Mercury The View after Messenger 1st

Edition Sean C. Solomon (Editor)

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/mercury-the-view-after-messenger-1st-edition-sean-c
-solomon-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Mercury Detoxification Manual A Guide to Mercury

Chelation 1st Edition Rebecca Rust Lee

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-mercury-detoxification-
manual-a-guide-to-mercury-chelation-1st-edition-rebecca-rust-lee/

Shooting the Messenger Criminalising Journalism 1st

Edition Andrew Fowler

https://textbookfull.com/product/shooting-the-messenger-
criminalising-journalism-1st-edition-andrew-fowler/

The Messenger Professionals 3 1st Edition Jessica

Gadziala Gadziala Jessica

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-messenger-
professionals-3-1st-edition-jessica-gadziala-gadziala-jessica/

Unimolecular and Supramolecular Electronics II

Chemistry and Physics Meet at Metal Molecule Interfaces
1st Edition Gemma C. Solomon

https://textbookfull.com/product/unimolecular-and-supramolecular-
electronics-ii-chemistry-and-physics-meet-at-metal-molecule-
interfaces-1st-edition-gemma-c-solomon/
The House of Twelve 1st Edition Sean Davies

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-house-of-twelve-1st-edition-
sean-davies/

Aurora 7 The Mercury Space Flight of M Scott Carpenter

1st Edition Colin Burgess

https://textbookfull.com/product/aurora-7-the-mercury-space-
flight-of-m-scott-carpenter-1st-edition-colin-burgess/

Better business Fifth Edition Solomon

https://textbookfull.com/product/better-business-fifth-edition-
solomon/

Biology Eldra P. Solomon

https://textbookfull.com/product/biology-eldra-p-solomon/

Working the Lode Going for the Gold 1 1st Edition Layla
Wolfe Karen Mercury Wolfe Layla

https://textbookfull.com/product/working-the-lode-going-for-the-
gold-1-1st-edition-layla-wolfe-karen-mercury-wolfe-layla/
 Mercury
The View after MESSENGER

Observations from the first spacecraft to orbit the planet Mercury have transformed our
understanding of the origin and evolution of rocky planets. This volume is the definitive
resource about Mercury for planetary scientists, from students to senior researchers.
Topics treated in depth include Mercury’s chemical composition; the structure of its
crust, lithosphere, mantle, and core; Mercury’s modern and ancient magnetic field;
Mercury’s geology, including the planet’s major geologic units and their surface chem-
istry and mineralogy, its spectral reflectance characteristics, its craters and cratering
history, its tectonic features and deformational history, its volcanic features and magmatic
history, its distinctive hollows, and the frozen ices in its polar deposits; Mercury’s exo-
sphere and magnetosphere and the processes that govern their dynamics and their inter-
action with the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field; the formation and large-scale
evolution of the planet; and current plans and needed capabilities to explore Mercury
further in the future.

se an c. s o lomon is Director of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and William

B. Ransford Professor of Earth and Planetary Science at Columbia University. He earlier
served as Director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution
of Washington and Professor of Geophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He was the Principal Investigator for NASA’s MESSENGER mission to Mercury from
the initial mission concept in 1996 to the end of the project in 2018. He also served on the
science teams for the Magellan mission to Venus, the Mars Global Surveyor mission, and
the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory mission to the Moon. A member of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and
former President of the American Geophysical Union, Solomon in 2014 was awarded the
National Medal of Science by President Barack Obama.

la r ry r. n i tt le r conducts laboratory research on extraterrestrial materials and

remote sensing observations of planets at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. He
served on NASA’s MESSENGER mission to Mercury as Participating Scientist from
2007 to 2012 and Deputy Principal Investigator from 2012 to 2018. He earlier participated
in the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous, Stardust, and Genesis missions and is currently
a science team member on the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Hayabusa2
asteroid sample return mission and the BepiColombo mission to Mercury. He received
the 2001 Alfred O. C. Nier Prize of the Meteoritical Society and was named Fellow of that
society in 2010. Asteroid 5992 Nittler is named in his honor.

br i a n j. a n de r s o n is Principal Professional Staff Physicist at The Johns Hopkins

University Applied Physics Laboratory, having served earlier as Magnetospheric Section
supervisor and Space Physics Group supervisor. For MESSENGER he was Magnetometer
Instrument Scientist from 1999 to 2009 and Deputy Project Scientist from 2007 to 2018
while also serving as Co-Investigator from 2009 to 2018. He was spacecraft magnetics lead
and is on the science team of NASA’s Magnetospheric Multiscale mission. He is the
Principal Investigator of the National Science Foundation’s Active Magnetosphere and
Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment. His research includes the physics of
magnetospheres, plasma wave–particle physics, and planetary magnetic fields.
 Cambridge Planetary Science

Series Editors:
Fran Bagenal, David Jewitt, Carl Murray, Jim Bell, Ralph Lorenz, Francis Nimmo, Sara Russell

Books in the Series:

1. Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere†
Edited by Bagenal, Dowling and McKinnon
978-0-521-03545-3

2. Meteorites: A Petrologic, Chemical and Isotopic Synthesis†

Hutchison
978-0-521-03539-2

3. The Origin of Chondrules and Chondrites†

Sears
978-1-107-40285-0

4. Planetary Rings†
Esposito
978-1-107-40247-8

5. The Geology of Mars: Evidence from Earth-Based Analogs†

Edited by Chapman
978-0-521-20659-4

6. The Surface of Mars†

Carr
978-0-521-87201-0

7. Volcanism on Io: A Comparison with Earth†

Davies
978-0-521-85003-2

8. Mars: An Introduction to its Interior, Surface and Atmosphere†

Barlow
978-0-521-85226-5

9. The Martian Surface: Composition, Mineralogy and Physical Properties

Edited by Bell
978-0-521-86698-9

10. Planetary Crusts: Their Composition, Origin and Evolution†

Taylor and McLennan
978-0-521-14201-4

11. Planetary Tectonics†

Edited by Watters and Schultz
978-0-521-74992-3

12. Protoplanetary Dust: Astrophysical and Cosmochemical Perspectives†

Edited by Apai and Lauretta
978-0-521-51772-0

13. Planetary Surface Processes

Melosh
978-0-521-51418-7
14. Titan: Interior, Surface, Atmosphere and Space Environment
Edited by Müller-Wodarg, Griffith, Lellouch and Cravens
978-0-521-19992-6

15. Planetary Rings: A Post-Equinox View (Second edition)

Esposito
978-1-107-02882-1

16. Planetesimals: Early Differentiation and Consequences for Planets

Edited by Elkins-Tanton and Weiss
978-1-107-11848-5

17. Asteroids: Astronomical and Geological Bodies

Burbine
978-1-107-09684-4

18. The Atmosphere and Climate of Mars

Edited by Haberle, Clancy, Forget, Smith and Zurek
978-1-107-01618-7

19. Planetary Ring Systems

Edited by Tiscareno and Murray
978-1-107-11382-4

20. Saturn in the 21st Century

Edited by Baines, Flasar, Krupp and Stallard
978-1-107-10677-2

21. Mercury: The View after MESSENGER

Edited by Solomon, Nittler and Anderson
978-1-107-15445-2
†
Reissued as a paperback
 MERCURY
The View after MESSENGER

Edited by

SEAN C. SOLOMON
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, USA

LARRY R. NITTLER
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC, USA

BRIAN J . ANDERSON
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, USA
 University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India
79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107154452
DOI: 10.1017/9781316650684
© Cambridge University Press 2018
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2018
The MESSENGER mission was sponsored by the U.S. Government (contract #s NAS5-97271/24 and NASW-00002).
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Solomon, Sean C., editor. | Nittler, Larry R., editor. |
Anderson, Brian J., editor.
Title: Mercury : The view after MESSENGER / edited by Sean C. Solomon
(Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
New York), Larry R. Nittler (Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Washington, DC), Brian J. Anderson (The Johns Hopkins University,
Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland).
Other titles: View after MESSENGER
Description: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, [2018] |
Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018022383 | ISBN 9781107154452
Subjects: LCSH: Mercury (Planet) – Observations. | MESSENGER (Spacecraft)
Classification: LCC TL796.6.M47 M47 2018 | DDC 559.9/21–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018022383
ISBN 978-1-107-15445-2 Hardback
Additional resources for this publication available at www.cambridge.org/mercury
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
 C ONT E NT S

List of Contributors page xi

Preface xv

1 The MESSENGER Mission: Science and Implementation Overview 1

sean c. solomon and br ian j . anderson
2 The Chemical Composition of Mercury 30
larr y r. nittler, nancy l. chabot, t imothy l. grove,
and p atrick n. peplowski
3 Mercury’s Crust and Lithosphere: Structure and Mechanics 52
r o ge r j. p h i l li p s , p a u l k . byr n e , p e t er b . ja m e s , e r w a n
mazarico, gregory a. neumann, and mark e. p erry
4 Mercury’s Internal Structure 85
jean-luc margot, steven a. hauck, ii, erwan mazarico,
sebastiano padovan, and stanton j . peale
5 Mercury’s Internal Magnetic Field 114
catherine l. johnson, brian j. anderson, haje korth,
roge r j. p hillips, and l ydia c. p hilpott
6 The Geologic History of Mercury 144
brett w. denevi, c arolyn m. ern s t , l o u i s e m . p r o c k t er ,
and mark s . r obinson
7 The Geochemical and Mineralogical Diversity of Mercury 176
timothy j . mccoy, patrick n. peplowski, francis
m. mccubb in, and shoshana z. weider
8 Spectral Reflectance Constraints on the Composition and Evolution of
Mercury’s Surface 191
s c ot t l . mu r c h i e, rac he l l . kl i ma, noam r . ize nb e r g,
de bor ah l . d om i n gue , davi d t . b l e we t t , and jö r n
h e lb e r t
9 Impact Cratering of Mercury 217
clark r. c hapman, david m. h. b aker, olivier s .
b arnoui n, c al eb i. f as s et t , s im one marc hi , wi l li am j .
merl ine, lillian r. ostr ach, louise m. prockter, and
r o be r t g . s t r o m
10 The Tectonic Character of Mercury 249
paul k. byrne, christian klimczak, and a. m. celâl
şe ngör

ix
x Contents

11 The Volcanic Character of Mercury 287

paul k. byrne, jennifer l. whitten, christian
klimczak, francis m. mccubbin, and lillian r . ostrach
12 Mercury’s Hollows 324
d av i d t . b l e w e t t , ca r o l y n m. e r n s t , sc o t t l . m u r c h i e,
and f aith vilas
13 Mercury’s Polar Deposits 346
nancy l. chabot, david j. lawrence, gregory a.
neumann, william c. feldman, and david a. p aige
14 Observations of Mercury’s Exosphere: Composition and Structure 371
william e. mcclintock, timothy a. cassidy, aimee w.
merkel, rosemary m. killen, matthew h. burger, and
ron a l d j . v e r v a c k, j r .
15 Understanding Mercury’s Exosphere: Models Derived from
MESSENGER Observations 407
rosemary m. killen, matthew h. burger, ronald j.
vervack, jr., and timothy a. cassidy
16 Structure and Configuration of Mercury’s Magnetosphere 430
haje korth, brian j. anderson, catherine l. johnson,
james a. s lavin, jim m. raines, and thomas h. zurbuchen
17 Mercury’s Dynamic Magnetosphere 461
james a. s lavin, daniel n. b aker, daniel j . gershman,
george c. ho, s uzanne m. imber, stamatios m. krimigis,
and t orbjör n s u n d b e rg
18 The Elusive Origin of Mercury 497
denton s. ebel and s arah t. stewart
19 Mercury’s Global Evolution 516
steven a. hauck, ii, matthias grott, paul k. byrne,
br e t t w . de n e vi , sab i ne s t anle y, and ti mot hy j . mc c oy
20 Future Missions: Mercury after MESSENGER 544
ra l p h l . mc n u t t , j r. , j o h a n n es be n k h o f f , m a s a k i
fujimoto, and brian j . anderson

Index 570
Index of Place Names 582
 CONTRIBUTORS

den ton s. e bel

b rian j. a nderson
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, American
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
car ol yn m . ern st
d a v i d m . h. ba k e r
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Solar System Exploration Division, NASA Goddard Space
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA and Department of
Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Brown cal eb i . fassett
University Providence, RI 02912, USA NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35805,
USA and Department of Astronomy, Mount Holyoke College,
d a n i e l n. ba k e r
South Hadley, MA 01075, USA
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of
Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA william c. f eldman
Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA
o l i v i e r s . ba r n o u i n
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, ma s a k i f u j i m ot o
Laurel, MD 20723, USA Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency, Sagamihara, Kanagawa,
j o hannes benkhoff
252–5210, Japan
European Space Research and Technology Centre, European
Space Agency, 2201 AZ Noordwijk, The Netherlands daniel j. gershman
Geospace Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight
david t. blewet t
Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD 20723, USA ma t t h i a s g r ot t
Institute of Planetary Research, German Aerospace Center
matth ew h . burger
(DLR), 12489 Berlin, Germany
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
21218, USA timothy l. g rove
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
p a ul k. byrn e
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,
Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences,
USA
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA and
Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of steven a. h au ck, ii
Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
t i m o t h y a. ca s s i d y
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of jö rn helbert
Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA Institute of Planetary Research, German Aerospace Center
(DLR), 12489 Berlin, Germany
n an cy l. ch ab ot
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, george c. ho
Laurel, MD 20723, USA The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
c lar k r. cha p m an
Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302, USA suzan ne m. i mber
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester,
b rett w. de nevi
Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD 20723, USA noam r. ize nberg
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
d e b o r a h l. d o m i n g u e
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA

xi
xii List of Contributors

p eter b. james a i m e e w. m e r k e l
Department of Geosciences, Baylor University, Waco, TX Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of
76706, USA and Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA
Space Research Association, Houston, TX 77058, USA
william j . me rlin e
cath erin e l. j o hnson Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302, USA
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences,
s c ott l. m ur c hi e
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Canada and Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719,
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
USA
gregory a. n eumann
rosemary m. killen
Solar System Exploration Division, NASA Goddard Space
Solar System Exploration Division, NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
l arr y r. nittler
rach el l. klima
Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
l illian r. ostrach
ch ristian k limczak
U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA and Solar
Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
System Exploration Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight
30602, USA and Department of Terrestrial Magnetism,
Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,
DC 20015, USA s e b as t i a n o p a d ov a n
Institute of Planetary Research, German Aerospace Center
haj e korth
(DLR), 12489 Berlin, Germany
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD 20723, USA david a . paige
Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences,
s t a m a t i os m . k r i m i g i s
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095,
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
USA
Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, USA and Office of Space
Research and Technology, Academy of Athens, Athens 10679, st an ton j . peale (deceased)
Greece Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
d a v i d j. la w r e n c e
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, p a tric k n. p eplo w s k i
Laurel, MD 20723, USA The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
simone marc hi
Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302, USA mark e. perr y
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
j e an - l u c m a r g o t
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, University
of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA r oger j. p hillip s
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and McDonnell
e r w an m a z a r i c o
Center for the Space Sciences, Washington University,
Solar System Exploration Division, NASA Goddard Space
St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
l yd i a c. p h i l p o t t
william e. mcclintock
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences,
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,
Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA
Canada
timothy j. mccoy
l ou i s e m . p r o c k t e r
Department of Mineral Sciences, National Museum
Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Space Research
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Association, Houston, TX 77058, USA
20560, USA
j im m . ra in es
f rancis m . m ccub bin
Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering Department,
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, USA
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
ralp h l. m cnutt, j r.
mark s. robin s on
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State
Laurel, MD 20723, USA
University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
 List of Contributors xiii

a. m. celâ l ş eng ö r tor bjö rn sundberg

Department of Geology, Faculty of Mines and Eurasia Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, United
Institute of Earth Sciences, Istanbul Technical University, Kingdom
Istanbul 34810, Turkey
ron a ld j. vervack, jr.
j a me s a . s l a v i n The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering Department, Laurel, MD 20723, USA
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
fait h v ilas
s e an c . s o l o m o n Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
shoshana z. weider
Palisades, NY 10964, USA
Department of Terrestrial Magnetism,
sabine stanley Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins DC 20015, USA
University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
jennife r l. wh itt en
sarah t. s tewart Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air
Department Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA 20013, USA
r obe rt g. strom thomas h. zurb uchen
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering Department,
Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
 PREFACE

Mercury, like Earth, is one of only four rocky planets in our solar system, yet the explora-
tion of the innermost planet by spacecraft has lagged substantially behind that of Earth’s
two nearest neighbors, Venus and Mars. The first spacecraft to visit Venus was Mariner 2,
which was developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
flew by Venus in December 1962. The first successful spacecraft flyby of Mars was by
Mariner 4 in July 1965. The first spacecraft to orbit Mars was Mariner 9, which arrived at
the red planet in November 1971. The first probe to orbit Venus was the Soviet Union’s
Venera 9 orbiter, which arrived at Venus in October 1975. Both planets have been visited
dozens of times since those early missions by other spacecraft sent by multiple nations and
space agencies.
In contrast, the first spacecraft encounter of Mercury was not until March 1974, when
Mariner 10 completed the first of its three Mercury flybys. The third and final Mariner 10
flyby of Mercury was one year later in March 1975, and no spacecraft visited Mercury again
for more than three decades. The spacecraft exploration of Mercury resumed when NASA’s
MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER)
probe flew by Mercury three times in 2008–2009 and became the first spacecraft to orbit
Mercury on 18 March 2011. MESSENGER operated in orbit about Mercury for more than
four years, until 30 April 2015, and acquired the first global observations of Mercury’s
surface, interior, exosphere, magnetosphere, and heliospheric environment.
The MESSENGER project and its science team continued to validate, archive, and analyze
data acquired during the mission for more than two additional years, until the project
formally ended on 30 September 2018.
The first spacecraft orbital mission to any planet, like Mariner 9 and the Venera 9 orbiter,
enables many important discoveries and produces large new data sets. Collectively those
first orbital data sets from a planet drive major increases in scientific understanding and
raise multiple new scientific questions, not only about the target body but also about
planetary and solar system processes more generally. So it has been with observations
made by the MESSENGER spacecraft. The wealth of new data returned by MESSENGER
and archived with NASA’s Planetary Data System by the MESSENGER team continues to
foster new investigations of this nearby yet remarkably distinctive sibling of Earth, and at
the same time prompts new questions that expand the rationale for continued Mercury
exploration.
This book is intended to synthesize the findings from the MESSENGER mission into
a description of our current scientific understanding of Mercury. The book is timely, for two
reasons. First, it was written after the end of data collection by MESSENGER, so that all of
the measurements acquired over the course of the mission could be integrated and our
markedly improved knowledge of Mercury could serve to update our understanding of the
formation and evolution of the inner solar system’s rocky planets. Second, the book was
completed approximately eight years before the scheduled arrival of the next spacecraft at
Mercury, the dual probes of the BepiColombo mission of the European Space Agency and
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.

xv
xvi Preface

The editors of this volume owe considerable thanks to many colleagues whose efforts
contributed to the technical and scientific success of the MESSENGER mission. Among
these individuals are members of the science team who, because of other responsibilities
and interests, were not able to share in the writing for this book but in myriad other ways
participated in the analysis and interpretation of observations from the mission. Hundreds
of engineers, technicians, software developers, managers, and support personnel contrib-
uted to the successful design, construction, testing, launch, and operation of the
MESSENGER spacecraft. Among those, eight warrant special thanks: the four individuals
at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory who served successively as
MESSENGER Project Manager – Max R. Peterson, David G. Grant, Peter D. Bedini, and
Helene L. Winters – and the four who served successively as MESSENGER’s Mission
Systems Engineer – Andrew G. Santo, James C. Leary, Eric J. Finnegan, and Daniel
J. O’Shaughnessy. Each played a vital leadership role at a critical stage in the
MESSENGER mission.
The editors are also indebted to the authors of the 20 chapters in this volume, most drawn
from the MESSENGER science team but a few from outside the project who bring special
expertise on a topic of importance to their chapter. Each of the chapters was reviewed not
only by other members of the MESSENGER science team but also by an expert scientist
from outside the project. The editors appreciate the thoughtful reviews of individual
chapters by Erik Asphaug, Wolfgang Baumjohann, Doris Breuer, Masaki Fujimoto,
Walter S. Kiefer, François Leblanc, H. Jay Melosh, Edwin J. Mierkiewicz, Stephen
W. Parman, David A. Rothery, Christopher T. Russell, Richard A. Schultz, Matthew
A. Siegler, Krista M. Soderlund, S. Alan Stern, David J. Stevenson, Jessica M. Sunshine,
G. Jeffrey Taylor, Rebecca J. Thomas, and David A. Williams.
The editors are deeply grateful to Kimberly Schermerhorn for her substantial assistance
with the preparation of all of the material for this book. We thank Nancy Chabot and Brett
Denevi for their design of the maps located inside the front and back covers of the book;
these maps provide a compact illustration of much of the data returned by MESSENGER as
well as a ready means to locate many of the major features on Mercury’s surface mentioned
in the book’s chapters. Brett also designed the image on the front cover and selected the
MESSENGER images shown on the back cover. We thank Magda Saina for lending her
graphical expertise to convert a number of the figures in this volume to publication quality.
Finally, we thank the editors at Cambridge University Press who worked with us from
early discussions, to the writing of a formal book proposal, through the preparation of all of
the chapters and supporting material, to copy editing and final production. We are particu-
larly grateful for the sustained guidance of Lucy Edwards, Vince Higgs, and Esther
Migueliz.
It is our hope that this volume will provide a standard reference on the planet Mercury for
a number of years, at least until the next spacecraft after MESSENGER arrive to renew
humankind’s exploration of our solar system’s innermost world.
Sean C. Solomon, Larry R. Nittler, and Brian J. Anderson
 1
The MESSENGER Mission: Science and Implementation
Overview
S E AN C. S OLOM ON AND BRIA N J. AND ERS ON
1 .1 I N TR O D UCT I O N
Although a sibling of Earth, Venus, and Mars, the planet
Mercury is an unusual member of the family (Solomon,
2003). Among the planets of our solar system, it is the
smallest, at little more than 5% of an Earth mass, but its
bulk density corrected for the effect of internal compression
is the highest. Mercury’s orbit is the most eccentric of the
planets, and it is the only known solar system object in a 3:2
spin–orbit resonance, in which three sidereal days equal two
periods of Mercury’s revolution about the Sun. Mercury is
the only inner planet other than Earth to host an internal
magnetic field and an Earth-like magnetosphere capable of
standing off the solar wind. The closest planet to the Sun,
Mercury experiences a variation in surface temperature at the
equator of 600°C over the course of a solar day, which
because of Mercury’s slow spin rate equals two Mercury
years. The permanently shadowed floors of Mercury’s high-
latitude craters nonetheless are sufficiently cold to have
trapped water ice and other frozen volatiles.
Thought to have been created by the same processes as the
other inner planets and at the same early stage in the history of
the solar system, Mercury with its unusual attributes has long
held out the promise of deepening our understanding of how
Earth and other Earth-like planets formed and evolved. Yet
Mercury is not an easy object to study. Never separated from
the Sun by more than 28° of arc when viewed from Earth,
Mercury is forbidden as a target for the Hubble Space
Telescope and other astronomical facilities because their opti-
cal systems would be severely damaged by exposure to direct
sunlight. Located deep within the gravitational potential well
of the Sun, Mercury has also long presented a challenge to
spacecraft mission design. The first spacecraft to view
Mercury at close range was Mariner 10, which after flying
once by Venus encountered the innermost planet three times in
1974–1975. The encounters occurred nearly at Mercury’s
greatest distance from the Sun and were spaced approximately
one Mercury solar day apart, so the same hemisphere of the
planet was in sunlight at each flyby. Mariner 10 obtained
images of 45% of the surface, discovered the planet’s global
magnetic field, assayed three neutral species (H, He, and O) in
Mercury’s tenuous atmosphere, and sampled the magnetic
field and energetic charged particles in Mercury’s dynamic
magnetosphere (Dunne and Burgess, 1978).
1
After the Mariner 10 mission, the next logical step in the
exploration of Mercury was widely viewed to be an orbiter mission
(COMPLEX, 1978), and several notable discoveries by ground-
based astronomers in the years since the Mariner 10 encounters
(e.g., Potter and Morgan, 1985, 1986; Slade et al., 1992; Harmon
and Slade, 1992) provided a wealth of new information about
Mercury that whetted the appetite of the planetary science com-
munity for orbital observations. Nevertheless, substantial advances
were needed in mission design, thermal engineering, and minia-
turization of instruments and spacecraft subsystems before such a
mission could be considered technically ready.
The MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry,
and Ranging (MESSENGER) mission to orbit Mercury was
proposed under NASA’s Discovery Program in 1996 and
again in 1998 (Solomon et al., 2001; Gold et al., 2001; Santo
et al., 2001) and was selected for flight in 1999. Development,
construction, integration, and testing of the spacecraft and its
instruments began in January 2000 and spanned the four and a
half years leading to launch on 3 August 2004 (McNutt et al.,
2006). MESSENGER completed gravity-assist flybys of Earth
once, Venus twice, and Mercury three times (Figure 1.1) dur-
ing a mission cruise phase that lasted 6.6 years. MESSENGER
was inserted into orbit about Mercury on 18 March 2011 and
conducted orbital observations of the innermost planet for
more than four years, until 30 April 2015.
In this chapter we provide an overview of the MESSENGER
mission from a historical perspective, including the mission’s
scientific objectives; the payload characteristics, data acquisi-
tion planning, and operational procedures adopted to achieve
those objectives; and the scientific findings from flyby and
orbital operations. We begin with summaries of the mission
objectives, spacecraft, payload instruments, and orbit design.
We then describe the procedures adopted to optimize the scien-
tific return from the complex series of orbital data acquisition
operations. We follow with an account of the primary mission,
including the Mercury flybys and the first year of orbital obser-
vations. We then outline the rationale for and accomplishments
of MESSENGER’s first extended mission, conducted over the
second year of orbital operations, and the second extended
mission, conducted over the final two years of orbital opera-
tions. The second extended mission included a distinctive low-
altitude campaign completed at the culmination of the mission.
A concluding section briefly introduces the other chapters of
this book.
2 The MESSENGER Mission
1 .2 M IS SION OBJECTIV ES , SPA CECR AFT,
PA YLOA D, AND OR BIT D ES IGN
1.2.1 Key Scientific Questions
The MESSENGER mission was designed to address six key
scientific questions. The questions were motivated by the
knowledge of Mercury available at the time the mission was
proposed, were capable of being substantially addressed by
measurements that could be made from orbit, and would yield
answers that would bear not only on the nature of Mercury but
more generally on the origin and comparative evolution of the
inner planets as a group. Those questions and a brief summary
of the rationale for each were as follows.
1.2.1.1 What Planetary Formational Processes Led to the
High Ratio of Metal to Silicate in Mercury?
The Mariner 10 spacecraft carried no elemental remote sensing
instruments, so at the time the MESSENGER mission was
proposed the single most important piece of information about
the planet’s bulk composition was its high uncompressed
density, which implied that Mercury has an iron-rich core
that occupies much higher fractions of the planet’s mass and
volume than do the cores of the other inner planets (e.g.,
Siegfried and Solomon, 1974). A variety of theories for the
origin and early evolution of Mercury had been advanced to
account for its high metal fraction, including formation from
metal-enriched precursors resulting from either high-tempera-
ture fractionation or aerodynamical sorting in the solar nebula
(e.g., Weidenschilling, 1978; Lewis, 1988) or removal of an
initially larger silicate crust and mantle by evaporation or giant
Figure 1.1. Image mosaic of Mercury acquired on
departure from MESSENGER’s first Mercury flyby on 14
January 2008. Mercury Dual Imaging System wide-angle
camera images acquired through the narrow-band filters
centered at 1000, 700, and 430 nm are projected in red,
green, and blue in this color representation. Much of the area
shown had not been imaged by Mariner 10.
impact (e.g., Cameron, 1985; Wetherill, 1988; Benz et al.,
1988). Those theories differed in their predictions for the bulk
composition of the silicate fraction of the planet (e.g., Lewis,
1988), including the upper crust, which would be visible to
geochemical remote sensing instruments on an orbiting space-
craft. Moreover, ground-based telescopic measurements of
Mercury’s surface reflectance showed few if any absorption
features commonly seen in reflectance spectra of the Moon,
Mars, and asteroids and attributable to the presence of ferrous
iron in silicate minerals (e.g., Vilas, 1988), indicating both a low
abundance of ferrous iron on Mercury’s surface and the need to
rely heavily on elemental remote sensing instruments to gain
compositional information.
1.2.1.2 What Is the Geological History of Mercury?
Because of Mercury’s size, intermediate between the Moon and
Mars, as well as its high metal/silicate ratio, documenting the
geological history of Mercury was viewed as crucial to under-
standing how terrestrial planet evolution depends on planet size
and initial conditions. A broad geological history of Mercury
had been developed from Mariner 10 images (e.g., Strom, 1979;
Spudis and Guest, 1988), but the limited coverage and resolu-
tion of those images left many aspects of that history uncertain.
Extensive plains units were documented by Mariner 10, and the
youngest of those plains deposits were seen to be in stratigraphic
positions similar to the volcanic lunar maria. Unlike the maria,
however, the plains deposits on Mercury are not markedly lower
in reflectance than the surrounding older terrain, and no volcanic
landforms were visible at the resolution of Mariner 10 images,
so both volcanic and impact ejecta processes for plains empla-
cement had been suggested (e.g., Strom et al., 1975; Wilhelms,
 1.2 Objectives, Spacecraft, Payload, and Orbit Design
1976) and the importance of volcanism in Mercury’s history
was thus uncertain. Deformational features on Mercury were
seen to be dominantly contractional, leading to the proposal that
such features were the expression of global contraction resulting
from interior cooling (e.g., Strom et al., 1975), although the
restricted imaging coverage meant that the global contraction
hypothesis remained untested over slightly more than a full
hemisphere of the planet.
1.2.1.3 What Are the Nature and Origin of Mercury’s
Magnetic Field?
Measurements by Mariner 10 demonstrated that Mercury has an
internal magnetic field (Ness et al., 1976) with a dipole compo-
nent nearly orthogonal to the planet’s orbital plane and an
estimated moment near 300 nT RM3, where RM is Mercury’s
mean radius (Connerney and Ness, 1988). Because external
sources can dominate the total field measured at Mercury, and
because of the limited sampling of the field during the two
Mariner 10 flybys that penetrated Mercury’s magnetosphere,
the uncertainty in Mercury’s dipole moment derived from
Mariner 10 data was a factor of 2, and higher-order terms
were linearly dependent and thus not resolvable (Connerney
and Ness, 1988). A variety of mechanisms for producing
Mercury’s observed magnetic field had been proposed, includ-
ing remanent or fossil fields in Mercury’s crust and lithosphere
(Stephenson, 1976; Srnka, 1976; Aharonson et al., 2004),
hydromagnetic dynamos in a fluid outer core (e.g., Schubert
et al., 1988; Stanley et al., 2005; Christensen, 2006), and a
thermoelectric dynamo driven by temperature differences
along the top of the core (Stevenson, 1987; Giampieri and
Balogh, 2002). The different field generation models made
different predictions regarding the geometry of the field, parti-
cularly for terms of higher order than the dipole term, and so
measurements made from orbit about the planet were seen to be
needed to distinguish among hypotheses.
1.2.1.4 What Are the Structure and State of Mercury’s
Core?
The size and physical state of Mercury’s core are key to under-
standing the planet’s bulk composition, thermal history, and
magnetic field generation processes (Zuber et al., 2007). Peale
(1976) realized that the existence and radius of a liquid outer
core on Mercury can be determined by the measurement of
Mercury’s obliquity, the amplitude of its physical libration
forced by variations in the torque exerted by the gravitational
pull of the Sun over the planet’s 88-day orbit period, and two
quantities that define the shape of the planet’s gravity field at
spherical harmonic degree and order 2. The required coeffi-
cients in the spherical harmonic expansion of Mercury’s gravity
field had been estimated from radio tracking of the Mariner 10
flybys (Anderson et al., 1987) but not with high precision. All
four quantities can be determined from measurements made by
an orbiting spacecraft with sufficient precision to determine
Mercury’s polar moment of inertia and the moment of inertia
of the planet’s solid outer shell that participates in the 88-day
libration (Peale, 1976: Peale et al., 2002), and from those quan-
tities important aspects of Mercury’s internal structure can be
3
resolved. Mercury’s obliquity and forced libration amplitude
can also be measured from Earth-based radar observations, and
such measurements were reported by Margot et al. (2007)
before MESSENGER was inserted into orbit around Mercury,
and then refined several years later (Margot et al., 2012).
Although the measurements of libration amplitude and obli-
quity indicated that Mercury does indeed possess a fluid outer
core (Margot et al., 2007), the uncertainties in Mercury’s grav-
itational field coefficients at harmonic degree 2 dominated the
uncertainty in the planet’s moments of inertia. Radio tracking of
an orbiting spacecraft was required to improve the determina-
tion of these key quantities.
1.2.1.5 What Are the Radar-Reflective Materials at
Mercury’s Poles?
The discovery in 1991 of radar-bright regions near Mercury’s
poles and the similarity of the radar reflectivity and polarization
characteristics of such regions to those of icy satellites and the
south residual polar cap of Mars led to the proposal that these
areas host deposits of surface or near-surface water ice (Slade
et al., 1992; Harmon and Slade, 1992). Subsequent radar ima-
ging at improved resolution confirmed that the radar-bright
deposits are confined to the floors of near-polar impact craters
(e.g., Harmon et al., 2011). Because of Mercury’s small obli-
quity, sufficiently deep craters are permanently shadowed and
are predicted to be at temperatures at which water ice is stable
for billions of years (Paige et al., 1992). Although a contribution
from interior outgassing could not be excluded, impact volatili-
zation of cometary and meteoritic material followed by trans-
port of water molecules to polar cold traps was shown to provide
sufficient polar ice to match the characteristics of the deposits
(Moses et al., 1999).
Two alternative explanations for the radar-bright polar depos-
its of Mercury were nonetheless suggested. One was that the
polar deposits are composed of elemental sulfur, on the grounds
that sulfur would be stable in polar cold traps and the presence
of sulfides in the regolith can account for a high disk-averaged
index of refraction and low microwave opacity of surface mate-
rials (Sprague et al., 1995). The second was that the perma-
nently shadowed portions of polar craters are radar-bright not
because of trapped volatiles but because of either unusual sur-
face roughness (Weidenschilling, 1998) or low dielectric loss
(Starukhina, 2001) of near-surface silicates at extremely cold
temperatures. Geochemical remote sensing measurements made
from orbit around Mercury were recognized as able to distin-
guish among the competing proposals.
1.2.1.6 What Are the Important Volatile Species and Their
Sources and Sinks on and near Mercury?
Mercury’s atmosphere is a surface-bounded exosphere for
which the composition and behavior are controlled by interac-
tions with the magnetosphere and the surface. At the time the
MESSENGER mission was under development, the atmosphere
was known to contain at least six elements (H, He, O, Na, K,
Ca). The Mariner 10 airglow spectrometer detected H and He
and set an upper bound on O (Broadfoot et al., 1976), and
ground-based spectroscopic observations led to the discovery
4 The MESSENGER Mission
of exospheric Na (Potter and Morgan, 1985), K (Potter and
Morgan, 1986), and Ca (Bida et al., 2000). Exospheric H and
He were thought to be dominated by solar wind ions neutralized
by recombination at the surface, whereas proposed source pro-
cesses for other exospheric species included diffusion from the
planet’s interior, evaporation, sputtering by photons and ener-
getic ions, chemical sputtering by protons, and meteoroid
impact and vaporization (e.g., Killen and Ip, 1999). That several
of these processes play some role was suggested by the strong
variations in exospheric characteristics observed as functions of
local time, solar distance, and level of solar activity (e.g.,
Sprague et al., 1998; Hunten and Sprague, 2002; Leblanc and
Johnson, 2003). It was long recognized that a spacecraft in orbit
about Mercury can provide a range of opportunities for eluci-
dating further the nature of the exosphere, through profiles of
major exospheric neutral species versus time of day and solar
distance and searches for new species (e.g., Domingue et al.,
2007). In situ measurement of energetic and thermal plasma
ions from orbit can also detect solar wind pickup ions that
originated as exospheric neutral atoms (e.g., Koehn et al., 2002).
1.2.2 Scientific Objectives
The six key questions above led to a set of scientific objectives
for the MESSENGER mission and in turn to a set of project
requirements (Solomon et al., 2001), a suite of payload instru-
ments (Gold et al., 2001), and a measurement strategy
(Section 1.3). The scientific objectives for MESSENGER’s
primary mission are given in Table 1.1, and the project
requirements for the primary mission are given in Table 1.2.
The objective to characterize the chemical composition of
Mercury’s surface led to a project requirement for global maps
of major element composition at a resolution sufficient to
discern the principal geological units and to distinguish
material excavated and ejected by young impact craters from
a possible veneer of cometary and meteoritic material.
Information on surface mineralogy was also deemed impor-
tant for this objective. The objective to determine the planet’s
geological history led to a project requirement for global
monochrome imaging at a resolution of hundreds of meters
or better, for topographic profiles across key geological
features from altimetry or stereo, and for spectral measure-
ments of major geologic units at spatial resolutions of several
kilometers or better. The objective to characterize Mercury’s
magnetic field led to a project requirement for magnetometry,
Table 1.1. Scientific objectives for MESSENGER’s primary
mission.
1. Determine the chemical composition of Mercury’s surface.
2. Determine Mercury’s geological history.
3. Determine the nature of Mercury’s magnetic field.
4. Determine the size and state of Mercury’s core.
5. Determine the volatile inventory at Mercury’s poles.
6. Determine the nature of Mercury’s exosphere and
magnetosphere.
both near the planet and throughout the magnetosphere, as
well as for energetic particle and plasma measurements so as
to assist in the separation of external and internal fields.
The objective to estimate the size and state of Mercury’s
core led to the project requirement for altimetric measurement
of the amplitude of Mercury’s physical libration as well as
determination of the planet’s obliquity and low-degree grav-
itational field. The objective to assay the volatile inventory at
Mercury’s poles led to the project requirement for ultraviolet
spectrometry of the polar atmosphere and for gamma-ray and
neutron spectrometry, imaging, and altimetry of polar-region
craters. The objective to characterize the nature of Mercury’s
exosphere and magnetosphere led to the project requirement to
identify all major neutral species in the exosphere and charged
species in the magnetosphere.
1.2.3 Spacecraft
The design of the MESSENGER spacecraft (Figure 1.2) was
driven largely by two requirements: to minimize mass and
to survive the harsh thermal environment at Mercury (Santo
et al., 2001; Leary et al., 2007). The largest launch vehicle
available to the Discovery Program was the Delta II 7925-H,
which could inject ~1100 kg into the required interplanetary
trajectory. Because more than half of that total launch mass
was needed for the propellant required to achieve the mission
design, only 500 kg remained for the total spacecraft dry
mass. To meet this constraint, the spacecraft structure was
fabricated primarily with lightweight composite material and
was fully integrated with a dual-mode propulsion system that
Table 1.2. Project requirements for MESSENGER’s primary
mission.
1. Provide major-element maps of Mercury to 10% relative
uncertainty on the 1000-km scale and determine local
composition and mineralogy at the ~20-km scale.
2a. Provide a global map with >90% coverage (monochrome)
at 250-m average resolution and >80% of the planet
imaged stereoscopically.
2b. Provide a global multispectral map at 2-km/pixel average
resolution.
2c. Sample half of the northern hemisphere for topography at
1.5-m average height resolution.
3. Provide a multipole magnetic field model resolved through
quadrupole terms with an uncertainty of less than ~20% in
the dipole magnitude and direction.
4. Provide a global gravity field to degree and order 16 and
determine the ratio of the solid-planet moment of inertia to
the total moment of inertia to ~20% or better.
5. Identify the principal component of the radar-reflective
material at Mercury’s north pole.
6. Provide altitude profiles at 25-km resolution of the major
neutral exospheric species and characterize the major ion-
species energy distributions as functions of local time,
Mercury heliocentric distance, and solar activity.

Low-gain antennas
+x Sunshade
Pitch Battery
Yaw Roll
+y
+z (anti-Sun)
Front phased-array/
fanbeam antennas
Launch
vehicle Propellant tank
Solar array (back) adapter (1 of 3)
featured lightweight tanks for propellant (hydrazine), oxidi-
zer (nitrous tetroxide), and pressurant (gaseous helium). The
propulsion system included a total of 17 thrusters: a single
large velocity adjustment bipropellant thruster; four 22-N
monopropellant thrusters for thrust-vector steering during
large spacecraft maneuvers and for trajectory-correction
maneuvers; and 12 4.4-N monopropellant thrusters for atti-
tude control, angular momentum management, and small
trajectory-correction maneuvers.
A large number of mass-reduction measures were used in the
development of the spacecraft. To avoid a cumbersome gim-
baled antenna and the challenges associated with testing and
operating it at high temperatures, an electronically steerable
phased-array system was developed for the high-gain antenna.
Used one at a time, each of two antennas – one on the space-
craft’s Sun-facing side and one aft – could be steered about one
axis while the spacecraft body rolled about a second axis to
point the antenna toward Earth at any point in the mission. The
phased-array antennas were complemented with two medium-
gain fanbeam antennas and four low-gain antennas. Radio sig-
nals were transmitted to and received from the MESSENGER
spacecraft at X-band frequencies (7.2-GHz uplink, 8.4-GHz
downlink) by the 34-m and 70-m antennas at NASA’s Deep
Space Network stations in Goldstone, California; Madrid,
Spain; and Canberra, Australia.
Mass was also conserved by limiting the number of space-
craft components that moved. With the lone exception of the
imaging system (see next section), all science instruments
were hard-mounted to the spacecraft. As a consequence,
spacecraft attitude often had to be changed continuously in
orbit about Mercury to permit the instruments to make their
observations.
Spacecraft power was provided by two solar arrays
(Figures 1.2 and 1.3), which could be articulated to manage
array temperature, and by a battery during those orbits when
1.2 Objectives, Spacecraft, Payload, and Orbit Design 5
Figure 1.2. Engineering view of
the MESSENGER spacecraft
Large velocity adjust from behind the sunshade.
(LVA) thruster
Helium tank
Star
trackers
Back phased-array/
fanbeam/low-gain
antennas
Magnetometer
the spacecraft was on Mercury’s nightside and the Sun was
eclipsed. In a fully redundant electronics system, a main
processor performed all nominal spacecraft functions, while
two other processors monitored spacecraft health and safety.
The spacecraft attitude control system was three-axis stable
and momentum biased and made use of four reaction wheels.
Attitude knowledge was acquired through an inertial mea-
surement unit, two star trackers, and a suite of Sun sensors as
a backup to the primary attitude sensors.
Primarily passive thermal management techniques were used
to minimize heating of spacecraft subsystems by the Sun and the
dayside surface of Mercury. To protect the spacecraft from solar
heating, all systems except the solar arrays were kept behind a
ceramic-cloth sunshade that pointed toward the Sun. This
approach simplified the design of the subsystems, which could
be built with conventional electronics, but added a substantial
constraint to the operation of the spacecraft. Throughout its time
within the inner solar system and in orbit about Mercury,
MESSENGER was constrained to maintain the orientation
of the normal to the central sunshade panel in the sunward
direction to within ±10° in Sun-relative elevation angle (pitch)
and ±12° in Sun-relative azimuth (yaw) at all times.
1.2.4 Instrument Payload
The project requirements for MESSENGER’s primary mis-
sion were met by a suite of seven scientific instruments plus
the spacecraft communication system (Gold et al., 2001).
There was a dual imaging system for wide and narrow fields
of view, monochrome and color imaging, and stereo; gamma-
ray, neutron, and X-ray spectrometers for surface chemical
mapping; a magnetometer; a laser altimeter; a combined ultra-
violet–visible and visible–near-infrared spectrometer to sur-
vey both exospheric species and surface mineralogy; and a
combined energetic particle and plasma spectrometer to
6 The MESSENGER Mission
Figure 1.3. View of the MESSENGER spacecraft during vibration testing at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The
solar arrays (mirrored surfaces) are stowed in their positions at the time of launch. Also visible are the Magnetometer boom (center), similarly in its
stowed position, and thermal blankets (gold).
sample charged species in the magnetosphere (Figure 1.4).
Brief descriptions of the payload instruments are as follows.
1.2.4.1 Mercury Dual Imaging System
The Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS) on the
MESSENGER spacecraft (Hawkins et al., 2007), shown in
Figure 1.4, consisted of a monochrome narrow-angle camera
(NAC) and a multispectral wide-angle camera (WAC). The
NAC was an off-axis reflector with a 1.5° field of view (FOV)
and was co-aligned with the WAC, a four-element refractor
with a 10.5° FOV and a 12-color filter wheel. The focal-plane
electronics of each camera were identical and used a 1024 ×
1024 charge-coupled-device detector. Only one camera oper-
ated at a time, a design that allowed them to share a common
set of control electronics. The NAC and the WAC were
mounted on a pivoting platform that provided a 90° field
of regard, from 40° sunward to 50° anti-sunward from the
spacecraft z-axis (Figure 1.2) – the boresight direction of
most of MESSENGER’s instruments. Onboard data compres-
sion provided capabilities for pixel binning, remapping of
12-bit data to 8 bits, and lossless or lossy compression.
During MESSENGER’s primary mission, four main MDIS
data sets were planned: a monochrome global image mosaic
at near-zero emission angles and moderate incidence angles, a
stereo complement map at off-nadir geometry and near-iden-
tical lighting, multicolor images at low incidence angles, and
targeted high-resolution images of key surface features. It was
further planned that those data would be used to construct a
global image base map, a digital terrain model, global maps of
color properties, and mosaics of high-resolution image strips.
1.2.4.2 Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer
The Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer (GRNS) instrument
(Figure 1.4) included separate Gamma-Ray Spectrometer (GRS)
and Neutron Spectrometer (NS) sensors (Goldsten et al., 2007).
The GRS detector was a mechanically cooled crystal of germa-
nium, and the sensor detected gamma-ray emissions in the energy
range 0.1–10 MeV and achieved an energy resolution of 3.5 keV
full width at half maximum for 60Co (1332 keV). Special construc-
tion techniques provided the necessary thermal isolation to

Mercury Atmospheric
and Surface Composition
Spectrometer
(MASCS)
X-Ray
Spectrometer
Solar Assembly
(XRS/SAX)
Mercury Dual
Imaging System
(MDIS)
X-Ray
Spectrometer
Data Processing Magnetometer
M t
Mercury Unit (XRS/MXU)
Unit (DPU) (at end of boom [not shown])
Figure 1.4. MESSENGER instruments and their locations on the spacecraft.
maintain the encapsulated detector at cryogenic temperatures
(90 K) despite the high temperatures in Mercury’s environment.
The outer housing of the GRS sensor was equipped with an antic-
oincidence shield (ACS) to reduce the background from charged
particles. The NS sensor consisted of a sandwich of three scintilla-
tion detectors working in concert to measure the flux of neutrons in
three energy ranges from thermal to ∼7 MeV.
1.2.4.3 X-Ray Spectrometer
The X-Ray Spectrometer (XRS) (Figure 1.4) measured the char-
acteristic X-ray emissions induced on the surface of Mercury by the
incident solar X-ray flux (Schlemm et al., 2007). The instrument
detected the Kα lines for the elements Mg, Al, Si, S, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn,
and Fe. The planet-viewing sensor (Mercury X-ray Unit, MXU)
consisted of three gas-filled proportional counters, one with a thin
Mg foil over the entrance window, one with a thin Al foil over the
entrance window, and one with no foil to separate the lower-energy
lines from Mg, Al, and Si. The 12° field of view of the planet-
viewing sensor allowed a spatial resolution that ranged from 42 km
at 200-km altitude to 3200 km at 15,000-km altitude. A small Si-
PIN detector (Solar Assembly for X-rays, SAX) mounted on the
spacecraft sunshade (Leary et al., 2007) and directed sunward
provided simultaneous measurement of the solar X-ray flux. The
solar detector included a thermoelectric cooler that could also
operate in a heater mode to anneal the sensor after radiation damage.
1.2 Objectives, Spacecraft, Payload, and Orbit Design 7
Gamma-Ray Mercury
Spectrometer Laser
(GRNS/GRS) Altimeter
(MLA)
Fast Imaging Plasma
Spectrometer
(EPPS/FIPS)
Energetic Particle
Spectrometer
(EPPS/EPS)
t (MAG) Neutron Spectrometer
(GRNS/NS)
1.2.4.4 Magnetometer
MESSENGER’s Magnetometer (MAG) was a low-noise, triaxial
fluxgate instrument (Anderson et al., 2007). Its sensor was
mounted on a 3.6-m-long boom that was directed generally anti-
sunward (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). The instrument had both a coarse
range, ±51,300 nT full scale (1.6-nT resolution), for preflight
testing, and a fine range, ±1530 nT full scale (0.047-nT resolution),
for operation near Mercury. A magnetic cleanliness program
followed during the design and construction of the spacecraft
minimized variable and static spacecraft-generated fields at the
sensor. Analog signals from the three instrument axes were low-
pass filtered (10-Hz cutoff) and sampled simultaneously by three
20-bit analog-to-digital converters every 50 ms. To accommodate
variable telemetry rates, MAG provided 11 output rates from 0.01
s−1 to 20 s−1. The instrument also provided continuous measure-
ment of fluctuations by means of a digital 1–10-Hz bandpass filter.
This fluctuation level was used to trigger high-time-resolution
sampling in 8-min segments to record events of interest when
continuous high-rate sampling was not possible.
1.2.4.5 Mercury Laser Altimeter
The Mercury Laser Altimeter (MLA) (Cavanaugh et al., 2007)
(Figure 1.4) measured the round-trip time of flight of trans-
mitted laser pulses reflected from the surface of Mercury
8 The MESSENGER Mission
which, in combination with the spacecraft orbit position and
pointing data, gave a high-precision measurement of surface
topography referenced to Mercury’s center of mass. The laser
transmitter was a diode-pumped Nd:YAG slab laser with pas-
sive Q-switching. The transmitter emitted 5-ns-wide pulses at
an 8-Hz rate with 20 mJ of energy at a near-infrared wavelength
of 1064 nm. The receiver consisted of four refractive telescopes
and four equal-length optical fibers to couple the received opti-
cal signal onto a single silicon avalanche photodiode. The tim-
ing of laser pulses was measured with a set of time-to-digital
converters and counters and a crystal oscillator operating at a
frequency that was monitored regularly from Earth. MLA
sampled the planet’s surface to within a 1-m range error when
the line-of-sight range to Mercury was less than 1500 km under
spacecraft nadir pointing or the slant range was less than
~1000 km at off-nadir angles up to ~40°.
1.2.4.6 Mercury Atmospheric and Surface Composition
Spectrometer
MESSENGER’s Mercury Atmospheric and Surface Composition
Spectrometer (MASCS) (McClintock and Lankton, 2007) con-
sisted of a small Cassegrain telescope with 257-mm effective
focal length and a 50-mm aperture that simultaneously fed an
Ultraviolet and Visible Spectrometer (UVVS) and a Visible
and Infrared Spectrograph (VIRS) (Figure 1.4). UVVS was a
125-mm-focal-length, scanning grating, Ebert–Fastie mono-
chromator equipped with three photomultiplier tube detectors
that covered far-ultraviolet (115–180 nm), middle-ultraviolet
(160–320 nm), and visible (250–600 nm) wavelength ranges
with an average spectral resolution of 0.6 nm. It was designed
to measure profiles with altitude of known exospheric species,
to search for previously undetected exospheric species, and to
observe Mercury’s surface in the far and middle ultraviolet at
a spatial scale of 10 km or smaller. VIRS was a fixed concave
grating spectrograph with a 210-mm focal length equipped
with a beam splitter that simultaneously dispersed the
spectrum onto a 512-element silicon visible-wavelength
photodiode array (300–1050 nm) and a 256-element indium-
gallium-arsenide infrared-wavelength photodiode array
(850–1450 nm). The VIRS was designed to map surface
reflectance with 5-nm spectral resolution in the wavelength
range 300–1450 nm.
1.2.4.7 Energetic Particle and Plasma Spectrometer
The Energetic Particle and Plasma Spectrometer (EPPS)
instrument on MESSENGER consisted of two sensors
(Andrews et al., 2007), an Energetic Particle Spectrometer
(EPS) and a Fast Imaging Plasma Spectrometer (FIPS)
(Figure 1.4). The EPS was a hockey-puck-sized energy by
time-of-flight spectrometer designed to measure in situ the
energy, angular, and compositional distributions of the
high-energy components of electrons (>20 keV) and ions
(>5 keV/nucleon) near Mercury. The FIPS measured the
energy, angular, and compositional distributions of the low-
energy components of the ion distributions (<50 eV/charge
to 20 keV/charge). The FIPS sensor featured an electro-
static analyzer system with a large (1.4 sr) instantaneous
field of view.
1.2.4.8 Radio Science
The MESSENGER telecommunications subsystem was
designed primarily to send commands to the spacecraft and to
transmit to Earth both science measurements and information
on the state of the spacecraft and instruments (Srinivasan et al.,
2007). The subsystem doubled as a scientific tool by providing
precise measurements of the spacecraft’s velocity and range
along the line of sight to Earth, information essential for space-
craft navigation and also for deriving Mercury’s gravity field.
1.2.5 Orbit Design
The parameters selected for the MESSENGER orbit after the
orbit insertion maneuver resulted from a complex trade-off of
scientific objectives, spacecraft and instrument thermal design,
communications and power constraints, and propellant budget
(Santo et al., 2001). The original design for the initial orbit
featured a periapsis altitude of 200 km, a periapsis latitude of
60°N, an inclination of 80° to the planet’s equatorial plane, and
a period of 12 h. The periapsis latitude and altitude, the high
eccentricity of the orbit, and the phasing of the initial orbit
relative to local time and Mercury true anomaly were all
selected as part of the mission thermal design. The 12-h period
was chosen to regularize the schedule of mission operations and
permitted ample time for data downlink near apoapsis.
Orbit-correction maneuvers (OCMs) were planned for the
orbital phase of the primary mission, because the gravitational
pull of the Sun would raise periapsis altitude and latitude
between successive orbits (McAdams et al., 2007). Such
maneuvers were planned in pairs, with the first designed to
lower periapsis altitude back to ~200 km and the second to
adjust the orbit period after the first correction back to 12 h.
The pairs of maneuvers were scheduled approximately one
Mercury year apart in order to keep periapsis altitude below
500 km while meeting spacecraft sunshade pointing and
science requirements.
1 .3 M ES SE NG ER ’S SC I E NCE D AT A
ACQUISITION P LANNING A ND
O P ER AT I ON S
Planning for MESSENGER’s scientific observations from orbit
about Mercury required a novel approach to the design of pay-
load operations and spacecraft attitude-control commanding.
Experience with science planning for the Mercury flybys
demonstrated the complex interplay between imaging and com-
peting remote sensing observations, as well as with spacecraft
operational constraints on pointing, power management, navi-
gation, and achievable rates of change to spacecraft attitude.
Planning for the flybys was conducted with conventional man-
ual approaches to the design of observation and spacecraft
command sequences with computational and visualization
tools. Months of iterative, labor-intensive work were required
to design, simulate, and review each encounter. The complex-
ities of operations from orbit about Mercury, however, called
for a marked change in the planning architecture, given that the
orbital phase of the primary mission phase would be equivalent
 1.3 Science Data Acquisition Planning and Operations
to two flybys every Earth day. To effect such a change, the
observational requirements, spacecraft capabilities, and opera-
tional constraints had to be captured in carefully implemented
software, which was then used together with orbit solutions in
an automated search for optimal observation opportunities and
spacecraft attitude, imaging pivot commanding, and instrument
commanding. Those objectives were accomplished with a
sophisticated, integrated suite of modules known as SciBox
(Anderson et al., 2011b; Choo et al., 2014).
1.3.1 Science Observation Constraints
The observational opportunities at Mercury were highly
constrained by MESSENGER’s eccentric orbit and Mercury’s
low spin rate. A solar day on Mercury is approximately 176
Earth days, so during MESSENGER’s year-long primary orbi-
tal mission there were only two opportunities to observe each
longitude at a given solar illumination. In addition, the different
science investigations had distinct and competing pointing
requirements. For monochrome surface imaging, for instance,
a specific range of solar incidence angles is optimal to reveal
surface features while not obscuring terrain in shadow, whereas
for color imaging near-normal solar incidence angles are best.
Imaging plans also had to incorporate a favorable phase angle to
minimize forward scattering of sunlight yet maintain surface
resolution. Moreover, the choice of MDIS camera, wide-angle
or narrow-angle, depended on altitude and viewing geometry as
well as the need to balance resolution with the requirement to
obtain as complete and overlapping imaging coverage as
possible.
MESSENGER’s other science investigations imposed still
different requirements. Most of the instruments on the space-
craft’s main instrument deck (Figure 1.4) had co-aligned fields
of view and yielded optimal data for near-nadir viewing
directions. In contrast, exospheric observations by the UVVS
required turning the spacecraft so that the spacecraft z-axis, i.e.,
the normal to the instrument deck, pointed off the limb of the
planet. The MLA observations yielded the highest signal-to-
noise ratio for surfaces in darkness, whereas the XRS observa-
tions required that the surface be in daylight so as to be exposed
to solar X-rays. The GRS observations were largely insensitive
to surface illumination, but the NS observations were optimal
for specific orientations of the NS detectors with respect to the
spacecraft orbital velocity relative to Mercury. Finally, the EPS
instrument yielded the most scientifically fruitful data when the
magnetic field direction lay in the plane of the instrument field
of view.
1.3.2 Spacecraft and Mission Operations Constraints
Over and above the scientific objectives and instrument
observational constraints, ensuring the continued health of the
spacecraft and payload demanded attention to spacecraft
operations, communications, and navigation considerations.
The constraints on spacecraft attitude were strictly enforced to
maintain the orientation of the normal to the central sunshade
panel in the direction of the Sun to within specified tolerances in
the Sun-relative elevation angle and azimuth. Violation of these
constraints would trigger autonomous spacecraft protection
9
procedures and abort the science observation sequence, so the
planning software imposed these constraints as hard limits on
the commanded attitude. Communication passes for command
uplink and data downlink and spacecraft angular momentum
management were carefully planned and reserved for mission
operations. Software tools were developed to allocate spacecraft
resources, particularly the solid-state recorder (SSR), to track
and predict the onboard data volume against the observation
plan to ensure the return to Earth of all collected data. Orbit-
adjustment maneuvers and other mission-critical activities were
also strictly reserved for mission operations planning and trea-
ted as unavailable for science observations that required attitude
commanding. Passive science data collection continued through
communications operations.
1.3.3 Automated Science Opportunity Analyzer and
Scheduler
The MESSENGER SciBox suite of software modules was
designed to factor in the payload constraints and priorities for
observation geometry and range within the constraints of orbit
design and mission operations. The SciBox functional structure is
shown schematically in Figure 1.5. Because a pivot about the
spacecraft–Sun line was incorporated into the MDIS design, the
imaging observations could be planned with this additional degree
of freedom not available to the other instruments. This capability
motivated an altitude-based hierarchy of science pointing priority,
by which different instruments were assigned attitude control for
specific ranges of altitude. Attitude control was assigned to MLA
for all altitudes less than the ranging limit (~1500 km) to the
surface for a nadir point on the planet’s nightside. Otherwise,
pointing control was assigned to XRS on the dayside if the
allowed range of directions of the spacecraft z-axis intercepted
the planet. The remaining time in which the planet was within the
MDIS field of regard was assigned to MDIS control, and the
remainder of the observing time was assigned to exosphere obser-
vations by MASCS. The science team also identified prioritized
sets of specific targets on the planet for focused observation (e.g.,
high resolution, additional colors, greater pointing dwell time).
These targets were assembled into a target database and were
selected if unsubscribed opportunities were present. Each instru-
ment was also assigned an allocation for data volume, and a
nominal plan for altitude-dependent data collection was designed
for each of the instruments other than MDIS.
This database and the mission design were ingested to derive a
draft observation plan and predictions for SSR loading for the
entire orbital mission. The spacecraft orbit (in the form of kernels
in the NASA Spacecraft, Planet, Instrument, C-matrix, Events – or
SPICE – toolkit), times reserved for mission operations, and con-
straints on spacecraft attitude slew rate and MDIS pivot rotation
rate (captured as rules) were used by the Opportunity Analyzer in
SciBox to identify all possible imaging opportunities. The MDIS
imaging plan was then constructed by the Opportunity Analyzer,
which identified all achievable imaging opportunities given the
spacecraft attitude as constrained by MLA- and XRS-assigned
attitude and the MDIS pivot. These opportunities were next eval-
uated against the desired properties for imaging and requirements
for imaging overlap by the Optimizer module, resulting in the
generation of an imaging plan and a spacecraft science attitude
10 The MESSENGER Mission

Downlink SSR Snapshot Targeting

Observation Status SPK, SCLK, LSK Database

Opportunity
Analyzers
Downlink
Data
Processing Optimizer
Pipeline

Goal-Based Observation Schedule Editor

Schedule with with Integrated
Event-Based Time Tag Visualization

Command Generator
Instrument and
with Constraints and MESSENGER
Observation State
Observation SciBox
Predictor
Rules Checker

Report Summary Statistic,

Science Generator Coverage, Visualization
Operations
Center

Figure 1.5. Functional schematic of the MESSENGER SciBox software suite (green box). Input data are indicated by white boxes at the top
(downlink status, SSR data volume, attitude and orbit data in SPK, SCLK, and LSK SPICE kernels, and the targeting database); the main module
elements are indicated by tan boxes; the key intermediate schedule product is indicated by the purple box; and key elements of the report generator
are shown. The SciBox software was maintained and configured within the MESSENGER Science Operations Center, and the state predictor was
used to update the SSR load predictions. SPK, SCLK, and LSK denote the Spacecraft and Planets Kernel, the Spacecraft Clock Kernel, and the
Leapseconds Kernel, respectively.

plan. These plans were then checked against the spacecraft control
constraints by the Rules Checker module, and draft spacecraft
attitude and instrument commanding sequences were generated.
The loading on the SSR was also evaluated and updated, including
the expected downlink capacity for each communication pass. One
key to ensuring accuracy of the planning against actual perfor-
mance was that the times of commanding were keyed to orbit
events rather than to absolute time. This procedure allowed the
plan to transition smoothly from the orbit predictions far in the
future to the immediate planned orbit using the latest orbit predic-
tions to generate actual commands for the spacecraft.
The integrated plan was developed with an iterative approach
by which successively more observations were included in the
Opportunity Analyzer. Once it was demonstrated that the ima-
ging goals could be met within the MLA and XRS constraints,
the other pointed observations, including UVVS exosphere and
surface targets, were included in the planning. In addition, the
predictions for SSR loading were used to tailor the allowed
instrument observation rates, and these revised data rates were
included in refinements to the mission-long observation plan.
Development and refinement of the modules continued through-
out the orbital phase, including both extended missions, to track
the additional science observation objectives.
1.3.4 Advance and Near-Term Science Planning
The integrated mission plan was used for both science planning
and command generation (Berman et al., 2010). The plan was
re-derived for each week of operations and updated with infor-
mation acquired for imaging coverage, SSR loading, and any
adjustments needed for instrument performance, operation, or
spacecraft operations rules. This analysis constituted the
Advance Science Planning process, which was the starting
point for building the final command loads for the spacecraft.
The command building process, known as Near-Term Science
Planning, ran on a four-week cadence. A week’s commands
were generated four weeks ahead of execution on the spacecraft,
and with each successive week the sequence was processed
through different stages of review, quality assessment, and
error checking. For actual spacecraft commanding, the SciBox
suite included converters from the schedules to instrument
operation and spacecraft attitude command requests in formats
required by the mission operations scheduling and command-
load development tools. These command requests were
reviewed by the science and engineering teams for each instru-
ment and then processed through the spacecraft command gen-
erator to verify compliance with all instrument and spacecraft
rules. Each load was then run through the ground spacecraft
simulator before being approved for upload and execution on
the spacecraft.
1.3.5 Science Observation Performance
The performance of the observation planning during orbital
operations resulted in imaging, mapping, and in situ surveys
of the planet that met every project requirement for the
 1.4 MESSENGER’s Primary Mission 11

(a) Year 1 Plan: MDIS image resolution coverage map (b) Year 1 Plan:
MDIS image resolution distribution
90°N km/pixel: Avg. = 0.22; Std. dev. = 0.07
0.5 1.0
0.9
60°N
0.4 0.33 km/pixel
0.8

Cumulative Fraction
30°N
0.3
0.6
180°W 90°W 0°E 90°E 180°E 0.5 0.22 km/pixel
0.2
0.4

30°S 0.1
0.2
0.1 0.13 km/pixel
60°S 0.0
km/pixel 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
90°S
Resolution (km/pixel)

Figure 1.6. Example planning products for the first year of MESSENGER orbital observations, including (a) a map of the MDIS monochrome
imaging resolution and (b) the cumulative distribution of image resolution. Products such as these were generated for each instrument to assess the
characteristics of the planned observation plan against the observational requirements for each science investigation.

Figure 1.7. Four sequential views of the launch of the MESSENGER spacecraft on 3 August 2004.

mission. This record of mission success hinged critically on

the capability of SciBox to design an entire yearlong imaging
plan that integrated all of the science observations in a single
overarching schedule. As an example, Figure 1.6 shows the
planned resolution for MDIS monochrome mapping prior to
orbit insertion in the form of a surface map, along with
cumulative statistics. Transitions in the resolution over the
surface correspond to transitions between the NAC and WAC
and merging of imaging obtained on the ascending and des-
cending legs of each orbit. Similar planning maps for image
coverage, ensuring overlap to facilitate the construction of
mosaics, as well as color imaging, XRS, MLA, VIRS, and
GRS coverage, were all generated, and the mission perfor-
mance met or exceeded all of these plans. Given the complex-
ity of the observation plan and the need to build the entire
observation plan at once, it is clear that the automated sche-
duling tool was essential to the acquisition of the data that
allowed all of the advances achieved in our understanding of
Mercury’s characteristics.
1.4 M ESSENG ER ’S P R I MAR Y M ISSION
1.4.1 Overview of the Primary Mission
MESSENGER launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station, Florida, on 3 August 2004 (Figure 1.7). The cruise
phase of the mission lasted 6.6 years and included six planetary
flybys (McAdams et al., 2005, 2011). A gravity-assist flyby of
Earth on 2 August 2005, approximately one year after launch,
reduced the spacecraft’s perihelion to 0.6 AU and moved the
perihelion direction more than 60° closer to that of Mercury.
The first of two flybys of Venus on 24 October 2006 increased
the inclination of the spacecraft’s orbit and reduced the orbit
period. The second Venus flyby on 5 June 2007 lowered peri-
helion sufficiently to permit a Mercury flyby. Both Venus flybys
moved the spacecraft’s perihelion and aphelion closer to those
of Mercury. A single loss of instrument functionality occurred
during the primary mission: in April 2005 the high-voltage
system on the time-of-flight portion of the EPS sensor failed,
12 The MESSENGER Mission

spacecraft Mercury flyby 1

time shown day/night smooth area
terminator Sun not imaged
by Mariner 10
5m exit Earth
inut
es occultation
Earth
January 14, 2008
19:04:39 UTC
spacecraft 201 km altitude
in eclipse

spacecraft Mercury flyby 2

time shown day/night Sun smooth area
terminator not imaged
by Mariner 10

5 minute
s
Earth
October 6, 2008
08:40:22 UTC
spacecraft in eclipse 199 km altitude
spacecraft Mercury flyby 3
time shown
day/night Sun
5m
inu terminator smooth area not imaged by
tes
Mariner 10 or MESSENGER

Earth enter Earth

occulation

September 29, 2009

21:54:56 UTC
spacecraft in eclipse 228 km altitude

Figure 1.8. MESSENGER’s Mercury flyby trajectories as viewed from above Mercury’s north pole. Areas not imaged by Mariner 10 are shown
in light gray. From McAdams et al. (2011).

and high voltages could not be restored despite repeated
attempts over the next several months. The energy subsystem
of the sensor (Andrews et al., 2007) was unaffected by this
failure and operated until the end of the mission.
MESSENGER executed three flybys of Mercury on 14
January and 6 October 2008 and 29 September 2009. The
three flybys, each followed about two months later by a large
propulsive course-correction maneuver, completed the rotation
of MESSENGER’s orbit and changed the period of the orbit
progressively closer to that of Mercury (McAdams et al., 2005).
Each flyby followed a near-equatorial trajectory and involved
closest approach on Mercury’s nightside at ~200-km altitude
(Figure 1.8). Operationally, the first two flybys proceeded flaw-
lessly, but a safe-hold event triggered by a rising battery tem-
perature shut off data acquisition midway through the third
flyby. During the flybys, MESSENGER mapped nearly the
entire planet in color, imaged most of the areas unseen by
Mariner 10, completed initial measurements of the composition
of Mercury’s exosphere and neutral tail, and made initial char-
acterizations of the structure and dynamics of Mercury’s mag-
netosphere. Those three flybys returned the first new spacecraft
data from Mercury in more than three decades (Figure 1.1).
These data were invaluable to the planning of the yearlong
orbital phase of MESSENGER’s primary mission.
On 18 March 2011, the MESSENGER spacecraft was
inserted into a highly eccentric, 12-h orbit about the planet
Mercury. The orbit attained had an inclination of 82.5°, an
initial periapsis altitude of ~200 km, an initial periapsis long-
itude of 60°N, and apoapsis at an altitude of ~15,200 km in the
southern hemisphere (Figure 1.9).
During the primary mission, the periapsis altitude increased
progressively and periapsis latitude drifted northward, both the
effect of perturbations to the spacecraft trajectory by the grav-
itational pull of the Sun. A series of propulsive OCMs was
designed to maintain the periapsis altitude within the approx-
imate range 200–500 km (McAdams et al., 2012). OCM-1 and
OCM-3 each lowered the periapsis to 200 km, but each man-
euver also reduced the orbit period by ~15 min and so was
followed by a smaller OCM that returned the period to ~12 h
(Figure 1.10). Neither OCM-5 nor OCM-6 was followed by a
maneuver to correct the orbit period.
1.4.2 Results from the Primary Mission
By the conclusion of MESSENGER’s primary mission, all of
the scientific objectives (Table 1.1) had been met, and all of the
project requirements (Table 1.2) had been successfully accom-
plished. Scientific results from MESSENGER’s primary
 1.4 MESSENGER’s Primary Mission 13

mission substantially answered the six questions that had
framed the mission.
1.4.2.1 Mercury’s High Ratio of Metal to Silicate
Prior to the MESSENGER mission, most hypotheses put for-
ward to explain Mercury’s anomalously high core fraction
invoked high-temperature processes that would have substan-
tially depleted the planet’s inventory of volatile elements.
However, elemental measurements of Mercury’s surface by
MESSENGER’s XRS and GRNS instruments during the orbital
phase of the primary mission (Nittler et al., 2011; Peplowski
et al., 2011; Evans et al., 2012) indicated that such moderately
volatile elements as Na, K, and S are not depleted relative
to other terrestrial planets. To the contrary, the surface S abun-
dance is at least a factor of 10 higher than that of the surface of
Earth or the Moon (Nittler et al., 2011). MESSENGER XRS
and GRS measurements during the primary mission also
showed that Mercury’s surface material is low in iron (no
200- to 505-km minimum altitude
over 60°–74° North latitude
North
to
Sun
day/
night
line
82.5–84.0°
up to 15,200-km
11h 45m – 12h 4m
orbit
per orbit
inclination
dawn–dusk orbit edge-on orbit view noon–midnight orbit
Figure 1.9. Three views of MESSENGER’s 12-h orbit during the
primary mission: a dawn–dusk orbit viewed from the Sun, an edge-on
view, and a noon–midnight orbit viewed from a direction orthogonal to
the planet–Sun line. From McAdams et al. (2012).
more than ~4 wt% Fe) (Nittler et al., 2011; Evans et al.,
2012). Collectively, these results are inconsistent with forma-
tion models calling for extended periods of high temperatures
(e.g., evaporation in a hot solar nebula, formation from high-
temperature condensates, or some giant impact scenarios)
and suggest that Mercury’s metal-rich, FeO-poor composition
likely reflects chemically reduced precursory materials
(Nittler et al., 2011), enriched in Fe metal by some aspect of
the accretion process.
1.4.2.2 Mercury’s Geological History
Global monochrome, color, and stereo images acquired dur-
ing the Mercury flybys and from orbit revealed the presence of
a range of landforms known to be associated with volcanism
on other planets, and several lines of evidence suggested that
the emplacement of Mercury’s surface material has been
dominated by volcanism. Indicators of volcanic resurfacing
included extensive smooth plains that embay topographic
lows, commonly with distinct reflectance and color proper-
ties; depressions that may be source vents (Head et al., 2008,
2011); a deficiency of large basins compared with the Moon,
probably the result of volcanic burial (Fassett et al., 2012);
North and broad channels between plains deposits formed by sculpt-
ing of surrounding terrain, consistent with large-scale floods
of highly fluid material (Byrne et al., 2013; Hurwitz et al.,
2013). The similarity of observed features to fluvial landforms
is consistent with formation by high-temperature lavas, as
also suggested by the Mg-rich nature of Mercury’s surface
materials (Nittler et al., 2011). Laser altimetry by the
MESSENGER spacecraft yielded a topographic model of the
northern hemisphere of Mercury (Zuber et al., 2012), showing
maximum
that the dynamic range of elevations is considerably smaller
altitude
than those of Mars or the Moon. The most prominent topo-
graphic feature was found to be a broad lowland at high
northern latitudes which hosts a large volcanic plains deposit
covering ~6% of the planet (Head et al., 2011). Explosive
volcanism was indicated by ~50 rimless depressions sur-
rounded by diffuse, bright haloes that exhibit redder color

550 76 Figure 1.10. Progression of the altitude

(green line) and latitude (blue line) of
500 74 periapsis during MESSENGER’s primary
Latitude mission. The times of Mercury orbit
450 Altitude 72 insertion (MOI) and the six orbit-correction
Periapsis Altitude (km)

Periapsis Latitude (ºN)

maneuvers (OCMs) during the primary

400 70 mission are shown. From McAdams et al.
OCM-4 OCM-6 (2012).
350 OCM-5 68

300 OCM-1
OCM-3 66

250 64

200 OCM-2 62
MOI

150 60
3/18/2011 5/18/2011 7/18/2011 9/17/2011 11/17/2011 1/17/2012 3/18/2012
Calendar Date (month/day/year)
14 The MESSENGER Mission
Figure 1.11. Hollows in Tyagaraja crater, 97 km in diameter. Bright
areas shown in blue and with etched texture correspond to a high
density of hollows (inset). The pit surrounded by reddish material in the
center of the crater has been interpreted as a pyroclastic vent. From
monochrome image EN0212327089 M, 111 m/pixel, with enhanced
color from the eight-filter set EW0217266882I. From Blewett et al.
(2011).
than plains materials, and are interpreted as pyroclastic depos-
its by analogy with such material on the Moon (Kerber et al.,
2009; Goudge et al., 2014). Crater size–frequency distribu-
tions and stratigraphic analyses suggested that Mercury’s
smooth plains formation continued into the second half of
Mercury’s history on local scales, e.g., in the Rachmaninoff
basin (Prockter et al., 2010).
One of the most surprising discoveries of the primary mission
was the presence of “hollows,” fresh-appearing, rimless depres-
sions, commonly with high surface reflectance and often with
bright haloes (Figure 1.11). Hollows appear concentrated in the
low-reflectance material (LRM) color unit (Robinson et al.,
2008; Denevi et al., 2009) within impact craters and basins
(Blewett et al., 2011, 2013), and the fact that they are found
within some of the freshest craters on Mercury suggests that
their formation has been recent or even is ongoing. The host
rocks are inferred to have been excavated from depth by impact
(Robinson et al., 2008; Denevi et al., 2009), and likely forma-
tion mechanisms involve recent loss of volatiles through sub-
limation, space weathering, pyroclastic volcanism, or
outgassing (Blewett et al., 2011, 2013).
1.4.2.3 Mercury’s Magnetic Field
Orbital measurements revealed the structure of Mercury’s inter-
nal magnetic field for the first time. On the basis of crossings of
the magnetic equator, the internal field was shown to be con-
sistent with that of a spin-aligned dipole with a moment of 195 ±
10 nT RM3; the tilt of the dipole from the spin axis is <0.8°
(Anderson et al., 2011a, 2012; Johnson et al., 2012). One of the
most surprising results of the MESSENGER mission is that the
magnetic dipole is offset from the planet’s equator by 479 ±
6 km, or ~0.2 RM, so that the surface field is larger in magnitude
by a factor of ~3 at the north pole than at the south pole, and the
surface area of open magnetic flux in the southern hemisphere is
larger by a factor of ~4 than in the northern hemisphere. The
field geometry points to a core dynamo as the source of the field.
Such an axially symmetric yet equatorially asymmetric dynamo
is novel for the inner planets, and the low strength of multipolar
terms higher than quadrupole is consistent with a deep source
for the dynamo (Anderson et al., 2012). Magnetospheric
measurements also revealed that Mercury’s polar regions are
important sources of Mercury’s ionized exosphere (Zurbuchen
et al., 2011). Further, bursts of energetic electrons were seen
at a range of latitudes and times of day, implying that efficient
acceleration mechanisms operate within Mercury’s magneto-
sphere on a regular basis and produce electrons with energies
up to hundreds of keV on timescales of seconds (Ho et al.,
2011).
MESSENGER primary mission observations showed that
Mercury’s magnetosphere acts more effectively than antici-
pated to energize solar wind plasma and channel it to the
surface. Magnetic reconnection between the planetary and
solar wind magnetic fields at Mercury occurs with an intensity
an order of magnitude greater than at Earth (Slavin et al.,
2012a, b; DiBraccio et al., 2013), and shear instabilities at
the magnetopause display similarly greater growth rates
(Sundberg et al., 2012a). These interactions yield plasmas
within 1000 km of the planetary surface with pressures often
exceeding the magnetic pressure (Korth et al., 2011, 2012),
leading to intense precipitation to the planetary surface
(Winslow et al., 2012). The nearly ubiquitous occurrence of
waves driven by ion-plasma instabilities indicates that non-
thermal processes are central to plasma dynamics and preci-
pitation behavior (Boardsen et al., 2012). Magnetic reconnec-
tion in the tail was also shown to be prevalent and intense,
implying that plasmas are energized in the tail and convected
convulsively planetward (Slavin et al., 2012a; Sundberg et al.,
2012b).
1.4.2.4 Mercury’s Core
MESSENGER primary mission data provided considerable
insights into Mercury’s interior structure. Radio tracking of
the MESSENGER spacecraft provided a model of Mercury’s
gravity field (Smith et al., 2012); when combined with Earth-
based measurements of Mercury’s spin properties (Margot et
al., 2012), the second-harmonic-degree coefficients in the grav-
ity field yielded moments of inertia consistent with a core of
~2020-km radius (Hauck et al., 2013). The silicate mantle and
crust together are no more than ~420 km thick, and in the
northern hemisphere several large gravity anomalies, including
candidate mass concentrations (mascons), exceed 100 mGal in
amplitude (Smith et al., 2012; Hauck et al., 2013). From a model
of a crust uniformly less dense than the mantle and laterally
variable in thickness that fits the northern hemisphere topogra-
phy and gravity field, Mercury’s crust is thicker (50–80 km) at
low northern latitudes and thinner (20–40 km) in the north polar
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHANT XXV.

Argument. — Roger, après avoir jeté dans le puits l’écu

enchanté, délivre Richardet, frère de Bradamante, du supplice du
feu auquel il avait été condamné, et apprend de lui la cause de sa
condamnation. Tous les deux passent au château d’Aigremont, où
Roger donne de ses nouvelles à Bradamante par une lettre. Puis, en
compagnie de Richardet et d’Aldigier, il se met en chemin pour
empêcher que Maugis et Vivian soient livrés aux Mayençais. Il
rencontre un chevalier sur le lieu même où devait se faire la livraison
des deux guerriers de la maison de Clermont.

Oh ! quel violent combat se livrent, dans un cœur juvénile, le désir

de la gloire et la fougue de l’amour ! A la vérité, on ne pourrait dire
lequel de ces deux sentiments l’emporte sur l’autre, car ils sont tour
à tour vainqueurs. En cette circonstance, les deux chevaliers
obéirent à la rigoureuse loi du devoir et de l’honneur, en suspendant
leur querelle amoureuse pour voler au secours de leur camp.
Toutefois, ce fut encore Amour qui l’emporta ; car, si leur dame
ne leur avait point ordonné d’en agir ainsi, la cruelle bataille ne se
serait terminée qu’avec le triomphe de l’un d’eux, et c’est en vain
qu’Agramant et son armée auraient réclamé leur aide. Amour n’est
donc pas toujours funeste ; s’il est souvent nuisible, il est parfois
utile.
 Les deux chevaliers païens, ayant différé toute querelle, s’en
vont maintenant au secours de l’armée d’Afrique, et se dirigent vers
Paris, accompagnés de leur gente dame. Avec eux chemine aussi le
petit nain qui avait suivi les traces du Tartare, et avait conduit jusqu’à
lui le jaloux Rodomont.
Ils arrivent dans un pré, où plusieurs chevaliers se délassaient au
bord d’un ruisseau. Deux d’entre eux étaient désarmés ; les deux
autres avaient leur casque. Une dame, fort belle de visage, était
avec eux. Je vous dirai ailleurs qui ils étaient, non maintenant, car
j’ai à vous parler auparavant de Roger, du brave Roger qui, comme
je vous l’ai raconté, avait jeté dans un puits l’écu enchanté.
Il était à peine éloigné d’un mille, qu’il vit venir en grande hâte un
des courriers que le fils de Trojan avait envoyés à ses chevaliers
pour réclamer leur concours. Ce courrier lui apprit que Charles tenait
en un tel péril l’armée sarrasine, que si elle n’était promptement
secourue elle y laisserait bien vite l’honneur et la vie.
Roger, à cette nouvelle, fut assailli par un grand nombre de
pensées diverses qui lui vinrent toutes à la fois à l’esprit. Mais ce
n’était ni le lieu ni le moment de réfléchir longtemps au meilleur parti
à prendre. Il laissa partir le messager, et tourna bride vers l’endroit
où la dame le pressait tellement d’aller, qu’elle ne lui donnait pas
même le temps de se reposer.
En suivant le chemin qu’ils avaient pris tout d’abord, ils arrivèrent,
au déclin du jour, dans une ville que le roi Marsile possédait au beau
milieu de la France et qu’il avait prise, pendant la dernière guerre, au
roi Charles. Roger ne fut arrêté par personne aux ponts-levis ou aux
portes, bien que tout autour des remparts il y eût une grande
quantité d’hommes d’armes.
La damoiselle qui l’accompagnait étant connue de ces gens, on
le laissa passer librement et sans même lui demander d’où il venait.
Il arriva à la grande place et la trouva pleine de monde, et éclairée
par le feu d’un bûcher. Tout au milieu se tenait, le visage couvert de
pâleur, le jouvenceau condamné à mort.
 A peine Roger eut-il levé les yeux sur cet infortuné qui penchait
vers la terre sa figure inondée de larmes, qu’il crut voir Bradamante,
tellement le jeune homme lui ressemblait. Plus il regardait son
visage et sa personne, et plus il lui semblait que c’était elle. « —
C’est Bradamante — se dit-il — ou je ne suis plus Roger !
« Emportée par une trop grande ardeur, elle aura pris la défense
du condamné, et sa tentative ayant échoué, elle aura, je le vois, été
faite prisonnière. Ah ! pourquoi s’est-elle tant pressée, puisque je ne
pouvais pas me trouver à côté d’elle pour tenter l’entreprise ? Mais je
rends grâce à Dieu d’être venu encore à temps pour la sauver. — »
Et, sans plus tarder, il saisit son épée, car il avait rompu sa lance
dans sa lutte à l’autre château, et pousse son destrier au milieu de la
foule. Son épée décrit un cercle et ouvre à l’un le front, à l’autre la
gorge, à un troisième la joue. La populace fuit en criant ; un grand
nombre restent sur place éclopés ou la tête fracassée.
Telle une bande d’oiseaux qui, sur les bords d’un étang, voltigent
en sûreté et pourvoient à leur nourriture ; si quelque faucon fond à
l’improviste sur eux du haut des airs, et en saisit un dans ses serres,
tout le reste s’éparpille en fuyant ; chacun s’inquiète peu de son
voisin et ne songe qu’à son propre salut. Ainsi vous auriez vu faire
tous ces gens, dès que le brave Roger se fut précipité sur eux.
A quatre ou six, plus lents à fuir que les autres, Roger abat la tête
de dessus les épaules. Il en partage autant jusqu’à la poitrine, et un
nombre infini jusqu’aux yeux et jusqu’aux dents. Je sais bien qu’ils
n’avaient point de casques, mais ils étaient cependant couverts de
coiffes en fer luisant ; et quand bien même ils eussent eu des
casques, ils n’en auraient pas été moins taillés, ou peu s’en faut.
La force de Roger était bien supérieure à celle qu’on trouve chez
les chevaliers de notre époque. Elle surpassait également celle de
l’ours, du lion ou de quelque autre animal féroce que ce soit, de nos
pays ou d’ailleurs. La foudre seule pouvait l’égaler, ou bien le grand
diable [16] , non pas celui de l’enfer, mais celui de mon seigneur, qui
va avec le feu et qui se fait faire place au ciel, à terre et sur mer.
 A chacun de ses coups, un homme tombait à terre, et souvent
deux à la fois. Il lui arriva même d’en tuer quatre et jusqu’à cinq d’un
coup, de sorte qu’il en eut bien vite occis une centaine. Son glaive,
qu’il avait tiré, taillait comme du lait l’acier le plus dur. Falérine, pour
donner la mort à Roland, avait forgé la cruelle épée [17] dans les
jardins d’Orgagna.
Elle se repentit dans la suite de son œuvre, car ce fut avec cette
même épée qu’elle vit détruire son jardin. Quel carnage, quelles
ruines ne devait-elle pas faire maintenant entre les mains d’un tel
guerrier ! Si jamais Roger déploya une force et une fureur peu
communes, si jamais sa vaillance se manifesta pleinement, ce fut ce
jour-là, alors qu’il croyait venir au secours de sa dame.
La foule fuyait devant lui comme le lièvre devant les chiens
lancés. Ceux qui restèrent morts sur place furent nombreux. Ceux
qui s’enfuirent furent plus nombreux encore. Pendant ce temps, la
dame avait délié les liens qui retenaient les mains du jeune homme,
et l’avait armé de son mieux, en lui mettant une épée à la main et un
bouclier au cou.
Celui-ci, qui avait été si indignement traité, brûlait de se venger le
plus possible sur tous ces gens ; aussi, par l’énergie qu’il déploya en
cette circonstance, montra-t-il qu’il méritait le titre de preux et de
vaillant. Le soleil avait déjà noyé les roues dorées de son char dans
la mer d’occident, lorsque Roger, victorieux, sortit du château,
accompagné du jouvenceau.
Quand le jeune garçon se trouva en sûreté hors des portes, il
exprima, avec beaucoup de gentillesse et de courtoisie, sa
reconnaissance à Roger qui s’était exposé à la mort pour le sauver,
et cela sans le connaître. Il le pria de lui dire son nom, afin qu’il sût à
qui il avait une telle obligation.
« — Je vois — se disait Roger — le beau visage, les belles
manières, les traits charmants de ma Bradamante, mais je ne
reconnais pas la douceur de son parler si suave. Il ne me semble
pas non plus que c’est ainsi qu’elle devrait remercier son amant
fidèle. Mais si cependant c’est bien Bradamante, comment a-t-elle
sitôt oublié mon nom ? — »
Pour sortir de cette incertitude, Roger lui dit poliment : « — Je
vous ai vu ailleurs à ce que je pense, mais je ne puis me souvenir
où. Dites-le-moi, si vous vous le rappelez, et faites-moi le plaisir de
m’apprendre aussi votre nom, pour que je sache quel est celui que
mon aide a sauvé aujourd’hui du feu. — »
« — Il se peut que vous m’ayez vu en effet — répondit celui-ci —
mais je ne sais où ni quand. Je vais aussi de mon côté, parcourant
le monde, et cherchant çà et là les aventures extraordinaires. Peut-
être avez-vous vu une sœur à moi, qui a endossé l’armure et porte
l’épée au flanc. Nous sommes jumeaux, et elle me ressemble
tellement, que, dans notre famille, on ne peut nous distinguer l’un de
l’autre.
« Vous ne seriez pas le premier, ni le second, ni même le
quatrième qui auriez été pris à cette ressemblance, puisque mon
père, mes frères, et jusqu’à celle qui nous a donné le jour à tous
deux, ne savent pas nous distinguer. Il est vrai que la chevelure que
je porte courte et rare, comme tous les hommes, et les longs
cheveux de ma sœur, arrangés en tresses, faisaient la seule
différence qui existât entre nous ;
« Mais depuis qu’un jour elle fut blessée à la tête — il serait trop
long de vous dire comment — et que, pour la guérir, un serviteur de
Jésus lui eut taillé les cheveux au niveau de l’oreille, aucune
différence ne subsista plus entre nous, si ce n’est le sexe et le nom.
Je suis Richardet, et ma sœur s’appelle Bradamante. Je suis le frère
de Renaud ; elle en est la sœur.
« Et si cela ne vous ennuyait pas de m’écouter, je vous dirais une
chose qui vous stupéfierait ; je vous dirais ce qui m’advint, par suite
de cette ressemblance. C’est une aventure qui, après m’avoir causé
beaucoup de joie au commencement, a failli amener mon martyre.
— » Roger, à qui l’on n’aurait pu raconter de plus douce histoire que
celle où était mêlé le souvenir de sa dame, le pria de continuer, et le
jeune chevalier lui dit :
 « — Il y a quelque temps, ma sœur, passant dans les bois
d’alentour, fut blessée par une troupe de Sarrasins qui la surprit sans
son casque qu’elle avait déposé sur la route. On fut obligé de lui
couper ses longs cheveux, pour la guérir d’une cruelle blessure
qu’elle avait reçue à la tête. Depuis cette époque, elle errait par la
forêt, les cheveux ainsi coupés courts.
« Elle arriva un jour près d’une fontaine ombreuse. Se trouvant
fatiguée, elle descendit de cheval, délaça son casque et s’endormit
sur l’herbe tendre. Je ne crois pas, en vérité, qu’on puisse inventer
une fable aussi intéressante que cette histoire véridique. Soudain
arriva Fleur-d’Épine, dame d’Espagne, qui était venue pour chasser
dans le bois.
« En voyant ma sœur revêtue entièrement de son armure,
excepté le visage, et portant l’épée en guise de quenouille, elle la
prit pour un chevalier. A force de considérer sa figure et ses grâces
viriles, elle s’en sentit le cœur épris. Elle l’invita à la suivre à la
chasse, et parvint à l’attirer loin de ses compagnons, dans l’endroit
le plus touffu.
« Seule avec elle en ce lieu solitaire où elle ne craint pas d’être
surprise, elle lui découvre peu à peu, par ses gestes et ses paroles,
la blessure dont son cœur est atteint. Ses yeux ardents et ses
soupirs enflammés montrent son âme consumée de désir. Tantôt
son visage pâlit ; tantôt il se colore d’une vive rougeur ; enfin elle se
hasarde à prendre un baiser.
« Ma sœur s’était bien aperçue que la dame s’était trompée à
son endroit. Ne pouvant lui venir en aide, en cette circonstance, elle
se trouvait dans un grand embarras. Il vaut mieux, pensa-t-elle, la
détromper de sa fausse croyance, et me faire connaître pour une
femme gentille, que de me laisser passer pour un homme ridicule.
« Et elle disait vrai ; car c’eût été vraiment une infamie de la part
d’un homme, de rester comme un marbre devant une si belle dame,
pleine de grâces et d’agaceries, et de se borner à la payer de
paroles, en tenant l’aile basse comme un coucou. De son air le plus
aimable, ma sœur lui explique comme quoi elle est une damoiselle ;
 « Qu’elle cherche à acquérir la gloire des armes, comme jadis
Hippolyte et Camille. Elle lui dit qu’elle était née en Afrique, sur le
bord de la mer, dans la cité d’Arzille [18] , et que, dès sa plus tendre
enfance, elle avait été habituée à manier l’écu et la lance. Cette
confidence n’amortit pas une étincelle du feu qui consumait la dame
énamourée. Le remède venait trop tard pour guérir la plaie faite par
le trait qu’Amour avait enfoncé si profondément.
« Le visage de Bradamante ne lui en paraît pas moins beau, son
regard moins doux, ses manières moins séduisantes. Elle ne peut
reprendre possession de son cœur qui déjà ne lui appartient plus.
En voyant ma sœur sous cet habit, il lui semble impossible de ne
pas se consumer de désir pour elle, et quand elle songe que c’est
une femme, elle soupire, elle pleure, et montre une douleur
immense.
« Quiconque aurait ce jour-là été témoin de son désespoir et de
ses pleurs, aurait pleuré avec elle. « — Quels tourments — disait-
elle — furent jamais plus cruels que les miens ? A tout autre amour,
coupable ou permis, je pourrais espérer une fin désirée ; je saurais
séparer la rose de ses épines. Seul mon désir est sans espoir.
« Si tu voulais, Amour jaloux de mon heureux destin, me faire
sentir tes rigueurs, ne pouvais-tu te contenter de me faire subir les
maux ordinaires aux autres amants ? Parmi les hommes, ni parmi
les animaux, je n’ai jamais vu une femelle s’éprendre d’amour pour
une autre femelle. Une femme ne paraît point belle aux autres
femmes, pas plus que la biche à la biche et la brebis à la brebis.
« Sur la terre, dans les airs, au sein des ondes, je suis seule à
souffrir une telle cruauté de ta part, et tu as voulu, en agissant ainsi,
montrer, par une funeste erreur, jusqu’où peut aller ton pouvoir.
L’épouse du roi Ninus, qui aima son fils, éprouva un désir impie et
coupable ; il en fut de même pour Myrrha, qui aima son père, et pour
Pasiphaë, la Crétoise, qui s’éprit d’un taureau. Mais mon désir est
plus extravagant encore qu’aucun de ceux-là.
« Dans les cas que je viens de citer, la femelle prit toujours un
mâle pour objet de ses désirs ; elle pouvait espérer les satisfaire, et,
comme je l’ai entendu dire, elle y réussit en effet. Pasiphaë entra
dans une vache de bois ; les autres arrivèrent à leur but par des
moyens variés. Mais quand bien même Dédale me prêterait son
ingénieux concours, il ne pourrait délier ce nœud fait par la nature,
cette maîtresse souveraine et trop prévoyante. — »
« Ainsi se plaint, se consume, gémit la belle dame, sans pouvoir
apaiser son ennui. Tantôt elle se frappe le visage, tantôt elle
s’arrache les cheveux, cherchant à se venger d’elle-même. Ma
sœur, toute contristée d’une telle douleur, en pleure de pitié. Elle
s’efforce de la détourner de son fol et vain désir ; mais elle ne réussit
pas et ses paroles sont vaines.
« Fleur-d’Épine, qui réclame un secours et non des consolations,
se lamente et se plaint de plus en plus. Déjà le jour approchait de sa
fin, et le soleil rougissait tout l’occident. Il était l’heure de chercher un
abri, si l’on ne voulait point passer la nuit dans le bois. La dame
invita Bradamante à venir avec elle dans sa demeure qui était peu
éloignée de là.
« Ma sœur ne sut pas lui refuser cette faveur, et elles vinrent
toutes les deux dans ce lieu même où la populace scélérate et
félonne m’aurait jeté au feu, si tu n’étais arrivé. Dès qu’elles furent
rentrées dans le palais, la belle Fleur-d’Épine combla ma sœur de
caresses, et lui ayant donné des vêtements de femme, la fit
reconnaître à chacun pour une dame,
« Afin que personne, arguant de son aspect viril, ne pût en
prendre prétexte pour la blâmer. Elle espérait aussi que, les
vêtements d’homme portés par Bradamante ayant causé son mal,
elle pourrait, en la voyant sous son aspect véritable, chasser de son
esprit la pensée qui l’obsédait.
« Elles partagèrent le même lit, mais leur repos fut loin d’être le
même, car l’une dormit tranquillement, tandis que l’autre ne cessa
de pleurer et de gémir, sentant son désir de plus en plus impérieux.
Et si parfois le sommeil la prenait, il lui semblait, dans un songe
aussi rapide que trompeur, que le ciel l’avait exaucée, et avait
changé le sexe de Bradamante.
 « Comme le malade brûlé par une soif ardente, s’il vient à
s’endormir avec cette envie qui le consume, se voit, dans son
sommeil troublé et inquiet, entouré d’eaux de toutes parts, ainsi
Fleur-d’Épine s’imagine dans son rêve que son désir est satisfait.
Elle se réveille, et veut s’assurer aussitôt de la main si c’est la vérité,
mais, hélas ! elle se convainc toujours que ce n’est qu’un vain
songe.
« Que de prières, que de vœux elle adressa, pendant cette nuit,
à Mahomet et à tous les dieux, pour leur demander de changer, par
un miracle éclatant, le sexe de sa compagne ! Mais tous ses vœux
restèrent sans effet. Peut-être même le ciel se riait-il d’elle. La nuit
s’acheva enfin, et Phébus, montrant sa blonde tête hors de la mer,
vint rendre la lumière au monde.
« Dès que le jour eut paru, et qu’elles eurent quitté le lit, Fleur-
d’Épine sentit redoubler sa douleur, car Bradamante, désireuse de
sortir d’un pareil embarras, parlait déjà de partir. La gente damoiselle
veut qu’en partant elle accepte en don un magnifique genêt, tout
harnaché d’or, et une soubreveste richement brodée de sa propre
main.
« Fleur-d’Épine, après l’avoir accompagnée pendant quelque
temps, rentra toute en pleurs dans son château. Ma sœur, ayant
pressé le pas, arriva le même jour à Montauban. Nous tous, ses
frères, ainsi que notre pauvre mère, nous l’entourâmes en lui faisant
fête, car, n’ayant pas reçu depuis longtemps de ses nouvelles, nous
étions fort inquiets, et nous craignions qu’elle ne fût morte.
« Nous vîmes avec étonnement, quand elle ôta son casque, que
ses cheveux, qui auparavant se répandaient tout autour de sa tête,
étaient coupés court. Nous admirâmes également la soubreveste de
voyage dont elle était revêtue. Et elle, du commencement jusqu’à la
fin, nous raconta toute l’aventure que je viens de vous dire :
comment elle avait été blessée dans un bois, et comment, pour se
guérir, elle avait dû laisser couper sa belle chevelure.
« Et comment ensuite, s’étant endormie sur la rive d’un ruisseau,
survint une belle chasseresse, qui, trompée par sa fausse
apparence, s’éprit d’elle. Elle dit comment celle-ci l’attira loin de ses
compagnons ; elle ne nous cacha rien des tourments de cette
damoiselle, et son récit nous remplit l’âme de pitié. Elle nous apprit
enfin comment elle en reçut l’hospitalité, et tout ce qui s’était passé
jusqu’à son retour au château.
« J’avais beaucoup entendu parler de Fleur-d’Épine, et je l’avais
déjà vue à Saragosse et en France. Ses beaux yeux et son doux
visage avaient grandement excité mes désirs. Mais je n’avais pas
cru devoir laisser grandir cette passion naissante, estimant qu’aimer
sans espoir est un songe, une folie. Or, mon ancienne flamme,
revenant en moi avec violence, se ralluma soudain.
« Amour ourdit lui-même les nœuds dans lesquels je plaçai mon
espoir ; aurait-il pu en être autrement ? Dès qu’il m’eut ressaisi, il
m’enseigna la manière dont j’obtiendrais de ma dame ce que je
désirais. La fraude était facile à imaginer ; cette ressemblance avec
ma sœur, qui en avait trompé tant d’autres, tromperait encore, sans
aucun doute, cette jeune donzelle.
« Le ferais-je ou ne le ferais-je pas ? Enfin il me sembla qu’il est
toujours bon de chercher à obtenir ce que l’on désire. Je ne fis part
de mon intention à qui que ce fût, et ne voulus prendre le conseil de
personne. J’allai, la nuit, à l’endroit où ma sœur avait déposé ses
armes ; je les pris et, sur son propre cheval, je partis, sans attendre
le lever de l’aurore.
« Je partis pendant la nuit, Amour me guidant, pour retrouver la
belle Fleur-d’Épine, et j’arrivai à sa demeure avant que la lumière du
soleil se fût cachée dans l’océan. Ce fut à qui s’en irait, en courant,
porter le premier à la reine l’heureuse nouvelle, dans l’espoir de
s’attirer ses bonnes grâces et d’en recevoir quelque don généreux.
« Tous m’avaient pris, comme tu l’as fait toi-même, pour
Bradamante ; d’autant plus que j’avais les mêmes vêtements et le
même cheval que celle-ci, lorsqu’elle était partie, le jour d’avant.
Fleur-d’Épine vient au bout d’un moment et m’accueille avec une
telle fête, de telles caresses, avec un visage si content et si joyeux,
qu’une plus grande joie ne se pourrait voir au monde.
 « Elle me jette ses beaux bras autour du cou, m’étreint
doucement sur son cœur, et me baise sur la bouche. Tu peux juger
si dans ce moment Amour, qui dirigeait sur moi sa flèche, me frappa
en plein cœur ! Elle me prend par la main, et me mène en toute hâte
dans sa chambre. Elle veut me débarrasser elle-même de mes
armes, depuis le casque jusqu’aux éperons, et ne permet pas que
d’autres s’occupent de ce soin.
« Puis, s’étant fait apporter une de ses robes les plus riches et
les plus ornées, elle me la passe de sa propre main, et comme si
j’eusse été une femme, elle m’habille et réunit mes cheveux dans un
filet d’or. Moi, je baissais modestement les yeux ; rien dans mes
gestes n’aurait pu faire soupçonner que je n’étais pas une femme.
J’adoucis si bien ma voix, qui aurait pu me trahir peut-être, que
personne ne s’aperçut de la vérité.
« Nous nous rendîmes ensuite dans une salle où se trouvaient un
grand nombre de dames et de chevaliers, par lesquels nous fûmes
reçus avec les honneurs qu’on accorde d’habitude aux reines et aux
grandes dames. Là je ris plus d’une fois en moi-même des regards
lascifs que me lançaient les chevaliers, qui ne savaient pas ce qui se
cachait de valide et de gaillard sous mes vêtements de femme.
« La nuit était fort avancée lorsqu’on se leva de table, laquelle
avait été chargée des mets les plus recherchés, selon la saison.
Sans attendre que je lui demande la chose pour laquelle j’étais venu,
la dame m’invite d’elle-même, et par courtoisie, à partager sa
couche pour cette nuit.
« Les dames et les damoiselles se retirent, ainsi que les pages et
les camériers. Restés seuls ensemble, nous nous déshabillons et
nous nous mettons au lit à la lueur des torches qui éclairaient
comme si c’eût été jour. Alors, je commençai : « — Ne vous étonnez
pas, madame, si je reviens si vite près de vous. Vous vous imaginiez
sans doute me revoir Dieu sait quand.
« Je vous dirai d’abord la cause de mon départ, puis je vous
expliquerai celle de mon retour. Si j’avais pu, madame, en restant
près de vous, contenter votre ardeur, j’aurais voulu vivre et mourir à
votre service, sans vous quitter un seul instant, mais comprenant
combien ma vue vous était cruelle, je m’éloignai, ne pouvant faire
mieux.
« La fortune me conduisit au milieu d’un bois inextricable, où
j’entendis soudain retentir des cris ; on eût dit une femme qui aurait
appelé à son secours. J’y cours, et sur un lac aux eaux de cristal, je
vois un faune qui avait pris avec ses hameçons une damoiselle qu’il
tenait toute nue au milieu de l’eau. Le cruel se préparait à la dévorer
vivante.
« Je me précipitai vers lui, et l’épée à la main — je ne pouvais lui
venir en aide d’une autre façon — j’arrachai la vie au féroce pêcheur.
Aussitôt la damoiselle saute dans l’eau : « — Tu ne m’auras pas —
dit-elle — secourue en vain. Tu en seras bien récompensé, et
richement, pour tout ce que tu voudras demander ; car je suis une
nymphe, et j’habite au sein de ces eaux limpides.
« Je puis accomplir des choses merveilleuses et forcer les
éléments et la nature à m’obéir. Demande-moi tout ce qui sera en
mon pouvoir, et laisse-moi le soin de te satisfaire. A mon
commandement, la lune descend du ciel, le feu se congèle et l’air se
solidifie. Plus d’une fois, avec de simples paroles, j’ai fait trembler la
terre, et j’ai arrêté le soleil. — »
« Pour répondre à cette offre, je ne lui demandai ni des trésors, ni
la puissance, ni de riches domaines. Je ne lui demandai pas de me
donner plus de vaillance et plus de vigueur, ni de me faire vaincre
dans toutes les rencontres que j’aurais. Je lui demandai seulement
de me donner un moyen quelconque de satisfaire votre désir. Sans
plus préciser ma demande, je m’en remis complètement à son
expérience.
« Je lui eus à peine exposé mon désir, que je la vis plonger de
nouveau. Elle ne me fit pas d’autre réponse que de me lancer
quelques gouttes de l’eau enchantée. A peine cette eau m’a-t-elle
touchée au visage, que, je ne sais comment, je me sens toute
changée. Je le vois, je le sens, et à peine cela me paraît vrai. Je me
sens, de femelle, devenu mâle.
 « Et si ce n’était que vous pouvez vous-même vous en assurer
sur-le-champ, vous ne le croiriez pas. Comme je l’étais dans l’autre
sexe, je suis encore tout prêt à vous obéir. Commandez ; toutes mes
forces sont désormais, et seront toujours dressées et promptes pour
votre service. — » Ainsi je lui dis, et je fis en sorte qu’elle pût
s’assurer avec la main de l’exacte vérité.
« Il arrive souvent que celui qui avait perdu tout espoir de
posséder l’objet sur lequel toutes ses pensées étaient concentrées,
et qui, dans son désespoir d’en être privé, s’affligeait et se
consumait de colère et de rage, vient par la suite à posséder cet
objet. Alors sa longue crainte d’avoir semé sur le sable, sa
désespérance, lui oppressent tellement le cœur et le disposent
tellement au doute, qu’il n’en croit pas son propre témoignage, et
reste tout interdit.
« Ainsi la dame, bien qu’elle voie, bien qu’elle touche ce qu’elle
avait tant désiré, n’ose croire à ses yeux, à sa main, à elle-même, et
doute d’être encore endormie. Il faut lui montrer, par de bonnes
preuves, qu’elle sent bien réellement ce qu’elle croit ne sentir qu’en
songe. — Fasse Dieu — dit-elle — si tout cela n’est qu’un rêve, que
je dorme toujours, et que je ne me réveille plus jamais ! — »
« Ce ne furent pas les rumeurs du tambour, ni les sons de la
trompette qui préparèrent l’amoureux assaut ; mais des baisers, à
l’instar de ceux des colombes, donnaient le signal tantôt de la lutte,
tantôt du repos. Nous nous servîmes d’armes tout autres que les
flèches et les frondes. Quant à moi, je montai sans échelle à l’assaut
de la forteresse, et j’y plantai à plusieurs reprises mon étendard,
après avoir renversé l’ennemie sous moi.
« Si ce même lit avait retenti, la nuit précédente, de soupirs et de
plaintes, il put, la nuit suivante, entendre les éclats de rire, les doux
jeux, la fête éclatante, les cris de volupté. L’acanthe flexible n’enlace
pas les colonnes et les chapiteaux de nœuds plus nombreux, que
ceux formés par nos cous, nos flancs, nos bras, nos jambes, nos
poitrines.
 « La chose fut tenue assez secrète entre nous pour que nos
plaisirs durassent plusieurs mois. Mais quelqu’un s’en étant aperçu
par la suite, en instruisit, pour mon malheur, le roi Marsile. Vous qui
m’avez délivré des mains de ses satellites, sur la place où le bûcher
était déjà allumé, vous pouvez comprendre désormais le reste. Dieu
sait que j’en éprouve une douleur cruelle. — »
C’est ainsi que Richardet entretenait Roger et rendait ainsi à tous
deux leur voyage nocturne moins pénible. Ils arrivèrent cependant
vers un coteau entouré de précipices et de roches escarpées. Un
chemin montueux, étroit et plein de pierres permettait d’arriver
péniblement au sommet où s’élevait le château d’Aigremont, confié à
la garde d’Aldigier de Clermont.
Ce dernier était le fils bâtard du comte de Boves, et le frère de
Maugis et de Vivian. Ceux qui l’ont donné comme fils légitime de
Gérard ont avancé une chose téméraire et fausse. Qu’il fût l’un ou
l’autre, la vérité est qu’il était vaillant, prudent, libéral, courtois,
humain, et qu’il faisait bonne garde, de nuit et de jour, autour des
murailles du château appartenant à ses frères.
Le chevalier accueillit courtoisement, comme il le devait, son
cousin Richardet qu’il aimait comme un frère. Roger fut aussi le
bienvenu par égard pour lui. Cependant Aldigier ne vint pas à leur
rencontre avec l’air joyeux qui lui était habituel. Son visage, au
contraire, était triste, car il avait reçu le jour même une nouvelle qui
l’avait fort affligé.
Au lieu de salut, il aborda ainsi Richardet : « — Frère, nous
avons une nouvelle qui n’est pas bonne. J’ai su aujourd’hui, par un
messager très sûr, que l’infâme Bertolas de Bayonne s’est entendu
avec la cruelle Lanfuse, et lui a donné de riches présents, pour
qu’elle lui livrât tes bons cousins Maugis et Vivian.
« Depuis le jour où Ferragus les a faits prisonniers, elle les a
toujours tenus en un lieu secret et sombre. Enfin elle vient de
conclure ce traité déloyal et cruel avec celui dont je te parle. Elle doit
les livrer demain au Mayençais, sur les confins de ses domaines et
de ceux de Bayonne. Bertolas viendra en personne lui payer le prix
du plus illustre sang qui soit en France.
« J’en ai immédiatement avisé notre Renaud par un courrier que
j’ai fait partir à francs étriers, mais je ne crois pas qu’il puisse arriver
à temps, car il a trop de chemin à faire. Je n’ai pas avec moi assez
de gens pour tenter une sortie. Mon envie est grande de les secourir,
mais je ne puis rien. Cependant une fois que le traître les aura en
son pouvoir, il les fera mourir. De sorte que je ne sais que faire et
que dire. — »
La fâcheuse nouvelle déplut fort à Richardet, et, par cela même,
contraria vivement Roger. Les voyant tous deux se taire et ne
prendre aucun parti, il leur dit avec feu : « — Soyez tranquilles ; je
prends sur moi toute cette entreprise. Mon bras ira, à travers mille
épées, rendre la liberté à vos frères.
« Je ne veux le concours ni l’aide de personne. Je crois que je
suffirai seul à terminer cette affaire. Je vous demande seulement
quelqu’un qui me conduise à l’endroit où doit se faire l’échange. Je
vous ferai entendre jusqu’ici les cris de ceux qui seront présents à ce
honteux marché. — » Ainsi il dit, et ce n’était pas chose nouvelle
pour un des deux frères, qui avait eu des preuves de sa valeur.
L’autre l’écoutait, mais comme on écoute quelqu’un qui parle
beaucoup sans savoir de quoi il parle. Mais Richardet, le prenant à
part, lui raconta comment il avait été sauvé du bûcher par lui, et lui
certifia qu’il ferait, en temps et lieu, beaucoup plus que ce dont il se
vantait. Aldigier lui prêta alors une plus grande attention, et lui
prodigua les marques du plus grand respect et de la plus grande
estime.
Puis, à sa table, où régnait l’abondance la plus copieuse, il lui
donna la place d’honneur, comme il eût fait à son suzerain. Là, il fut
convenu que, sans chercher l’aide de personne, on délivrerait les
deux frères. Enfin le sommeil vint fermer les yeux aux maîtres et aux
valets. Roger seul ne dormit pas ; une pensée importune lui pesait
sur le cœur et le tenait éveillé.
 La nouvelle du siège qu’avait à soutenir Agramant, nouvelle qu’il
avait apprise le jour même, lui tenait au cœur. Il voyait bien que le
moindre retard apporté à voler à son secours était pour lui un
déshonneur. De quelle infamie, de quelle honte ne se couvrira-t-il
pas, s’il s’en va avec les ennemis de son maître ? Ne lui reprochera-
t-on pas comme une lâcheté, comme un grand crime, de s’être fait
baptiser en un pareil moment ?
En tout autre temps, on aurait pu facilement croire que la vraie
religion l’a seule touché. Mais maintenant qu’Agramant assiégé a
plus que jamais besoin de son aide, chacun croira plutôt qu’il a cédé
à la crainte, à une coupable lâcheté, qu’à l’entraînement d’une
croyance meilleure. Voilà ce qui agite et tourmente le cœur de
Roger.
D’un autre côté il souffrait à l’idée de s’éloigner sans la
permission de sa reine. Ces deux pensées contraires le plongeaient
tour à tour dans le doute et l’incertitude. Il avait d’abord espéré revoir
Bradamante au château de Fleur-d’Épine, où ils devaient aller
ensemble, comme je l’ai dit plus haut, pour secourir Richardet.
Puis il se souvint qu’elle lui avait promis de se retrouver avec lui
à Vallombreuse. Il se dit que si elle y était allée, elle avait dû
s’étonner de ne l’y point trouver. S’il pouvait au moins lui envoyer
une lettre ou un messager, afin qu’elle ne se tourmentât point de ce
que non seulement il lui avait désobéi, mais de ce qu’il était parti
sans lui en faire part !
Après avoir combiné divers projets, il pense que le mieux est de
lui écrire tout ce qui lui était arrivé, et bien qu’il ne sache pas
comment il pourra lui faire parvenir sa lettre, il ne veut pas tarder
davantage. Peut-être trouvera-t-il sur son chemin quelque messager
fidèle. Sans plus de retard, il saute hors du lit, et se fait apporter du
papier, de l’encre, des plumes et de la lumière.
Les camériers discrets et prévenants donnent à Roger ce qu’il
demande, et il commence sa lettre. Les premières lignes sont
consacrées aux salutations d’usage. Puis il raconte les avis qu’il a
reçus au sujet de son roi qui réclame son aide. Il ajoute que s’il tarde
à lui porter secours, Agramant périra ou tombera aux mains de ses
ennemis.
Il poursuit en disant qu’en cette circonstance et en présence d’un
appel si pressant, elle verra elle-même quel blâme énorme il
encourrait, s’il refusait l’aide qu’on lui demande ; que devant être son
mari, il devait se garder de toute tache, car il ne fallait pas qu’elle, si
pure en tout, fût souillée par la moindre faute.
Si jamais il s’est efforcé d’acquérir, par ses œuvres, un nom
illustre, et si, après l’avoir gagné, il en est fier, il doit chercher à le
conserver intact. C’est ce qu’il fait en ce moment. Il est avare de la
pureté de ce nom, puisqu’il doit le partager avec elle. Elle sera sa
femme, et leurs deux corps ne devront avoir qu’une âme.
Aussi, ce qu’il lui avait déjà dit de vive voix, il le lui redisait encore
par cette lettre : lorsque l’heure sera venue où il sera dégagé de sa
foi envers son roi, s’il n’est pas mort auparavant, il se fera chrétien
de fait comme il l’est déjà d’intention. Puis il ira la demander pour
femme à son père, à Renaud et à ses autres parents.
« — Je désire — ajoutait-il — qu’il vous agrée que j’aille faire
lever le siège autour de mon seigneur, afin que la foule ignorante se
taise et n’ait pas le droit de dire : Pendant qu’Agramant fut puissant,
Roger ne l’abandonna ni jour ni nuit ; maintenant que la fortune se
déclare en faveur de Charles, il porte sa bannière vers le vainqueur.
« Quinze ou vingt jours, je pense, me suffiront pour dégager le
camp des Sarrasins des ennemis qui l’assiègent. Pendant ce temps,
je chercherai des raisons convenables pour me retirer. Je vous
demande de m’accorder ce délai au nom de mon honneur. Puis le
reste de ma vie sera tout à vous. — »
Roger se répand en semblables propos que je ne saurais vous
dire jusqu’au bout. Il en ajoute beaucoup d’autres, et ne termine sa
lettre que lorsqu’il voit la feuille toute remplie. Puis il plie la lettre, la
scelle et la met sur sa poitrine, dans l’espoir que le jour suivant il
trouvera quelqu’un qui puisse la porter secrètement à sa dame.
La lettre close, il se jette de nouveau sur son lit où il peut enfin
fermer les yeux et trouver quelque repos. Le sommeil vient en effet
secouer sur son corps fatigué ses rameaux trempés dans l’eau du
Léthé. Il repose jusqu’à ce que les nuages roses et blancs viennent
parsemer de fleurs les contrées joyeuses du lumineux orient, et que
le jour s’élance de sa demeure dorée.
Dès que les oiseaux, dans les vertes branches, eurent
commencé à saluer le jour naissant, Aldigier qui voulait servir de
guide à Roger et à son compagnon, et les conduire à l’endroit où ils
devraient empêcher ses deux frères d’être livrés aux mains de
Bertolas, fut le premier sur pied. Les deux autres chevaliers, à son
appel, sautèrent également hors du lit.
Après qu’ils se furent habillés et bien armés, Roger se mit en
route avec les deux cousins ; il les avait longtemps priés, mais en
vain, de le laisser se charger tout seul de l’entreprise. Mais il leur eût
semblé manquer aux lois de la courtoisie que de le laisser aller seul
au secours de leurs frères. Ils se montrèrent en cela fermes comme
des rocs, et ne consentirent pas à le laisser partir seul.
Ils arrivèrent à l’endroit où Maugis devait être échangé contre des
présents. C’était une vaste plaine tout exposée aux rayons du soleil.
On n’y voyait ni myrtes, ni cyprès, ni frênes, ni hêtres. Quelques
humbles plantes poussaient sur le gravier nu, où jamais houe ni
charrue n’avait passé.
Les trois vaillants guerriers s’arrêtèrent dans un sentier qui
traversait cette plaine. Là ils aperçurent un chevalier dont l’armure
était damasquinée d’or et qui, pour insignes, portait, sur un champ
de sinople, le bel oiseau qui vit plus d’un siècle [19] . En voilà assez,
seigneur ; je me vois arrivé à la fin de ce chant, et je demande à me
reposer.

FIN DU TOME DEUXIÈME.

 NOTES DU TOME DEUXIÈME

CHANT XV

[1] Page 2, ligne 3. — C’est ainsi que votre victoire fut digne
d’éloges. — Allusion à la victoire que le cardinal Hippolyte d’Este, à
la tête de trois cents cavaliers et autant de fantassins, remporta sur
les Vénitiens près de Volano.
[2] Page 3, ligne 12. — Roi des îles Fortunées. — Les anciens
nommaient ainsi les îles Canaries.
[3] Page 5, ligne 23. — La Chersonèse d’or. — La presqu’île de
Malacca, ainsi nommée par les anciens à cause de sa prodigieuse
fertilité.
[4] Page 11, ligne 16. — Il chevaucha le long du fleuve Trajan. —
Une carte hollandaise de 1629 indique un fleuve de ce nom comme
un des affluents du Nil. Quelques commentateurs croient que le
poète a voulu désigner par là le canal que l’empereur Trajan fit
creuser du Nil à la mer Rouge.

CHANT XVI

[5] Page 33, lignes 17 et 18. — Sur la montagne que soulève

Typhée. — La montagne d’Ischia, île près du cap Misène, à l’entrée
du golfe de Naples.
 [6] Page 34, lignes 19 et 20. — Jamais vous n’avez vu à Padoue
de bombarde assez grosse… — Allusion au siège de Padoue par
les Autrichiens en 1509, auquel assistait le cardinal Hippolyte d’Este.

CHANT XVII

[7] Page 51, lignes 20 et 21. — Ceux-ci ont appelé des bois
ultramontains d’autres loups plus affamés. — Jules II, après la
défaite de Ravenne, fit appel aux Suisses qui couvrirent de sang et
de ruines les plaines de la Lombardie.

CHANT XIX

[8] Page 142, lignes 1 et 2. — Celle qu’Énée et Didon, fuyant

l’orage, rendirent jadis témoin fidèle de leurs secrets. — Énéide,
chant IV.
[9] Page 142, ligne 20. — Morgane le donna jadis à Ziliant. —
Épisode du Roland amoureux de Boïardo.

CHANT XX

[10] Page 160, ligne 5. — Arpalice et Camille sont fameuses. —

Arpalice, fille du roi de Thrace, défendit vaillamment le royaume de
son père contre Néoptolème, fils d’Achille. — Camille, fille du roi des
Volsques, donna son appui à Turnus, roi des Rutules, contre Énée.
[11] Page 161, ligne 24. — Le chevalier qui tua Almonte. —
Roland.
[12] Page 161, ligne 26. — Et celui qui donna la mort à Clariel et
à Mambrin. — Renaud.
[13] Page 181, lignes 14 et 15. — Et la fille de Lycaon avait à
peine fait disparaître sa charrue des champs du ciel. — Caliste, fille
de Lycaon, et sa fille Arcade, qu’elle eut de Jupiter, avaient été
changées en deux constellations boréales : la Grande Ourse et la
Petite Ourse. L’une et l’autre ont l’apparence de charrue ou de char,
et sont visibles jusqu’au lever de l’aube.