Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

already mentioned. And hence we have a capital illustration of the following lines in the "Parliament of Fowls"; or, to speak from our present point of view, we have in the "Parliament of Fowls" a detail evidently suggested by the dams in the River Glyme :

This stream you leadeth unto the sorrowful wear,

There as the fish in prison is all day.

Chaucer sees also "a well," and of the well in Woodstock Park here are many mentions. It was associated with the story of Fair Rosamond, and known as Rosamond's Well. "Rosamond's Labyrinth," says Drayton, "whose ruins, together with her well, being paved with square stones in the bottom, and also the bower from which the labyrinth did run, are yet remaining, being vaults arched and walled with stone and brick, almost inextricably wound within one another, by which, if at any time her lodging were laid about by the Queen, she might easily avoid peril imminent, and, if need be, by secret issues, take the air abroad many furlongs about Woodstock, in Oxfordshire.” The Topographical Excursionist of 1634 mentions the ruins of her bower, and "many strong and strange winding walks and turnings, and a dainty, clear, paved well, knee deep, wherein this beautiful creature did sometimes wash and bathe herself." In this matter, however, Boccaccio's picture may have been suggestive, for the corresponding lines are to this effect:

Among the bushes beside a fountain
She saw Cupid forging arrows.

If, in addition to these various coincidences, we remember that the manor-house at Woodstock was a favourite residence of Edward III. and his Court-two of his sons (the Black Prince and Thomas) were born there and that Chaucer was a member of that Court-at one time dilectus noster valettus, at a later scutiger regis-we think that anyone who, in visiting Woodstock Park, likes to imagine Chaucer there, may certainly do so without misgiving.

There is another poem by Chaucer that may very reasonably be associated with Woodstock; but the proof is less commanding than that we have considered. This is the "Book of the Duchess." We may be sure that the scene of that poem is either Woodstock or Windsor; and, on the whole, the probability is in favour of Woodstock-a probability which is increased by the established connection of the "Parliament of Fowls." Certainly, Chaucer's words

A long castle with walles white

By Sainct Johan on a rich hill,

seem to correspond admirably with those of the Excursionist of 1634, who speaks of Woodstock as "that famous court and princely castle and palace, which as I found it ancient, strong, large, and magnificent, so it was sweet, delightful, and sumptuous, and situated on a fair hill.”

"Murray's Guide to Oxfordshire" informs us that "the poet Chaucer resided at Woodstock, and is supposed to have taken much of the scenery of 'The Dream' from the neighbouring park." But the poem called "Chaucer's Dream" is undoubtedly not by Chaucer; and, in the second place, whoever wrote it, the scenery there described is not that of Woodstock. Possibly the "Guide" meant the "Book of the Duchess;" for that was once known, mistakenly, by the title of "Chaucer's Dream."

We will just add that Woodstock is mentioned by name in "The Cuckoo and Nightingale." This poem is certainly not by Chaucer; but it is one of those attributed to him-one of those belonging to the Chaucerian circle, and evidently to some extent inspired by the fond perusal of his writings; so the naming of Woodstock there encourages the view here maintained. The author, whoever it was, follows his master in the localisation of his story.

JOHN W. HALES.

SCIENCE NOTES.

THE POSSIBILITIES OF COMETARY COLLISIONS WITH THE SUN.

N my

IN

Notes last month I discussed the case of a comet which, like that of 1843, approaches at perihelion so closely to the sun that some portion of its nebulous surroundings must come in collision with the solar atmosphere, and thus augment the solar calorific energies. In such cases the action of the cometary fringe is alone in question, but there is another possible collision differing considerably from this, i.e. the case of a comet plunging point-blank, bodily and completely, into the sun.

Mr. Proctor has been made the target of much journalistic banter since he started this discussion of the possible results of cometary collision with the sun, but these writers would have made better display of their acquaintance with the subject had they aimed all their small shot at all the other astronomers, who, with the exception of Sir Isaac Newton, have been so curiously blind to the interest of this subject. Mayer and Tyndall, neither of them astronomer, have discussed the possible feeding of the solar fires by meteoric bombardment, and much has been written on the possible consequences of cometary collision with the earth, that popular bugbear that has driven whole nations frantic with terror.

Truly it is just possible that a comet may strike the earth. If half a dozen balloons were annually to ascend from the Crystal Palace, and a blind man stationed on Shooter's Hill were to fire at random into the air six rifle-bullets per annum, it is just possible that one of them might happen to hit one of the balloons that might happen to sail just in the line of his fire just at the instant of his firing; but the aeronaut who should modify his proceedings on account of this possibility would be a curious lunatic. Now, if we consider the magnitude of the space traversed by the earth and by the half-dozen comets that come annually within telescopic reach of the earth, and compare it with the space engirdled by a circle having a radius extending from Sydenham to the blind shooter, we shall find, after duly allowing for the differences of magnitude of the possibly

colliding bodies, that we are less exposed than the aeronaut, and should be still more ridiculous than he if we were to trouble ourselves about such a risk.

The possibility of a cometary collision with the sun is far less remote. In the first place, the target is vastly larger, the exposed area of the sun being eleven thousand times greater than that of the earth; or supposing the sun to be represented by a three-feet target, the earth would be represented by a bull's-eye of one-third of an inch diameter, and thus with mere random shooting (as above supposed) the chances of hitting the sun as against hitting the earth would correspond to those of hitting the target as against hitting the bull's eye. But this is not all, for every comet that enters our solar system does aim at the sun, and if this aim were accurate, i.e., if its motion were directed point-blank towards the sun, it would plunge bodily into our central luminary.

Thus the question originally discussed by Sir Isaac Newton, and now revived by Mr. Proctor, is worthy of some consideration. It is interesting, not only to the astronomer, but also to the physicist, the chemist, the meteorologist, the geologist, and the biologist; to the physicist and chemist on account of the physical and chemical speculation it suggests; to the meteorologist and geologist as possibly explaining the mysterious fluctuations in climate which our globe has undergone; to the biologist as suggesting a cosmical accelerating and fluctuating agent that may explain some of those strange variations that appear to have occurred in the rate of evolutionary progress, those upon which the few remaining believers in periodical creative interference base their residual arguments,

EFFECT OF A DIRECT COLLISION OF A COMET WITH THE SUN.

THIS

HIS is a physical and chemical rather than an astronomical problem. Mr. Proctor has shown indisputably that a direct and complete plunge of a comet of any magnitude into the sun. would produce an enormous evolution of heat by the arrest of mechanical motion, or the conversion of mechanical into thermal force. But what would become of all this heat?

I will endeavour to answer this question, premising emphatically that in doing so I am necessarily entering a speculative region, and proceed accordingly.

Assuming what is now generally admitted, viz. that the sun is largely composed of gaseous matter, with a relatively small solid

nucleus within, and also accepting, though "without prejudice," Mr. Proctor's conclusion that the colliding comet would dive profoundly into this atmospheric ocean, generating internally the vast amount of heat above named, let us consider what would follow.

The view of the solar structure which I ventured to expound in 1870 is now becoming so widely accepted that I may state it without further argument. It is that the photosphere, or visible luminous surface of the sun, is actual flaming matter, due to the superficial recombination of dissociated elements accumulated in the relatively dark ocean below, glimpses of which are revealed by the sun-spots; and that outside of the photosphere is a great atmosphere, largely composed of aqueous vapour, the products of the combustion going on in the photosphere, and that this vaporous envelope acts as a jacket limiting the possibilities of solar radiation, and thereby also limiting the amount of recombination or combustion of the inner dissociated gases, which gases can only burn (¿.e., recombine) when their temperature is reduced below that which effects their dissociation.

In such a state of equilibrium between radiation, combustion, and dissociation, any addition to the temperature of the sun must effect a further dissociation of some of the vaporous envelope. But in doing this an enormous amount of heat disappears as temperature, is rendered latent, or converted into separating or dissociating force. For the dissociation of water under the pressure of our atmosphere its vapour must first be raised to 5074° Fahr., and then as much heat must be rendered latent as would raise it 8ooo° more. The temperature of dissociation rises with increase of pressure.

Thus an increase of the inner temperature of the sun would not produce an outblaze on its surface, would not even make its surface in any degree warmer. This appears contradictory at first glance, but it is only a repetition in another form of what occurs in every saucepan or tea-kettle that is boiling on a kitchen fire. When once the water boils, no amount of heat applied below can raise the temperature of the water above 212°, so long as the atmospheric pressure on its surface remains as usual. The heat disappears in doing the work of vaporisation; the same occurs in dissociation, only that the latter demands 8000° instead of the 990° demanded for vaporisation.

Therefore, unless I am altogether wrong, the immediate effect of the plunging comet would be to effect a dissociation of some portion of the vaporous envelope of the sun, thus producing an outward extension of the photosphere which would effect an enlargement of the visible solar disc, the boundaries of which are those of the

« НазадПродовжити »