- 1 For a picture of the telescope, see “[Grand télescope de 1,20m de l’Observatoire de Paris, construi (...)
- 2 Journal officiel, 24 October 1875, p. 5-6; L’Ordre de Paris, 26 October 1875; Le Petit Marseillais, (...)
1In october 1875, the science journalist Henri de Parville (1838-1909) visited the new telescope installed at the Paris Observatory that had been built by Adolphe Martin (1824-1896) and Wilhelm Eichens (1818-1884).1 First published in the Bulletin français, and widely reproduced by the press,2 Parville’s article was full of superlatives and the general impression of awe he wished to convey was perfectly clear: “All this is enormous, massive, crushing.” Expertly putting this telescope to good use, astronomers of the Observatory were poised to kick-start a new season of “fruitful observations and discoveries.” But the chronicler was much less expansive about that.
- 3 About the instrumental culture of observatories in the nineteenth century, I refer the reader to (A (...)
2In a century marked by considerable technical progress, observatories were constantly equipped end reequipped with large, expansive instruments, such as mural circles, transit instruments*, equatorials, large reflecting telescopes and meridian circles*. These instruments, which I will call the core instruments of astronomical observatories, as opposed to a great variety of other pieces of equipment, such as astronomical clocks most notably, but also micrometers, geomagnetic balances, or surveying instruments, sometimes no less precise than large telescopes, drew the widespread attention of the daily press.3 As is well known, the news media in the nineteenth century, paid great attention to science, and to astronomy in particular, for a variety of purposes ranging from science popularization to the justification of science itself as a pursuit deserving large amount of State funding (Sheets-Pyenson, 1985; Topham, 2000; Nieto-Galan, 2016; Nall, 2019). What sort of stories did the daily press construct about the core instruments of astronomical observatories? Beyond showing that the overwhelmingly approbative coverage of such instruments played a part in promoting modern science to a generally receptive audience, this paper seeks to characterize the image of precision conveyed by the press to the public.
- 4 This point was nicely made in (Sweetnam, 2000). See also (Wise, 1995).
3Astronomical precision has of course a long history (Aubin, forthcoming). As historians have shown, the tremendous increase in precision achieved in the nineteenth century can be interpreted as emerging from a confrontation between local resources of craftsmanship and the ultimate of goal of universal knowledge pursued by scientists.4 In public discourses about science, as we know, lofty ideals were often put to the fore. But, by focusing on what the press had to say about instruments, our analysis shows that the local circumstances allowing to achieve a universal precision were also discussed in great details. As we shall see, newspapers often for patriotic reasons widely reviewed makers’ accomplishments. They likewise paid more and more attention to the special environment in which telescopes were set up and put to use. They often emphasized observational methods and the special expertise of individual astronomers.
- 5 Since the total number of newspaper pages recorded in Retronews for a given year is an information (...)
4Statistics are hard to establish with precision. In this paper, we have mostly relied on the impressive Retronews database built by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Although not without its flaws (such as heterogeneity of and gaps in the digitized corpus and imperfect character recognition), this tool provides a unique glimpse into the news media’s coverage of observatories’ instrumentation, especially from a Parisian vantage point. The search engine provided by Retronews can quickly provide estimates of the number of pages in the daily press where a given expression arises. Figure 1 summarizes our findings for several instruments: transit instruments and equatorial refractors as well as mural and meridian circles. Since the number of printed newspaper pages was multiplied by close to 20 over the period covered, it is also necessary to add an estimate of the relative frequency with which these expressions occurred in the press.5
5Figure 1 reveals a number of interesting trends. First, we note that the number of hits increased in significant quantity in the 1830s and again in the 1870s. Our frequency analysis however tends to indicate that the former surge was more consequential than the latter. Second, we can see very definite trends in the relative frequency of the various designations searched.
Figure 1 - Number of pages in Retronews with mention of observatories’ core instruments and frequency in pages per million
Source: graphic by author
6While mentions of “mural circles” tend to decrease, there is a remarkable parallel increase in mentions of “meridian circles” (with the caveat that many occurrences of the later expression may concern geodetic circles on earth). While occurrences of the expression “meridian refractors” (usually called transit instruments in English) seem more or less constant from the 1830s on (but probably referring to various kinds of instruments, such as portable transit instruments), the constant rise of the expression “equatorial refractor” reflects the spread of such instruments in observatories.
7Reservations expressed above about the Retronews database however incite us to go beyond purely quantitative analyses and look deeper into the press coverage of observatories’ core instruments. Texts mentioning observatories’ core instruments were diverse. Many reproduce official reports produced by astronomers or letters sent by readers. But a sizeable portion are written by journalists, many of which known figures in science popularization. Not all newspapers discussed sciences, but the range that did was rather wide. As far as observatories’ core instruments were concerned, 53% articles mentioning them in the first half of the century were published by only four titles (the Moniteur universel, Journal des débats, Le Temps and the Gazette), all of which more or less close to successive political regimes. In the 1850-1899 period, besides the Annales hydrographiques — which for some reasons has been included in the Retronews corpus despite not being a newspaper and for obvious reasons paying special attention to astronomical news — the six titles that published the most mentions of core instruments now accounted for only 23% of the total. Next to official titles like the Moniteur universel and the Journal Officiel, four other titles were most active in scientific reporting without dominating the field: the Journal des débats and Le Temps as earlier, now joined by La Presse and Le Siècle (Charle, 2009).
8That good, up-to-date instruments were required by the Paris Observatory to perform its tasks was not always completely obvious to the press at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1803, Le Journal de Paris reported that the Paris Observatory had just received an “excellent meridian refractor” described as being 4 feet long and 4 inches in diameter.6 This instrument had been expected for some time. Ordered by Jean-Dominique Cassini (or Cassini IV, 1748-1845) before he left the Observatory in 1793 to the London maker Jesse Ramsden (1735-1800), and already partially paid, the instrument had repeatedly been requested by the French Bureau of Longitudes.7 After Ramsden’s death, the construction of the telescope was completed by Matthew Berge (†1819). Taking the place of a refractor built by Étienne Lenoir (1744-1832), the Berge-Ramsden refractor would be used for more than 25 years at the Paris Observatory by astronomers such as Eugène Bouvard (1812-1879), Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774-1862), François Arago (1786-1853), Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), and Louis Mathieu (1783-1875), before being sent to the Toulouse Observatory in 1847.8 Such services notwithstanding, the Berge-Ramsden transit instrument was presented by the press in a way that bordered the whimsical from the astronomers’ part:
- 9 “Les savans, comme tous les hommes, sont un peu soumis à la routine dans leurs procédés, et ils on (...)
Scientists, like all men, are more or less submitted to the routine of their practice, and they need the lively stimulation of their love of public good or of science to introduce new formulas in their procedures and to substitute new instruments to those they get from tradition.9
- 10 Gazette nationale (15 January 1814); Journal de l’Empire (8 August 1812).
9This first impression was tampered over the years by occasional mentions in the press of the operations made possible by the Berge-Ramsden refractor or other such instruments that had universal consequences. One may signal observations made by Mathieu to determine the height of the pole mentioned in 1814 or, with another telescope, the discovery of a comet in Marseille by Jean-Jacques Blanpain (1777-1843).10 By and large, the press in this period however scantly paid attention to the Observatory’s core instruments.
- 11 “nouvelle lunette méridienne de six pouces d’ouverture (mention au 1823-10-22)”, 1823-10-22, Les pr (...)
- 12 Journal de Paris (2 March 1796), p. 647.
- 13 Mercure français (21 October 1798), p. 22.
10Things started to change when plans were made to reequip the Observatory with a new meridian refractor. It was on 22 October, 1823 that the Bureau des longitudes started to envision this and discussed the transfer of the Berge-Ramsden instrument to Marseille.11 This decision came after French optical instrument makers had become more visible in the press. The name of Lenoir already cited of course had come up here and there. Jérôme Lalande had praised his 20-inch circle in 1796 while emphasizing that English makers although distinguished in this art were not making full circles.12 In 1798, a jury at the Exhibition of the French Products of Industry signaled his transit instruments and circles.13 But such occurrences remained rare.
- 14 “C’est maintenant de la perfection des lunettes et des télescopes que dépendent les progrès de l’as (...)
11In the fourth edition of his Exposition du système du monde, published in 1813, the astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) pointed out that the progress of astronomy hinged on three things in particular: the measurement of time, the measurement of angles, and the perfection of optical instruments, emphasizing that much was especially expected in this last regard (Laplace, 1813, p. 448). In February 1819, his opinion attributed to an unnamed “illustrious savant” served as justification for the king’s approval for the construction of a large refractor missing from the Observatory’s collection: “It is now on the perfection of telescopes that the progress of astronomy depends, [and] this progress consists in seeing better what have already been seen and discovering other objects in the sky.”14
- 15 Journal de Paris (25 September, 1819), p. 3. See also L’Indépendant (5 October, 1819), p. 4.
- 16 Journal des débats (14 August 1824). See also Gazette nationale (15 August 1824).
- 17 Journal du commerce (7 October 1827), p. 1.
12Nearly all newspapers reporting the news made sure to note that the new refractor would be built in Paris by a French maker Noël-Jean Lerebours (1764-1840). At the Exhibition of the Products of French Industry in the following fall, newspapers emphasized that French makers such as Lerebours, Lenoir, Jean Fortin (1750-1831), and Robert-Aglaé Cauchoix (1776-1845) were now producing excellent instruments.15 The next Exhibition, organized in 1824, was deemed as providing “irrecusable proofs that French opticians have equaled and even surpassed everything done elsewhere.”16 The stage was set for the appearance on the scene of Henri Gambey (1787-1847) whose circle now seemed the “laurel [palme] of astronomical instrument.”17
Figure 2 - Gambey’s Meridian Refractor and his mural circle in the back, at the Paris Observatory
Source: Delaunay, Cours élémentaire d’astronomie (4th ed., 1864); © München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Astr.u. 42 d.
- 18 La Quotidienne (23 June 1830), p. 2; Gazette nationale (24 June 1830), p. 2; La France nouvelle (24 (...)
13The decade starting in 1830 witnessed a striking increase of interest by the daily press in observatories’ core instruments. That year, a new meridian built by Gambey was installed at the Observatory (figure 2). But, although unanimously praised as “magnificent,” this instrument received barely a mention in the press. In this troubled year, in which the July Revolution ousted the old Bourbon monarch, Gambey’s name was picked up only in short notices reporting on a medal attributed to him by the Academy of Sciences.18
- 19 All on 25 February, 1832: Le Constitutionnel, p. 3-4; La Quotidienne, p. 4; Journal des débats, p. (...)
14Surprisingly, therefore, it was only after the “magnificent” meridian circle by Gambey had been received by the Observatory that the Parisian press started to pay greater attention to the construction, deployment and use of the Observatory’s core instruments. Arago whose political role in the new regime increased considerably had put the issue of funding on the Chamber of Deputies’ agenda. On 25 February, 1832, for example, many newspapers devoted several columns to the speech he delivered in front of the Chamber.19 Fearing that the Observatory would not be able to contribute to unspecified “first-order astronomical questions addressed by all astronomers in Europe,” Arago argued not so much about the construction of instruments, but rather the modernization of the building hosting the ones currently in use.
- 20 “ce n’est pas une détérioration visible à l’œil qu’il faudrait, un dérangement de l’épaisseur d’un (...)
15A new theme arose: the insertion of core instruments in an environment where everything was put at the service of a single final goal—precision. Arguing that repairs had to be carried out promptly to avoid risks of deteriorating Gambey’s precious instrument, Arago tried to convey to his audience the degree of precision astronomers’ investigations had reached. In his own words, as reported by the press, he explained the danger of ruining its scientific value as such: “a deterioration visible to the naked eye would not be needed, a disturbance of the width of a hair would suffice to destroy all its merit.”20
16In the following decade, Arago became a prominent public figure and, as such, had several opportunities to promote the work of French makers, the necessity of improving the Observatory, and the precision of optical instruments. In front of the Academy of sciences, as reported by Le Temps, on 12 September, 1832, an “excellent meridian refractor” by Gambey was deemed to allow the observation of stars of magnitude 3 in full daylight. On 20 July 1834, the Gazette de France emphasized that Gambay’s instruments at the Observatory had reached everything that was to be asked in terms of precision, concluding that “thanks to the work of our makers, we are endowed with all the instruments which are required by science and which, thanks to God, are made in France.”
- 21 See, e.g., Gazette nationale (4 and 7 June 1835).
- 22 “la critique légère ou ignorante se tait, forcée de respecter ce qu’elle ne comprend pas, et d’acc (...)
17With the large sums of money regularly attributed to the Observatory after discussion at the Chamber of Deputies (for example in June 183521), lengthier reporting about the scientific institution started to appear. On 13 September, 1836, an unusually long article about the Observatory was published by the Journal du commerce. This “feuilleton” deserves our attention in several respects. The discussion about the value of the building as a scientific instrument took up the first half of the paper. But the second half was almost entirely devoted to the instruments hosted by the observatory which, thanks to the Chamber’s support, had become “the best and most beautiful in the world.” Optical instruments occupied a place of choice in a fictitious tour of the building where the makers’ precision was emphasized at every turn. Instrumental setups were also highlighted, including such mundane contrivances as the solid pillars recently built to support them. Still, the author of the article refrained from trying to convey the true scientific meaning of this monument: “the nimble, ignorant critique has to remain silent, forced to show respect to what it does not understand and humbly to accept what it cannot deny.”22
18When Gambey died in 1847, it was Léon Foucault (1819-1868), himself a skillful instrument maker, who had assumed the role of scientific chronicler in the Journal des débats (Tobin, 2003). The scientific level of the article Foucault devoted to Gambey was incomparably higher than any previous attempts at describing the work for which the maker was known. Foucault acknowledged that Gambey’s reputation had previously been restricted to the “narrow circle of observers [who were] friends of precision.” The description of what made Gambey’s equatorial and meridian refractors superior instruments came with a profusion of details:
- 23 “Nous possédons encore à l’Observatoire de Paris une lunette méridienne reposant, d’une manière in (...)
We still have at the Paris Observatory a meridian refractor unwaveringly resting, via its trunnions, on two walls, like a cannon on its mount. Thanks to the perfection of their cylindrical shape, these trunnions determine a horizontal axis parallel to the equator. It is on this axis that the meridional refractor is orthogonally mounted: so that, aiming it the sky at any height, it provides the careful observers with the precise timing of the transit of stars across the Paris meridian.23
19Seventeen years after its first setup at the Observatory, and sixty years after Cassini IV had ordered a similar instrument from Ramsden in London, it was (as far as I have been able to establish) the first time that the use of the meridian refractor was so precisely discussed in the press. Ironically, this was also the moment when a new setup was being proposed, as Foucault noted:
- 24 “La lunette méridionale donne l’ascension droite* d’un astre ; et le cercle mural sa déclinaison : (...)
The meridian refractor gives the right ascension* of a celestial body and the mural circle its declension: nothing more is needed to know its positions or rather the point on which it is projected on the celestial sphere. For this reason, these two instruments constitute the fundamental pieces of any observatory. Their high prices have led to the suggestion of merging them in a single apparatus named a meridian circle. Two instruments of this kind came out of Gambey’s workshops.24
- 25 La Presse (8 January, 1849), p. 4. See also Journal des débats (11 January, 1849), p. 1. A report (...)
20Gambey’s work was also considered at length two years later, when the astronomer Hervé Faye (1814-1902) discussed at the Academy of Sciences the precision of the maker’s method for dividing the two-meter mural circle installed at the Observatory. Reported in several newspaper, which now hardly recoiled at giving technical descriptions of scientific instruments, Gambey’s methods were made public in the hope that the French government would buy them in order to help his “noble widow and interesting orphan.”25
21Adding to the usual praise in favor of the deceased artisan, the press coverage of Faye’s analysis underscored a few crucial points about precision. First, it argued that precision was not just coming from the skillful hand of the artist. It was the result of the technological progress with which specific tasks such as dividing a circle were methodically carried out. This progress had a history that even dailies could convey to their readers. In this case, Gambey’s work was put in the context of practical innovations due to Ramsden, but also contemporary makers such as Edward Troughton (1753-1835), Georg Ertel (1813-1863), Johann Georg Repsold (1770-1830) and Georg Friedrich von Reichenbach (1772-1826). Second, precision was quantifiable. According to Faye, the probable error in the graduation of a mark on the circle was less than 0’’1, which was to be compared to that of the Repsold meridian circle determined by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel to be 0’’34. “The probable error of one of our celestial observation, Faye concluded, made with six microscopes […] is less than 0’’043.” Third, even errors hid complex concepts in Faye’s analysis, since following Bessel he distinguished between systematic and accidental errors, pointing out that systematic errors were not really important because they could be corrected via some mathematical procedures. So, after paying attention to the makers’ practice, the press was ready to consider the way telescopes were handled by astronomers.
- 26 On 11 August 1849 : Gazette nationale, p. 1; L’Ordre, p. 1; Le Constitutionnel, p. 2; on 12 August (...)
- 27 Journal de l’Empire (4 August, 1813).
- 28 La Quotidienne (30 October 1816), p. 3; Journal général de France (30 October 1816), p. 2.
- 29 Gazette nationale (9 and 16 October, 1816), p. 3; La Quotidienne (9, 11, and 16 October, 1816), p. (...)
- 30 On 11 August 1849: Gazette nationale, p. 1; L’Ordre, p. 1; Le Constitutionnel, p. 2; on 12 August (...)
22When Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, then President of the French Republic, toured the Observatory on 10 August, 1849, several newspapers emphasized the manipulation of instruments. 26Visits by heads of State and officials to the Observatory had long provided occasions for the press to allude to instruments. But insistence on instruments’ handling was new. On 3 February, 1813, the visit of the Observatory by Napoléon I had deserved no more than a single line.27 On 27 October 1816, the Duke of Angoulême (1775-1844), nephew of king Louis XVIII also made sure to publicize the visit he paid the Observatory in his wife’s company. Reports of this outing remained rather frivolous in tone. Quips about fears the duchess might have had about the cold temperature of the observation rooms occupied more space in the press than any scientific discussion.28 When on an earlier, on 9 October of the same year, the duke had promised to help the Observatory buy a new instrument at the cost of 12,000 francs, observations he made of sun spots and the North star were mentioned but no detail was given. 29By contrast, when he was shown the main instruments by Mathieu in 1849, the President had their workings were explained to him by astronomers Faye, Ernest Laugier (1812-1872), and Victor Mauvais (1809-1854). Besides the folklore regarding the unusual depth of the rooms carved underground at the Observatory, newspapers all emphasized the President’s examination not of any celestial object but of the meridian refractor as well as Gambey’s mural circle.30
- 31 “les grandes lunettes sont des curiosités d’observatoire qu’on admire mais dont on ne se sert pas. (...)
23Minutiae concerning the handling of telescopes could now become the object of minor controversies in the press. On 9 April 1850, the science chronicler of the Union of Paris was among the rare voices going against the consensus when he wrote: “Large telescopes are curiosities found in observatories which are admired but not in use.”31 In fact, he was by and large repeating criticisms voiced by Benjamin Valz (1787-1867) from Marseille. Valz had claimed that the use of large telescopes required reversal processes so complex to perform that the instruments, even in the most important European observatories, were merely used on “grand occasions.” As reported by the newspaper, the new transit instrument in Greenwich was reversed only 5 to 6 times a year. Otherwise, it remained idle and “was of no service to astronomy other than exhibiting an instrument of nice caliber to visitors.” In Bonn and Geneva, the operation was performed even more rarely and the instrument was of no more use. Although criticisms like this were rare, we should note that they showcased limitations in the practical use of the instruments, and not merely their costs.
24As is well known, in 1854, after Bonaparte’s restoration of the imperial regime and Arago’s death, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) took up the leadership of the Paris Observatory. The press echoed this takeover when it was made public, on February 22, 1855, by reprinting large excerpts of an official report addressed to the emperor by the minister of public instruction. The minister’s report was of course inspired by Le Verrier’s own report. There, he insisted on the modernization of the Observatory’s equipment but also of their setups and handling:
- 32 “Pour que l’Observatoire de Paris soit en mesure de se tenir à leur hauteurs (établissements étran (...)
In order for the Paris Observatory to be able to stand at their level [that of foreign establishments], it is urgent that the instruments at its disposal be improved, in terms of their optical power as much as of their stability: a great meridian circle must also be built and the resources presented by dynamic electricity used to ensure that observations can be made with the utmost precision possible.32
- 33 “au milieu du transept central[,] [n]ous remarquons un phare lenticulaire, une fontaine en zinc, d (...)
25That same year, the International Exhibition in Paris boasted the display of the meridian circle from Greenwich. But the instrument failed to impress journalists who rather noted that objects were accumulated pell-mell in the exhibition hall: “in the middle of the central transept, we notice a lenticular lighthouse, a fountain in zinc, plants and flowers in bronze, a model of the meridian circle from the observatory in Greenwich, statues in zinc, two altars, immense chandeliers from Baccarat, a library, a volière, [etc.].”33 Outside of their proper context, astronomical instruments seemed to lose much of their attraction.
- 34 La Patrie (7 September 1859).
- 35 Moniteur universel (3 April 1864).
26The impression left by the Greenwich instrument notwithstanding, the public seemed more and more eager to see with their own eyes the instruments of the Observatory. In 1859, La Patrie published a letter from Le Verrier who claimed that over a period of barely 3 months several thousands of visitors had been able to look at four big instruments on display.34 Le Verrier listed the 22-cm equatorial refractor on the southwest terrasse, the 24-cm equatorial equipped with a modern clockwork mechanism; the 31-cm refractor on top of the west tower; and the 40-cm telescope. Launching his Association scientifique five years later with lavish soirées at the Observatory, Le Verrier confirmed that one of his goals was to “satisfy the legitimate curiosity of the audience who wished to see the great instruments.”35
- 36 “À l’Observatoire de Paris, on se sert toujours de l’ouïe combinée avec la vue (les battements de (...)
27Public attention gave rise to the first detailed description of the operations required to produce scientific data with the help of the core instruments. On 9 November 1864, the Moniteur universel reported a séance of the Academy of Sciences during which Le Verrier had presented the observations at the Paris Observatory of about 600 fundamental stars. The director had made sure to explain—and the Moniteur to report—that observation methods in Paris although not as modern as those in use at Greenwich were equally precise. The newspaper thus summarized the electrical mechanism adopted by the British as well as the eye-and-ear method which had never been described before by the generalist press: “At the Paris Observatory, one still uses the ear combined with the eye (the beat of the sideral clock marks seconds, while the eye follows the star or planet and the hand records in a logbook successive transit times across the five vertical wires).”36
- 37 Le Siècle (14 and 28 May 1867).
28With the emergence in the print media of a new generation of science popularizers, such as Camille Flammarion (1842-1925) most notably, the description of observatories’ core instruments became even thicker. In his description of the astronomical instruments displayed at the Paris International Exhibition of 1867, the young popularizer while acknowledging that such instruments hardly drew crowds compared to distorting mirrors nonetheless expounded his own enthusiasm for them in a series of several articles published in Le Siècle.37 New instrument makers established in Paris, such as Marc Secretan (1804-1867) and the brothers Émile and Léon Brunner (1834-1895 and 1840-1894), staged a rivalry that overlapped with the one that pitted the Observatory against the Bureau des Longitudes. Like Flammarion, Alexis Boillot (b. 1813) wrote a very didactical piece in the Moniteur universel, published on 18 June, 1867.
29Under the pen of both men, large astronomical instruments became objects of admiration and a symbol of scientific modernity. Instruments were imbedded in a historical narrative of progress where rivalry among nations played a prominent part. A high degree of technicity now seemed totally within the reach of the newspaper’s readership. Describing the meridian circle of Secretan, Boillot for example wrote:
- 38 “Cet instrument, réunissant les fonctions de cercle mural et de lunette méridienne, peut servir ut (...)
This instrument, encompassing the functions of a mural circle and a transit instrument, can with profit be used by astronomers to determine the right ascension and the declension of celestial bodies; one can also use it to get terrestrial longitudes and latitudes. The eyepiece of the instrument has an aperture of 61 centimeters and principal focal length of 78 centimeters. It has a micrometer with six wires, of which five are stationary and one is mobile to use in observations at the poles. Each space between neighboring wires corresponds to five arcseconds and ten seconds of time, which, for the focal length of the objective, responds to an arc length of 89 hundredth of a millimeter, [etc.].38
- 39 Le Siècle (7 December, 1867).
- 40 La Patrie (29 February, 1868); Avenir national (3 March, 1868); Le Siècle (12 and 21 March, 1868); (...)
30For both popularizers, the high stakes behind the building of especially large lenses for state observatories were put to the fore. Soon, acrimonious recriminations regarding the constructions of new core instruments for the Paris Observatory were to play a major part in the raucous feud between Flammarion and Le Verrier about the latter’s governance of the public institution. Flammarion accused the director of the Observatory of neglecting his official duty by slowing down the development of new instruments.39 A bitter debate then took place in the press where arguments about a great meridian circle took center stage.40 While this intricate controversy need not to occupy us here in too much details, the debate clearly underscored the crucial part core instruments now played in an observatory’s performance. Telescope more than ever were in the limelight.
31After the fall of the Second Empire, the Republic embraced the project of reconstructing French astronomy and several new observatories both in Paris and in other provincial towns had to be reequipped with up-to-date instruments. With freer press and a more literate readership, core astronomical instruments as noted above were now discussed more than ever before, not only in absolute terms but also in relative terms. The French optical industry was now well established, even if international competition was as intense as ever. Description of the instruments, their precision and workings, and the way they were used were more detailed than ever.
- 41 Le Figaro (14 October 1874), p. 2; Le xixe Siècle (17 October 1874), p. 2; Le Rappel (20 November (...)
- 42 Le Figaro (30 January, 1875), p. 2.
- 43 Journal officiel de la République française (29 January 1875), p. 20.
- 44 La Presse (23 March 1875), p. 1-2.
32In 1874, the wealthy banker Raphaël Bischoffsheim (1823-1906) decided to bequest the Paris Observatory the funds (26 000 francs) to buy a new telescope of great dimensions. The story of course struck the imagination of the daily press that published several more or less ironic articles about it, especially after the French administration delayed for more than ten months the receipt of the sum.41 As never before, big telescopes were discussed by the press, but scientific details remained scant. Things changed when Le Verrier was officially allowed to accept the gift and start the process of constructing the telescope. On 25 January, 1875, he addressed a formal letter to the banker—whom he called his “dear colleague” drawing derision from some newspapermen.42 Published in the Journal officiel, Le Verrier’s letter was highly technical and the press tried to make what was at stake clear to a wide audience.43 On 23 March, the famous science popularizer Louis Figuier (1819-1894) took this opportunity to provide another detailed description of Secretan’s meridian circle where the composite nature of the instrument was made especially clear: besides the exceptional optics of the eyepiece and the finely graduated circle, the author emphasized microscopes, trunnions, and lighting systems.44
- 45 Le Siècle (12 October, 1875), p. 2.
33Members of the press were now invited to the Paris Observatory to examine the installation of new instruments. In October, 1875, the “gigantic telescope” built by Martin and Eichens mentioned at the start of this article was unveiled.45 On the 8th, the Petit Journal denied that the first trials of the telescope were to be performed on that day. A strict hierarchical order was to be followed: the minister and astronomers would be first to try it, then only would members of the city council, other scientists, and journalists be allowed to see it. Marc Constantin (1810-1888) of the Petit Journal however claimed to have been among the very first admitted to examine the engine. An interesting aspect of both the Martin-Eichens telescope and the projected instrument to be built with Bischoffsheim’s donation was the fact that the original building was not convenient anymore to host the new machines. In the case of the new telescope, a rolling house had been built especially for it in the garden of the Observatory. In his letter from January 1875, Le Verrier had similarly explained that a new pavilion would have to be built to install Bischoffsheim’s instrument. In the 17 July, 1880 issue of L’Univers illustré, the new spread-out layout of the Observatory was explained. A vacant lot near the Observatory was to be bought to build a shelter from the Bischoffsheim telescope. A 20-meter-high tower was then to be erected to house a 0,74-m wide refractor. A third building would be built to host a circle by Fortin unused since 1862 which would be affected to astronomy students. At the Paris Observatory, form now followed function.
34This brief, incomplete survey of the ways observatories’ core instruments were discussed in the nineteenth-century press has revealed a number of interesting points. Tensions between universality of precision and widespread media interest for localism (or couleur locale) permeated the whole treatment of such instruments by newspapers. The design and construction of core instruments was almost always tied to the personality of the makers and often broached in overly patriotic tones, but reliability was guaranteed by universal units of measurement like scientific goals, quantitative assessments of precision, or cost.
35As we have seen, especially in the last period, the specific environment in which instruments were installed was another major theme in the media. Journalists increasingly paid attention to surrounding instruments and gears around a telescope, whose image definitely emphasized the many different parts that composed the machine: optical part, graduated circles, microscope, etc. The precision of each part warranted that of the whole assemblage. We have paid less attention in the above to the frequent mentions occurring throughout the period under investigation of instruments installed in observatories all over the world. The core instruments of the observatories of Brussels, Pulkovo, Rio de Janeiro, or Melbourne were also discussed with great interest, establishing implicit and explicit connections with the instruments set up in Paris. The worldwide network of instruments was often cast in terms of international competition, but the general effect probably was to strengthen the universality of the results achieved by this means.
36As a final point, we should also point out another crucial aspect we have left out of journalists’ accounts here analyzed, namely the fact that they often emphasized local expertise developed for the manipulation of observatories’ core instruments. More often than not, they named individual observers and specified their abilities, while praising the universal consequences of their observations. Again, it would seem that emphasizing the individual aspects of astronomers’ expertise bolstered claims in favor of universality of knowledge.
37Most often choosing to emphasize localism, the French press in the nineteenth century nonetheless endeavored to show that local particularism was no hindrance to the achievements of universal results. On the contrary, local expertise in the form constructing instruments, setting them up in the best environment possible, or skillfully manipulating them was constantly put to the fore as a way to guarantee that scientific data produced in Paris was up to the highest standards. As such, it could claim to have universal value. The extended reach of the French press in that period, in social as well as geographical terms, surely played a decisive role in reinforcing that claim at scientific universalism.
Flux RSS
