Dr. [Edward] Goulburn, not WS, is Dean of Norwich. Is trying to refute the position of David Hume that miracles are violations of nature.
Showing 41–60 of 80 items
The Sir John Herschel Collection
The preparation of the print Calendar of the Correspondence of Sir John Herschel (Michael J. Crowe ed., David R. Dyck and James J. Kevin assoc. eds, Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, viii + 828 pp) which was funded by the National Science Foundation, took ten years. It was accomplished by a team of seventeen professors, visiting scholars, graduate students, advanced undergraduates, and staff working at the University of Notre Dame.
The first online version of Calendar was created in 2009 by Dr Marvin Bolt and Steven Lucy, working at the Webster Institute of the Adler Planetarium, and it is that data that has now been reformatted for incorporation into Ɛpsilon.
Further information about Herschel, his correspondence, and the editorial method is available online here: http://historydb.adlerplanetarium.org/herschel/?p=intro
No texts of Herschel’s letters are currently available through Ɛpsilon.
Dr. [Edward] Goulburn, not WS, is Dean of Norwich. Is trying to refute the position of David Hume that miracles are violations of nature.
Thanks JH for a 'corrected edition of Deambulatz.' [?] Angelo Secchi has been at Cambridge. Is making composite photographs showing the activity of the sun and planets in the last year.
Lack of circularity in some solar autographs is due to clouds. Discusses a quote regarding stars in the Southern Hemisphere. Also, Aristotle's examination of the eye.
Sends JH a copy of 'Enoch.' Thanks JH for his helpful criticisms.
Discusses translation of 'Enochus.' Thanks JH for the 'Rex Colius,' which amused Adam Sedgwick and WS.
Discusses the translation of 'Enochus' and various suggestions he has been given for its improvement.
Will assume trusteeship if he is named in the document. Discusses trying to find Neptune with his telescope.
Discusses the sudden motion of some sunspots. Does not think planetary action is a very probable cause. Discusses upcoming conjunction of Venus and Jupiter.
Has autographs showing the spots' motion. Will send them soon. Expresses regret at the death of W. R. Dawes. Refers to recent article on the optician George Merz.
Has made arrangements to have copies of solar autographs sent. Discusses sunspots. Inquires whether JH knows of the University of Lund in Sweden.
Is graphically charting the sun and planets to compare them. Explains the lines and positions of bodies in his diagrams.
Discusses his diagram of planetary distances to the sun and earth. Will soon have autographs of sun showing the 'change-up' of a spot.
Thanks JH for the Dante translation. He and Charles Jenyns commend the translation. Sends a translation [into Latin] of [S. T. Coleridge's] 'Genevieve' for JH's comments.
Thanks WS for 'Genevieve' translation. Will not continue the Dante because a Terza Rima translation has been done previously. The sun is behaving oddly.
Describes the peculiar pairs of sunspots he has recently witnessed. Thinks the earth affected their appearance somehow. Is using the Julian calendar for dating observations.
Discusses the great reflector at Lord Rosse's in Ireland. Will send solar autographs JH requested. Thanks JH for the hints about the Julian Calendar.
Some photographs support the sudden disappearance of the spot on 17 Sept. Some photographs are misdated. The relation of Jupiter and sunspots suggests previously unknown interconnections in the solar system.
Sent JH's remarks to Mr. Titterton at Ely. Will endeavor to maintain accuracy. The remarks about Jupiter's action are contrary to the general consensus that planets in opposition close up spots.
Has been translating into Latin 'your Dean's "Kentish Fire."' Has good Latin versions of [Oliver Goldsmith's] 'Edwin and Angelina' by Lord Stratford de Recliffe and of [Thomas] Gray's 'Elegy' by 'Chief Justice [Henry Thomas?] Cockburn.' Sends his 'Genevieve.'
Is working on a compilation of the measures of double stars. If [Rudolf] Wolf's period of 11.11 years is correct, why should 1810-11, a minimum, mark the first observations of solar spots?