da lune circondato anchrsquoegli

6 Here is the French original

Deacutecouvre agrave ses cocircteacutes un premier satellite Un second se fait voir quatre autres plus lointains Fuyant agrave ses regards en sont encore atteints


Uranus insequitur quem tu pater Astronomorum Herschel digne tuo qui tangas vertice soles Errantem agnosti primus Distare jubetur Ultimus ante omnes poenas fortasse daturus Namque Gigantes Titanasque deumque hominumque Terrorem genuit Comites circum volitantes Ter duo sunt illi plures fortasse patescent Finit iter decies octonis amplius annis

8 Here is the Spanish original

Y de Herschel descubrioacute la largomira de seis lunas retroacutegadas rodeado


Les six lunes drsquoHerschel lrsquoanneau du vieux Saturne Le pocircle arrondissant une aurore nocturne Sur son front boreacuteal Il voit tout et pour lui ton vol que rien ne lasse De ce monde sans borne agrave chaque instant deacuteplace Lhorizon ideacuteal


La Terre aime en Phoebeacute sa compagne fidegravele De quatre astres suivi Jupiter eacutetincelle Saturne le font ceint du ceacuteleste bandeau Voit sept gardes brillants ranimer son flambeau Ils devancent ses pas le suivent et son pegravere [Uranus] Deux fois encor plus loin du dieu qui nous eacuteclaire De six globes amis dont il marche escorteacute Pour ses profondes nuits emprunte la clarteacute Loin bien loin drsquoUranus et de ses satellites Quels astres [the comets] vont traccedilant ces bizarres orbites Lrsquoerreur les crut long-temps dans leur route eacutegareacutes Mais vers notre soleil comme nous attireacutes Ils fuient et tour agrave tour recherchent sa preacutesence Et plus prompts que la foudre en leur ellipse immense Des limites du monde accourent vers leur roi Heacuterissant leur criniegravere objet de notre effroi


Uranus in liquid quae longegrave in caerula gyrat Sex habet huic parco frigida terra foco


Cingitur a lunis tandem sex Uranus exter


Uranus a lunis sex cingitur

14 Here is the German original

Mit Uranus den Herschel fand von sechs monden rund umgeben

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Dale Cruikshank (NASA Ames Re-search Center) for providing me with the papers by Barton and Forgan to Trip Wyckoff of Florida State University for using micro-opaque cards from the 1960s that enabled me to find the Has-senfratz map which does not appear on internet


S Page 157

resources that consistently fail to scan fold-out plates This was on my visit to Tallahassee in March 2015 Thanks also are due to James Le-queux for French translations and Roger Cer-agioli for some Latin translations For archival research I thank the Royal Astronomical Society (London) and the Ransom Centre (Austin) who were very helpful during my visits Thanks also to the three reviewers of this paper for their val-uable insights An early version of this research project was presented at the biannual History of Astronomy Workshop University of Notre Dame in 2015 10 REFERENCES

Abbott JSC 1847 The Young Astronomer New York JC Riker

A Family Paper The Asteroid ldquoPot Hunterrdquo 48(65) August issue New York The Outlook Co (1893)

Anonymous 1821 The Excursions of a Spirit with a Survey of the Planetary World London FC and J Rivington

Anonymous 1835 The English in India and Other Sketches By a Traveller Volume 1 London Long-man and Co

Anonymous 1839 Immortality A Poem London John Hearne

Arago F 1857 Satellites drsquoUranus Astronomie Pop-ulaire 4 494‒506

Bagay V 1829 Nouvelles Tables Astronomiques Paris Firmin Didot Pegravere et fils

Baily F 1827 Astronomical Tables and Formulae London John Richardson

Baily PJ 1847 Festus A Poem Boston Benjamin B Mussey

Barlow J 1809 The Columbiad A Poem Philadel-phia C and A Conrad amp Co

Bartlett W 1871 Elements of Natural Philosophy Volume 4 Spherical Astronomy New York AS Barnes

Barton SG 1946 The names of the satellites Pop-ular Astronomy 54 122‒130

Beer JT 1870 Creation A Poem Leeds BW Sharp

Bieberstein CW and Marschall EFL 1802 Untersuchungen uumlber den Ursprung und die Ausbildung der gegenwartigen Anordnung des Wellbebaendes Darmstadt Georg Friedrich Heyer

Biot J-B 1811 Traiteacute Eacuteleacutementaire DrsquoAstronomie Physique Paris J Klostermann

Blunck J 2010 Solar System Moons Discovery and Mythology Berlin Springer

Blunt CF 1840 The Beauty of the Heavens A Pictorial Display London Whitehead amp Co

Bode J 1798 Aus einem Schreiben des Prof Bode Allgemeine Geographische Ephemeriden 1 707

Bode J 1803 Anleitung zur allgemeinen Kentniss der Erdkugel Berlin Himburg

Bode J 1816 Betrachtung der Gestirne und des Weltgebaumludes Berlin Nicolai

Bohnenberger JGF 1811 Astronomie Tuebingen JG Cotta

Bowditch N 1825 Modern Astronomy From the North American Review for April 1825 Boston Press of the North American Review

Brande WT 1842 Satellite In A Dictionary of

Science Literature amp Art London Longman Brown Green and Longmans

Bresson F 1843 Sur un ouvrage de M Boutigny Base drsquoune nouvelle physique Bulletin de la So-cieacutete Libre drsquoEacutemulation de Rouen 116‒142

Brisson M-J 1802 Diccionario Universal de Fisica Volume 8 Madrid De Oacuterden Superior

Brisson M-J 1803 Tratado Elemental oacute Principios de Fisica Volume 3 Madrid Administracion del real arbitrio de beneficencia

Brandes HW 1813 Die vornehmsten Lehren der Astronomie Volume 3 Leipzig JG Goumlschen

Bryan M 1799 A Compendious System of Astron- omy Second Edition London Wynne and Scho-ley

Bryan M 1805 A Compendious System of Ast-ronomy Third Edition London Wynne and Scho-ley

Bucke C 1830 Arts and Sciences Astronomy The London Literary Gazette 10 July issue 449ndash450

Burritt E 1833 Geography of the Heavens Third Edition Hartford FJ Huntington

Burton FB 1834 Distant Glimpses or Astronomi-cal Sketches London W Pickering


Burton FB 1838 Astronomy Simplified London Simpkin Marshall amp Co

Buzzetti C 1860 Corso Elementare di Astronomia di Carlo Delaunay Milan Carlo Turati

Capocci E 1853 Lezioni di Astronomia di Domenico Arago Torino Ferrero e Franco

Case S 2020 Naming the Universe Aeon httpsaeoncoessayshow-gods-beat-astronomers-in-the-solar-system-name-game

Cavallo T 1803 The Elements of Natural or Ex-perimental Philosophy Volume 4 London T Cad-ell and W Davies

Challis J 1830 On the extension of Bodersquos em-pirical law of the distances of the planets from the Sun to the distances of the satellites from their respective primaries Transactions of the Cam-bridge Philosophical Society 3 171ndash183

Chambers J E 1998 A possible explanation for the spacing of the terrestrial planets In Celnikier LM and Tran Van J (eds) Planetary Systems The Long View Gif-sur-Yvette Editions Frontieres Pp 91ndash92

Chase PE 1877 Music of the moons Journal of the Franklin Institute 74 352ndash354

Cheyne G 1715 Philosophical Principles of Relig-ion London George Strahan

Cίscar G 1828 Poema fisico-astronoacutemico en siete cantos Gibraltar Libreria Militar

Clarke A 1811 The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments The Text Printed from the Most Correct Copies of the Present Authorized Translation Including the Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts With a Commentary and Critical Notes Volume 1 New York Ezra Sargeant

Clarke D 2013 Reflections on the Astronomy of Glasgow Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press

Coleridge ST 1793 Greek Ode on Astronomy In J Beer J (ed) Coleridge the Visionary Penrith Humanities-eBooks (2007) P 276

Coleridge ST 1802 To Matilda Betham from a Stranger In Coleridge EH (ed) The Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge Oxford Oxford


S Page 158

University Press (1912) Pp 374ndash376 Colquitt W 1802 Poems Chester W C Jones Covelli N 1818 Trattato Elementare di Fiscal Speri-

mentale di G B Biot Volume 5 Naples Dalla Tipografia del Giornale Enciclopedico Strada del Salvatore a S Angelo a Nilo

Crida A and Charnoz S 2012 Formation of reg-ular satellites from ancient massive rings in the Solar System Science 338 1196ndash1199

Crocker A 1808 The Universe A Philosophical Poem Taunton J Poole

Cronaca del Giornale Generale della Bibliografia Italiana 1861 Nei primi giorni de deacutecor so anno fu dato alla luce dalla Tipografia Mariani un Poema del Dott Carlo Ferri di Firenze intitolato I Mondi 1 37ndash39 15 August issue Florence Giacomo Mol-ina

Crosby PR 1895 Po Crosbyrsquos Poems Ode to the Planet Uranus Saginaw Seeman and Peters

Cullimore J 1850 On the ratio of the distances of the satellites of the planets Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 11 48

Cunningham CJ 2017 Bodersquos Law and the Dis-covery of Juno Cham (Switzerland) Springer

Cunningham CJ 2018 Accolades and barbs William Herschel in satire and poetry In Cunn-ingham CJ (ed) The Scientific Legacy of William Herschel Cham (Switzerland) Springer Pp 297ndash364

Daru P 1830 LrsquoAstronomie Poeme en Six Chants Paris Chez Firmin Didot Fregraveres

Darwin E 1803 The Temple of Nature London J Johnson

Davis AJ 1847 The Principles of Nature New York SS Lyon amp W Fishbough

Dawes WR 1847 On the interior satellites of Uranus Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 8 135ndash139

Dawson A 1885 Stellario In Keta and Other Poems Cambridge (UK) Printed for private circu-lation Pp 322ndash363

Delambre JJ 1814 Astronomie Theoretique et Practique Volume 3 Paris Courcier

Denning WF 1881 The centenary of the discovery of Uranus Scientific American Supplement 303 4836ndash4838

Dick T 1838 Celestial Scenery Brookfield E and L Merriam

Duncan A 1834 An Essay Toward An Arrangement of the Proofs of the Being Of A God Edinburgh Thomas Affleck

Edinburgh Journal of Science 1829 Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society Vol 10 174

Edinburgh Review 1884 Mountain Observatories October issue 351ndash377

Encyclopedia Britannica Eighth Edition Volume 4 1854 Astronomy Boston Little Brown amp Co

Evans J 1817 An Excursion to Windsor in July 1810 London Sherwood Neely and Jones

Ewing T 1816 A System of Geography Edinburgh Oliver amp Boyd

Ewing T 1839 A System of Geography 15th Edition Edinburgh Oliver amp Boyd

Ferri C 1860 I Mondi Ppoema Firenze G Mariani Ferucci LC 1852 Scala di Vita Memoriale in terza

rima diviso in tre parti Florence Dalla Tipografia Granducale

Fischer E 1787 Ueber das MondenndashSystem des Uranus Auszug aus einer Verlesung in der litterarischen Gesellschaft zu Halberstadt (About the Satellite System of Uranus excerpt from a reading at the Literary Society of Halberstadt) Berliner Astronomische Jahrbuch (for 1790) 213ndash219

Fleischhauer P 1848 Systems Solare Woumlchent-liche Uerhaltungen fuumlr Dilettanten und Freunde Astronomie Geographie und Witterungskunde 15 8 April issue Leipzig Robert Friese Page 124

Fleischhauer P 1850 Versuch einer Gemein-fasslichen nur auf Elementarschulkenntnisse gegruumlndeten Wolfsterntunde Darmstadt EW Leske

Fontenelle B 1715 Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds (trans William Gardner) London E Bettesworth

Foot EE 1867 The Original Poems The Death Burial and Destruction of Bacchus or The Fruits of Lasciviousness ndash An Allegorical Poem in Two Cantos London published by the author Pp 117ndash160

Forgan W 1899 Ariel and Umbriel Journal of the British Astronomical Association 10 72ndash73

Forster TI 1845 Philosophia Musarum Sold at the Albion Library Bruges Dyver

Fortia drsquoUrban AJ (Marquis de) 1826 Vie de Louis de Berton de Crillon des Balbes surnommeacute Le Brave Crillon Volume 3 Paris aacute la Librarie de A Dupont et Roret cindashdevant qaui des Augustins

Fourier C 1808 The Theory of the Four Movements English translation of the 1841 edition ed by Gareth Jones and Ian Patterson 1996 Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press

Fraser D 1796 The Young Gentleman and Ladyrsquos Assistant Albany Spencers and Webb

Fry T 1833 Domestic Portraiture or the Successful Application of Religious Principle in the Education of a Family Exemplified in the Memoirs of Three of the Deceased Children of the Rev L Richmond London LB Seeley amp Sons

Galbraith J and Haughton S 1855 Manual of Astronomy London Longman and Co

Gilfillan G 1867 Night A Poem London Jackson Walford and Hodder

Gehler JST 1842 Physikalisches Woumlrterbuch Volume 10 Leipzig EB Schwickert

Gillespie CC 2018 Pierre-Simon Laplace 1749ndash1827 A Life in Exact Science Princeton Princeton University Press

Goodrich SG 1842 A Pictorial Geography of the World Boston CD Strong

Gossin P 2007 Thomas Hardyrsquos Novel Universe Astronomy Cosmology and Gender in the Post-Darwinian World Aldershot Ashgate

Granada M 2018 Michael Maestlin and the comet of 1618 In Granada M Boner P and Tessicini D (eds) Unifying Heaven and Earth Essays in the History of Early Modern Cosmology Barcelona Universitat de Barcelona Pp 239ndash290

Grant R 1852 Physical Astronomy from the Earliest Ages to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century London Robert Baldwin

Gregory O 1811 Lessons Astronomical and Philo-sophical for the Amusement and Instruction of British Youth Fourth Edition London J Holds-worth


S Page 159

Gudin de la Brenellerie PP 1810 LAstronomie Poeumlme en Quatre Chants Nouvelle Eacutedition Paris Firmin Didot

Guillemin A 1867 The Heavens An Illustrated Handbook of Popular Astronomy (Trans by JN Lockyer) London Richard Bentley

Guthrie W 1815 A New Geographical Historical and Commercial Grammar Volume 1 Philadel-phia Johnson amp Warner

Harding CL and Wiesen G 1830 Kleine Astron-omische Ephemeriden Goumlttingen Vandehoeck and Ruprecht

Harris J 1719 Astronomical Dialogues Between a Gentleman and a Lady London T Wood

Haskins RW 1838 Uranus and its satellites with the history of their discovery The Knickerbocker or New York Monthly Magazine 12 (1) 1‒6

Hassenfratz JH 1803 Cours de Physique Ceacuteleste Paris aacute la Librairie Economique

Heck JG 1852 Iconographic Encyclopaedia of Science Literature and Art Volume 1 New York Rudolph Garrigue

Henderson E 1833 Hendersonrsquos Planetarium Mechanicsrsquo Magazine 18 370‒371

Herschel J 1835 On the satellites of Uranus Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society 8 1‒24

Herschel J 1842 A Treatise on Astronomy Phila-delphia Lea amp Blanchard

Herschel W 1787 An account of the discovery of two satellites revolving round the Georgian planet Philosophical Transactions 77 125ndash129

Herschel W 1798 On the discovery of four additional satellites of the Georgium Sidus The retrograde motion of its old satellites announced and the cause of their disappearance at certain distances from the planet explained Philosophical Transactions 88 47ndash66 [Report published in German in the BAJ for 1798 231ndash234]

Hill TE 1890 Hillrsquos Album of Biography and Art Chicago Danks amp Co

Hinrichs G 1865 Introduction to the mathematical principles of the nebular theory or planetology American Journal of Science and Arts 39(117) second series May 276ndash286

Hodson T 1802 The Accomplished Tutor or Complete System of Liberal Education Second Edition Volume 2 London HD Symonds

Holden ES 1881 Sir William Herschel His Life and Works New York Charles Scribnerrsquos Sons

Hugo V 1832 Oeuvres de Victor Hugo Brussels Louis Hauman and Co

Humboldt A 1852 A Sketch of a Physical Des-cription of the Universe Volume 4 (Trans from the German by EC Otte and BH Paul) London Henry G Bohn

Huygens C 1698 Cosmotheoros The Hague Adrianum Moetjens

Huygens C 1722 The Celestial Worlds Discoverrsquod Second Edition London James Knapton

Jamieson A 1837 A Dictionary of Mechanical Science Volume 1 London Henry Fisher Son and Company

JD 1792 An Astronomical Catechism for the Instruction and Entertainment of Young Gentlemen and Ladies London T Wilkins

Jones BC 1864 One Hundred Lectures on God The Creator Fourth Series London WH Allen

Kaestner KWG 1833 Grundzuumlge der Physik und Chemie 2 Nueremberg Johann Stein

Kaiser F 1844 De Sterrenhemel Amsterdam JCA Sulpke

Kate JJL 1891 The Planets In Lyrische Poeumlzy Leiden AW Sijthoff Pages 1‒68

Keith T 1826 Dellrsquouso dersquoglobi ossia Trattato elementare DrsquoAstronomia Pratica Torino Giacinto Marietti

Kragh H 2008 The Moon That Wasnrsquot The Saga of Venusrsquo Spurious Satellite Basel Birkhauser Verlag AG

Lamont J 1838 Value of the mass of Uranus de-duced from observations of its satellites Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society 11 51‒60

Lancelin P-F 1805 Theacuteorie Physico-Matheacutematique de lrsquoOrganisation des Mondes ou Systegravemes Planeacutet-aires Paris Crapart Caille and Ravier

Laplace PS 1796 Exposition du Systegraveme du Monde Paris Chez Courcier

Laplace PS 1801 Meacutemoire sur les mouvements des orbites des satellites de Saturne et drsquoUranus Meacutemoires de lrsquoAcadeacutemie des Sciences 1 Serie 107ndash127 Reprinted in Oeuvres Completes XII 237ndash253

Laplace PS 1808 Exposition du Systegraveme du Monde Paris Chez Courcier [Page 135 has Uran-us data]

Lassell W 1851 Satellites of Uranus Monthly Not-ices of the Royal Astronomical Society 11 Sup-plement 9 247ndash248

Lassell W 1853 Extract of a letter from Mr Lassell Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 13 36ndash39

Littrow JJ 1834 Die Wunder des Himmels Stutt-gart C Hoffman

Lobb R 1817 The Contemplative Philosopher Volume 1 London Sherwood Neely amp Jones

Lofland J 1846 Poetical and Prose Writings Balti-more John Murphy

Loomis E 1852 On the satellites of Uranus The American Journal of Science and Arts 14 second series 405ndash410

Lynch D 1817 An Easy Introduction to Practical Astronomy Dublin John Barlow

Lynn WT 1893 The sondashcalled law of Bode as applied by Challis to the satellites The Observa-tory 16 359ndash360

Magnet W 1794 The Newtonian System of Philo-sophy London Ogilvy and Speare

Maliszewski P 2013 The endangered semicolon Apology 1 125ndash151

Mangnall R 1800 Historical and Miscellaneous Questions Second Edition London Longman Rees Orme Brown and Green

Mangnall R 1808 Historical and Miscellaneous Questions Sixth Edition London Longman Rees Orme Brown and Green

Marbach GO 1837 Populares Physikalisches Lexi-kon oder Handworterbuch der Gesammten Natur-lehre Volume 4 Leipzig Otto Wigand

Matlack S 2017 Quantum poetics The New Atlan-tis SummerFall issue 47ndash67

Mattison H 1849 An Elementary Astronomy for Academies and Schools Fifth Edition New York Huntington amp Savage

Mattison AM 1866 The Geography of the Hea-vens New York Sheldon amp Co


S Page 160

Merleker KF 1839 Lehrbuch der Historisch-comparativen Geographie Darmstadt CW Leske

Mikocz G 1833 Il Corso di Navigazione Teoretico-Pratica Volume1 Venice Alvisopoli

Miller G 1826 Popular Philosophy Dunbar G Miller

Miller H 1855 Geology versus Astronomy Glas-gow James R Macnair

MrsquoIntyre J 1823 New Treatise on the Use of the Globes Baltimore John J Harrod

Monthly Notices of the Astronomical Society 11 48 (1851)

Mozel P 1986 In search of sprites ndash the discovery of Ariel and Umbriel Journal of the Royal Ast-ronomical Society of Canada 80 344ndash350

Mutel A 1841 Traiteacute Eacuteleacutementaire DrsquoAstronomie Second Edition Paris Aimeacute Andreacute

New Scientist 1978 Does Uranus need a sixth moon to make its rings 78(1100) 27 April issue 228

Nieto M 1972 The TitiusndashBode Law of Planetary Distances Its History and Theory Amsterdam Pergamon Press

Norton W 1867 A Treatise on Astronomy Spherical and Physical Fourth Edition New York John Wiley amp Son

Nuumlrnberger JE 1848 Populaumlres Astronomisches Hand-Woumlrterbuch Zweiter Band 2-3 Rempten Tobias Dannheimer

Olmsted D 1847 Thoughts on the discovery of Le Verrierrsquos planet The New Englander 5 126‒136

Patterson R 1809 Astronomy Explained Upon Sir Isaac Newtonrsquos Principles by James Ferguson Re-vised Corrected and Improved Philadelphia Mat-thew Carey

Patton JM 1988 On the dynamical derivation of the Titius-Bode Law Celestial Mechanics 44(4) 365‒ 391

Payne J 1794 Universal Geography Formed into a New and Entire System Volume 1 Dublin Zach-ariah Jackson

Picket A 1810 The Juvenile Expositor New York Smith amp Forman

Planche JR 1879 The new planet or harlequin out of place In Croker TFD and Tucker S (eds) The Extravaganzas of JR Planche Esq Volume 3 London Samuel French Pp 149‒180

Platen Grafen von 1787 Eine Formel um aus beobachteten Abstaumlnden die wahren zu berechnen ueber die Interpolationsmethode neuer Vorschlag zur Ersindund der Polhoumlhe und Regeln um die Sonnenparallaxe die verhaumlltnissmaumlssigen Durchmesser und Massen der Planeten zu finden Submitted 1785 and 1786 Berliner Astronomische Jahrbuch fuumlr 1787 12 125ndash128

Platen Grafen von 1788 Einige Ordnungen und Verhaumlltnisse im SonnenndashSystem (Some Orders and Conditions in the Solar System) Submitted April 1788 Berliner Astronomische Jahrbuch fuumlr 1791 16 235ndash238

Pletser V 1986 Exponential distance laws for sate-llite systems Earth Moon and Planets 36 193ndash210

Poe EA 1848 Eureka A Prose Poem New York GP Putnam

Polehampton E and Good JM 1818 The Gallery of Nature and Art Volume 1 London R Wilkes

Poli GS 1805 Viaggio celeste poema astronomico del tenente colonnello First Part Naples Nella

Stampria Reale Poppe JHM von 1822 Der Astronomische

Jugendfreund Volume 2 Tuumlbingen EF Osiander Pratt SD 1852 Inklings Containing Sketches of

Life Compositions Essays Disputations Poems etc Auburn Henry Oliphant

Prentice AJR 1977 Formation of the satellite systems of the major planets Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia 3 172ndash173

Prentice AJR 1978 Origin of the Solar System I Gravitational contraction of the turbulent proto- sun and the shedding of a concentric system of gaseous Laplacian rings Moon and Planets 19 341‒398

Prentice AJR 1986 Uranus predicted origin and composition of its atmosphere moons and rings Physics Letters A 114 211ndash216

Prentice AJR 1989 Neptune predicted origin and composition of a regular satellite system Physics Letters A 140 265ndash270

R EA 1885 The Universe In Aureliana No place given printed for private circulation Pp 1‒35

Rawlins W 1822 To Sylvanus Urban on com-pleting the second part of Volume XCII Gentle-manrsquos Magazine 92 ii

Regier JN 2018 On folding geometry approp-riating Proclus in the ldquoHarmonice mundirdquo (1619) In Granada M Boner P and Tessicini D (eds) Unifying Heaven and Earth Essays in the History of Early Modern Cosmology Barcelona Universitat de Barcelona Pp 217‒237

Rheita de Schyrleus AM 1643 Novem stellae circa Jovem visae circa Saturnum sex circa Martem nonnullae (Nine stars seen around Jupiter six around Saturn several around Mars) Paris Apud Sebastianum Cramoisy

Ricci AM 1802 Il Filantropo dellrsquoAppennino medit-azioni filosofoco-poetiche Notte Quarta Rome Vincenzo Poggioli Pp 59‒73

Rogerson W 1820 Untitled poem William Herschel Archives Harry Ransom Center Austin M1041

Saint-Pierre JBH 1815 Harmonies of Nature Volume 3 (trans W Meeston) London Baldwin Cradock and Joy

Scanlon TM 2003 The Difficulty of Tolerance Essays in Political Philosophy Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press

Scerri E 2007 The Periodic Table Its Story and its Significance New York Oxford University Press

Schaffer S 1981 Uranus and the establishment of Herschelrsquos Astronomy Journal for the History of Astronomy 12 11ndash26

Schermerhorn CP 1888 Atomic Creation and Other Poems New York CD Wynkoop

Schubert FT 1810 Populaumlre Astronomie Volume 3 St Petersburg Kayserl Akademie der Wissen-schaften

Schulze GL 1810 Darstellung des Sonnen-systems in lateinischen versen Monatliche Correspondenz 22 December issue 576ndash577

Schulze GL 1821 Lehrbuch der Astronomie fuumlr Schulen und zum Selbst-Unterricht fuumlr gebildete Naturfreunde Leipzig Friedrich Fleischer

Schweigger J 1814 Ueber das Umdrehungsgesetz der magnetischen Erdpole den beruumlhmten indischen Zahlen gemaumlss und ein davon abgeleitetes Gesetz des Trabanten und Planeten-Umschwunges Journal fuumlr Chemie und Physik 10


S Page 161

3ndash36 Schweigger J 1853 Ueber die aussindung der zwei

ersten Uranustrabanten Astronomische Nachrich-ten 35 261ndash264

Settele G 1819 Elementi di Ottica e di Astronomicia Volume 2 Rome Nella Stamperia de Romanis

Shaw S 1824 The planets The Monthly Magazine 58 (August issue) 47

Sigourney LH 1827 Poems Boston SG Good-rich

Smith J 1815 The Panorama of Science and Art Volume 1 Liverpool Nuttall Fisher and Co

Smetham R 1838 Natal Love a Poem Sandbach R Lindop

Smyth WH 1844 A Cycle of Celestial Objects Volume 1 London John W Parker

Spoor JW 1874 Electro Astronomical Atlas Albany Weed Parsons and Co

Standage T 2000 The Neptune File New York Walker amp Co

Stearns G 1888 The Pericosmic Theory Printed by Wood Brothers Hudson Massachusetts published by the author

Stocktoniensis 1793 The Solar System The Stock-ton Bee or Monthly Miscellany Stockton J At-kinson

Strong CD 1844 Sanctae Vigiliae or Devout Mus-ings on the Heavens in Verse London William Pickering

Struve O 1847 Note on the satellites of Uranus Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 8 44ndash47

Szerdahely GA 1788 Historia Uraniae Musae Quam inter Deos Deasque Planetarias recens detexit Herschelius In Silva Parnassi Pannonii Vindobonae Mathiae Andreae Schmidt Pp 147ndash174

Taylor J and Taylor A 1868 Original Poems for Infant Minds London George Routledge

Taylor WB 1876 Kinetic theories of gravitation Smithsonian Report 205ndash282

The British Critic 1831 Transactions of the Cam-bridge Philosophical Society 9 71ndash90

The Cabinet of Nature 1815 New York Samuel Wood amp Sons

The Knickerbocker 1843 The Editorrsquos Table Volume 21(1) New York John Allen Pp 82ndash99

The Monthly Magazine 1798 Varieties Literary and Philosophical Volume 6(2) 52ndash57

The Oxford Magazine 1886 Ideal Astronomy 24 November issue 393ndash394

The Philosophical Magazine 39 25 (1812) The Spectator 1862 Current Literature 15 March

issue 304 London John Campbell The Worthies of the United Kingdom or Library for

the People Third Division 1827 Astronomy Lon-don Knight and Lacey Pp 1‒48

Timersquos Telescope 1814 View of the Solar System Of the Georgian Planet and of Comets London Sherwood Neely and Jones Pp 322ndash330

Timersquos Telescope for 1815 1821 Principles of Astronomy London Sherwood Neely and Jones Page xxxii

Traversi A 1806 Lezioni di Fisica Moderna Teorico- Esperimentale Volume 4 Venice Da Antonio Curti Q Giacomo

Tuxen JC 1862 Soleller Planetsystemet Copenha-gen PG Philipsens

Utting J 1823a On a planetary analogy or a law of motion pervading and connecting all the planetary orbits The Philosophical Magazine 62 119ndash121

Utting J 1823b Postscript to Mr J Uttingrsquos paper on a planetary analogy The Philosophical Magazine 62 214

Utting J 1840 Astronomical inquiry on a conjunction of the Sun Moon planets and satellites The Inventorrsquos Advocate and Journal of Industry 2(24) 18 January issue 60

Vining JW 1983 Astronomical geography an ex-amination of the early American literature The Geographical Bulletin 23(1) 30ndash40

Wallace J 1812 A New Treatise of the Use of Globes and Practical Astronomy Smith amp Forman New York

Watts L 1849 Pretty Little Poems for Pretty Little People Cheapside William Milner

Webb TW 1863 Uranus The Intellectual Observer 3 123ndash126

Wells KD 2017 Russellrsquos Planetarium ldquoOne of the Greatest Curiosities of the Dayrdquo The Magic Lantern Gazette 29(1) 19ndash23

Wilkins JH 1825 Elements of Astronomy Boston Cummings Hilliard amp Co

Wood T 1811 The Mosaic History of the Creation of the World Manchester Wheeler and Son

Woodbridge WC 1825 Rudiments of Geography Hartford Oliver D Cooke and Sons

Workman B 1809 Elements of Geography Thirteenth Edition Philadelphia John McCulloch

Wurm V 1787a Verschiedene astronomische Be-merkungen und eine Abhandlung ueber mogliche Planeten und Kometen unsers Sonnensystems (Various astronomical thoughts and a treatise on possible planets and comets of our Solar System) Submitted 27 February 1787 Berliner Astronom-ische Jahrbuch fuumlr 1790 15 162ndash173

Wurm V 1787b Ueber die Anordnung der Tra-bantsysteme ein Ideal mit Beobachtungen ver-glichen (On the Arrangement of Satellite Systems an Ideal compared with Observations) Submitted March 1787 Berliner Astronomische Jahrbuch fuumlr 1791 16 188ndash195

Wurm V 1787c Letter to William Herschel dated 10 September 1787 Herschel Archives Royal Astro-nomical Society W203

Wurm V 1791 Geschichte des neuen Planeten Uranus samt Tafeln fuer dessen heliocentrischen und geogentrischen Ort (History of the new planet Uranus and Tables for its heliocentric and geo-centric positions) Gotha Carl Wilhelm Ettinger

Wurm V 1803 Ueber die vermeinte harmonische Progression Monatliche Correspondenz 7 74ndash80

Young TU 1852 The Teacherrsquos Manual for Infant Schools and Preparatory Classes Dublin James MrsquoGlashan

Zach F 1798 Auszug aus einem Schreiben des Herrn Hofrath Blumenbach an den Herausgeber Allgemiene Geographische Ephemeriden 1 224ndash225

Clifford J Cunningham earned his PhD in history of astronomy from the University of Southern Queens-land in Australia where he is now a Research Fellow in the Astrophysics Group He is also a Research Associate with the National Astronomical Research


S Page 162

Institute of Thailand

His undergraduate degrees in physics and classical studies were earned at the University of Waterloo in Canada He has writ-ten or edited 15 books Introduc-tion to Asteroids a 5-volume ser-ies on nineteenth century aster-

oid research and an edited book on William Herschel (published by Springer) 7 volumes to date in the Collected Correspondence of Baron Franz von Zach and a forthcoming book on asteroids for Reaktion Press He is currently editing one of six volumes in Bloomsburyrsquos Cultural History of the Universe

His research papers have appeared in many journals including Annals of Science Asian Journal of

Physics Journal for the History of Astronomy Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage Renaissance amp Reformation and Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia

In 2019 he was appointed by Springer as a Series Editor of their Historical amp Cultural astronomy books He is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage a contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica and since 2001 has been the history of astronomy columnist for Mercury mag-azine

In 1999 he appeared on the Star Trek television show lsquoDeep Space Ninersquo as a human Starfleet officer Asteroid (4276) was named Clifford in his honour by the International Astronomical Union based on the recommendation of its bureau the Harvard-Smithson-ian Center for Astrophysics


S Page 120

Table 1 A table summarising the observations and elements of the six satellites as determined by Herschel (after Grant 1852 283)

of the rings was published in 1797 but like the additional four moons not confirmed by anyone else As the discoverer of Uranus in 1781 Her-schelrsquos authority was such that no one could gainsay his discoveries of more moons and rings around the planet thus ensuring decades of confusion and misinformation about the Uran-ian system For example the lsquorings of Uranusrsquo were well enough known to feature in a poem more than seventy years later (see Section 5)

The English astronomer William Lassell (1799ndash1880) began searching for more Uranian moons in 1845 (Dawes 1847 135ndash138) He discovered two more lsquorealrsquo satellites of Uranus (Ariel and Umbriel) In 1851 he realised that their orbital periods did not match those of any of Herschelrsquos four supposed ones Lassellrsquos observations thus failed to support Herschelrsquos observations Ariel and Umbriel which Herschel certainly ought to have seen if he had seen any satellites beside Titania and Oberon did not correspond to any of Herschelrsquos four additional satellites in orbital characteristics It was there-fore concluded that Herschelrsquos four satellites were spurious probably arising from the mis-identification of small stars in the vicinity of Uranus as satellites This is how Lassell (1853 36) couched it in the florid prose of the day

I think it is high time that Uranusrsquos estab-lishment should be reduced He has been luxuriating these many years with a retinue that I really believe does not belong to him and therefore he must be cut down to four attendants until some astronomer arises rich enough to present him with some more I am fully persuaded that either he has no other satellites than these four [viz the two first seen by Herschel and two others added by himself] or if he has they remain yet to be discovered

Herschelrsquos biographer Edward Singleton Holden (1881) from the US Naval Observatory conjectured that Herschel may have seen Ariel on 27 March 1794 and Umbriel on 17 April 1801 but subsequent study has not concurred with this explanation (which may have been motivat-ed in part to absolve Herschel of blame) A detailed examination of the history of Uranian satellite observations is beyond the scope of this paper it has been thoroughly given by Grant (1852 282ndash286) Loomis (1852) and in a more summarised way by Kragh (2008)

That the presence of Uranian moons was considered important may be understood in the words of William Guthrie (1815 4) who wrote that

hellip the discovery of six satellites attending it confers upon it a dignity and raises it to a conspicuous situation among the great bodies of our solar system

Every astronomer accepted the existence of the six satellites including Bode (1816 343)

The celebrated French celestial mechani-cian Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 ndash1827 1801) touched upon the orbital problem posed by the six Uranian satellites in a longer paper devoted to the satellites of Saturn Central to his con-cern was the fact that while the (real and sup-posed) Uranian moons have a small inclination with respect to the planet itself Uranus has an axial tilt of 9777deg In trying to explain the anomalously high inclinations to the plane of the ecliptic of the outermost moon of Saturn and the six Uranian moons Laplace was misled to a startling conclusion about gravity itself

Laplacersquos analysis demonstrates how that anomaly can follow from the weakening of the force of gravity given the distances and ratios of the masses (Gillespie 2018 193)

Laplace wrote this about the Uranian satellites

The same analysis applied to the satellites of Uranus shows that its action can only keep the first five in terms of its equation It is probably not sufficient for this purpose with respect to the sixth satellite but if the mass of satellite number five surpasses one twenty-thousandth part of that of the planet then its action combined with that of Uranus is sufficient to maintain the orbit of the sixth in terms of other orbits in accordance with the observations of Herschel (Laplace 1801)1

This was summarized for the English read-ership in the very popular annual almanac Timersquos Telescope (1814 324)

Laplace imagines that the first five satellites of the Georgian planet may be retained in their orbits by the action of the equator and the sixth by the action of the interior sat-ellites and hence he concludes that this planet revolved about an axis very little inclined to the ecliptic [ie nearly parallel with the plane of the Solar System] and that

Satellite Number

Date of Discovery Distance from Uranus (Prime)

Periodic Time Date Month Year d h m

1 18 January 1790 255 05 21 25 2 11 January 1787 3309 08 17 01 3 26 March 1794 3857 10 23 04 4 11 January 1787 4423 13 11 05 5 09 February 1790 8846 38 01 49 6 28 February 1794 17792 107 16 40


S Page 121






















S Page 122


















S Page 123

















S Page 124















S Page 125
















S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 121






















S Page 122


















S Page 123

















S Page 124















S Page 125
















S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 122


















S Page 123

















S Page 124















S Page 125
















S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 123

















S Page 124















S Page 125
















S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 124















S Page 125
















S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 125
















S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 126












1 5650 2326 2397 2326 2326 2326 3469 2326 ‒ 2326 204 2326 230 2326 527 2326

2 4478 4346 4346 4346 6482 4346 ‒ 4346 381 4346 430 4346 985 4346

3 6012 6012 8965 6012 ‒ 6012 527 6012 595 6012 136 6012

4 1366 9161 ‒ 9161 804 9161 907 9161 207 9161

5 ‒ 1773 1556 1773 1756 1773 402 1773

6 2744 3126 3095 3126 708 3126

7 5678 5735 1299 5735

8 2611 1152


S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 127








Number of

Satellites


Planet









I 13120 58926 II 17022 87068 III 19845 109611 IV 22752 134559 V 45507 380750 VI 91008 1076944


S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 128















No

Sidereal Period

(sidereal days)

Mean

Distance (miles)

Square Root of


Velocity in One

Sidereal Day

(miles)



(miles)






S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 129





















S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 130







at = 75 + 3t


at = a62t‒6















S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 131















Empirical Values

True Values

Differ-ences

a = 1283 1312 +29 a + b = 1720 1720 0

a + rb = 1934 1984 +50 a + r 2b = 2259 2275 +16 a + r 5b = 4601 4551 ‒50 a + r 7b = 8749 9101 +352




S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 132













may have more










S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 133

















S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 134









(Abbott 1847 73)









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 135










No


Days

Hours

Minutes

1 5 21 25 12frac12 2 8 17 01 16frac12 3 10 23 04 19 4 13 11 05 22 5 38 01 49 44 6 107 16 40 88



Distance in Leagues

1 2550 82037 2 3300 106165frac12 3 3857 124085 4 4420 142197frac12 5 8840 284395 6 17680 568790




No



In Leghes

In Italian Miles

I 2356 1178 7515640 18032824 II 330 1650 10527000 25258200 III 3845 1922 12262360 29421976 IV 4423 2211 14106180 33845988 V 8823 4411 28142180 67523588 VI 17646 8823 56290740 135062484



I 49000 05 21 II 64000 08 17 III 74000 10 23 IV 85000 13 11 V 169000 38 02 VI 338000 107 17


S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 136


No

Period

of Revolution

Synodic

Revolution

Distance

from Uranus



Earth

Distance

from Uranus

Least Distance

from Earth

Greatest Distance

from Earth

d h m s

d h m s


prime Prime

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)

(In English Miles)




No





No


Distance Within

the Radius of the

Primary Planet


Distance from the


In

Leagues Multiplied

by 2000

1 58926 13120 00023690 92949 2 87068 17022 00030741 120592 3 109611 19845 00035833 140592 4 134559 22752 00041089 161187 5 380750 45507 00082183 322395 6 1076944 91008 00164360 644746



I 5 24 25 206 58926 13120 II 8 16 57 475 87068 17022 III 10 23 03 590 109611 19845 IV 13 10 56 298 134559 22752 V 38 01 48 000 380750 45507 VI 107 16 39 562 4076944 91008






S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 137









I 47694 50000 II 61880 65000 III 72150 76000 IV 82710 87000 V 165430 175000 VI 336840 350000



No



d h m s (Miles) 1 05 21 25 21 224155 2 08 16 57 47frac12 290321 3 10 23 03 59 339052 4 13 10 56 30 388718 5 38 01 48 00 777487 6 107 16 39 56 1555872 7



No


arc sec

Semi-Diameter

= 1

In Fractions

In Days and Hours

(Hours) d h m s 1 255 1312 5893 05 21 25 0 2 3309 1702 8707 08 17 01 1913 3 3857 1985 10961 10 25 04 4 4423 2275 13456 11 11 05 150 5 8846 4551 38075 38 01 49 6 17292 9101 107694 107 16 40


S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 138




1 15551835 5892600 2 10525192 8706800 3 8360542 10961100 4 6810450 13455900 5 2406848 38075000 6 850933 107694425


No Periodic Time


T2 a3

1 2 12 00 0 2 4 3 5 21 4 8 16 36 313 170 8882 5 10 23 198 8911 6 13 11 07 126 228 8808 7 38 02 455 8868 8 107 12 910 8833










Satellites

Mean Distance

Sidereal Revolution


Inclination to the





S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 139


Sat No

Sidereal Revolution

Mean Distance


Nodes and



2 8 16 56 313 170 1787 Feb 16 0 10 3 10 23 198 4 13 11 7 126 228 1787 Jan 7 0 28 5 38 2 455 6 107 12 910























S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 140

















S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 141




















S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 142




(Workman 1809 8)















years7











S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 143



















Horizon9



S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 144






















S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 145


below (Anon 1839 91‒94)























S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 146



























S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 147




















S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 148




















S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 149









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 150





S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 151










S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 152








S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 153




S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 154












S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 155
























S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 156






8 NOTES





























9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 157



















































S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 158
















































S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 159




















































S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 160
















































S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 161



















































S Page 162









S Page 162








Documents

HERSCHEL’S SPURIOUS MOONS OF URANUS: THEIR ...old.narit.or.th/en/files/2020JAHHvol23/2020JAHH...23...schel, and two by his sister, Miss Caroline It is possible that others remain