Why Didn't Henrietta Leavitt Sign Her Own Discovery Paper?

  • I
  • Thread starter Jaime Rudas
  • Start date
  • #1
Jaime Rudas
206
68
In 1912, the astronomer at the Harvard Observatory, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, discovered the magnitude-period relationship in Cepheid stars; a relationship that, even today, is one of the fundamental bases for determining cosmological distances. This discovery was reflected in the paper "Period of 25 variable stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud" signed by the director of the observatory, Edward Pickering. Although Pickering points out that the discovery was made by Leavitt, my question is why Leavitt didn't sign the paper?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jaime Rudas said:
In 1912, the astronomer at the Harvard Observatory, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, discovered the magnitude-period relationship in Cepheid stars; a relationship that, even today, is one of the fundamental bases for determining cosmological distances. This discovery was reflected in the paper "Period of 25 variable stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud" signed by the director of the observatory, Edward Pickering. Although Pickering points out that the discovery was made by Leavitt, my question is why Leavitt didn't sign the paper?

Sadly, I suspect the answer is that it is because she was female.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur, Klystron, russ_watters and 6 others
  • #3
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and ohwilleke
  • #4
DaveE said:
I think it's just amazing what you can learn from reading the results of a simple google search...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt
Yes, that's true, but unfortunately it doesn't provide any clue as to why Leavitt didn't sign the paper.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #5
The first sentence read
“The following statement regarding the periods of 25 variable stars in the
Small Magellanic Cloud has been prepared by Miss Leavitt.”
so it could be just the peculiarities of the publication.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaime Rudas
  • #6
It is my understanding that Pickering took considerable heat for using essentially all female "calculators" (because they in fact provided best intellectual value to him). They were referred to derogatorilly as Pickering's Harem.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Jaime Rudas
  • #7
hutchphd said:
It is my understanding that Pickering took considerable heat for using essentially all female "calculators" (because they in fact provided best intellectual value to him). They were referred to derogatorilly as Pickering's Harem.
I have understood that the treatment that Pickering gave to women was much better than what was customary in his environment and time.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #8
I think he treated them very well but there were probably limits beyond which he could not go. There are haters everywhere, as we are being reminded daily.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur, vanhees71 and Jaime Rudas
  • #9
Can someone point out which paper we are talking about? The 1908 paper is single-authored.
 
  • #10
1912. You know, like in the OP.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, weirdoguy and Jaime Rudas
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
The 1908 paper is single-authored.
Yes, the 1908 one is signed by Leavitt. Precisely for this reason I am intrigued why the one from 1912 isn't signed by her.

Regarding the 1908 paper, in it Leavitt already intuits the magnitude-period relationship when she says:
"It is worthy of notice that in Table IV the brighter variables have the longer periods"

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1908AnHar..60...87L&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #13
I note current citations to the 1912 paper list both authors (Pickering and Leavitt) but the paper above is signed only by Pickering I would love to know the details
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Jaime Rudas
  • #14
Thanks for posting the actual paper - it is the one I thought it was, but if it were not, we would have gone through a lot of tail-chasing. What I have been able to tell:
  • This isn't really a journal as we know it today, where one submits a paper, has it reviewed, etc. It's more the Observatory making an announcement.
  • I found another few examples from the period on the web. All are signed only by Pickering (who was the director)
  • Modern databases reference this as Leavittt and Pickering. And as mentioned, it says in the very beginning that this is her work.
I think that answers the OP's question - "They did what they always did"
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Klystron, Jaime Rudas, DaveE and 1 other person
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
Thanks for posting the actual paper - it is the one I thought it was, but if it were not, we would have gone through a lot of tail-chasing. What I have been able to tell:
  • This isn't really a journal as we know it today, where one submits a paper, has it reviewed, etc. It's more the Observatory making an announcement.
  • I found another few examples from the period on the web. All are signed only by Pickering (who was the director)
  • Modern databases reference this as Leavittt and Pickering. And as mentioned, it says in the very beginning that this is her work.
I think that answers the OP's question - "They did what they always did"
Excellent answer. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #16
pasmith said:
Sadly, I suspect the answer is that it is because she was female.
Yes, 1912 was a very different landscape for women here and in US.
A quick google Women did not vote in the US at that time, or in the UK.
Women's education had similar status. Ivy league did not admit females till the 1960s.
Just makes achievements at that time all the more impressive.
 
  • Like
Likes Ken G, sophiecentaur, weirdoguy and 2 others
  • #17
There's a long way to go before women (and other groups) get real equality. But at least we can see improvements - the vote, FA membership, prime minsters etc. etc. which have benefitted a number of groups, but not universally. We all have versions of the Taliban at work in our 'enlightened' western democracies. It can be all too easy to feel complacent.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Klystron

FAQ: Why Didn't Henrietta Leavitt Sign Her Own Discovery Paper?

Why didn't Leavitt sign the paper where the discovery of Leavitt's Law is reflected?

Henrietta Swan Leavitt did not sign the paper because, at the time, it was common practice for the head of the department or the lead astronomer to take credit for the work done by their team. Leavitt's discoveries were published under the name of her supervisor, Edward Charles Pickering.

Was Leavitt's contribution to the discovery of the period-luminosity relationship acknowledged during her lifetime?

Henrietta Leavitt's contributions were not fully recognized during her lifetime. Although her work was fundamental to the field of astronomy, she did not receive the recognition she deserved, partly due to the gender biases prevalent in the early 20th century.

Did Leavitt receive any posthumous recognition for her work on the period-luminosity relationship?

Yes, Henrietta Leavitt has received significant posthumous recognition. Her work is now widely acknowledged, and she is often credited with discovering the period-luminosity relationship, which is crucial for measuring cosmic distances. Various awards, honors, and even an asteroid have been named after her.

How did the scientific community eventually come to recognize Leavitt's contribution?

The scientific community gradually recognized Leavitt's contribution as the importance of her discovery became more evident. Prominent astronomers like Edwin Hubble used her period-luminosity relationship to measure the distance to far-off galaxies, which helped validate her work and brought her the recognition she deserved.

What impact did Leavitt's Law have on astronomy?

Leavitt's Law, or the period-luminosity relationship, had a profound impact on astronomy. It provided a reliable method to measure the distance to Cepheid variable stars, which in turn allowed astronomers to determine the scale of the universe. This discovery paved the way for major advancements in our understanding of the cosmos, including the expansion of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top