Hi David, all,
?
Interesting thoughts. When I was researching this object some years ago I came across the opposite speculation, i.e., it was the Roman dates that are incorrect. (I honestly don¡¯t recall where I read that, but I included it in my I&S20 discussion about this comet.) If one thinks about it, it does seem to be an interesting coincidence that the comet¡¯s appearance just happened to coincide with the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris festival. As I wrote it ¨C again, I don¡¯t remember the source ¨C ¡°. . . some scholars even venturing the idea that the comet¡¯s ¡®appearance¡¯ during the Roman festival was nothing more than an after-the-fact propaganda ploy developed by Octavian and/or his associates.¡± Since some of this ¡°dating¡± apparently took place several years later, an intentional ¡°re-dating¡± would seem to be at least conceivable, especially given the political situation in Rome at the time.
?
I agree that it is very unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that two bright comets happened to appear during 44 B.C. However, for this to be the case that would mean that the Chinese and Korean astronomers, who were apparently quite meticulous sky-watchers, would have missed one, one that the common people in Rome easily saw.
?
Unless this business with the conflicting records can be sorted out, this may be one of those historical mysteries that are never resolved. As I wrote a few years ago, ¡°Whatever might have really happened would seem to be lost within the mists of time.¡±
?
?
The relevance of this discussion is predicated on the idea that Maik and Gary are correct in their identification of the comet of 1744 with the earlier historical comets. My own feeling is that they make a pretty good case, but there is probably no way to know for sure one way or the other until the appointed date (i.e., 2097) gets here. And, especially given the health issues I have experienced during recent years, I somehow don¡¯t think I¡¯ll make it to the ripe old age of 139. If the identity really is correct then it might well be recovered several years prior to that, and I¡¯ve enjoyed the discussion here about Webb or some similar telescope looking for it many years in advance, but I tend to agree with the overall consensus that there probably won¡¯t be any dedicated search attempts for quite a while ¨C much too far in the future to do me any good, alas.
?
One additional thought that occurred to me . . . if the identity is correct, and the comet (or one of the two comets) of 44 B.C. is really this comet, then what about the return prior to that? I don¡¯t¡¯ know if Maik and Gary looked at this . . . and all I have are secondary and tertiary sources. There does seem to have been a fairly bright comet in 426 B.C. that was observed in both the Orient and from Athens, although at least from the information I¡¯ve read there isn¡¯t enough in the way of positional information to tell much about it. There was a possible comet seen in Athens in 430 B.C. and apparently one seen from the Orient in 433 B.C. This is really just a ¡°quick look¡± on my account, and Gary and/or Maik and/or others may know much more about these objects than I do.
?
?
Sincerely,
Alan
?
I have been thinking about the Great Comet of -43 and the possibility that it was a return of the 1744 comet.? If you are correct about the orbit of this latter object (and you certainly make a good case in my opinion) and the comet returned around the middle of -43, it seems strange that it would have passed by unrecorded. True, the apparition would not have been a good one, but with the very bright intrinsic magnitude of this object, it is unlikely that it would not have been seen. It is also unlikely that, at the same time, another bright comet appeared (though not ipossible of course). The Chinese observations note that this comet was "reddish-yellow" in colour, presumably due to sodium boiling out from dust particles. This implies that the comet was large, dusty and relatively close to the Sun. It also suggests that it was bright enough for a definite colour to be perceived.?
My question is whether the Chinese dates could be incorrect. As you point out, there are some difficulties with the records (the comet could not have been in Orion, for instance) and all the records were composed well after the event itself. Is it possible that the Chinese observations were given the wrong date? It would not be the only time that this happened in ancient Chinese chronicles, at least, as their translations have come down to us. Assuming a perihelion date at the end of July, if the Chinese observations were made during July instead of June, the fit both with the Roman comet and the computed return of 1744 seem to be better, I think. Unfortunately, I do not have a program that can handle such early dates, but as best as I can determine, the comet would indeed have been in the NW sky in the middle of July, with a tail most likely pointing toward the NE as recorded. It would have been deep in twilight, but bright enough to be conspicuous, especially if it displayed a bright dust tail. Indeed, the relatively modest length of the recorded tail (5 - 10 degrees) might even suggest that the observations were made in twilight, with the fainter extremities of the tail being invisible against a bright sky. The Chinese and Roman observations may overlap as the comet drifted further into twilight but became brighter. As seen in Rome, the comet became visible some time during the hour before sunset, at small elngation and setting soon after the Sun. There is no indication that the comet was visible at night.
This is just a suggestion and I realize that it could be criticized as altering the data to fit the hypothesis. But I simply suggest it as a possible line of thought.
On Mon May 05 2025 Maik Meyer <maik@...> wrote:
---------- Original Message ----------
?
