A blood-red light followed against the stars for more than twenty minutes made Marseille the centre of an astronomical argument in August 1871. The observer, M. Coggia at the Marseille Observatory, supplied a timed account of its slow progress, apparent pauses, changes of direction and final descent. His report survives in the French Académie des sciences’ Comptes rendus, volume 73, on pages 397–398.
The interest lies as much in the contemporary discussion as in the sighting. Le Verrier presented the report; Élie de Beaumont questioned whether its initial classification was justified; other contributors compared earlier luminous phenomena. In October, A. S. Herschel offered a fire-balloon explanation. None of those steps should be mistaken for recovery of the object or a documented identification of its source.
Coggia’s timed observation
The original note places the beginning at 10:43 in the evening of 1 August, using Marseille mean time. It describes a blood-red appearance near a triangle of stars in Serpens and Ophiuchus, moving slowly eastward. Coggia then recorded its position against successive stars, rather than merely estimating that something unusual had remained visible for a long time.
By 10:45:30 it was between stars in Sagittarius; at 10:46:35 it appeared to pass close to Saturn. These are directions in the observer’s sky. Passing near the planet’s apparent position does not mean that the object was physically close to Saturn or beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
The movement reportedly slowed further. At 10:52:30 the light reached a position between stars in Capricornus and remained momentarily stationary. It then took a northerly direction, leaving a star in Aquarius to the west, and stopped again near beta Aquarii at 10:59:30. After resuming its eastward progress, it paused once more before descending relatively rapidly towards the horizon.
Coggia lost sight of it a little north of a star in Piscis Austrinus at 11:03:20. Subtracting the opening time gives twenty minutes and twenty seconds. The almost full Moon was another landmark mentioned during the descent. The account does not report a recovered stone or a verified impact at the end of the apparent path.
Apparent size, light and falling material
Coggia estimated an apparent diameter of about fifteen arcminutes initially, diminishing rapidly to around four arcminutes by the approach to Saturn. During the later stages he compared its brightness to that of Venus. Angular size and brightness are different observations: neither supplies a physical diameter without additional information about distance.
During the final downward movement, he described something resembling incandescent drops escaping from the light. That detail became relevant to the proposed balloon explanation. It remains a description of appearance; the report does not establish that any such material was retrieved and examined on the ground.
The printed note is detailed about clock times and celestial reference points but brief about the practical conditions of observation. It supplies no measured range or independently established altitude for the object. Nor does it name an observing instrument in this particular account. The observatory setting should not be turned into an unsupported claim that a specific telescope, camera or measuring apparatus recorded the entire event.
A classification questioned immediately
Le Verrier drew attention to the unusual duration when communicating the letter received by himself and Charles Sainte-Claire Deville. Once that long duration was admitted, he suggested, irregular movement and a final fall followed from the unusual circumstances. His comments acknowledge the problem; they are not a demonstration of the object’s nature.
Élie de Beaumont returned to the terminology on pages 419–420. Calling the light a bolide, he argued, could already imply a particular kind of explanation: a dense body travelling like a natural projectile. He questioned whether that label should automatically apply to Coggia’s observation.
His broader discussion mentioned other classes of luminous appearance, including will-o’-the-wisps, ball lightning and phosphorescent clouds. Those comparisons were reasons to describe unusual phenomena carefully without deciding their nature in advance. They were not findings that any one of those causes had produced the Marseille light.
This distinction is especially useful when reading historical headings. The word bolide appears in the original report, while Herschel’s later letter was headed The Marseilles Meteorite. A heading can preserve an early interpretation or customary vocabulary without proving that a meteorite was involved.
Earlier reports brought into the debate
W. de Fonvielle supplied comparisons on pages 513–514. These included reports lasting tens of seconds, several minutes and, in one older account, seven and a half minutes. He considered ways in which relative movement, interrupted visibility or a complicated apparent track might occur in luminous phenomena.
His examples were historical comparisons drawn from earlier astronomical literature. They were not additional witnesses observing Coggia’s light from another station. Treating all the named places in that discussion as a geographical network watching the same August 1871 object would manufacture corroboration that the note does not provide.
Amédée Guillemin added another contribution on pages 755–756. He recalled a slowly moving reddish appearance seen from Paris around 1853 and discussed an older account associated with auroral phenomena. Again, his purpose was comparison and classification. These separate episodes do not determine the identity of the Marseille object merely because their descriptions have some features in common.
The debate therefore contains several kinds of evidence: Coggia’s particular observation, the academy’s comments upon it, and analogies selected from other times and places. Keeping those categories distinct makes the source trail more informative than presenting a list of unusual lights as though they were one confirmed phenomenon.
Herschel’s fire-balloon proposal
In a letter dated 16 October and published in Nature on 26 October 1871, A. S. Herschel proposed an ordinary artificial source. Having read Nature’s earlier account from Les Mondes, he thought a fire-balloon, or possibly another bright signal light, could account for the display.
He noted that Saturn and the other named stars were low enough in the sky for a light of ordinary dimensions at an ordinary atmospheric height to appear in those directions. The shrinking angular size might reflect increasing distance or fading illumination. Changes of apparent course and pauses would not, in his interpretation, require the behaviour of a fast celestial projectile.
Herschel also connected the final descent and sparkling appearance with burning material becoming detached or setting a balloon alight. This was a physical explanation of several reported features, rather than a mere assertion that the witness must have been mistaken. However, his letter identifies no particular launch, operator, recovered balloon or matched local record.
His summary describes eighteen minutes of visibility, while Coggia’s original opening and closing times span twenty minutes and twenty seconds. The discrepancy is retained here. It is another reason to return to the original timed account rather than silently combine successive summaries into an apparently exact single record.
Assessment, setting and access
The case is classified as Possibly Explained. Herschel’s contemporary fire-balloon proposal addresses the low apparent trajectory, diminution, pauses and descent, but the reviewed sources do not establish a specific balloon or demonstrate the cause. The academy’s original meteor terminology is likewise not a confirmed identification. No feature tag is forced onto the case: the original describes a luminous appearance and apparent diameter without establishing a spherical body, manufactured disc or other listed form.
The observatory had moved to the Longchamp plateau in 1863, according to the Paris Observatory’s IMCCE history. That places the 1871 report after the transfer from the older Accoules site. The approximate map reference, 43.3049, 5.3943, follows the present observatory association’s location supplied by Marseille’s official tourism office. It marks the public site area, not Coggia’s precise position or an object trajectory.
Andromède offers public astronomy activities and visits associated with the historic observatory. Consult its current programme and confirm arrangements before visiting; the tourism listing’s general annual availability does not mean every historic instrument is continuously accessible. The documentary lead image is the title page of the actual 1871 volume, digitised from Harvard’s copy. It is not a photograph of Coggia’s light.
Sources and further reading
Élie de Beaumont, Comptes rendus73, pp419–420: complete comments on the bolide designation reviewed
Amédée Guillemin, Comptes rendus73, pp755–756: complete relevant excerpt reviewed
IMCCE / Paris Observatory: Marseille observatory history, including transfer to Longchamp in1863
Original-volume archive metadata, including1871 date, Harvard provenance and copyright-status record
Visit Marseille Observatory / Andromède
Public astronomy activities and historic-instrument visits by programme or arrangement; confirm current access with Andromède.
Official visitor information → · Access information checked 2026-11-13. Check current opening and booking details before travelling.
Share an experience here →Experiences at Marseille Observatory / Andromède
First-person accounts shared by visitors and reviewed before publication. They are separate from the researched case above.
No visitor reports have been published here yet.