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

[Jaime Rudas]

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?

 

[pasmith]

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.

 

[DaveE]

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

 

[Jaime Rudas]

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.

 

[Frabjous]

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.

 

[hutchphd]

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.

 

[Jaime Rudas]

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.

 

[hutchphd]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can someone point out which paper we are talking about? The 1908 paper is single-authored.

 

[Bandersnatch]

1912. You know, like in the OP.

 

[Jaime Rudas]

Can someone point out which paper we are talking about?

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...ES&page=1&epage=1&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

 

[Jaime Rudas]

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

 

[hutchphd]

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

 

[Vanadium 50]

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"

 

[Jaime Rudas]

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!

 

[pinball1970]

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.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.