Read Ebook: Légendes et curiosités des métiers by S Billot Paul

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 1508 lines and 157791 words, and 31 pages

PAGE THE SUN'S CORONA AND HIS SPOTS 1

SUN-SPOTS AND COMMERCIAL PANICS 26

NEW PLANETS NEAR THE SUN 32

RESULTS OF THE BRITISH TRANSIT EXPEDITIONS 58

THE PAST HISTORY OF OUR MOON 81

A NEW CRATER IN THE MOON 98

THE NOVEMBER METEORS 111

EXPECTED METEOR SHOWER 117

COLD WINTERS 125

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ROWING 148

ROWING STYLES 169

ARTIFICIAL SOMNAMBULISM 178

HEREDITARY TRAITS 205

BODILY ILLNESS AS A MENTAL STIMULANT 236

DUAL CONSCIOUSNESS 259

ELECTRIC LIGHTING 289

ROUGH WAYS MADE SMOOTH.

One of the most important results of observations made upon the eclipse of July 29, 1878, indicates the existence of a law of sympathy, so to speak, between the solar corona and the sun-spots. The inquiry into this relation seems to me likely to lead to a very interesting series of researches, from which may possibly result an interpretation not only of the relation itself, should it be found really to exist, but of the mystery of the sun-spot period. I speak of the sun-spot period as mysterious, because even if we admit that the sun-spots are produced in some way by the action of the planets upon the sun, it would still remain altogether a mystery how this action operated. When all the known facts respecting the sun-spots are carefully considered, no theory yet advanced respecting them seems at all satisfactory, while no approach even has been made to an explanation of their periodic increase and diminution in number. This seems to me one of the most interesting problems which astronomers have at present to deal with; nor do I despair of seeing it satisfactorily solved within no very long interval of time. Should the recognition of a sympathy between the corona and the sun-spots be satisfactorily established, an important step in advance will have been made,--possibly even the key to the enigma will be found to have been discovered.

I propose now to consider, first, whether the evidence we have on this subject is sufficient, and afterwards to discuss some of the ideas suggested by the relations which have been recognised as existing between the sun-spots, the sierra, the coloured prominences, and the zodiacal light.

The evidence from the recent eclipses indicates beyond all possibility of doubt or question, that during the years when sun-spots were numerous, in 1870 and 1871, the corona, at least on the days of the total solar eclipses in those years, presented an appearance entirely different from that of the corona seen on July 29, 1878, when the sun was almost free from spots. This will be more fully indicated further on. At present it is necessary to notice only that whereas in 1870 and 1871 the inner corona extended at least 250,000 miles from the sun, it reached only to a height of some 70,000 miles in 1878; in 1870 and 1871 it possessed a very complicated structure, whereas in 1878 the definite structure could be recognised only in two parts of the inner corona; in 1871 the corona was pink, whereas in 1878 it was pearly white; the corona was ten times brighter in 1871 than in 1878; lastly, in 1871 the light of the corona came in part from glowing gas, whereas in July, 1878, the light came chiefly, if not wholly, from glowing solid or liquid matter. I must here point out, that the evidence of change, however satisfactory in itself, would be quite insufficient to establish the general theory that the corona sympathises with the solar photosphere in the special manner suggested by the recent eclipse observations. There are few practices more unscientific, or more likely to lead to erroneous theorising, than that of basing a general theory on a small number of observations. In this case we have, in fact, but a single observed correspondence, though the observations establishing it form a series. It has been shown that so far as the special sun-spot period from the minimum of 1867 to the minimum of 1878 is concerned, there has been a certain correspondence between the aspect of the corona and the state of the sun's surface, with regard to spots. To assume from that single correspondence that the corona and the sun-spots are related in the same way, would be hazardous in the extreme. We may indeed find, when we consider other matters, that the probability of a general relation of this sort existing is so great antecedently, that but slight direct evidence would be required to establish the existence of the relation. But it must be remembered that before the eclipse of 1878 was observed, with the special result I have noticed, few were bold enough to assert the probable existence of any such relationship; and certainly no one asserted that the probability was very strong. I believe, indeed, that no one spoke more definitely in favour of the theory that the corona probably sympathises with the sun-spots than I did myself before the recent eclipse; but certainly I should not then have been willing to say that I considered the evidence very strong.

We must then look for evidence of a more satisfactory kind.

Kepler, whose attention had been specially drawn to the subject of the light seen round the sun during total eclipse, by certain statements which Clavius had made respecting the eclipse of 1567, describes the eclipse of 1605 in the following terms:--'The whole body of the sun was completely covered for a short time, but around it there shone a brilliant light of a reddish hue and uniform breadth, which occupied a considerable portion of the heavens.' The corona thus seen may fairly be assumed to have resembled in extent that of 1871. A bright corona, reaching like that seen during the eclipse of July 1878 to a height of only about 70,000 miles from the sun's surface, would certainly not have been described by Kepler as occupying a considerable portion of the heavens, for a height of 70,000 miles would correspond only to about a twelfth of the sun's diameter; and a ring so narrow would be described very differently. It seems, then, that in 1605 a corona was seen which corresponded with that observed when the sun has had many spots on his surface. Now we have no record of the condition of the sun with regard to spots in 1605; but we know that the year 1615 was one of many spots, and the year 1610 one of few spots; whence we may conclude safely that the year 1605 was one of many spots. This case then is in favour of the theory we are examining.

In passing we may ask whether the observation by Clavius which had perplexed Kepler, may not throw some light on our subject. Clavius says that the eclipse of 1567 which should have been total was annular. The usual explanation of this has been that the corona was intensely bright close to the sun. And though Kepler considered that his own observation of a broad reddish corona satisfactorily removed Clavius's difficulty, it seems tolerably clear that the corona seen by Clavius must have been very unlike the corona seen by Kepler. In fact the former must have been like the corona seen in July, 1878, much smaller than the average, but correspondingly increased in lustre. Now with regard to the sun-spot period we can go back to the year 1567, though not quite so securely as we could wish. Taking the average sun-spot period at eleven years, and calculating back from the minimum of spots in the year 1610, we get four years of minimum solar disturbance, 1599, 1588, 1577, and 1566. We should have obtained the same result if we had used the more exact period, eleven one-ninth years, and had taken 1610?8 for the epoch of least solar disturbance . Thus the year 1567 was a year of few sun-spots, probably occupying almost exactly the same position in the sun spot period as the year 1878. Clavius's observation, then, is in favour of our theory.

But another observation between Clavius's and Kepler's may here be noticed. Jensenius, who observed the eclipse of 1598 at Torgau in Germany, noticed that, at the time of mid-totality, a bright light shone round the moon. On this occasion, remarks Grant, the phenomenon was generally supposed to arise from a defect in the totality of the eclipse, though Kepler strenuously contended that such an explanation was at variance with the relation between the values of the apparent diameters of the sun and moon as computed for the time of the eclipse by aid of the solar and lunar tables. The corona, then, must have resembled that seen by Clavius, and since the year 1598 must have been very near the time of fewest spots, this observation accords with the theory we are examining.

The next observation is that made by Wyberd during the eclipse of 1652. Here there is a difficulty arising from the strange way in which the sun-spots behaved during the interval from 1645 to 1679. According to M. Wolf, whose investigation of the subject has been very close and searching, there was a maximum of sun-spots in 1639 followed by a minimum in 1645, the usual interval of about six years having elapsed; but there came a maximum in 1655, ten years later, followed by a minimum in 1666, eleven years later, so that actually twenty-one years would seem to have elapsed between successive minarins et des bergers, quoique ces humbles personnages figurent moins souvent dans le merveilleux royaume de: <>, que les rois et les reines, les princes et les princesses. Parfois le m?tier exerc? par le h?ros n'est pas en rapport direct et n?cessaire avec le r?cit, et, suivant les pays, la profession qui lui est attribu?e peut changer. Mais si le r?le est de ceux qui demandent de la finesse, de la ruse plut?t que de la force, on peut ?tre ? peu pr?s certain qu'il sera tenu par un cordonnier, un tailleur ou un meunier, alors que les gens forts ou orgueilleux sont des forgerons ou des charpentiers.

D'autres r?cits appartiennent ? la s?rie des moralit?s: des boulangers ou des lavandi?res sont punis de leur mauvais coeur, tandis que des sabotiers ou des b?cherons compatissants re?oivent des r?compenses. Il en est qui servent ? expliquer ou ? justifier des prohibitions, ou qui montrent comment sont trait?s ceux qui n'ont pas respect? le bien d'autrui. ? tout prendre, ces contes forment une ?cole de morale qui en vaut bien d'autres ? vis?es plus ambitieuses.

Les sentiments du peuple qui ach?te, ? l'?gard du m?tier qui produit, se manifestent surtout dans les proverbes, les dictons, les formulettes et les sobriquets. Ils en mettent en relief les qualit?s, plus souvent les d?fauts r?els ou suppos?s, et se montrent particuli?rement agressifs sur le chapitre de la probit?. Je ne pr?tends pas, loin de l?, qu'ils soient tous justifi?s par les faits, m?me anciens. Actuellement il en est beaucoup qui sont de simples survivances, et qui, s'ils ont eu une r?elle raison d'?tre, s'appliquent ? un ?tat de choses qui n'existe plus. De ce nombre sont la plus grande partie de ceux qui visent certains larcins professionnels. Quoi qu'on ait pu dire, dans la plupart des m?tiers, la moralit? g?n?rale a grandement progress?, et le temps n'est plus o? le consommateur voyait n?cessairement un voleur dans le fabricant qui lui livrait un objet ou le marchand qui le lui vendait. Cela tient en partie ? ce que l'ouvrier ne travaille plus gu?re sur des mat?riaux appartenant aux particuliers, et qu'il n'a plus la tentation de s'en approprier une partie. En outre, les commerces ?tant devenus libres, la concurrence emp?che de rechercher de petits gains illicites qui, bient?t d?couverts, feraient le client d?serter la boutique o? se serait produite la fraude, pour s'adresser au voisin.

Les dires populaires constatent aussi une sorte de r?probation qui s'attachait ? tout un corps de m?tier, non pas cette fois en raison de fraudes ou de vol, mais ? cause du m?tier lui-m?me, et parce qu'il avait ?t? exerc? ? une certaine ?poque par des races m?pris?es. Il y avait nagu?re encore, dans plusieurs pays de France, de v?ritables parias, tenus ? l'?cart par les populations au milieu desquelles ils vivaient, qui ?taient ? chaque instant expos?s ? des avanies et ? des injures, et qui ?taient, pour ainsi dire, condamn?s ? ne se marier jamais qu'entre eux. Ces pr?jug?s, fort heureusement, vont s'effa?ant tous les jours, et le temps n'est peut-?tre pas tr?s loin o? ceux qui ?taient les plus vivaces au commencement de ce si?cle, auront enti?rement disparu.

Les artisans d'autrefois avaient bien des usages particuliers, bien des f?tes dont le caract?re, souvent presque rituel, remontait ? des ?poques lointaines; des c?r?monies sp?ciales avaient lieu ? des ?poques d?termin?es de l'ann?e, lorsque l'apprenti devenait compagnon, quand l'ouvrier passait contrema?tre. Quelques-unes n'existent plus qu'? l'?tat de souvenir: d'autres sont en train de mourir. S'il en est qui ne sont pas ? regretter, il y en avait certaines qui entretenaient une sorte de lien entre les diverses cat?gories du m?tier, depuis le patron jusqu'au petit gar?on qui commen?ait son apprentissage. Ceux qui r?vent de creuser un foss? entre deux ?l?ments, qui sont aussi n?cessaires l'un que l'autre, pourront se r?jouir de voir cesser ces rapports; il n'en sera pas de m?me de ceux qui pensent que

Quand les boeufs vont deux par deux Le labourage en va mieux.

J'ai donn? un assez large d?veloppement ? l'illustration documentaire, puisqu'elle comprend 220 gravures. Elle est emprunt?e ? des sources tr?s vari?es. La plupart du temps elle est en relation directe avec le texte, que souvent elle compl?te ou ?claircit. C'est surtout le cas de celle qui repr?sente des sc?nes de moeurs. D'autres images reproduisent des costumes d'autrefois, d'anciens modes de travail, des int?rieurs d'ateliers ou de boutiques, qui permettent, mieux qu'une longue description, de se figurer le milieu dans lequel vivait ou travaillait l'ouvrier aux si?cles derniers.

LES MEUNIERS

Le meunier voleur de farine.--Sera damn? jusqu'au pouce,--Et son pouce, le plus damn?.--Va le premier dans le sac.

Meunier farinier.--Perce le sac, vole le bl?.--Et qui dit que c'est le rat.

Plusieurs articles de coutumes locales constatent qu'? l'int?rieur du moulin des dispositions ing?nieuses avaient pour but de favoriser un b?n?fice illicite: au lieu d'environner les meules d'un cercle d'ais en rond, certains meuniers lui avaient donn? une forme carr?e, en sorte que la farine qui remplissait les quatre angles de ce carr?, n'?tant plus pouss?e par le mouvement de la meule, y restait en repos, et y demeurait contre les int?r?ts des particuliers dont ils faisaient moudre le bl?. D'autres faisaient plusieurs ouvertures au cercle d'ais, par o? la farine tombait en d'autres lieux que la huche o? elle devait ?tre re?ue par le propri?taire du bl?. Un article des coutumes avait ordonn? aux seigneurs ou ? leurs meuniers de renoncer ? ces modes de construction frauduleuse.

On comprend que ces pratiques aient valu aux meuniers d'autrefois une d?testable r?putation; le po?te anglais John Lydgate disait qu'ils avaient tous les droits possibles au pilori; dans les dictons injurieux, ils ?taient associ?s aux tailleurs et aux boulangers, et formaient avec eux la trinit? industrielle la plus blasonn?e au moyen ?ge; on en trouve l'?cho dans les dictons populaires et dans les farces: <>

--Un usurier, un meunier, un changeur et un p?ager sont quatre ?vang?listes pour Lucifer.

Nagu?re on disait que ce qu'il y a de plus infatigable, c'est la cravate d'un meunier, parce qu'elle peut sans se lasser tenir toujours un coquin ? la gorge.

Le moulin, ne donn?t-il qu'un tour de roue.--D'avoir sa cr?pe le meunier est certain.

Quand le meunier va faire moudre,--Tric trac, avec sa meule.--Du beau bl?, du fin bl?,--Il met quelque mesure de c?t?.

? Saint-Malo, on dit aux petits enfants, en les faisant sauter sur les genoux:

Dansez, p'tite pouch?e, Le bl? perd ? la mouture, Dansez, p'tite pouch?e, Le bl? perd chez le meunier. Les meuniers sont des larrons, Tant du Naye que du Sillon.

En Haute-Bretagne, la formulette qui suit est populaire:

Meunier larron, Voleur de bl?. C'est ton m?tier. La corde au cou, Comme un coucou. Le fer aux pieds, Comme un damn?. Quat' diabl' ? t'entourer. Qui t'emport'ront dans l'fond d'la m? .

On dit en Seine-et-Marne:

Meunier larron. Voleur de son pour son cochon: Voleur de bl?. C'est son m?tier.

Lair! lair er meliner! Ur sahad bled do h? rair.

Voleur! voleur meunier!--Un sac de farine sur le dos.

Le moulin lui-m?me prenait une voix pour conseiller le vol. En Forez, le baritet ou tamis dit au meunier: <>

Un petit conte picard, aussi irr?v?rencieux qu'un fabliau et peu charitable pour les meuniers, semble dire que c'est en vertu d'une autorisation divine qu'ils auraient constamment pr?lev? plus que leur d? sur les man?es de leurs clients: le jour de l'Ascension, J?sus-Christ se dirigea vers un moulin ? vent: comme ce moulin ?tait arr?t?, il se mit en devoir de gravir les ?chelons de l'une des ailes, afin de prendre son ?lan pour monter au ciel. Le meunier, qui regardait ? l'une des fen?tres de son moulin, lui cria: O? allez-vous?--Je vais au ciel, r?pondit J?sus.--Dans ce cas, attendez-moi donc, j'y vais avec vous, r?pliqua le meunier, qui sortit aussit?t et s'accrocha aux pans de la robe du Christ.--Non, non, dit J?sus, en le repoussant doucement: je vole en haut, toi vole en bas.

... le long de l'ann?e, J'ay ma volunt? ordonn?e, Comme s?avez, ? mon moulin, O? plus que nul de m?re n?e, J'ay souvent la trousse donn?e ? Gaultier, Guillaume et Colin. Et ne s?ay de chanvre ou de lin, De bled valant plus d'un carlin, Pour la doubte des adventures. Ostant ung petit picotin, Je pris de soir et de matin; Tousjours d'un sac doubles moutures. Somme de toutes cr?atures Pour suporter mes forfaictures. Tout m'estoit bon: bran et farine.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet