Chronicle

In the Commission on the History of Physical and Mathematical Sciences

On February 18, 1948, under the chairmanship of Academician S. I. Vavilov, the regular XXX meeting of the Commission on the History of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences was held.

Two reports were heard: that of Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR M. F. Subbotin, “The Works of M. A. Vil′ev on the Theory of the Motion of the Moon,” and that of Candidate of Technical Sciences A. M. Bakhrakh, “A. N. Krylov and Marine Optical Instruments.”

Noting that the works carried out in Russia from the middle of the eighteenth century on theoretical astronomy constitute a quite significant contribution to science as a whole, M. F. Subbotin pointed to the urgent need to develop this section of the history of Russian science. A prominent place is occupied by works on the theory of the motion of the Moon, and above all by Euler’s works, published by our Academy in 1758 and 1772. These works were the source of all further progress not only in the theory of the motion of the Moon, but in all celestial mechanics. Clairaut’s fundamental work appeared as the result of a competition announced by our Academy (1752).

After Euler’s work, the most important contribution by Russian scholars to the theory of the motion of the Moon is A. M. Lyapunov’s work “On the Series Proposed by Hill for Representing the Motion of the Moon” (1896).

Further, the speaker noted the works of Academician F. I. Schubert (1802), N. Dolgovkov (1885–1912), A. M. Zhdanov (1888), and A. V. Krasnov (1894–1898).

The first of the three works printed by M. A. Vil′ev concerns the apparent motion of the Moon. The two other works relate to the theory of eclipses and are of great interest.

Vil′ev’s principal work on the theory of the motion of the Moon is the memoir “Investigations on the Theory of the Motion of the Moon,” part 1, published in 1919. As the second part of this work, M. A. Vil′ev wrote two chapters. The first of them (printed in 1920) contains a very complete exposition of the first Eulerian theory. The second chapter, dealing with inequalities in lunar months, remained after M. A. Vil′ev’s death (I/XII 1919) in manuscript form, prepared for publication.

After M. F. Subbotin’s report, Professor N. I. Idelson spoke with personal recollections of M. A. Vil′ev. According to the speaker, Vil′ev displayed exceptional talent in astronomy, especially in celestial mechanics. As a calculator, he scarcely had any equals. Along with this, Vil′ev was also a first-rate philologist. He knew the ancient Egyptian language and read and wrote hieroglyphs excellently. Academician B. A. Turaev considered him a fully accomplished Egyptologist. Shortly before his death, Vil′ev began to attend B. A. Turaev’s course on Abyssinian chronicles, from which he wished to extract and process data of astronomical content. Vil′ev

possessed command of Arabic writing, so important for the study of Arabic astronomy.

Vilyev’s works on astronomy between 1915 and 1919 were printed almost continuously. It would be extremely important to collect them all in a single edition, so as to forever imprint in the history of Russian science the image and work of this brilliant young man, who died so prematurely.

A. M. Bakhrakh characterized the role and significance of A. N. Krylov’s activity in the field of marine optics.

A. N. Krylov developed original designs of optical sights, rangefinders, a device for photographic recording of pitching, a device for training in aiming during pitching, a device for determining the sight setting for the motion of an enemy, and other instruments.

The speaker characterized the state of the equipment of the Russian navy at the time when A. N. Krylov began to concern himself with the design of optical sights, and set forth the history of A. N. Krylov’s work in this area.

Then A. M. Bakhrakh described in detail the design and demonstrated photographs and drawings of A. N. Krylov’s marine optical instruments and documents characterizing the important role and significance of A. N. Krylov in the creation of a domestic marine instrument industry.

Academician S. I. Vavilov noted that A. N. Krylov’s work in the field of marine optical instruments remained unknown, since it had been classified. At present many of A. N. Krylov’s instruments are already of only historical interest, and they can and should be published, since A. N. Krylov here provides solutions to many problems by an exceptionally simple method.

Then S. I. Vavilov pointed out that A. N. Krylov was not an optician, but a mechanic and a remarkable designer, and in his instruments he used already existing optical components, combining them in the appropriate manner. This ability to apply optics to the solution of important military problems is extremely characteristic of A. N. Krylov.

In conclusion S. I. Vavilov indicated that, in general, the history of Russian optics—perhaps, in part, for the reason that optics has always been closely connected with military affairs—is little known. Something from the history of Russian optics of the eighteenth century has become known in the last ten years, in particular the works of Euler and Lomonosov. But we know very little about work in the field of optics in the nineteenth century, although undoubtedly such work was being carried on. Therefore the study of this period of the development of optics, including through naval archives, may yield very great benefit and essential discoveries in the field of the history of Russian technology.

On March 3, 1948, under the chairmanship of Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR T. P. Kravets, the XXXI meeting of the Commission on the History of the Physico-Mathematical Sciences took place.

Two reports were heard: by Professor M. S. Eigenson, “The Centenary of Études d’astronomie stellaire by V. Ya. Struve and Modern Science,” and by V. I. Chenakal, “N. V. Tsikolev’s Works on Optics.”

Professor M. S. Eigenson, noting that V. Ya. Struve was not only the creator of the best observatory in the world—the Pulkovo Observatory—and the founder of the famous Pulkovo astronomical school, but also, together with W. Herschel, a creator of stellar astronomy, pointed out that, in addition to the discovery of the annual parallax of stars and important work on double stars, V. Ya. Struve, in a number of works and especially in the memoir Études d’astronomie stellaire, carried out a fundamental investigation of the general distribution of the stars forming the universe visible to us. For the first time V. Ya. Struve conclusively proved that the phenomenon of the Milky Way is the result of galactic concentration, i.e., that all stars, and not only those included in the band of the Milky Way, belong together with the latter to a single stellar system. In essence, the very possibility of speaking of the Universe of stars as the stellar system of the Milky Way is founded precisely on this result of Herschel and Struve.

If on this question V. Ya. Struve had a predecessor in Herschel, then he was absolutely original on the question of galactic absorption. Here, anticipating world science by more than eighty years, he brilliantly proposed that the apparent decrease in spatial stellar density with increasing distance from the Sun is not due to the real depletion of the stellar system (for this would lead to the implausible conclusion that the Sun is located exactly at the center of the stellar Universe), but to invisible—dark—galactic matter. When, in the 1930s, the existence of the latter was directly demonstrated, it turned out that V. Ya. Struve had even been able to calculate quite accurately the mean coefficient of galactic absorption.

Thus V. Ya. Struve carried out decisive investigations on two central questions of contemporary stellar and extragalactic astronomy.

In the second part of his report, M. S. Eigenson dwelt on Soviet works of 1947, which showed that the question of galactic concentration is of enormous importance for solving a number of fundamental problems concerning the structure, dynamics, and cosmogony of stellar systems.

In conclusion the speaker pointed out that the investigations of the 1930s–1940s, carried out in the USSR and abroad, also showed the immense role of dark matter both in our Galaxy and in spiral nebulae similar to it, and that all that had been said leads to the conclusion that V. Ya. Struve’s Études retain their full relevance and may with full justification be ranked among the greatest creations of our culture.

V. L. Chenakal’s report was devoted to the works of the outstanding Russian electrician and lighting engineer V. N. Chikolev in the field of applied optics. A detailed exposition of the report may be found in V. L. Chenakal’s article published in UFN, vol. XXXIV, no. 4 (1948), in connection with the fiftieth anniversary, observed on March 5 of this year, of V. N. Chikolev’s death.

Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR M. A. Shatelen demonstrated brochures published by Chikolev on the testing of searchlights and pointed out that at the Chicago Exhibition of 1893, at which many searchlights of German and French origin were presented, the method proposed by V. N. Chikolev was recognized as the most perfect.

In addition, M. A. Shatelen showed several Chikolev patents for his lamps that he had preserved, and drew attention to the fact that these patents were signed not in the name of V. N. Chikolev, but in the names of those persons from whom Chikolev, evidently, received material support in carrying out his inventions. Chikolev was not only the author of the first arc lamp, but still earlier proposed the lamp that caused much discussion, especially in England (the Werdemann lamp). He spoke about this lamp as early as the beginning of the 1870s in the Society of Lovers of Natural Science, but did not take out a patent, and the idea of this lamp was realized by Werdemann, just as the idea of another lamp proposed by Chikolev was borrowed by Shuckert.

M. Radovsky