amateurs vs professionals (lankford)

$PDWHXUV�YHUVXV�3URIHVVLRQDOV��7KH�&RQWURYHUV\�RYHU�7HOHVFRSH�6L]H�LQ�/DWH�9LFWRULDQ�6FLHQFH$XWKRU�V��-RKQ�/DQNIRUG6RXUFH��,VLV��9RO��1R��0DU��SS��3XEOLVKHG�E\��7KH�8QLYHUVLW\�RI�&KLFDJR�3UHVV�RQ�EHKDOI�RI�7KH�+LVWRU\�RI�6FLHQFH�6RFLHW\6WDEOH�85/��http://www.jstor.org/stable/231175 .$FFHVVHG��

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sat, 1 Feb 2014 17:41:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hss

http://www.jstor.org/stable/231175?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Amateurs versus Professionals:

The Controversy

over Telescope Size

in Late Victorian Science

By John Lankford*

S TUDENTS OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE have long held professionalization to be a theme worthy of systematic investigation. Their con-

ception of the dynamics involved, however, is frequently too narrow. This paper examines the dynamics of professionalization in astronomy as evidenced by the changing status of amateurs. The development of astronomy does not fit existing models of the way in which science becomes professionalized because the professional never achieved a complete monopoly; instead, the role of amateurs became institutionalized within the discipline. When professionalization is understood as a dynamic process involving the clash of groups and interests, it is possible to escape assumptions of inevitability. The triumph of professionalism was a contingent, historical, and political process. I

Even in the closing decades of the twentieth century, amateur astronomers in most industrialized nations include a minority whose skill at designing and using instruments or whose perseverance as observers permits them to make significant contributions to knowledge. A worldwide network of variable star observers keeps track of long-period variables and monitors many short-period variables as well. These amateurs cooperate with professionals through such organizations as the Variable Star Section of the British Astronomical Associa-

*Department of History, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211. I am indebted to the Research Council of the G-raduate School of the University of Missouri-

Columbia for several grants, to my colleague Professor James L. McCartney for valuable suggestions, and to Professor Malcolm J. Rohrbough of the University of Iowa for supplying material not available to me.

' See in particular Nathan Reingold, "Definitions and Speculations: The Professionalization of Science in America in the Nineteenth Century," in Alexandra Oleson and Sanborn C. Brown, eds., The Pursuit of Knowledge in the Early American Republic: American Scientific and Learned Societies from Colonial Times to the Civil War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), pp. 33-69. See also W. J. Reader, Professional Men: The Rise of the Professional Classes in Nineteenth-Century England (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966). The problem of dynamics is addressed by Geoffrey Millerson, The Qualifying Associations: A Study in Professionalization (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York: Humanities Press, 1964). A classic example of the linear model of professionalization is George H. Daniels, "The Process of Professionalization in American Science: The Emergent Period, 1820-1860," Isis, 1967, 58:151-166. John D. Holm- feld, "From Amateurs to Professionals in American Science: The Controversy over the Proceed- ings of an 1853 Scientific Meeting," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1970, 114:22-36, is similar. Astronomy does not conform to the model developed in the classic study by A. M. Carr-Saunders and P. A. Wilson, The Professions (London: Frank Cass, 1964), esp. pp. 352-365, since professional astronomers never ahieved a monopoly over the discipline.

ISIS, 1981, 72 (261) 1



12 JOHN LANKFORD

tion (1890) or the American Association of Variable Star Observers (1911). Lunar and planetary observers from Japan to the London suburbs or the American Southwest are similarly organized to supplement the work of professionals. The discovery of comets and the observation of occultations also are largely the province of amateur astronomers working in conjunction with professionals. Some amateurs, even in the post-World War II period, have crossed the line and become full-time professional scientists.

In Britain amateurs and professionals came to a parting of the ways toward the end of the nineteenth century, a result of dramatic shifts in the conceptions of scientific identity held by both groups. Professionals demanded specialization, technical knowledge gained only through advanced education, and access to large-scale research facilities. Further, they sought government support for their research, an action to which many amateurs strenuously objected. Com- munications between amateurs and professionals declined and in many in- stances flowed only in one direction. The two groups ceased to share a common set of scientific goals, and the growth of complex and expensive instrumentation underscored the fact that they were concerned with different research problems.2

D. S. L. Cardwell accurately characterizes the earlier development of astronomy in Great Britain: science was "prosecuted with vigour and success by a brilliant group of semi-amateurs."3 Aside from the Astronomer Royal and his staff, the superintendent of the Nautical Almanac and his assistants, the Astro- nomers Royal for Ireland and Scotland, holders of chairs in the ancient univer- sities and assistants in university observatories, paid observers in private observatories, and (after 1881) Norman Lockyer and his South Kensington astro- physical research group, virtually no one in Britain earned a living by doing astronomy.

That "brilliant group of semi-amateurs" contributing to astronomical science during the nineteenth century included Stephen Groombridge (1755-1832), whose meridian-circle observations of circumpolar stars provided the basis for a catalogue still in use. The Reverend William R. Dawes (1799-1868), known to Victorians as "the eagle-eyed," made major contributions to the study of the planets and double stars. Richard Carrington (1826-1875) developed new methods of observing sunspots which led to important advances in the knowledge of the sun's rotation period and the position of its axis. William Lassell (1799- 1880) constructed large reflectors and with them discovered planetary satellites. Warren De La Rue (1815-1889) designed the photoheliograph used to make a daily record of sunspots at Kew and pioneered in the use of reflectors for astronomical photography. Dawes, Carrington, Lassell, and De La Rue all received the Gold Medal from the Royal Astronomical Society. Lassell and De La Rue were fellows of the Royal Society.

An examination of the list of persons awarded medals or testimonials by the

-The History of the Royal Astronomical Society 1820-1920, by J. L. E. Dreyer et al. (London: Wheldon & Wesley, 1923), is an indispensible introduction to the problem of amateurs in nineteenth-century science. See also Arthur Schuster and Arthur E. Shipley, Britain's Heritage of Science (London: Constable & Co., 1917), esp. pp. 72-73, 88, 161-162. Agnes M. Clerke devotes a good deal of her A Popular History of Astronomy during the Nineteenth Century (4th ed., London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908) to the work of amateurs. Apparently amateurs are still active in microscopy. See Hal Bowser, "Invisible World Sings a Siren Call to Amateurs,"Smith- sonian, 1978, 9(5): 66-72.

3D. S. L. Cardwell, The Organisation of Science in England (London: Heinemann, 1957), p. 242.



TELESCOPE SIZE IN VICTORIAN SCIENCE 13

Royal Astronomical Society shows amateurs receiving honors along with such British professionals as G. B. Airy or international leaders like F. W. Bessel, F. G. W. Struve, and J. F. Enck.4 But by the third quarter of the century a change became evident. Fewer amateurs received the coveted R.A.S. award and those who did (A. A. Common, Isaac Roberts, and Frank McClean) represented a new trend, the application of photography to the study of astrophysics. William F. Denning's 1898 award was the sole exception to this rule. After 1900 the Gold Medal went to professional astronomers exclusively. With the creation in 1897 of the Hannah Jackson (nee Gwilt) gift and medal, generally awarded to amateurs, the R.A.S. began to differentiate in its distribution of honors between amateurs and professionals. The Jackson-Gwilt was not, however, be- stowed as frequently as the Gold Medal.

By the closing decades of the nineteenth century, then, British astronomy was in flux. As Cardwell remarks, the "old free amateurism" was passing from the scene. 5 It is on the nature of the old free amateurism and the process involved in its passing that we shall focus our attention.

* * *

In 1885 William Frederick Denning (1848-1931), one of the most productive and outspoken amateurs in England, opened a heated exchange concerning the relative merits of large and small telescopes that occupied astronomical journals in both Great Britain and the United States for over a year. Denning later embodied his ideas on the value of small apertures and the imperfections of large telescopes in a book, Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings (1891). The issues debated were complex. While they dealt with matters of basic theory as well as research programs and findings, there were also social and psychological dimensions.

Denning's paper compared observations of Jupiter made by George Washing- ton Hough (1836-1909), director of the Dearborn Observatory in Chicago, and several English amateurs. The point at issue concerned the Great Red Spot, one of the most interesting features on Jupiter's cloudy face. Denning and the British amateurs, observing with a variety of telescopes ranging from a 4-inch refractor through an 18-inch reflector, contended that the spot had lost its outline and merged with a faint belt. Professor Hough hotly disputed their observations. Had the matter rested with empirical issues, it would merely have required a third party to make observations which confirmed those of one side or the other. However, Denning went on to remark, "I cannot understand how it is these things are not seen with the Chicago refractor [an 18'/2-inch Clark]. They are conspicuous with much smaller instruments than my own." And, he continued, "This directly brings us to the question as to the superiority (?) of large telescopes in showing details on a bright planet. Apertures of from 6 to 8 inches seem able to compete with the most powerful instruments ever con-

4The listing is to be found in Dreyer et al., History of the Royal Astronomical Society, pp. 252-253.

5Cardwell, Organisation of Science, p. 156. Both historians and social scientists seem to perceive the years 1870-1900 as pivotal in the process of professionalization in the United Kingdom. For a complementary view see Steven Shapin and Arnold Thackray, "Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of Science: The British Scientific Community 1700-1900," History of Science, 1974, 12:1-28, on p. 11.



14 JOHN LANKFORD

structed."6 He appealed to history by presenting a brief survey of the failure of large telescopes, and closed with a quotation from William Kitchiner, M.D. (1775?- 1827), who conducted a series of tests with fifty different instruments. This was typical of Denning's forensic style. In Kitchiner's opinion, "Immense telescopes are only about as useful as the enormous spectacles which are suspended over the doors of opticians!"7

The paper offered a preview of ideas Denning would expound during the course of the 1885-1886 debate. He did not give them systematic form, the closest he came to ordered exposition being Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings. On the whole, then, his thoughts were less coherent and logically organized than the following synoptic analysis suggests. Denning was first and foremost a debater, out to win points.

Denning's assessment of the relative performance of large and small telescopes rested on a faulty grasp of the principles of geometrical optics. Ap- parently, he had never had significant observing experience with an instrument larger than his 12'/2-inch Calver reflector. While his arguments centered on the optical advantages of small telescopes, he sometimes referred to other benefits, which can be summarized as follows:

* Small telescopes are portable, cheap, and easy to store. * They can be used in or out of doors. * They are easy to manipulate and seldom need adjustment. * Small lenses or mirrors are light in weight and easy to mount. There are no

problems with distortion introduced by the weight of a large lens in its cell or a heavy mirror imperfectly mounted.

* It is easier to make optically perfect glass for small than big lenses and mirrors. 8

Denning admitted that large apertures possess "an immense superiority of light [-gathering power] over smaller telescopes," but argued, "They are rendered ineffective by inferior definition."9 At least initially, he did not try to account for inferior definition in terms of optical imperfections, but ascribed the difficulty to atmospheric conditions. Indeed he quoted with approval an opinion that the effect of atmospheric conditions on definition increases with the cube of the aperture.

Denning went on to admit that "separating power [resolution of extended detail] is a function of aperture, and the expansion of a very minute planetary detail can only be effected by the high powers which may be used with large instruments." But then he entered a series of important qualifications. "What the minor telescope lacks in point of light it gains in definition. When the seeing is good in a large aperture it is superlative in a small one. When unusually high powers may be employed on the former, far higher ones proportionately may be used with the latter."'0 Had he argued that "separating power" and light grasp were a function of aperture, and suggested that the larger the telescope the more critical seeing conditions were for its performance, few would have quib-

6W. F. Denning, "Jupiter and the Relative Powers of Telescopes in Defining Planetary Mark- ings," Observatory, 1885, 8:76-81, on p. 79.

7Ibid., p. 81. 8William F. Denning, Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings (London: Taylor and Francis,

1891), pp. 20-21, 29-31. 9Denning, "Jupiter and the Relative Powers of Telescopes," p. 80. '0W. F. Denning, "The Defining Powers of Telescopes," Observatory, 1885, 8: 205-209, on pp.

206, 209.




bled. It would have been a matter of seeking better observing sites. But Den- ning instead introduced several optical conceptions of his own. He also became increasingly rigid in his defense of the defining power of small telescopes.

On the basis of reports by the elder Herschel and observers using Lord Rosse's 72-inch reflector, Denning developed his theory of glare. "The details on a bright planetary object are apt to become obliterated in the glare of a large instrument." It was better to observe the planets with a smaller glass that would not flood the field with excessive light. Indeed such objects as Venus and Jupiter were best observed, he suggested, against a twilight sky. Denning associated glare with both the optical characteristics of large lenses and seeing conditions. Images produced by small apertures are "comparatively tranquil and sharply definite," but in large telescopes "forms are presented much more brilliant and expansive, it is true, but involved in glare and subject to constant agitation, which serve to obliterate most of the details." The conclusion was clear: "The observer becomes conscious that what he has gained in light has been lost in definition." "I

By the fall of 1885 Denning's position became inflexible. In spite of his earlier attempts to link seeing conditions and the quality of planetary images produced by large telescopes, the British amateur moved toward an unqualified endorse- ment of small instruments. "It is to small apertures that we are chiefly indebted for our knowledge of planetary markings." Six years later, after extensive international discussion of the basic issues involved, Denning would still insist that the defining powers of small telescopes were "of such excellent character as to compensate in a measure for feeble illumination.""2

Denning received little overt support in the debate; in fact the majority of British astronomers remained silent in the face of his criticism of large telescopes and defense of smaller instruments. The Americans, however, did not. Several factors motivated them. The last quarter of the nineteenth century was a period of rapid development in instrumentation. Americans were making important contributions to the building of large refractors, and the firm of Alvan Clark and Sons of Cambridgeport, Massachusetts, was, by the 1880s, coequal with the great European telescope makers. Some of the largest refracting telescopes in the world were in America, and they were virtually all Clark instruments. To Americans, still in the thralls of a political and cultural nationalism often tinged with Anglophobia, the great American refractors could not be characterized as less efficient than small English reflectors.

Further, since the 1850s planetary astronomy had received greater attention from professional astronomers in America than in England. It is of more than symbolic importance that the Crepe ring of Saturn (ring C) was detected almost simultaneously by William Cranch Bond (1789-1859), first director of the Harvard College Observatory, and the English amateur Dawes. After mid- century, American professionals engaged in serious planetary observation included Etienne Trouvelot (1827-1895) working with the Harvard and Washing- ton refractors, Asaph Hall (1829-1907) and Edward S. Holden (1846-1914) at the Naval Observatory, Edward E. Barnard (1857-1923) at the Vanderbilt University Observatory, Hough at Chicago, Carr Waller Pritchett (1823-1910)

"Denning, Telescopic Work, pp. 34, 22n., and "Defining Powers," p. 209; Denning, Telescopic Work, p. 33.

'2W. F. Denning, "Large v. Small Telescopes," Observatory, 1885, 8:340-342, on p. 341; Denning, Telescopic Work, pp. 20-21.



16 JOHN LANKFORD

at the Morrison Observatory, Glasgow, Missouri, and, by the end of the 1880s, most of the staff at the newly opened Lick Observatory (including Holden and Barnard). The 1890s saw American planetary work make a quantum jump with the entry of Percival Lowell (1855-1916) and William H. Pickering (1858-1938) into the field. American professionals, then, with a significant tradition of planetary observations generally carried out with large refracting telescopes, had an increasingly large stake in the field.

The first American to respond to Denning's criticisms was Professor Charles A. Young (1843-1908), director of the Halsted Observatory at Princeton. In 1882 the Clarks had installed a 23-inch refractor at Princeton, and in 1885 it was still the second largest refractor in the United States, coming after the two 26- inch Clark telescopes at Washington and the University of Virginia. While agreeing with Denning that "the greater susceptibility of large instruments to atmospheric disturbances is most sadly true," Young recounted the advice given him by the elder Clark when the 23-inch was mounted. Clark told Young he would "almost always see with the 23-inch everything I can see with the 9112- inch [the old Princeton instrumei-t] under the same atmospheric conditions, and see it better:-if the seeing is bad, only a little better; if good, immensely better." When observations made with small apertures could not be duplicated with large telescopes, Denning had concluded that the giant instruments were defective rather than questioning the objective reality of the observations. Young, however, had clearly undertaken comparative trials with the old 91/2-

inch and the new Clark instrument. He suggested that frequently markings on Saturn and Jupiter, "which with the smaller telescope appear most beautifully definite and sharp, turn out when examined by the larger one to be quite different, hazy in outline, and made up of an assemblage of finer details." This was due to the ability of the larger aperture to resolve extended detail. "Under high powers also markings which are conspicuous with lower ones often disappear, in the same way that the naked-eye markings on the moon vanish in the telescope." Young was also aware of the psychological pitfalls of using smaller telescopes. He suggested that "imagination had constructed a story that was not true by building up faintly visible details and hazy suggestions furnished by the smaller lens."'3

Replying in the June number of the Observatory, Denning expressed surprise at Young's report concerning the performance of the 23-inch Clark. "On a bad night I should have supposed the 9'/2-inch would give tolerable views while the 23-inch would have been utterly useless." He then apparently agreed with Young's discussion of telescopic resolution, but asked how, if Young was right, Schiaparelli at Milan could have found the canals of Mars in 1882 with a mere 8- inch Merz refractor. Denning implied that they ought to have been invisible, according to the rule laid down by Young.'4

in August the Observatory printed letters from both Carr Waller Pritchett at the Morrison Observatory and G. W. Hough at Dearborn. Most significant perhaps was Pritchett's suggestion that seeing conditions be considered when the observations made on any given night were evaluated. "I am more than ever convinced that the atmospheric conditions under which we make our observa-

"3C. A. Young, "Obscuration of the Red Spot on Jupiter," Observatory, 1885, 8:172-174, on pp. 173, 174.

'4Denning, "Defining Powers," p. 206.




tions are, or ought to be, as potential in the formation of our judgments of what we see as the telescope itself."'5 Within a decade Lowell and his coworkers would develop a seeing scale.

Hough declared that on the basis of twenty-five years' observing experience with a variety of telescopes, he had "no hesitation in saying that I can see more and better under any atmospheric conditions with the 18'/2-inch than with any smaller telescope," and he claimed that "a large telescope will always do the work of a smaller one, and generally do it better." The Illinois astronomer was perplexed by Denning's theory of glare. "I do not understand why the increased illumination of a planet's disk by the use of a large aperture is objectionable to seeing [definition], since every part is proportionally illuminated." Arguing by analogy, Hough concluded that "one can certainly see objects better in a brilliantly illuminated apartment than in one indifferently lighted." 16

Denning responded in the September Observatory. He flatly refused to back down on the superiority of small apertures for planetary work. "In any case the advantage claimed for the costly, giant telescopes of the present day, if really admissible, must be so very trifling that we are justified in doubting its signifi- cance, especially on bright planets, which do not essentially require excessive command of light." The expensive giants he relegated to the study of faint nebulae, comets, and satellites. 17

Sherburne W. Burnham (1838-1921) entered the fray in the September issue of the Sidereal Messenger. Burnham's essay involved a tart lecture on spurious objects reported by owners of small telescopes. "It never occurred to me that I was laboring under any disadvantage in using a larger aperture . . . or that I could be mistaken in asserting positively, after a fair and thorough investigation with the aid of such an instrument, that the supposed stars [seen with smaller telescopes] were simply due to an excess of imagination on the part of the several writers." Burnham criticized reflectors and defended the telescopes produced by Alvan Clark and Sons. He argued that if reflectors were as powerful as Denning suggested, why not prove it by discovering some close double stars with, say, a separation of 0.3 to 0.4 seconds of arc for pairs of equal bril- liance. Burnham ironically concluded that in spite of the claims of amateurs, observers like himself "who have only large CLARK refractors to work with" would not be discouraged by "the alleged discovery and repeated verification of a select assortment of companions to Polaris, Vega, Sirius, etc."18

Denning simply dismissed Burnham's remarks out of hand. He refused to admit any degree of similarity between planetary work and the study of double stars, or to accept the possibility that small telescopes might show spurious detail. "The explanation has not yet been forthcoming how it is that the 18l/2- inch Chicago refractor, in the hands of such able men as Profs. Hough and Burnham, gives no trace of the Merope nebula [part of the nebula in which the Pleiades are imbedded], while Profs. Tempel and Swift, independently, found it so plain in their small telescopes as to mistake it for a comet. Failure in this

'5C. W. Pritchett, "The Red Spot on Jupiter," Observatory, 1885, 8:268-270, on p. 268. '6G. W. Hough, "Large versus Small Telescopes," Observatory, 1885, 8:275-277, on pp. 275,

276. I7W. F. Denning, "Jupiter and Large versus Small Telescopes," Observatory, 1885, 8:300-305,

on p. 305. '8S. W. Burnham, "Small vs. Large Telescopes," Sidereal Messenger, 1885, 4:193-200, on pp.

194, 197.



18 JOHN LANKFORD

prominent case may well prepare us for the failures of large telescopes in other respects."' 9 Later Denning challenged Burnham to observe the planets using a With or Calver mirror. If Burnham should accept, "he will be rather astonished to see with such distinctness many of the features which are described as very difficult objects in much larger instruments, and possibly his keen and practiced eye may reach a marking, which, though of absolute existence is obliterated in the glare from very large object glasses and specula. If he is so successful he must clearly understand it is a mere deception arising from small aperture."20

From March through November of 1885 a total of fifteen separate publications appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. The six publications from 1886 were more technical. In the fall of 1885 Young tried an experiment with the 23- inch instrument. In presenting his findings, he also made the point that eye and brain were as important as telescope size in "the discovery and delineation of planetary features." He pointed out that different observers represented markings on the planet Mars in a discordant fashion. The reason was clear: "The best and most keen-eyed of observers unconsciously supplement what they really see, with details of what they only think they see; so that in the finished drawing fact and fancy are inextricably mingled." Later, the observer using a larger telescope and higher powers "naturally fails to recognize many features, and some, he has to repudiate." Young next clarified the geometrical optics involved under conditions of poor seeing, when "the image formed by the smaller telescope is somewhat better defined and less veiled by stray light." But he denied that problems caused by poor seeing increased with the cube of the diameter. On the basis of his comparisons between the 9'/2-inch and the 23- inch at Princeton, he concluded that the impact of poor seeing was more likely to vary with the square root "or even with some still more slowly growing function." But even if there was a moderate comparative gain in definition for a small telescope under poor conditions, it was rendered nugatory "due to the diffraction effect of the diminished aperture. "2 ' Later, in his widely used textbook, Young explained this problem. He stressed the fact that "the diameter of the 'spurious disk' [the Airy disk] varies inversely with the aperture of the telescope. According to Dawes, it is about 4'.5 for a 1-inch telescope and consequently 1" for a 4'/2-inch instrument, O'.'5 for a 9-inch, and so on."22

In the fall of 1885, Young and his colleague Malcolm McNeill (1855-1923) put Denning's ideas to a test. Using the same eyepiece (a Steinheil monocentric giving a power of 480) they successively viewed Saturn with the full aperture of the 23-inch Clark, then stopped down to 15 and 9 inches. Finally, they concluded the session with the full aperture again. Both men's observations were reported in detail, and their conclusions told strongly in favor of using full aperture. "Both observers agreed that there was simply no comparison between the 9-inch and the 23-inch aperture." Indeed, with the 15-inch stop Young noted "a knot or lump" where the shadow of the planet touched Cassini's division (AO to use modern nomenclature) in the rings. But with full aperture

'9Denning, "Large v. Small Telescopes" (1885), p. 341. 20W. F. Denning, "Small vs. Large Telescopes," Sidereal Mess., 1885, 4:259-261, on p. 261. 2 1C. A. Young, "Small Telescopes vs. Large," Sidereal Mess., 1886, 5:1-5, on pp. 1, 2. 22Charles A. Young, A Text-Book of General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools

(rev. ed., Boston and London: Ginn & Company, 1900), p. 26.




"the imagined knot had disappeared-a mere optical illusion, in this case at least. "23

Denning rejected Young's experiments in toto. His reasons for doing so rested on certain assumptions about the consequences of stopping down a 23- inch objective to 9 inches. Specifically, he argued that the center of the 23-inch objective "must be enormously greater than the average thickness of an ordinary 9-inch glass. Hence the latter will pass far more light and give superior definition and other advantages because of more perfect figure and greater facility of manipulation." Almost automatically Denning here slipped in his ideas on the figure of small lenses, their defining power, and their ease of handling. But these technical aspects of the argument were only preliminary. Unless large telescopes made important new contributions to planetary astronomy, Denning simply refused to accept "their oft-asserted prowess." In- deed, he insisted that "their powers seem exercised to eliminate certain forma- tions seen in smaller appliances, and thus they cut down rather than extend our knowledge."24 No amount of reasoning or data could ever make Denning back down from this position. His approach was calculated to keep observers using larger instruments on the defensive.

The 1886 phase of the debate concluded with a rejoinder from Young. First he took Denning to task over optical theory. While the 23-inch Clark at Princeton did indeed have a thicker central portion than a 9-inch refractor, Young calculated that this reduced transmission by about 5 or 6 percent, the equivalent of reducing a 9-inch aperture by a mere 3/lo inch. Further, "with the longer focus [of the stopped-down 23-inch] the outstanding chromatic aberration is greatly diminished, and the definition notably improved-more than enough to compensate for the slight loss of light, I think." Young pointed out, a little wearily perhaps, that observations with large telescopes do "of course destroy illusions and correct errors based upon a perfectly honest inter- pretation of features dimly seen, or supposed to be seen, by enthusiastic observers with smaller instruments."25 For the professional this was part of the give-and-take of scientific work. The findings of a particular worker must be confirmed by others. Professionals accepted this complex dialectical process because their commitment was to the growth of scientific knowledge.

What can be said concerning the 1885-1886 phase of the debate? Clearly, there was an element of cultural nationalism in the American response, most evident in the defense of American-made Clark refractors. But the American side, and especially Charles A. Young, also engaged in analytical discussion of the issues raised by critics concerning the merits of small instruments and the deficiencies of large apertures.

By and large Denning was the most interesting of the personae involved. He never grew or changed. His whole position was foreshadowed in the first essay (March 1885). At no time during the course of the debate (or during the next decade, for that matter) did Denning attempt to work up the complex subject of geometrical optics and telescope function. Further, he had little use for experi-

23Young, "Small Telescopes vs. Large," pp. 5, 3, 4. Young summed up his findings for English observers under the inevitable heading, "Large Telescopes v. Small," Observatory, 1886, 9:92- 94.

24W. F. Denning, "Large v. Small Telescopes," Observatory, 1886, 9:274-277, on pp. 274, 275. 25C. A. Young, "Large Telescopes v. Small," Observatory, 1886, 9:328-329.



20 JOHN LANKFORD

ments. He rejected those carried out by Young and apparently attempted none himself. Denning- accepted the objective reality of planetary markings per- ceived with his reflectors and never criticized his own methods, instrumentation, or findings.

If we take Denning as representative of the old order in British astronomy, the "old free amateurism" which was passing from the scene by the 1880s, we may gain significant insights into the dynamics of professionalization during these important years. Discoverer of five comets and two novae, Denning later won the R.A.S. Gold Medal (1898) and the Valz Prize of the French Academy (1895) and was awarded an honorary Master of Science degree by Bristol University (1927). He worked in planetary astronomy, concentrating on Saturn and Jupiter, but the lasting basis of his scientific reputation was as an observer of meteors. So great was Denning's reputation in this area that he served as first president of Commission 22 of the International Astronomical Union (Commis- sion des etoiles filantes). As the American astronomer Charles P. Olivier (1884- 1975), director of the Flower Observatory of the University of Pennsylvania and founder of the American Meteor Society, wrote in the Observatory at the time of Denning's death, he was "one of the few great meteor observers. His name deserves to be remembered for all time as one of the pioneers, and his example of enthusiastic work up to the very end of a long life, despite age and infirmi- ties, should be an inspiration to all who work in this branch of astronomy."26 In a succession of catalogues Denning reported the location of the radiant point of meteor showers. Volume 53 (1899) of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society contains his most comprehensive study.

Few professional scientists achieve such a record of success and make as many significant contributions in several different areas. Fewer still do it on the basis of such slender instrumentation. In 1870 Denning purchased a 10-inch Brown- ing reflector. Later he procured a 12'/2-inch Calver. But, as T. E. R. Phillips wrote, "Denning was first and foremost a naked-eye astronomer, delighting always in those spectacles of wonder and beauty which require only an understanding and appreciative mind for their due perception."27 In an age that witnessed the rapid growth of complex and expensive instrumentation in almost all fields of physical science, Denning was able to succeed admirably, primarily on the basis of naked-eye work. What instrumentation he employed was simple and unprepossessing. His practice of mounting a telescope as an altazimuth was, by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, rare. Such a mounting (compared to an equatorial driven by clockwork to follow a celestial object in its apparent motion across the sky) required patience to manipulate.

Denning appeared committed to a primitive Baconian approach to science. Working with the unaided eye or a minimum of instrumentation, he relied on direct observation. This in turn produced reliable knowledge. Observation need not be filtered through the analytical medium of physics or mathematics. That ''understanding and appreciative mind" of which Phillips wrote apparently did not feel the need of a knowledge of geometrical optics. Others might discuss diffraction and the way it limited small apertures. Denning's view of doing science did not demand such extras. They had no bearing on the process of "due perception. "

26Letter from Chas. P. Olivier, Observatory, 1931, 54:282-283, on p. 283. 27T. E. R. Phillips, "William Frederick Denning," Observatory, 1931, 54:276-282, on p. 277.




But how are we to account for the tone of Denning's publications? His language was often provocative and sometimes almost insulting. Clearly, he felt himself to be in competition with professionals like Hough and Young. Further, he apparently believed he was defending a particular tradition of scientific work. A. J. Meadows has argued that many Victorians looked on "scientific ideas as being in some way the property of their owner."28 Time and again, Denning insisted it was the amateur working with small apertures who developed planetary astronomy. He was in effect acting as spokesman for English amateurs against those professionals who sought to trespass on an already preempted specialty.

In a larger sense, however, Denning represents aspects of the amateur tradition in British science analyzed by Morris Berman, who contends that "the lack of scientific organization in the nineteenth century was paralleled by a series of discoveries that were almost pathologically individualistic." While Berman may not fully appreciate the complex relationships between amateurs and professionals within the Royal Astronomical Society, his conception of the individualistic nature of scientific discovery is supported by Denning's career. The amateur pursued research without pressure from "a professional network and de- void of the hunger for professional recognition" which later generations of university-trained specialists would define as the desire for status, honors, and rewards. Denning practiced science in an "unrestricted sort of way," following his own interests and taking risks which more cautious professionals would seek to avoid. For Denning, scientific discovery was not the cumulative product of collective effort. In a career marked by success, Denning acted the part of the "brilliant scientist-hero. "29

A decade separated the first and second phases of the debate over telescope size. The years from 1886 to 1895 marked a watershed for British astronomy. In 1890 the British Astronomical Association was founded. While not a rebellion against the R.A.S., the new group clearly set itself off from the older body. The original impetus came, as the organizing committee suggested, from a desire "to meet the wishes and requirements of those who find the subscription of the Royal Astronomical Society too high, or its papers too advanced; or, who are, as in the case of ladies, practically excluded from becoming Fellows." Further, the new group, unlike the R.A.S., would "afford a means of direction and organisation in the work of observation to amateur Astronomers."30 The R.A.S. assumed that individuals knew basic observing procedures and techniques.

The first president of the B.A.A., Captain William Noble (1828-1904), had been elected a fellow of the R.A.S. in 1855 and became a vocal opponent of astrophysics, especially of state support for solar physics at South Kensington. Indeed in the 1870s Noble served as secretary to the Society for Opposing the Endowment of Research. 31 Clearly, Noble's views ran counter to those aspiring

2'8A. J. Meadows discusses this problem at length in his admirable study Science and Controver- sy: A Biography of Sir Norman Lockyer (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972), p. 196.

29Morris Berman, "'Hegemony' and the Amateur Tradition in British Science," Journal of Social History, 1975, 8:30-50, on pp. 40, 41.

30Circular II issued by the Provisional Committee, Sept. 1890, reprinted in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 1890, 1:17-19, on p. 19.

3"H. P. Hollis, "Captain Noble," Observatory, 1904, 27:298-300, on p. 299. For a detailed analysis of the South Kensington project and the larger issue of government support for British science see Meadows, Science and Controversy, pp. 75-112.



22 JOHN LANKFORD

professionals like Lockyer who sought to enlist financial support from the government. In his presidential address Noble reviewed the status and role of amateur astronomers in the United Kingdom. The address forms perhaps one of the first extended discussions of changing relationships within British astronomy. While stressing cooperation rather than competition between amateurs and professionals, Noble tacitly admitted that the status of the amateur had declined. Amateurs, like professionals, henceforth must specialize. In the B.A.A. they would be organized into observing sections concentrating their energies on Jupiter, Mars, the moon, or variable stars. But it was a mark of their new status that amateurs would provide professionals with data. They would undertake tasks commensurate with their skills and instrumentation. Uranus and Neptune, objects far beyond the reach of most amateurs' telescopes, were "handed over to the Cyclopean Equatorial of the Lick Observa- tory for any fresh information as to their physical structure and aspect."32

While permitting himself a critical thrust in the direction of the professional, with his "luxurious observatory furnished with every optical and mechanical appliance that wealth can procure," and even an aside in defense of small apertures for observing bright planets, Noble was content to relegate amateurs to the task of "steady and persistent observation."33 This left the higher status and rewards of scientific activity to professionals. Noble also expressed the hope that a member of the B.A.A. would continue Sir William Herschel's work on the distribution of stars in space, but here he unwittingly stumbled into an area that would increasingly call forth some of the most sophisticated efforts of professionals. The problem of stellar distribution in future would be the domain of the von Seeligers and Kapteyns of professional astronomy.

Amateurs were not read out of the R.A.S. Many, like Denning himself, maintained only minimal connections with the B.A.A. But the process of differentiation was well under way in the 1890s. There were now two plainly marked roads. One led to professional status by way of higher education and a period of virtual apprenticeship learning the skills and techniques of astronomy in an observatory setting. The other led to membership in the B.A.A. and perhaps association with one or more of its sections, where the emphasis was on "steady and persistent observation." The process of differentiating between amateur and professional had the immediate effect of limiting competition between the two groups. The amateur's lack of specialized knowledge had to give way before the expertise of the trained professional. But for some, W. F. Denning included, this was a difficult situation to accept.

Against this background, then, the second phase of the debate took place. In July 1895 in the pages of Nature, the most widely-read scientific journal in Britain, Denning returned to the issue of telescope size. As with his original paper in 1885, he was prodded into action by published observations with which he found fault. But in 1895 it was not the work of Hough, the American professional observing with a large refractor, but that of a fellow British amateur, A. Stanley Williams (1861-1938), which troubled him. Williams, a solici- tor more committed to astronomy than to the law, was described by T. E. R.

32Captain Noble's presidential address, J. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 1890, 1:49-55, on p. 53. See also p. 50 for a discussion of specialization for amateurs.

33Ibid., pp. 55, 53. For an autobiographical view of these processes see Lieut.-Col. E. E. Marwick, F.R.A.S., "Evolution of an Amateur Astronomer," J. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 1892, 2:496-504.




Phillips as "one of the most outstanding non-professional astronomers of modern times, ranking with such men as Dawes [and] Denning."34 Williams worked in both planetary astronomy and visual and photographic photometry.

In the 1890s Williams published observations of bright and dark spots on Saturn. He used these features to determine the rotation period of the equatorial region of the giant planet.35 Astronomers have glimpsed such markings very infrequently. But Williams observed them for several oppositions. His work was all the more remarkable because it was carried out with a 6'/2-inch reflector. Denning suggested that if Williams's observations of Saturn were "fully confirmed, they will deserve to be ranked among the best observational feats of modern times."36 But he clearly had doubts. Williams was working with a small aperture. Many of his observations were made when the planet was approaching conjunction. Few observers appeared able to report confirmation. Further, in observing spots 2 seconds of arc in diameter, Williams was working close to the theoretical and empirical limits of resolution for a 61/2-inch mirror. Thus Denning was caught on the horns of a grievous dilemma. On the one hand, Williams and his 6'/2-inch were again outclassing the professionals with their large and expensive refractors. On the other, even Denning had serious reserva- tions about the validity of the observations.

Denning began his 1895 paper with a brief review of evidence that told against the effectiveness of large telescopes. He found Percival Lowell especially valuable, accepting Lowell's distinction between two "classes of celestial phenomena -those dependent on quantity of light, and those dependent on quality of definition." This dovetailed perfectly with Denning's earlier ideas. Lowell, involved in an acrimonious dispute with observers at the Lick Observatory over the reality of complex detail he observed on the surface of Mars, found it expedient to argue that "the biggest instruments have not always given the best views of Mars."37

Denning called for "careful trials of large and small instruments, side by side, upon the planets Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn," but made it clear that such trials would do little to change his mind: "Up to the present time it must be confessed that small instruments have somewhat the best of the argument." He would bow to "the unanimous testimony of our most trustworthy observers" if they "asserted the superiority of large telescopes on bright planets," but it would be a grudging acquiescence. Curiously, Denning concluded by admitting that observers using large telescopes (professionals) could not "be disproved, as they alone have the effective means of judging the question on its merits."38 As the century drew to a close, even Denning conceded that access to large telescopes benefited professionals. Amateurs could not hope to compete with them.

For the first time the editors of the British journal Observatory (H. H. Turner, T. Lewis, and H. P. Hollis) commented on the controversy, siding with the professionals. "If it be true that large telescopes fail to show appearances

34T. E. R. Phillips, "Arthur Stanley Williams," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1939, 99:313-316, on pp. 313-314.

35A. S. Williams, "On the Rotation of Saturn," Mon. Notices Roy. Astron. Soc., 1895, 54:297- 314.

36W. F. Denning, "The Relative Powers of Large and Small Telescopes in Showing Planetary Detail," Nature, 1895, 52:232-234, on p. 233.

37Lowell, quoted in ibid., p. 234. William Graves Hoyt deals with these aspects of Lowell's career in Lowell and Mars (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1976), pp. 87-102.

38Denning, "Relative Powers of Large and Small Telescopes," p. 234.



24 JOHN LANKFORD

Figure 1

Figure2

Drawings of Saturn by A. S. Williams, Spring 1893, using a 61/2-inch reflector (Fig. 1) and E. E. Barnard, 2 July 1894, using the 36-inch refractor of the Lick Observatory, Mount

Hamilton, California (Fig. 2). South is at the top in both. Note the pairs of dusky spots in the Northern Equatorial Belt region in Williams's drawing and the absence of spots in Barnard's.

From A. F. O'D. Alexander, The Planet Saturn: A History of Observation, Theory and Discovery (London: Faber & Faber, 1962), facing pages 209 (Williams) and 225 (Barnard). Original source:

Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1893, Volume 54, Plate 6 (Williams), and 1894, Volume 55, Plate 8 (Barnard).

readily seen in small telescopes, and that these appearances are real, then it follows that the ordinary 2-inch finder is the proper instrument to work with rather than the telescope carrying it."39

Williams's work came under attack at the monthly meeting of the Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society on the afternoon of Friday, 10 January 1896, over which Andrew Ainslie Common (1841-1903), Fellow of the Royal Society, engineer, and pioneer builder of large reflectors, presided. Herbert Hall Turner (1861-1930), Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, opened the discussion of "an important paper" by Edward E. Barnard. Barnard had made micrometric measurements of the ball and ring system of Saturn and the diameter of Titan, carrying out his observations in 1894 and 1895 with the 36-inch Lick refractor. Moreover, Barnard had also tested the relative virtues of large and small telescopes. On several occasions he reduced the aperture of the Lick

39"Notes," Observatory, 1895, 18:316.




telescope to twelve inches. "These experiments were made to determine if, as is thought by some astronomers, a reduction of the aperture would make it possible to see details that are not visible with the full aperture." Turner reported, "Prof. Barnard remains convinced that everything that can be seen with the area of the O[bject] G[lass] diminished can be seen with the full aperture, and, further, that such details can be seen better with the full aperture when the air is steady."40

In the discussion which followed Turner's review of Barnard's observations and experiments, professional astronomers bluntly read amateurs a lesson. After brief technical comments by two fellows, Captain William Noble, former president of the B.A.A., rose to the defense of A. Stanley Williams. Noble minced no words: "If Mr. Stanley Williams did not see them [the spots], I am perfectly certain he would not have said he did; he is a skilful observer and not an imaginative man." The captain suggested that the cause of Barnard's failure to see the Saturnian spots lay in spherical aberration of the 36-inch objective. "When I read the figures I was astounded at the amount of the aberration in this large telescope; and with that amount of aberration I do not wonder a bit at his [Barnard's] not seeing the spots."'4'

Here again the amateurs' unfamiliarity with geometrical optics led them to inappropriate conclusions. Noble referred to a paper by James E. Keeler of the Lick Observatory which dealt, he said, with the "spherical aberration" of the 36-inch objective. But Keeler tested the Lick objective for chromatic aberration. Noble either misspoke or, as is more likely, simply did not have a clear understanding of the difference between spherical and chromatic aberration. While both forms of aberration affect the focus of a refracting telescope, the former generally can be controlled by careful lens design and workmanship. Any large objective showing signs of significant spherical aberration would at once be returned to the maker for correction. Chromatic aberration, on the other hand, cannot be completely removed from refractors. It occurs because it is impos- sible to bring all colors into focus at the same point. Keeler readily admitted that "in the thirty-six-inch equatorial of the Lick Observatory the difference of focal length for different colors amounts to several inches." But he reminded readers "that this great range is not proportionally greater than in small telescopes, and is as small as the nature of the materials from which the object-glass is constructed will permit." Keeler identified conditions under which chromatic aberration would affect observation: if "the visibility of planetary details" differed "greatly in color from the general surface tint." Thus, "a fine blue line on the surface of Jupiter would be spread out into a diffuse band of considerable width at the visual focus, and, if faint, would certainly escape detection. "42 This point is germane to Williams's work: he said little about the color of the faint spots on Saturn. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that under good seeing conditions Barnard would have been able to detect these features had they been present.

A series of reports by professionals on their experiences with large and small apertures concluded the discussion refuting Williams. Professor Hugh Newall

40Observatory, 1896, 19:72. 41Ibid. 42James E. Keeler, "On the Chromatic Aberration of the Thirty-six-inch Refractor of the Lick

Observatory," Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 1890, 2:160-165, on pp. 160, 165.



26 JOHN LANKFORD

(1857-1944), who worked with the 25-inch refractor at Cambridge, summarized his comparative tests. Edward Walter Maunder (1851-1928), a staff member at Greenwich, discussed experiments with the 28-inch and its 6-inch finder. The Astronomer Royal, Sir William Christie (1845-1922), leant his weight to the large-aperture camp.43

The March issue of the Observatory carried a response from A. Stanley Williams. Like Denning, Williams was vigorous in his defense of the small telescope. Disregarding optical theory, Williams argued that somewhere ''amongst the hundreds of small telescopes now in use there may be a few of such superlative excellence, as regards the dealing with planetary details, as to reduce the superiority of the big instruments to a vanishing point." But the main thrust of his reply concerned the relationship between objects to be observed and visual acuity. Williams characterized the spots on Saturn as of "considerable size [2 seconds of arc in diameter for bright spots and 4 seconds long by 2 or 3 seconds in diameter for small spots]," faint, and of "extreme indefiniteness." He stressed the need to train the eye for "the detection of very slight contrasts in indefinite objects of considerable size."44 To this day the objective reality of Williams's observations remains in doubt.45

The debate between Barnard and Williams illustrates more than the changing relationships between amateurs and professionals. The controversy over telescope size extended to perception as well, since amateurs and professionals employed different visual languages to represent planetary markings. Indeed, a number of important problems in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth- century astronomy might fruitfully be explored as perceptual controversies using techniques developed by such social historians of science as Steven Shapin and Martin J. S. Rudwick.46 Shapin points out that scholars studying the controversies can go beyond exhibiting "in detail the political and social interests that have informed the general styles, orientations, metaphors and Weltan- schauungen of certain pieces of scientific knowledge" and demonstrate "the presence of social interests in the esoteric and technically most detailed content of that knowledge."47

Inspection of the drawings of Saturn referred to in the 1895 portion of the debate illustrates perceptual differences. Figure 1 is a drawing of Saturn by the professional E. E. Barnard working with the 36-inch Clark refractor at the Lick Observatory. Figure 2 is a depiction of the ringed planet by the amateur Stanley Williams working with a 61/2-inch reflector. The drawings are separated by about a year, and a change in the inclination of the ring system is evident. While it is clear that they were observing the same object, the differences are more striking than the similarities. Barnard's visual language placed a premium on clarity, precision, and geometrical order, while that of Williams attempted to

43Observatory, 1896, 19:73. 44A. Stanley Williams, "Large versus Small Telescopes and the Spots on Saturn," Observatory,

1896, 19:112-114, on pp. 112n., 113. 45A. F. O'D. Alexander, The Planet Saturn: A History of Observation, Theory and Discovery

(London: Faber and Faber, 1962), p. 208. 46Steven Shapin, "The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the

Edinburgh Phrenology Disputes," in Roy Wallis, ed., On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, Sociological Review Monograph 27 (Keele, Staffs.: Univer- sity of Keele, 1979), pp. 139-178, and Martin J. S. Rudwick, "The Emergence of a Visual Language for Geological Science, 1760-1840," Hist. Sci., 1976, 14:149-195.

47Shapin, "The Politics of Observation," p. 139.




express indistinct and imprecise detail, tantalizingly elusive at the edge of vision. Barnard's perception seems to rest on the mathematical certainty en- tailed in the use of the precision micrometer to measure very small distances. Williams presents a more pictorial and even artistic view of Saturn. His perceptions are couched in a language which is highly individualistic in contrast to Barnard's classical impersonality. Barnard and Williams represented opposing interests, and the scientific knowledge they produced rested on strikingly different perceptions of the natural world.

* * *

While W. F. Denning never recanted his belief in the virtues of small telescopes and the weaknesses of large instruments, the debate achieved symbolic resolution. In June 1911 Henri A. Deslandres (1853-1948), director of the observatory at Meudon, invited the Reverend Theodore E. R. Phillips (1868- 1942) to observe Jupiter with the 33-inch refractor. Phillips, last of the great nineteenth-century amateurs, served as president of both the R.A.S. and the B.A.A. From 1925 to 1935 he was president of Commission 16 (Physical Obser- vations of the Planets) of the International Astronomical Union.48 After ex- claiming that "the view of the planet in the great telescope was quite a revela- tion," he wrote, "Two points struck me especially as bearing on the question of the relative efficiency of large and small apertures in the study of the planets." In comparison to the 12'/4-inch Calver reflector with which he normally worked, Phillips was impressed by "the ease with which delicate and ordinarily difficult features were seen." He did not have to search out these features; they "ob- truded themselves upon the vision and could be held with surprising steadi- ness." Light and dark shadings of small features in the equatorial zone stood out clearly, and Phillips "readily confirmed" features which in the 12'/4-inch reflector were seen only with difficulty.

The second point concerned the resolving power of the 33-inch. "Spots which I have previously observed as simple were shown to possess a highly complex structure, and the belts appeared more irregular and knotted than I had ever previously seen them." Small telescopes work well enough to show "the broad features" of planetary surfaces, but "to find out the true structure of planetary features recourse must evidently be had to instruments of great separating power." Phillips admitted that he could "no longer question the immense value of great telescopes in the study of the planets. A large aperture shows them as a small aperture cannot possibly do, and any seeming uniformity or regularity which the latter may appear to indicate is at once dispelled in a large telescope. "49

Between Denning's 1895 Nature article and Phillips's 1911 visit to Meudon, the process of differentiating amateurs and professionals gathered momentum. Indeed, Denning himself became more professional. While he wanted to be- lieve the discovery A. Stanley Williams made with a small reflector of faint spots on Saturn, Denning remained ambivalent. In the ensuing years honors

48W. H. Steavenson, "Theodore Evelyn Reece Phillips," Mon. Notices Roy. Astron. Soc., 1943, 53:70-72.

49Theodore E. R. Phillips, "A Visit to the Meudon Observatory," Observatory, 1911, 34:365- 366.



28 JOHN LANKFORD

_ r -~ Figure 3. The eye end of the 36-inch

Lick refractor with which Barnard made his Saturn observations. The larger of the two finder telescopes

(upper right) is almost the size of 0 }t. A. S. Williams's instrument. From

_ _ { A Few Astronomical Instruments from m m= F - r

- the Works of Warner & Swasey,

- ----------~ ___j -.5., ,!,0* . '' Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. (New York: Chasmar Winchell, 1900), Plate XXVII.

and various connections with professional organizations rather than with the B.A.A. drew him toward the world of the professional. Phillips bridged the old amateur tradition and the new commitment to professionalism, as illustrated by his service as president of both the B.A.A. and the R.A.S. Both Phillips and Denning participated in the work of the International Astronomical Union. In this context Phillips's visit to Meudon may be interpreted as an act of sub- mission to the values of professionalism. Stanley Williams, on the other hand, remained an individualistic amateur to the end of his life. In 1927 he confided to his notebook: "I have never even looked through a bigger telescope than one of 6 '/2-inches aperture. " 50

By the beginning of the new century the status of amateurs within astronomy had changed, but they did not disappear as a significant factor in the growth and development of the science. Both amateurs and professionals developed new scientific identities, and amateurs institutionalized their new identity in the B.A.A. In a curious sense each group supported the identity of the other: the professional represented expert knowledge and carried out esoteric research programs using costly instrumentation, while amateurs stood for careful and persistent observing of a routine nature. The findings of amateurs were used by the professional. The amateurs' diminished status reflected a loss of knowledge as well as authority, for unlike professionals they might confuse chromatic and spherical aberration and fail to grasp the principles of geometrical optics. Conflict of the kind witnessed in the 1880s and 1890s during the debate over telescope size, however, was virtually eliminated as a consequence of these new roles.

5'R. H. Garstang, "Variable Star Observations of Stanley Williams," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1961, 2:24-35, on p. 33. I am indebted to Professor Garstang for providing a reprint of this valuable paper based on the Williams manuscripts in the R.A.S. library at Burlington House.



amateurs vs professionals (lankford)

Documents

professionalization

university of missouri

jstor terms

jstor archive

history of science society

ffhvvhgyour use

terms conditions of

university of iowa