{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75545/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75545","id":"gutenberg_75545","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75545","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Science - Physics","Comets","Meteors"],"text":"THE ROMANCE OF COMETS\n\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PROFESSOR E. E. BARNARD\n]\n\n\n\n\n The Romance of Comets\n\n\n _By_ MARY PROCTOR, F.R.A.S., F.R.Met.S.\n\n (Daughter of the late Richard A. Proctor)\n _Author of \u201cEvenings with the Stars,\u201d \u201cStories of Starland,\u201d \u201cGiant Sun\n and His Family,\u201d \u201cLegends of the Stars,\u201d \u201cThe Children\u2019s Book of the\n Heavens,\u201d Etc._\n\n ILLUSTRATED\n\n[Illustration: [Logo]]\n\n HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS\n NEW YORK AND LONDON MCMXXVI\n\n\n\n\n THE ROMANCE OF COMETS: MADE IN\n THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY HARPER\n AND BROTHERS PUBLISHERS\n NEW YORK AND\n LONDON\n E-A\n\n\n\n\n _Dedicated_\n\n TO THE MEMORY OF\n\n _my kind and helpful friend_\n\n PROFESSOR E. E. BARNARD\n\n\n\n\n _Contents_\n\n\n PREFACE xi\n _Chapter One_: COMETS AS PORTENTS 1\n _Chapter Two_: COMET-HUNTING AS A HOBBY 16\n _Chapter Three_: THE STORY OF DONATI\u2019S COMET 37\n _Chapter Four_: COMETS IN DISTRESS 46\n _Chapter Five_: PHOTOGRAPHY AS APPLIED TO COMETS 67\n _Chapter Six_: RETURN OF HALLEY\u2019S COMET IN 1910 94\n _Chapter Seven_: ORIGIN OF COMETS AND METEORS 133\n _Chapter Eight_: METEOR STREAMS 168\n _Chapter Nine_: DID LIFE FIRST COME TO THIS EARTH IN A METEOR? 196\n\n\n\n\n _Illustrations_\n\n\n PROFESSOR E. E. BARNARD _Frontispiece_\n _facing page_\n DAYLIGHT COMET 1910 A 8\n THE COMET-SEEKER ON THE ROOF OF THE YERKES OBSERVATORY,\n AT WILLIAMS BAY, WISCONSIN 18\n COMET OF DONATI 42\n PHOTOGRAPH OF MOREHOUSE COMET, 1908 C 68\n JOHN TEBBUTT, NOTED COMET-HUNTER OF WINDSOR, N. S. W. 70\n THE GREAT DAYLIGHT COMET, SEPTEMBER, 1882 80\n PHOTOGRAPH OF A BRIGHT METEOR, BY DR. W. J. S. LOCKYER 84\n COMET 1893 IV BROOKS 92\n HALLEY\u2019S COMET AND THE PLANET VENUS 94\n HALLEY\u2019S COMET 110\n COMET 1861, JULY 2, AS SEEN AND DRAWN BY R. A. PROCTOR 118\n HALLEY\u2019S COMET 124\n THE ORBIT OF HALLEY\u2019S COMET 126\n THE SOUTHERN COMET OF JANUARY, 1887 144\n OUTH LODGE, KEITHICK, WHERE THE STRATHMORE METEORITE\n FELL THROUGH THE ROOF, DECEMBER 3, 1917 200\n STRATHMORE METEORITE, ESSENDY FRAGMENT 202\n\n\n\n\n _Preface_\n\n\nThis book contains an account of some of the quaint ideas entertained\nregarding comets, meteors, and shooting stars in the days of long ago,\nwhen they were looked upon with apprehension and fear. Their appearance\nwas supposed to herald coming disaster, until Science lifted the veil\nwhich obscured their real meaning from view. As soon as it was known\nthat these visitants from the star-depths were composed of such airy\ntexture that, as Sir John Herschel once expressed it, they could be\neasily packed in a portmanteau, tail and all, the fear of comets was at\nan end, and their appearance is nowadays hailed with delight.\n\nPossibly no one appreciated this fact more strongly than the late\nProfessor Barnard of the Yerkes Observatory, at Williams Bay, Wisconsin;\nand as Professor Frost, the director of the observatory, remarks, in a\nletter granting the author a permit for the use of several photographs\nof comets taken by him, \u201cit is most appropriate that your book should be\ndedicated to him, as he certainly had an ardor in observing and studying\ncomets that has seldom been equaled.\u201d\n\nIn the chapter on \u201cComet-hunting as a Hobby,\u201d after describing how\npopular it was some years ago, when cash prizes were offered to\nsuccessful finders, an instance is given thereof in the story related by\nthe late Professor E. E. Barnard, entitled \u201cThe House that was Built\nwith Comets.\u201d As a matter of fact, it was built by means of financial\naid obtained in this way. Shooting stars also come in for their due\nshare of attention, as well as fireballs which present rather an\nalarming aspect until one realizes that the sudden blaze of light\nindicates their annihilation.\n\nThe book is illustrated with prints, charts, drawings, and photographs,\nand permits for their use are gratefully acknowledged to the Astronomer\nRoyal, in connection with photographs obtained at the Royal Observatory,\nGreenwich; and to the directors of the Cape of Good Hope and\nJohannesburg Observatories in Africa, and the Yerkes Observatory in U.\nS. A. Also for permission kindly given by the director of Harvard\nCollege Observatory, U. S. A., to make a copy from a drawing of Donati\u2019s\ncomet, made by Professor Bond in the year 1858.\n\nGrateful acknowledgment is made to Mr. W. F. Denning (Bristol) for the\nloan of the photograph of the Strathmore meteorite, which fell December\n3, 1917, making a hole in the roof of Outh Lodge, Keithwick.\n\nThe author is specially indebted to Mr. Denning for his kindness in\nlooking over the MS. of Chapter VIII, which deals with \u201cMeteor Streams\nand Shooting Stars\u201d; and to Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin for a like favor in\nconnection with the chapters dealing with \u201cHalley\u2019s Comet as Seen in\n1910,\u201d and the \u201cOrigin of Comets and Meteors,\u201d the most important\nchapter in the book. It incorporates the views advanced by my father\nsome thirty-five years ago, concerning the ejection theory of comets,\nstanchly advocated by Dr. Crommelin, as compared with the more modern\ncapture theory. The chapter is also of special interest, as, in a way,\nit partly supplies the missing chapter in my father\u2019s unfinished work,\n_Old and New Astronomy_.\n\n MARY PROCTOR.\n\n\n LONDON, _April, 1926_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER ONE\n COMETS AS PORTENTS\n\n \u201cLo! from the dread immensity of Space,\n Returning with accelerated pace,\n The rushing comet to the sun descends:\n And, as he shrinks below the shading Earth,\n With awful train projected o\u2019er the Heavens,\n The guilty nations tremble.\u201d\n \u2014THOMSON.\n\n\nCan there be anything more awe-inspiring to the superstitious than the\nstealthy approach of a comet as it wends its way among the stars,\nfinally blazing out with a marvelous train as it draws near to the sun\nto pay homage? As a distant relative of that luminary, it comes for an\noccasional visit from far-off realms, and after a brief display during\nwhich it adorns itself with a splendor befitting the momentous occasion,\nit withdraws into the obscurity from which it emerged. In these\nenlightened days a comet is greeted with enthusiasm, and the camera\nkeeps a faithful record of its varying appearance, but in olden times it\nwas regarded as a portent of evil.\n\nComets have sometimes been pictured as dragons, and according to Pliny\nthe shape of a comet indicated its character as a portent. Thus, some\nwere shown as arrow heads, sea monsters, swords, lances, and flames. In\nA.D. 69, according to Josephus, several signs appeared in the sky\nannouncing the destruction of Jerusalem.\n\n \u201cAmongst other warnings, a comet, one of the kind called Xiphias,\n because their tails appear to represent the blade of a sword, was\n seen above the city for the space of a whole year.\u201d\n\nRegarding the comet of A.D. 79, it is said to have preceded the death of\nthe Roman Emperor Vespasian. When the physicians reproved the emperor\nfor continuing to live as usual, attending to the business of the state,\nalthough attacked by a serious malady, he replied, \u201cIt is fitting that\nan emperor should die standing.\u201d Then perceiving some courtiers who were\nconversing together in a low tone of voice about the comet, gazing\nsignificantly in his direction meanwhile, he remarked: \u201cThis hairy star\ndoes not concern me; it menaces rather the King of the Parthians, for he\nis hairy and I am bald.\u201d Feeling his end approach, he observed, \u201cI think\nthat I am becoming a god.\u201d\n\nVirgil compares a hero in his shining armor to a comet, and makes\nanother allusion to these objects at the end of the first Georgic (Bk.\nI, 487\u2013488) in the couplet thus rendered by the Rev. Canon Newbolt:\n\n \u201cAt no other time did more thunderbolts fall in a clear sky, nor so\n often did dread comets blaze.\u201d\n\nIn the natural history of Pliny we find several passages relating to the\nsignificance attached to comets by the ancients. For instance, when\nreferring to the comet of 48 B.C., he observes:\n\n \u201cWe have in the war between C\u00e6sar and Pompey an example of the\n terrible effects which follow the apparition of a comet.... That\n fearful star, which overthrows the powers of the earth, showed its\n terrible locks.\u201d\n\nThe superstitious dread in which comets were held in the Middle Ages is\nexemplified in the gloomy forebodings of disaster, such as wars,\npestilence, and the death of kings, when these apparitions were seen in\nthe heavens. Well known is Shakespeare\u2019s allusion to comets in Act II,\nSc. 2 of \u201cJulius C\u00e6sar\u201d:\n\n \u201cWhen beggars die, there are no comets seen;\n The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.\u201d\n\nIn \u201cHenry VI\u201d we find the following passage in Part I, Act I, Sc. 1:\n\n \u201cComets, importing change of times and states\n Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky;\n And with them scourge the bad revolting stars\n That have consented unto Henry\u2019s death.\u201d\n\nThe comet of A.D. 451 or A.D. 453 announced the death of Attila, and the\ncomet of A.D. 455 that of the Emperor Valentinian. So widely spread was\nthe belief in the connection between the death of the great, and these\nmenacing signs in the heavens, that the chroniclers of old appear to\nhave recorded comets which were never seen, such as the comet of A.D.\n814, which was supposed to have presaged the death of Charlemagne.\n\nWhen the end of the world was expected in A.D. 1000, the most simple\nphenomena assumed terrible proportions. We are told of earthquakes, and\na comet visible for nine days.\n\n \u201cThe heavens having opened, a kind of burning torch fell upon the\n earth, leaving behind it a long train of light similar to a flash of\n lightning. Such was its light that it frightened not only those who\n were in the open country, but those who were within doors. As this\n opening in the heavens closed imperceptibly there became visible the\n figure of a dragon, whose feet were blue, and whose head seemed\n continually to increase.\u201d\n\nHowever, this was more likely the momentary appearance of a shooting\nstar or fireball, than the comet which the chronicler records as\nremaining visible for nine days.\n\nA terrible picture accompanies the description, showing a meteor track\nso arranged as to resemble the outline of a dragon, and lest the\nresemblance might not seem convincing enough, a fearsome looking dragon\nto match is set beside the celestial apparition labeled \u201c_Serpens cum\nceruleis pedibus_.\u201d\n\nFortunately, people were too busy in those \u201cgood old times\u201d fighting and\nplundering one another to pay much heed to these omens in the sky.\nMoreover, with regard to the threatened end of the world, many contented\nthemselves with the reflection that they could not be much worse off,\neven if the world should perish at that period. Consequently, a comet\nscare was averted, and we have clear evidence that, as far as the\npredicted catastrophe was concerned, everything went on as usual. A.D.\n1000 came and went, and still the world endured.\n\nGreat importance has been attached to the seeming connection between\nHalley\u2019s famous comet and the portent theory, with striking events which\nhave occurred upon the occasion of its several returns. For instance, at\nits return in A.D. 66 it was probably the sword of fire described by\nJosephus as suspended over Jerusalem not long before the destruction of\nthat city by Titus. Its appearance in A.D. 451 coincided with the defeat\nof Attila at Ch\u00e2lons, and it was pictured in the _Nuremberg Chronicle_\nfor A.D. 684.\n\nIt is well known in connection with the famous Bayeux tapestry into\nwhich Queen Matilda wove the story of William the Conqueror\u2019s defeat of\nHarold on the memorable occasion of the battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.\nPeople are shown pointing to an object in the sky, which is labeled\n_Isti Mirant Stellam_, the wonderful so-called \u201chairy star\u201d which\nsupposedly heralded the success of the Conqueror.\n\nOn an adjoining panel is pictured the dejected Harold about to topple\noff his throne, and a solitary attendant expressing alarm at the\ndefeated monarch\u2019s precarious position, but apparently offering no\nassistance of value. Thus the comet on this occasion served the double\npurpose, it would seem, of announcing success on the one hand and defeat\non the other. Undoubtedly it caused great alarm on account of its\nbrightness and rapid motion.\n\nIn 1456 it returned at a period of great anxiety, when the Turks, having\ntaken possession of Constantinople three years before, now turned their\nattention to Belgrade, which they were besieging. It happened that the\nmoon was passing through the crescent phase at the time, and Halley\u2019s\ncomet presented the appearance of a sword. The crescent moon, resembling\nthe Turkish emblem, is said to have been considered an evil omen by the\nTurks, contributing eventually to their defeat.\n\nComing to our own times, it is surprising the amount of fear and\ndistress which was caused at the return of Halley\u2019s comet in 1910.\nInsanity and even cases of suicide followed at its approach, and there\nis a well-authenticated case of an enthusiastic young lady in New\nJersey, U. S. A., who declared her intention of following the comet\nwheresoever it went, but was restrained by her friends, and temporary\nseclusion in an asylum, from this perilous pursuit.\n\nAs the time drew near for the comet to pass from the morning to the\nevening sky, when, according to calculations, it would cross the plane\nof the earth\u2019s orbit at a point exactly between the earth and the sun,\nfresh alarm was caused lest the earth, in plunging through the d\u00e9bris of\nthe comet\u2019s train, might come to grief in consequence. A report that we\nshould be asphyxiated by the poisonous gases, such as cyanogen, of which\nthe train was said to be partly composed, did not tend to lessen the\nalarm. Cautious folk laid in a supply of bottles of oxygen to sustain\nlife during the fatal night, and one or two of a pessimistic turn of\nmind actually forestalled the expected tragedy by committing suicide.\nYet nothing happened, for the simple reason that on the night of the\ngreat adventure the comet obligingly spread its tail so widely apart,\nthat we passed unharmed between two sections thereof.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Drawn by M. Proctor_\n\n DAYLIGHT COMET 1910 A\n\n As seen at Newcastletown Moor, January 28, by the author\n]\n\nNevertheless, despite a few tragedies consequent upon fear at the\ncomet\u2019s near approach, the lurking dread of evil it might have had in\nstore for us was considerably less on the occasion of the return of\nHalley\u2019s comet in 1910, than was usual in the gloomy, prognosticating\nperiod of the Middle Ages. Yet certain events occurred which made some\npeople wonder if there was not a kernel of truth in the so-called\nportents after all. For instance, during the month of January (in the\neventful year 1910) the so-called Daylight comet\u2014a totally unexpected\nvisitor to the sun\u2019s domain\u2014blazed out in the evening sky and the people\nof Paris saw its reflection in the flood which threatened to destroy\ntheir city. In May, while Londoners were watching for Halley\u2019s comet,\nwhich proved to be a very disappointing spectacle in this part of the\nworld, the body of King Edward the Seventh lay in state at Westminster.\n\u201cWhat wonder,\u201d as Mr. Arthur R. Hinks observes in his book entitled\n_Astronomy_, \u201cthat the imagination seizes upon these deplorable\ncoincidences and the fear of comets dies hard among us?\u201d\n\nTennyson thus refers to Halley\u2019s comet in his poem \u201cHarold\u201d:\n\n \u201cLo! there once more\u2014this is the seventh night\n You grimly-glaring, treble-brandished scourge of England.\n\n \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7\n\n Look you, there\u2019s a star.\n\n \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7\n\n It glares in heaven, it flares upon the Thames,\n The people are as thick as bees below,\n They hum like bees\u2014they cannot speak\u2014for awe,\n Lord Leodwin, dost thou believe that these\n Three rods of blood-red fire up yonder mean\n The doom of England and the wrath of Heaven?\u201d\n\nMilton in \u201cParadise Lost\u201d compares Satan to a comet:\n\n \u201cThat fires the length of Ophiuchus huge\n In the Arctic sky, and from his horrid hair\n Shakes pestilence and war.\u201d\n\nIt has been suggested that the poet was doubtless referring to the comet\nof 1618, which was held responsible for the great Thirty Years\u2019 War.\nMilton was only ten years old at the time, but the impression made on\nhis mind by this magnificent comet with a train 104\u00b0 long (or over\ntwenty times the distance separating the pointers in the constellation\nof the Great Bear), \u201cmay well have lasted until he wrote the above lines\nas a man of fifty.\u201d[1]\n\nElsewhere, in \u201cParadise Lost,\u201d Milton refers to a comet as the\nbrandish\u2019d sword of God:\n\n \u201c... before them blaz\u2019d\n Fierce as a Comet: which, with torrid heat,\n And vapours as the Lybian air adust,\n Began to parch that Temperate clime.\u201d\n\nAccording to the translation by Longfellow, Dante in his \u201cParadiso,\u201d\nCanto XXIV, refers to comets as \u201csouls beatified.\u201d\n\n \u201cThus Beatrice: and those souls beatified\n Transformed themselves to spheres on steadfast poles\n Flaming intensely in the guise of Comets.\u201d\n\nTurning to the _Avesta_ writings, we find that the Parsees of ancient\nPersia classified comets as parihs, or fairies. _Pari_ is the Iranian\nword for fairy, and is derived from the word \u201cpar,\u201d meaning to tempt, to\nenchant. The English word \u201cfairy\u201d also comes from a similar root,\n\u201cfier,\u201d to enchant.\n\nNevertheless, these cometary fairies are not the dainty beings of\nEnglish folk-lore, but are described in the _Avesta_ as \u201cill-born\nfairies,\u201d their appearance in the sky inspiring terror, since they are\nsupposed to bring disease, calamity, and death in their wake. In the\npicturesque language of the Persian writer, \u201cthe distress of the earth\nbecomes as that of a sheep when a wolf falls upon it.\u201d\n\nThe following quaint account of the influence of a comet is given in the\n_Avesta_.\n\n \u201cA hairy comet appeared in the year 662, Hijri, and the increase of\n the splendour of the world was in Leo. The strange thing was that it\n appeared to be of the proportion of the head of a big man and\n emitted steam from the front. It passed over the countries of Tibet,\n Turkestan, China, Kashgar and remained visible for 85 days. In all\n these countries there arose rebellions. In Khorassan calamities of\n thunder and lightning and other such phenomena appeared.\n\n \u201cMany years and many months had passed over this event, and then in\n 803, a tailed comet appeared in the zenith of Constantinople.\n Astrologers informed Timur that from what the wise and the\n experienced have said, it appears that an army coming from the\n direction of the east will be victorious in that country, and a\n general from that country will assist him. Timur (literally: the\n illuminator of the face of fortune), who was always expecting an\n invasion of the country, but whose companions of poor intelligence\n did not acquiesce, attended to that prediction and convinced the\n great and small of his court, of the truth and insight of the\n star-seers. The learned in the mysteries of the heavens are\n convinced of this, that if the comet appears within the boundaries\n of a country, its king dies. If it is inclined towards the boundary,\n the country of the governor passes away from his hands, and plague\n and disease add to the afflictions of the country.\u201d[2]\n\nSome of the Pahlavi books refer to a comet as \u201cthe thievish Mushpar\nprovided with tails.\u201d The comet was classified as an evil spirit in\ncompany with planets and meteors which wandered hither and thither;\nwhile the sun, moon, and fixed stars were considered good spirits,\nbecause they were always to be found at appointed times in their places\nin the sky.\n\nIn the mythology of China and Japan we find that comets were supposed to\nbe celestial representatives of every country on the earth, and occupied\nthe important position of ambassadors journeying from one celestial\nregion to another, and giving forecasts of terrestrial events of\nimportance. For this reason, careful records were kept of the dates of\ntheir appearance and the paths along which they traveled, thus enabling\nastronomers of to-day to trace back the path of Halley\u2019s comet, for\ninstance, to a very remote era. Whatever the motive that prompted the\naccumulation of records, they have proved of the utmost value.\n\nComets are called \u201cbroom stars\u201d in China, a name derived from the form\nof their tails, which have the very prosaic name of brooms (sui or\nsoui). A comet without a tail was referred to as merely a star, or a\nguest star, from its visiting the provinces and taking up its abode in\ndifferent places, as at an inn.\n\n \u201cTheir home was in the vestibule of the celestial palaces; there,\n under an invisible form, they awaited the order of departure,\u201d says\n Pingr\u00e9, \u201cthe order sent, they became visible and commenced their\n journey. If, whilst on their way they put forth a tail, the star was\n said to have become a comet.\u201d\n\nThe above quotation, remarks the same author, explains:\n\n \u201cthe foolish and singular idea that the Chinese formed of the\n heavens. According to them, the heavens represented a great empire,\n composed of kingdoms and provinces; these provinces were the\n constellations; there was decided all that would happen for good or\n ill to the great terrestrial empire, that is, to China. The planets\n were the administrators or superintendents of the celestial\n republic, the stars were their ministers, and the comets their\n couriers or messengers. The planets sent their messengers from time\n to time to visit the provinces for the purpose of restoring or\n maintaining order, but all that was done in the heavens above was\n either the cause or the forerunner of what was to happen below.\u201d\n\nThe ideas of the Chinese were not more foolish than the extravagant\nmyths of the ancients, and of the Europeans in the Middle Ages.\nNevertheless, although comets are no longer regarded with superstitious\nawe, mystery still clings to them. For those who are unaware of the fact\nthat astronomers can trace their paths, predict the periodic returns of\nthese wanderers, and even analyze the substance of which they are\ncomposed, there are many problems concerning them still awaiting\nsolution.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER TWO\n COMET-HUNTING AS A HOBBY\n\n\n \u201cI have the greatest admiration for a man or woman who discovers a\n comet, because I know of the hard and thorough work which the success\n implies.\u201d\n\n \u2014W. R. BROOKS, the noted American comet-hunter.\n\n\nTo hunt for a comet in the ocean of space is as fascinating a hobby in\nits way as angling for a wily fish, requiring in either case an\nunlimited supply of perseverance, patience, and spare time. In place of\nfishing tackle one requires a telescope with an aperture of four or six\ninches, though excellent work has been accomplished with smaller\ninstruments. It should be erected in a position commanding a clear view\nof the horizon either eastward or westward, as comets travel in the wake\nof the rising or setting sun. During the daytime a glance at a map\nshowing the region of the sky to be examined in the evening will save an\nendless waste of time, to say nothing of the disappointment when the\nsuspected object proves to be a nebula and not a comet. On the other\nhand, fuzzy-looking objects resembling comets have been mistaken for\nnebul\u00e6 when in reality they _were_ comets. For instance, in looking over\nSir William Herschel\u2019s list of 1,000 nebul\u00e6 and clusters, presented by\nhim to the Royal Society in 1786, suspicion is aroused by the following\nentry: \u201cSome of the shape of a fan, resembling an electric brush,\nissuing from a lucid point, others of the cometic shape, with a seeming\nnucleus in the center, or like cloudy stars surrounded with a nebulous\natmosphere.\u201d (_Philosophical Transactions_, Vol. LXXIV, p. 442.) As we\nshall see later on, the descriptions tally with the appearance of comets\nwhich have been photographed.\n\nNebul\u00e6 and clusters likely to be on the list of \u201csuspects\u201d have been\ncharted in my father\u2019s _New Star Atlas_, edition 1915, containing maps\nof all the stars down to the sixth magnitude (that is, all stars which\ncan be seen with the naked eye), as well as the positions of nebul\u00e6,\nclusters, and fainter stars which become visible with the aid of a small\ntelescope. It is a compact, handy volume, serving as an excellent guide\nfor the amateur comet-hunter in his rambles through starland in search\nof cometary prey.\n\nProvided with a copy of this book, and allowed the privilege of using\nthe Brashear (name of the maker), Comet-Seeker, which is stationed on\nthe main roof of the Yerkes Observatory at Williams Bay, Wisconsin, U.\nS. A., the writer spent many a delightful evening during the summer of\n1910, scanning the evening sky for celestial wanderers. Unable to resist\nthe temptation to linger by the way in admiration of double stars,\nclusters, and nebul\u00e6 strewn along the highways and byways of starland,\ncomets missed recognition.[3] Nevertheless, the evenings spent with the\nlittle comet-seeker were a source of unqualified delight, though no\ncomet hove in sight.\n\nThe telescope of six inches aperture, easily handled, is inclosed in a\nsort of cabin which rolls on wheels. This can be pushed backward a\ncertain distance, leaving the instrument out in the open air.\nFortunately, the width of the cabin was such that it was just possible\nfor the writer to catch hold of the rods on each side, drawing them\nbackward the distance required; while shutting it was an easier matter,\nrequiring as a rule a gentle push, sending the cabin back on the rollers\nprovided for this purpose. Before doing so, however, the telescope was\nleveled and carefully wrapped up to keep it free from any moisture or\ndampness which might penetrate from the outside, and anyone who has\npassed a winter in Wisconsin knows something of the deep snowdrifts\nwhich must settle several feet deep in such an exposed site as the main\nroof of the Yerkes Observatory building. After the cabin has been\nclosed, it is hooked at the sides and remains so until the services of\nthe telescope within are once more required.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE COMET-SEEKER ON THE ROOF OF THE YERKES OBSERVATORY, AT WILLIAMS\n BAY, WISCONSIN\n]\n\nThen the cabin is reopened and the wrappings are removed from the\ntelescope, which is turned in the direction of a specially selected\nstar. This is kept in the center of the field of view, which is marked\nby the intersection of two threads made from a spider\u2019s web. As there is\nno clockwork attachment, the telescope is guided by means of a small\nscrew like a miniature wheel or helm, enabling the observer to pilot his\nor her way through the ocean of space. Then a keen search is made in the\nsurrounding region, and if nothing in the way of a comet \u201cstands\nrevealed\u201d to the searching eye of the telescope, another region is\nexplored, so that a more or less extended expanse of sky comes under\nobservation during the course of the evening. On one eventful occasion a\nsupposed comet was glimpsed and its position duly charted with regard to\nneighboring stars. However, on reference to the star map the\nfuzzy-looking object proved to be a nebula. Supposing by any possibility\nthe suspected object _had_ been a comet, this could have been proved\nbeyond doubt by watching it for two or three evenings in succession. The\npresence of a comet can be detected as it slowly drifts against a\nbackground composed of the stars, while the nebula is at a distance so\nremote that an observer would have to watch for centuries before he\ndetected any perceptible motion.\n\nNevertheless, there is a close resemblance between the hazy-looking\nobjects known as nebul\u00e6 and comets when they emerge from obscurity. For\nthis reason, they gave a great deal of trouble to Messier, a French\nastronomer of the eighteenth century. So keen was he on capturing comets\nthat Louis XV nicknamed him \u201cthe Ferret of Comets.\u201d Consequently, we can\nimagine his annoyance, after discovering a supposed comet, at finding it\nwas merely a cloudy-looking object which he termed a nebula. He kept a\ncareful record of these \u201cembarrassing objects,\u201d so that he might not be\nled astray by them again, and labeled them Messier 1, Messier 2, and\nMessier 3, in the order of discovery, and these are usually briefly\nrecorded on star maps as M1, M2, M3, etc. In this way, Messier made a\nlist of forty-five nebul\u00e6, which he entered in a catalogue published at\nParis in 1771. A century later (1871) the list had been enlarged by one\nhundred and three discoveries. For the listing of these \u201cembarrassing\nobjects,\u201d as Messier termed them, we are greatly indebted, since in\nrecent years photography has revealed the fact that they are among the\nmost marvelous objects in the heavens.\n\nWith the assistance of a small two-foot telescope of two and a half\ninches aperture, magnifying five times, and with a field of view\ncovering four or five degrees, Messier discovered thirteen comets. His\nfirst comet dates from 1760, and another French astronomer named Pons,\nwho discovered a comet in 1802, joined him in the pioneer work of making\na systematic search for comets. It is interesting to note that Pons was\na doorkeeper at the Observatory at Marseilles, and, owing to the\nteaching and encouragement he received from Thulis, the director, he\nachieved phenomenal success as a comet-hunter. A third name must be\nadded to the list of these enterprising searchers after cometary prey,\n_viz._, that of Montaigne, between whom and Messier existed a keen\nrivalry. The following story shows the importance attached by the latter\nto each comet captured.\n\nIt seems that on one occasion Messier, who had discovered twelve comets,\nwas looking for his thirteenth, when his wife was taken seriously ill\nand died. While attending to her he was hindered in his search for the\ncomet which was found by his rival, Montaigne. When some one sympathized\nwith him about the loss he had sustained he said, \u201cAlas! Montaigne has\nrobbed me of my thirteenth comet!\u201d Then realizing that he should be\nmourning the loss of his wife, he added the remark, \u201cAh! poor woman!\u201d\nbut he continued grieving for his lost comet.\n\nApparently Messier\u2019s path was beset with difficulties, for in his book\nentitled _Planetary Worlds_ Breen tells us that on one occasion while\nMessier was walking in President Saron\u2019s garden he was doubtless looking\nup at the sky on the chance of detecting a comet, when he fell into an\nicehouse, and was temporarily disabled. Later on, we are told in the\nsame book, the revolution deprived Messier of his little income and\nevery evening he was wont to repair to the house of the noted astronomer\nLalande to replenish the supply of oil for his midnight lamp. The\npolitical storm made it necessary for him to remove to another\nneighborhood, \u201cwhere he no longer heard the clocks of forty-two churches\nsounding the hours during the night watchings.\u201d\n\nPossibly his most trying experience occurred in connection with the\nexpected return of Halley\u2019s comet in 1758. It was first observed by a\nfarmer named Palitzsch, living at Prohlis, near Dresden, who saw it on\nChristmas Day, 1758, with a telescope of eight-foot focus. He was an\namateur astronomer possessed of keen sight, and was in the habit of\nsearching the heavens with the naked eye, which seems to have given rise\nto the statement that he found Halley\u2019s comet with the naked eye at a\ntime when the professional astronomers were searching for it in vain\nwith their telescopes.\n\nMeanwhile, Messier had been carrying on a prolonged watch of the\nheavens, extending over the whole of the year 1758, but he did not\nactually get a view of Halley\u2019s comet until January 21, 1759, when he\nobserved it regularly for three weeks. He was the first noted astronomer\nto do so, but according to the account given by J. Russell Hind, in his\nbook on _The Comets_ (page 41):\n\n \u201cDelisle, then director of the Observatory at Paris, would not allow\n him to give notice to the astronomers of that city that the\n long-expected body was in sight, and Messier remained the only\n observer before the comet was lost in the sun\u2019s rays. Such a\n discreditable and selfish concealment of an interesting discovery is\n not likely to sully again the annals of astronomy. Some members of\n the French Academy looked upon Messier\u2019s observations, when\n published, as forgeries, but his name stood too high for such\n imputations to last long, and the positions were soon received as\n authentic, and have been of great service in correcting the orbit of\n the comet at this (1835) return.\u201d\n\nThe name of J. R. Hind, by the way, is the only English one included in\nthe list of those who received a gold medal given to the discoverer of\ntelescopic comets by Frederick VI, King of Denmark, who instituted the\ndistribution of this award in the year 1835. The gold medal was also won\nby an American astronomer, Maria Mitchell, who discovered a comet,\nOctober 1, 1847, while engaged in making observations from the roof of\nthe Nantucket Athen\u00e6um. When eighteen years old she was appointed\nlibrarian at the Athen\u00e6um, which position she held for twenty years. The\nroof of the building was her observatory. In 1865 she became professor\nof astronomy at Vassar College, a position she retained until her health\npermitted her to do so no longer.\n\nThe grant of the medal by King Frederick VI was discontinued after the\ndeath of his successor, Christian VIII, in 1848. The Vienna Academy of\nSciences formerly gave a gold medal to the discoverer of every new\ncomet, but this also was discontinued in 1880. Then Mr. H. H. Warner, a\nwealthy American, came to the rescue and offered a prize of two hundred\ndollars for every unexpected comet found by an observer in Canada or U.\nS. A., which brings us to the story told in the autobiography of the\nlate Professor E. E. Barnard, one of the most successful competitors. He\nhad nineteen comets to his credit, resulting in the erection of what he\nquaintly termed \u201cThe house that was built with comets.\u201d\n\n \u201cTimes were hard in the last of the \u2019seventies and the first of the\n \u2019eighties, and money was scarce. It had taken all that I could save\n to buy my small telescope. I had been searching for comets for\n upward of a year with no success, when a prize of two hundred\n dollars for the discovery of each new comet was offered (in 1880) by\n the founder of the Warner Observatory through the agency of Dr.\n Lewis Swift, its director. Soon after this it happened that I found\n a new comet and was awarded the prize. Then came the question, \u2018What\n shall we do with the money?\u2019 After due deliberation it was decided\n that we [referring to Mrs. Barnard] would try to get a home of our\n own with it. I had always longed for such a home where one could\n plant trees and watch them grow up and call them our own. So we\n bought a lot with part of the money, which was on what was\n afterwards called Belmont Avenue, but which was not then even a\n road. It was hard to find the lot after it was bought, for it was\n out in the open common. The place was in the midst of a scattered\n settlement of negro shanties, where the negroes had \u2018squatted\u2019 after\n the war, though on beautiful rising ground which I had selected in\n part because it gave me a clear horizon with my telescope.\n\n \u201cAfter some saving and some borrowing, and mainly a mortgage on the\n lot, we built a little frame cottage where my mother, my wife, and I\n went to live. Those were happy days, though the struggle for a\n livelihood was a hard one, with working from early to late for a\n bare sustenance (and the hope of paying off the mortgage), and\n sitting up all the rest of the twenty-four hours, hunting for\n comets.\n\n \u201cWe could only look forward with dread to the meeting of the notes\n that must come due. However, when the first note was due a faint\n comet was discovered wandering along the outskirts of creation, and\n the money went to meet the payments, and this continued after we had\n gone to other scenes. The faithful comet, like the goose that laid\n the golden egg, conveniently timed its appearance to coincide with\n the advent of those dreaded notes. And thus it finally came about\n that the house was built entirely of comets. This fact goes to prove\n the great error of those scientific men who figure out that a comet\n is but a flimsy affair after all, infinitely more rare than the\n breath of the morning air, for here was a strong compact house,\n albeit a small one, built entirely out of them. True, it took\n several good-sized comets to do it, but it was done, nevertheless.\u201d\n\nIn connection with the prize offered by Dr. H. H. Warner, Professor W.\nH. Brooks discovered twenty comets; Barnard, nineteen, as already\nstated; Perrine, thirteen; and Swift, eleven. Awarding this prize was\ngiven up after a while, but the idea was again revived by a wealthy\nAmerican, the late Mr. J. M. Donohoe, in the year 1890, with the result\nthat a bronze medal is now presented to the discoverer of any new comet,\non the report of a committee of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.\nThere were two awards for the year 1923. Comet A was discovered\nindependently by Sr. Dr. Arturo Bernard, Colmenarejo, Madrid, Spain, on\nOctober 11, 1923; and by Alexander D. Dubiago, of Kasan, Russia, on\nOctober 14, 1923. The medal was awarded to each of these two\ndiscoverers. On November 10, 1923, Mr. W. Reid, of Rondebosch, South\nAfrica, who has been awarded several of the medals for his discoveries\nof comets, added another to his list of captures.\n\nRegarding the ease with which comets may be discovered in the clear\nskies of America, Professor H. H. Turner, in his lecture on Halley\u2019s\ncomet, given before the British Association in 1908 at Dublin, referred\nto a meeting which took place at Albany, New York, of the Board of\nVisitors. A discussion arose as to the value of some desk work which the\ndirector was carrying on, as compared with the discovery of a comet,\nwhich it was suggested would surely add to the reputation of the\nobservatory. Professor Boss (the director) promptly remarked that\nnothing was easier, if they would sanction the outlay of certain sums of\nmoney to be used as salary for a person of average intelligence, while\ndevoting himself to the search.\n\n \u201cThe challenge was accepted on the spot,\u201d remarked Professor Turner,\n \u201cthe money subscribed, the searcher set to work, and within the\n allotted time a fine comet was found. Professor Boss undoubtedly\n took a certain risk in undertaking to catch a comet, just as a man\n who would undertake to catch a fish within a definite time. But he\n was anxious to indicate his views of the relative importance of\n different kinds of work, and deserved the success he ventured to\n count upon.\u201d\n\nOne wonders if this was the occasion referred to when it is said that\nthe comet-hunter, after a preliminary search for a comet, returned to\nthe room where the Visitors were awaiting his report, announcing that he\nhad discovered a comet in such and such a part of the sky. It was\nimmediately claimed by Professor Barnard, who was present on this\noccasion, as one that had already been discovered by him last spring, or\na year or so ago, as the case might be. After this had occurred two or\nthree times, it is said, the comet-hunter remarked to Professor Barnard,\n\u201cWhy don\u2019t you keep your comets chained?\u201d However, it may be as well to\ntake this story _cum grano salis_.\n\nThe cloud-laden skies of England are not encouraging, as far as\ncomet-hunting is concerned. It may be possible, when the moon is absent,\nto get a glimpse of a comet low down in the vapors after sunrise or\nsunset, if the chances are favorable. Then follows a week of cloud and\nmisty skies during which period the comet has vanished. For this reason\nthe discovery of comets in England is rare, but all the more credit to\nthose who eventually succeed in making a capture.\n\nOur veteran comet-hunter is Mr. W. F. Denning, of Bristol, who has\nspecialized in the observation of comets and meteors. In his book on\n_Telescopic Work on Starlight Evenings_ he gives an instance of two\nexperiences he had in the year 1881, showing how he missed one comet,\nbut succeeded in finding another, just before sunrise, when\ncomet-hunting is not nearly as attractive, one imagines, as in the\nevening.\n\nIt seems that on July 11, 1881, after a night\u2019s observation of the\nstars, Mr. Denning, just before daylight and preparatory to ceasing\nwork, looked in the direction of the constellation Auriga, the\nCharioteer. The idea occurred to him that it might be worth while to\nsweep the surrounding region with his comet eyepiece, but he hesitated,\nnot thinking the prospect sufficiently inviting. There is a well-known\nsaying that he who hesitates is lost, and on this occasion Mr. Denning\nundoubtedly missed an opportunity for finding a comet. Three nights\nlater a bright comet in Auriga was discovered by Schaeberle, an American\nastronomer at Ann Arbor, Michigan!\n\nThat same year, on October 4, Mr. Denning had been observing the planet\nJupiter before sunrise, when once more he hesitated as to the\nadvisability of making an attempt at comet-seeking, but, profiting by\nhis former experience, he made use of the comet eyepiece with good\nresults. To quote his own words\u2014\n\n \u201cat almost my first sweep I alighted upon a suspicious object which\n afterwards proved itself a comet of short period,\u201d\n\nwhich means that it is a frequent visitor to the neighborhood of the\nsun. These facts are encouraging, and still more so when we remember\nthat Kepler said, \u201cthere are as many comets in the sky as there are\nfishes in the sea.\u201d\n\nThe first woman to discover a comet was Caroline Herschel, the sister of\nthe famous astronomer, Sir W. Herschel, and she had eight to her credit.\nIn her diary, which has been most carefully preserved by Miss Francesca\nHerschel at Observatory House, Slough, there is an account of her first\ndiscovery which occurred on August 1, 1786. During the absence of her\nbrother in Germany she availed herself of the opportunity to make use of\na small Newtonian telescope he had given her, in \u201csweeping the skies.\u201d\nHer \u201csweeper,\u201d as she termed it, was of 27-inch focal length, a power of\nabout 20, and a field of view 2\u00b0 12\u2032.\n\nMiss Herschel had been observing nebul\u00e6 when she saw what she believed\nmight prove to be a comet. At one o\u2019clock on the morning of August 2 she\nmade the following brief note in her diary: \u201cThe object last night _is_\na comet,\u201d and she wrote to Dr. Blagden of the Royal Astronomical\nSociety, asking him to take the comet under his protection \u201cin regard to\nits right ascension and declination,\u201d which correspond to latitude and\nlongitude of a place on earth. The right ascension of a heavenly body is\nmeasured eastward along the celestial equator, from the vernal equinox\nto the hour circle on which the object lies. Declination of a heavenly\nbody is its distance north or south of the celestial equator, measured\non a great circle passing through the pole and the celestial body.\n\nCaroline Herschel sent drawings she had made, showing the position of\nthe suspected object with regard to certain stars in the same field of\nview, to Dr. Blagden. He was thus enabled to locate the comet and\nconfirm her observation. When this discovery of a comet was followed by\nseven more, Caroline Herschel succeeded in making for herself a European\nreputation for what was called \u201cher eccentric vocation.\u201d\n\nIn 1828 she received the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society,\nand in 1835 was elected an honorary member thereof. The personal\ninterest she took in her cometary captures is evidenced by a neat little\npacket found among her papers after her death, containing the account of\nher discoveries. It was labeled \u201cBills and Receipts of my Comets.\u201d This\nalso has been carefully preserved by Miss Francesca Herschel (the\ngranddaughter of Sir William Herschel) who showed it to the writer\nduring the summer of 1922.\n\nSearching for comets is not part of the defined programs of\nobservatories, as it involves an immense amount of time with results\nwhich only present themselves at intervals. However, when an amateur\nsucceeds in discovering a comet and has made known the fact to a\nprofessional astronomer, the latter completes the work of computing its\norbit and other elements, which is not usually undertaken by the\ndiscoverer, unless he has the requisite mathematical knowledge.\n\nYet it is advantageous, if he possesses a ring micrometer (an instrument\nused for the measurement of small angles), to learn how to make use of\nit during the first few observations, which are usually made before the\ncomet has been seen elsewhere. These observations, if precise, will\nprove of the greatest value. The news of the discovery of a comet should\nbe sent at the first opportunity to the director of the nearest\nobservatory, who will communicate with the director (Elis Stromgren) of\nthe Bureau Centrale Astronomique de l\u2019Union Astronomique Internationale,\nObservatoire de Copenhagen, from which center it will be sent broadcast\nall over the world. The discoverer will then experience the delight of\nhaving a comet named after him, which he can claim forthwith as his own\nindividual celestial treasure trove. As a matter of fact, newly\ndiscovered comets are now usually referred to by their date and order of\ndiscovery, as Comet 1, 1924, saving much confusion as to the name of the\nactual discoverer. This was exemplified in the case of a comet found by\nPons in 1819 (III of that year), which Encke showed to be revolving in\nan ellipse with a periodic time of three and one-half years. Hence its\nname of Encke\u2019s comet. It was again renamed after Winnecke, who\nrediscovered it in 1858, but actually he had no more claim to the title\nthan Caroline Herschel, who discovered it in 1795\u2014her seventh comet\u2014or\nM\u00e9chain by whom it had been previously seen in January, 1786.\n\nThe majority of comets travel in an ellipse, and those of short period,\nlike Encke\u2019s comet, make short journeys and may be considered frequent\nvisitors to the neighborhood of the sun. Others are long-period comets,\nsuch as Donati\u2019s (described in the following chapter), since it requires\nnearly two thousand years for the round trip. Finally there is a third\nclass of adventurous comets which dash in from outer space, swinging\nswiftly round the sun in the focus of its curve, and darting off again\nwith no prospect of returning, since they cannot possibly get round the\nother focus. Whence they have come or whither they have gone, no man\nknows! They are like the sparrow referred to in a simile used by a\ncourtier in the days of King Edwin, who compared its fleeting visit to\nthe life of a man:\n\n \u201cIt is as a sparrow\u2019s flight through the hall when you are sitting\n at meat in winter tide, with the warm fire lighted on the hearth,\n but the icy rain storm without. The sparrow flies in at one door,\n and tarries for a moment in the light and heat of the hearth fire,\n and then flying forth from the other, vanishes into the wintry\n darkness whence it came.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER THREE\n THE STORY OF DONATI\u2019S COMET\n\n Hast thou ne\u2019er seen the comet\u2019s flaming flight?\n Th\u2019 illustrious stranger, passing terror sheds\n On gazing Nations, from his fiery train\n Of length enormous, takes his ample round\n Thro\u2019 depths of ether; coasts unnumbered Worlds,\n Of more than solar glory, doubles wide\n Heaven\u2019s mighty cape; and then revisits Earth,\n From the long travel of a thousand years.\n \u2014YOUNG. \u201cNight Thoughts.\u201d\n\n\nWhen a comet draws near to pay its respects to its ruler, the sun, it\nusually assumes a splendor befitting this momentous occasion. It adorns\nitself with a glittering train millions of miles in length, and composed\nof myriads of particles reflecting the sun\u2019s light. The head is often\nenveloped in a multiplicity of transparent veils, through which bright\njets may be seen emanating from the star-like nucleus within. Some\ncomets have been seen with five or six trains, spread out like that of a\npeacock, the camera revealing rapid and marvelous changes in their\nappearance, during the course of a few hours. No fair d\u00e9butante, about\nto be presented to royalty, could vie with a comet in capriciousness\nregarding her raiment, nor could she equal it in splendor, even though\nshe owned the mystic lamp of Aladdin.\n\nThe brief assumption of splendor on the part of a comet is very unlike\nits usual humdrum existence when it is as yet so far distant as to be\nnot only invisible to the comet-hunter, but beyond range of the\nfar-reaching eye of the telescope or the entrapping power of the camera.\nNot the slightest impression is made on the photographic plate, and as\nfar as an observer on planet earth is concerned the comet might have\nceased to exist. It is only when it begins to draw near to the sun that\nwe are enabled to obtain a record of the marvelous changes produced in\nits appearance, until at its nearest approach it has sometimes been\nknown to vibrate as though with intense excitement. For instance, in the\ncase of Biela\u2019s comet, concerning which a special account is given\nfurther on, it was apparently so overcome at its last appearance in\n1846, that it split in two and literally went to pieces.\n\nQuite a different story is told concerning the magnificent comet which\ngreeted us in the summer of 1858, and was first seen at Florence on the\n2d of June by Giambattista Donati, after whom it was named. At the time\nit was merely a nebulous mass about one-twentieth the diameter of the\nmoon, and for some weeks it retained about the same brightness except\nfor a gradual increase in the central star-like point, the only\nindication of its coming splendor. At the end of August it had increased\nso rapidly in brightness that by September it was visible to the unaided\neye, resembling a hazy-looking star adorned with a small tail.\n\nGradually, as it drew nearer to the sun, it increased in size and\nsplendor, reaching its maximum brightness in October. Its train extended\nover an arc of forty degrees, or eight times the distance separating\nAlpha and Beta\u2014the so-called pointers in the constellation of Ursa\nMajor, the Great Bear. Its real length was then about forty-five million\nmiles, with a width of ten million. The nucleus varied in diameter from\nfive hundred miles to three thousand, or nearly half that of our planet\nearth.\n\nThe comet was kept under accurate observation for fully nine months, and\nduring part of that time it was visible to the naked eye. Professor G.\nP. Bond, the director of the Harvard College Observatory, availed\nhimself of the opportunity thus presented, of making a series of\ndrawings of the comet which convey an excellent idea of its changing\nappearance, and the delicate shadings and misty outlines of this\nmarvelous visitant from the star-depths. These drawings are of all the\nmore value, since it will be nearly two thousand years before Donati\u2019s\ncomet visits these realms again.\n\nTo go back to the earlier history of the comet, before these drawings\nwere made, we find that its tail was not observed telescopically until\nseventy-three days after Donati\u2019s discovery. It was seen on August 14,\n1858, by astronomers at Copenhagen and Vienna, but not at Harvard until\nthe 20th of that month. The brilliancy of the comet was somewhat\nimpaired by a strong twilight and its low altitude. This may account for\nthe fact that it was described as ruddy in hue, and concentrated, and\nhaving a mere suggestion of a tail. On August 23 the tail was still so\nfaint as to be easily overlooked in the moonlight, the record being:\n\u201cBright, but no trace of a tail; the sky clear, but the moon nearly at\nfull.\u201d On August 30, according to the record in the _Times_ (London), of\nobservations made by J. Russell Hind, \u201cThe comet was just perceptible to\nthe naked eye; its nucleus is strongly condensed and brilliant, and the\ntail is thrown off in the ordinary form, without bifurcation.\u201d\n\nDuring the month of September the tail of the comet showed a tendency to\ncurve, and by September 7 it was recorded as being very conspicuous to\nthe naked eye. September 12 it had increased wonderfully in brilliancy,\nand on September 16 the first sketch was made by G. P. Bond, showing a\nview of it with the naked eye. The tail was now estimated as being 7\u00b0\nlong, thus exceeding the distance (of 5\u00b0) separating the pointers. A\ntangent to the convex edge near the nucleus prolonged would pass through\nDelta in Ursa Major, and it was noticeable that this side was the\nbrightest in all the sketches. A narrow dark channel extending from the\nnucleus up the axis of the tail was very remarkable, and its edges were\nsurprisingly well defined, especially very near the nucleus. In fact,\nthe comparatively sharp definition of the eastern edge of the tail was\nin marked contrast to the softness of outline on the western side. (See\n_Monthly Notices_, R. A. S., Vol. XIX, pp. 88\u201389.)\n\nBy September 27 the length of the tail as observed with the naked eye\nwas about 9\u00b0 or 10\u00b0. It was curved, convex toward the star Cor Caroli,\nbeing much better defined on the side near the star than on the concave\nside. The narrow dark stripe in the axis of the tail was still very\nmarked, and the outline of the tail could be traced from the nucleus\nhalfway to Delta in Ursa Major, and a degree or so further. It was now\nstrongly curved and its upper outline well defined and bright as\ncompared with the inner. A straight ray or secondary tail could be seen\nfaintly suggested on the eastern side and reaching northward from the\nmain tail.\n\nBy October 3 a marvelous change had taken place in the appearance of the\ncomet. The train had increased in length and brightness, extending\nnearly as far as Eta in Ursa Major, and the straight ray or secondary\ntrain was still very much in evidence. It was supplemented by another\nslender ray, as shown in drawings made by Professor Bond on October 4\nand 5, but it had vanished by October 6, although its position was\nindicated, for that date, in the faint suggestion of a ray between the\nmain tail and the outer or secondary tail. The bright star to the left\nof the nucleus of the comet is Arcturus (in the constellation Bo\u00f6tes),\nover which the comet passed without perceptibly diminishing its\nbrightness, thus showing of what airy texture the train of a comet is\ncomposed. Was it not Sir John Herschel who said that a comet could be\neasily packed in a portmanteau, and in the recent edition of _The Vault\nof Heaven_ Sir Richard Gregory gives the following unique illustration\nof the insignificance of the whole mass of a comet:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n COMET OF DONATI\n\n Photograph taken October 10, 1858, at Harvard College Observatory\n]\n\n \u201cSuppose we could take a comet, head, tail and all, and put it in\n one pan of a balance, and we could carve out from the air which\n surrounds us an object of the same size to put in the other pan, we\n should find that our a\u00ebrial body weighed four or five thousand times\n more than the comet. But though a comet as a whole is lighter than\n air, it must not be concluded that comets consist solely of gases in\n a state of extreme tenuity. The head may be, and very probably is,\n composed of a large number of small but solid bodies; nevertheless,\n when a comet is taken in its entirety, the mean density is extremely\n low.\u201d\n\nBy October 10, the comet was receding from the neighborhood of Ursa\nMajor, drifting across the constellation of Bo\u00f6tes. On this date the\ncomet made its nearest approach to the earth. Its train now resembled\nthat of a widely opened fan, but its outline was already growing dim. It\nshowed strange alterations of dark and bright bands, resembling the\nstreamers which are sometimes seen to break up the continuous outline of\nan auroral arch. The extreme length of the tail was nearly 64\u00b0, the\ngreatest extent observed during the apparition of the comet. The\nsecondary tail was still visible, but extremely faint.\n\nOctober 11, the dark stripe in the tail had almost vanished, the\nsecondary tail was no longer to be seen, and the main tail was curved\nlike an ostrich plume. Its length was now judged to be about 30\u00b0, and\nthe nucleus had somewhat diminished in brightness. By October 15 the\ncomet was considerably fainter and smaller, as seen with the naked eye,\nand it was bent southward like a sail wafted by a celestial breeze.\nAfter the middle of October, the comet was best seen from the southern\nhemisphere, and the last glimpse obtained in the northern hemisphere was\non October 25, when it was at an altitude of 3\u00b0, the sky fortunately\nbeing very clear. The nucleus was still bright, but the tail was only 1\u00b0\nlong.\n\nIts course was then followed by Maclear, Royal Astronomer at the Cape of\nGood Hope, who reported that on December 23 the comet was merely a faint\nnebulous body, about 90\u2033 in diameter, with a slight central condensation\nof light and no trace of a tail. Thus, it vanished in the remote depths\nof space, in the same undecorated condition as when it first made its\neventful d\u00e9but to gladden the eyes of mortals on planet earth. Its visit\nlasted but one hundred and seventy-seven days, from the time of its\nfirst appearance until it took its departure along a track which will\nnot bring it within our ken again until nearly two thousand years have\nrolled away.\n\nBIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.\u2014G. B. Donati, the Italian astronomer, was born at\nPisa, in 1826. At the age of twenty-six, he obtained a post in the\nobservatory at Florence, and there by his superior abilities,\nacquirements, and unwearied application to duty soon gained a high\nreputation among the men of science of his native country. He became\nknown to the world in 1858, by his discovery of the magnificent comet\ncalled by his name. In 1864 he was appointed director of the observatory\nin which he had worked so efficiently for twelve years. He then\nundertook the arduous task of superintending the erection of a new and\nmore convenient observatory on the site of Arcetri, near Florence. All\ndifficulties were conquered, the new observatory was in working\ncondition, and the director had entered upon a new series of\nobservations when his labors were suddenly cut short by death. He died\nat his home in Arcetri, September 29, 1873.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER FOUR\n COMETS IN DISTRESS\n\n \u201cThou comest whence no mortal seer can know,\n Thou goest whither nothing human dreams.\u201d\n \u2014ANON.\n\n\nUntil the photographic eyes of Science detected the peculiarities of\ncomets, and mathematicians calculated with unerring accuracy their\ncomings and goings, they were looked upon, as we have already seen, with\nmore or less suspicion and dread. Nowadays, we know that these \u201cairy\nnothings,\u201d as Sir John Herschel termed them, have been unjustly\nmaligned. Were they given the power of speech, they could a tale unfold\nof adventurous thrills and overwhelming disasters encountered during\ntheir voyages in space, far exceeding in interest any story of\nterrestrial adventure. It would take the pen of a Jules Verne and an\nauthor gifted with his vivid imagination to describe the erratic career\nof a comet.\n\nTake for instance the tragic fate of the headless comet of 1887, which\nwas described by Dr. Thom\u00e9 of the Cordoba University as:\n\n \u201ca beautiful object with a narrow, straight, sharply defined\n graceful tail over fifty degrees long. It was shining with a soft\n starry light against a dark sky, beginning apparently without a\n head, and gradually widening and fading as it extended upwards.\u201d[4]\n\nNow the popular idea of a well-regulated comet is a star with a tail,\nbut a tail without an accompanying star seems preposterous, yet a\nheadless comet this object remained as viewed with the naked eye. The\nwhy and the wherefore of the tragedy is unknown, and whether it ever had\na head and what became of it remains one of the many unsolved problems\nof the sky.\n\nStill more remarkable is the career of the famous comet of Biela, from\nits first appearance as viewed by mortal eyes on March 8, 1772, until\nits final disappearance, a century later, in a veritable blaze of\ncelestial fireworks. Its story reads like a novel, and is far more\nfascinating because it is fact and not fiction. The hero is a faint,\ninsignificant-looking object which was discovered by Montaigne of\nLimoges, already referred to as the comet-hunter who so indiscreetly\nfound the thirteenth comet for which his colleague Messier was\nindustriously searching. Little did Montaigne guess that this foggy\nspeck of light which was so faint that it could only be seen with the\naid of his small telescope would one day attract worldwide attention.\nIts nondescript appearance, with a tail only one-eighth the diameter of\nthe moon, made it apparently scarcely worthy of more than passing\nnotice. Had Montaigne concentrated his efforts on finding out its\npeculiarities and tracing its path, his name would have been forever\nconnected with the little wanderer, instead of being entered in the\nannals of astronomy as merely the first to see it.\n\n\nThe introductory chapter in its story is connected with a letter written\nby Montaigne to the director of the observatory at Paris, announcing his\ndiscovery. This arrived in time to give the astronomers an opportunity\nfor seeing the comet three or four times ere it vanished on its way\noutward bound. Little more was thought of the celestial visitor until it\nwas glimpsed again thirty-three years later, in November, 1805, by Pons,\nwho, as we have already seen, shared honors with Messier and Montaigne\nin the \u201ceccentric vocation\u201d of comet-hunting. The comet remained visible\nin the northern heavens for only a month, when it sank below the horizon\nand was no longer visible to observers in the northern hemisphere.\n\nHowever, on this occasion the comet came very close to the earth, for we\nare told that it was visible to the naked eye, even in the strong\ntwilight. Then it remained hidden from view until twenty years later,\nwhen it was again rediscovered, this time by an Austrian officer named\nBiela, in February, 1826. He was determined that the wily object should\nnot be lost sight of again, as far as its orbit was concerned, and by\nmeans of careful observations and calculations he was enabled to\nannounce that it was traveling along the same route as the comet seen by\nMontaigne in 1772, and that seen by Pons in 1805. Therefore, he\nconcluded that it was one and the same comet, and predicted its return\nin 1832.\n\nHowever, when it was announced by the great French astronomer, Arago,\nthat the comet at this return would cross the orbit of the earth,\nwidespread was the consternation among those who did not know what an\norbit was. Possibly, imagining that it was something tangible, we can\npicture them looking at one another in dismay, and whispering in awed\ntones, \u201cDoes this mean the comet will hit the earth, and if so what will\nhappen to us?\u201d A possible collision with the comet was an alarming\nthought to the ignorant and superstitious, and the fear caused by\nArago\u2019s announcement was so great that it resulted in the first of the\nmany comet-scares. People in dread of the threatened calamity sold their\ngoods and chattels, and thronged the churches as a fit preparation for\nthe end of the world. There they awaited the expected crash and\ndoubtless were surprised when nothing unusual happened. The earth still\ncontinued to roll on its appointed path, without jolt or jar to disturb\nthe \u201ceven tenor of its way.\u201d The nervous gave a sigh of relief when the\ncomet withdrew once more into the obscurity of space, and those who had\nparted with their belongings must have felt somewhat annoyed.\n\nThe so-called devout astrologers who had made use of Arago\u2019s\nannouncement to their own advantage, when upbraided by those whom they\nhad warned, did a skillful kind of \u201chedging,\u201d by stating that events\nannounced by a comet might be postponed for one or more periods of forty\nyears or even as many years as the comet had appeared days.\nConsequently, one which had appeared for six months would not produce\nany effect, evil or otherwise, for 180 years.[5] Thus these wise\nsoothsayers allowed a wide margin for possible results.\n\nTo give an idea of the filmy structure of the comet, the cause of such\nunnecessary alarm, it was described by Sir John Herschel, who observed\nit on September 23, 1832, as a round hazy-looking object without a tail.\nIt was moving in the direction of a small group of faint stars, which\nwere undimmed when overtaken by the comet, so that it resembled a\nfog-like mist sprinkled with stars, this veil of cometary matter being\nestimated by Herschel as fifty thousand miles thick. Yet, only a month\nlater, the remote prospect of a collision with this celestial cobweb\ncaused a panic in Europe!\n\nThe comet was first seen on August 23, 1832, but owing to its excessive\nfaintness was not generally observed till two months later, when at its\nnearest to the sun. This occurred during the month of November, within\ntwelve hours of the time predicted by an astronomer named Santini. At\nits next return, in 1839, the comet was not well placed for observation,\nas it was too near the sun, and therefore lost in the glare of its\nlight. As computations had shown that the comet was traveling in an\norbit requiring six and two-thirds of a year, it was due to return in\n1845.\n\nThe first to bid it welcome was an astronomer at Rome named De Vico, on\nNovember 28 of that year. Two days later it was observed by Dr. Gall\u00e9 at\nBerlin, but it was not generally seen until December. It appeared as a\nsingle comet on November 28, but on December 19 it was seen distinctly\npear-shaped, and ten days later it amazed all observers by splitting in\ntwo. This marvelous transformation was first detected by two Americans,\nMr. Herrick, then librarian at Yale College, and Mr. Francis Bradley, a\nclerk in the New Haven City Bank. The two were watching the comet on\nJanuary 29, 1845, taking turns in looking through a telescope which had\nbeen erected in the Athen\u00e6um tower.\n\nSuddenly one of the observers exclaimed that he could see a small comet\naccompanying the larger one, and we can imagine his friend making some\nremark concerning defective eyesight. However, when both saw the\nduplicity of the comet, all doubts were dispersed. But what did it mean?\nHad the comet a satellite, just as the earth has its accompanying moon,\nor had the comet actually split in two? However, the twin comets were\nseen two weeks later by Lieutenant Maury and Professor Hubbard at\nWashington, D. C., and two days later it came within the ken of European\nastronomers. Incidentally, three weeks before the twin comets were\nobserved, Mr. J. Russell Hind (England) noticed a peculiar lump near the\nupper part of the nucleus of the main comet, which may be regarded as\nthe first symptom indicating that something was amiss.\n\nOn January 15, Professor Challis, then director of Cambridge Observatory\n(England), had his suspicions aroused when he saw the complete severance\nof the little comet from the big one, and the description of his\nexperience is best given in a letter he wrote to the president of the\nRoyal Astronomical Society:\n\n \u201cOn the evening of January 15, when I sat down to observe it\n [Biela\u2019s comet], I said to my assistant, \u2018I see _two_ comets.\u2019\n However, on altering the focus of the eyeglass and letting in a\n little illumination, the smaller of the two comets appeared to\n resolve itself into a minute star, with some haze about it. I\n observed the comet that evening but a short time, being in a hurry\n to proceed to observations of the new planet.\u201d\n\nPresumably he here refers to the search for Neptune. Alas! had he but\ngiven his whole attention to that task, instead of dispersing his\nenergy\u2014as it were\u2014by pursuing a flimsy comet, England might have been\nacknowledged as first in the actual discovery of that planet.\n\nResuming his observations of the comet on January 23, Professor Challis\nagain saw two comets, but clouds hid them from view for the next\nhalf-hour, and when they had cleared away he was convinced that the\ncomets had moved during the interval. This suspicion was afterward\nconfirmed, and, moreover, Professor Challis found that they had moved in\nunison, retaining their relative positions meanwhile. He wondered what\ncould be the meaning of this strange procedure, and whether they were\ntwo independent comets, a double comet, or that his glass was deceiving\nhim.\n\n \u201cBut I never heard of such a thing,\u201d wrote Professor Challis.\n \u201cKepler supposed that a certain comet separated in two, and for this\n Pingr\u00e9 said of him, \u2018_Aligreando bonus dormitat Homerus._\u2019 I am\n anxious to know whether other observers have seen the same thing.\u201d\n\nIn a subsequent letter he shows by his remarks that \u201cthe two comets are\nnot only apparently, but really near each other, and that they are\nphysically connected.\u201d[6]\n\nThe comets continued traveling along in this sociable manner for four\nmonths, at an almost unvarying distance of about 165,000 miles, each\ndeveloping meanwhile a very bright nucleus and diminutive tail half a\ndegree in length, or one tenth the distance separating the pointers in\nUrsa Major. Sometimes one comet would be devoid of a tail, sometimes the\nother, so that one might almost imagine the tail exchanging owners, for\nthe comets were rarely both adorned therewith at the same time.\n\nDuring the latter part of February, Lieutenant Maury, at Washington, D.\nC., saw an arc of light extending from the large comet to the small one,\nforming a sort of bridge between the two, this occurring when the small\ncomet was at its brightest. When the large comet had regained its\nsuperiority it threw out new rays, which gave it the appearance of\nhaving three tails, each adjacent tail making an angle of 120 degrees\nwith its neighbor, one of the tails being the bridge to the new comet.\nThis produced the effect of an arch in the heavens, through which the\nstars were seen to pass.\n\nOne can imagine messages passing to and fro along this bridge of light\nbetween the twin comets, and a possible farewell as they drifted further\napart. At their return in August, 1852, they were separated by about one\nmillion five hundred thousand miles, and as so often happens in the case\nof twins it was impossible to tell which was which. The comets were not\nseen at their next return, in May, 1859, because they were lost in the\nglare of sunlight, for the same reason that we are unable to see stars\nin the daytime.\n\nAt the next expected visit when the comets were looked for, in January,\n1866, they were nowhere to be seen. What had happened in the interval no\none knows, but in 1872 the whole astronomical world was startled by a\ntelegram from an astronomer named Klinkerfues of G\u00f6ttingen, on November\n30, to Pogson, the government astronomer at Madras, which read as\nfollows:\n\n Biela touched earth on 27th, search near Theta Centauri.\n\nAccordingly, a search was made, with the extraordinary result that a\ncomet _was_ found, but not _the_ comet. Observations were obtained of it\non December 2 and 3, but bad weather and the advance of twilight made\nfurther search impossible. When the track of the new comet, for such it\nproved to be, was eventually followed, it was found to be moving along a\ndifferent route from the one previously followed by the comet of Biela.\nNevertheless, by a remarkable coincidence it happened to be passing by\nor near the place where this comet was wont to wander, until he took\nunto himself a companion comet, which seems to have led him astray.\n\nTo be lost is interesting, especially for a comet, when one considers\nthe vast expanse of highways and byways in starland, but the climax of\nthe tragedy in connection with this special comet was not reached until\nits orbit crossed that of the earth on November 27, 1872. On that\neventful night the sky seemed to be literally ablaze with meteors, which\nfell in swarms and showers of dazzling gleams of light, the downpour\nlasting from seven o\u2019clock in the evening until one o\u2019clock next\nmorning, the maximum being attained at nine o\u2019clock. We are told that\nthe total number observed in England was estimated at a hundred and\nsixty thousand. They all came from the same part of the sky, radiating\nfrom a point near the beautiful double star Gamma in the constellation\nof Andromeda. But what was the meaning of the display? Had it been\ncaused by an encounter of the earth with the scattered fragments of the\nlost comet? It certainly could not have had any connection with the\ncomet itself, which, providing it still existed, had passed that way\nthree months before. It was more likely the d\u00e9bris of its train\nscattered along its path after its breaking up in 1846.\n\nThere seems to be no doubt of the identity of this swarm of meteors with\nthe comet of Biela, for on November 27, 1885, a similar encounter took\nplace, providing a magnificent display of meteors observed all over\nEurope, just at the moment when the earth was due at a crossing in the\nformer path of the comet. On that same evening, a piece of meteoric iron\nfell at Mazapil, in northern Mexico, during the course of the shower,\nand according to Professor Young, \u201cthe coincidence may be accidental,\nbut is certainly interesting. Some high authorities speak confidently of\nthis piece of iron _as a piece of Biela\u2019s comet itself_.\u201d (_General\nAstronomy_, C. A. Young.)\n\nIn 1892 and 1898, when the earth again crossed the former path of the\ncomet, a similar display occurred, though on a minor scale, and some of\nthe scattered cometary fragments may still be looked for on the evenings\nfrom November 17 to 27. They are recognizable from their slow motion,\nshort trains, and from the fact that they all radiate from the\nsecond-magnitude star Gamma in Andromeda. (Incidentally, this is the\nstar so charmingly dealt with by Dr. Holmes, in the _Poet at the\nBreakfast Table_, really the astronomer of the breakfast table, as\nsuggested by conversations and correspondence between my father and\nOliver Wendell Holmes.)\n\nThe star Gamma in Andromeda is easily located, as it is almost overhead\nbetween the dates November 17\u201327, at a convenient hour in the evening.\nIt is in a line with Epsilon, the star at the left-hand corner of the\nW-shaped group in the constellation, Cassiopeia, and with Polaris, the\nPole Star. The meteors radiating from this point are variously referred\nto as the Andromed\u00e6, Andromedids, and the Bielids, on account of their\nsupposed connection with the Comet of Biela. As a matter of fact it\nmatters little what they are called, as long as we know their appearance\nand when and where to look for them. They may be looked upon as\nsupplementary to the story of the comet, and possibly some of the\nparticles may eventually find a resting-place on planet earth.\n\nAccording to Dr. Crommelin of the Greenwich Observatory:\n\n \u201cthe career of a comet may be said to be over when its meteors have\n lost all their gas, or when they have been scattered by\n perturbations over so wide a space that its unity and visibility are\n lost. These disrupting causes are most effective when a comet is\n fairly near the sun; therefore the oftener that a comet approaches\n the sun, the shorter the period of its existence as a comet. I\n think, therefore, that we can ascribe the great prevalence of\n long-period comets to the principle of the survival of the fittest.\u201d\n\nLong-period comets are those which sometimes require hundreds of years\nbefore they return sunward, as, for instance, Donati\u2019s comet with its\nperiod of about two thousand years. Others of short period, like Encke\u2019s\ncomet, are regular visitors to the sun, returning after a short interval\nof a few years along a well-known path. Once upon a time they may have\nbeen long-period comets, which have had their paths restricted, owing to\nthe strong attractive pull of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,\nand Neptune. As a result of the disturbances (or perturbations, as they\nare technically called) thus caused, according to the so-called capture\ntheory, Jupiter has annexed fifty comets, including the Comet of Biela.\nUranus and Saturn, according to the same theory, own a limited family of\ntwo, while Neptune has four, including Halley\u2019s famous comet. Its least\ndistance from the sun is 56 million miles at its point of nearest\napproach, and 3,200 million miles when at the opposite end of its orbit.\nBut the great majority of these strange bodies appear to travel in\nparabolas, open curves leading from infinite space to and around the\nsun, and thence back into the region of the fixed stars.\n\nThere is a notable instance of a comet traveling about the sun in an\nimmense ellipse, but, like the moth, hovering around a flame which\nfinally causes its destruction, this comet returned once too often to\nthe neighborhood of the giant planet Jupiter, and in an encounter\nbetween a large and a small body, the latter usually comes to grief. Its\npath was curtailed at first, and subsequently it was shunted on to\nanother line. Jupiter, acting as pointsman on the cometary railway, is\nsuspected of opening the branch of the ellipse along which the comet had\nformerly traveled in peace and quiet, with the result that it was\nignominiously sidetracked and sought for in vain.\n\nThe comet was first discovered in June, 1770, by Messier, who described\nit as a rather insignificant object without a tail, but resembling a\nnebula with a star-like nucleus. Early in July it had greatly increased\nin size, the nucleus and surrounding haze extending over a space more\nthan five times the diameter of the moon. At this time it came very near\nthe earth, remaining visible until October, when it grew small and\nfaint, and finally faded away. Meanwhile, astronomers did their best to\ndetermine its path, notably Mr. Lexell, of the Academy of Sciences at\nSt. Petersburg. He became so interested in clearing up the past history\nof this quaint little comet, that it is usually referred to as Lexell\u2019s\ncomet. He came to the conclusion that the comet of 1770 required five\nyears and seven months for its elliptic tour, but he was such a long\ntime in getting at this result, that by the time he obtained it in 1778\nthe comet was two years overdue. Messier made a careful search for it,\nbut without success.\n\nLexell was of the opinion that at the end of May, 1776, the comet came\nso close to Jupiter that the attractive pull of that planet was three\ntimes greater than that of the sun. When a comet rushes around the sun\nit has to go full speed ahead, so as to resist being drawn upon its\nsurface, but as it recedes from the danger zone it gradually slackens\nits pace, with the result that by the time it is crossing the orbit\nalong which Jupiter travels, it is going at reduced speed. Probably\nJupiter was not far from the part of its orbit crossed by the comet in\n1776, with the result that the unfortunate wanderer was exposed for a\nlonger period to the powerful attraction of the giant planet. This may\nhave caused an important change in the comet\u2019s path, with the result\nthat it escaped from what has been termed the _sphere of activity_ early\nin October, 1779.\n\nAt this period, according to Lexell, the comet was moving in an ellipse\nwith a period of more than sixteen years, and at such a distance there\nwould be no hope of our seeing it again. He finally considered the comet\nof 1770 as definitely lost. However, when Brooks, the famous\ncomet-hunter of Geneva, New York, discovered a comet in 1889, which is\nknown as Comet 1889 V, as it was the fifth comet discovered that year,\nit was supposed to be the long-lost Lexell comet of 1770. For that\nreason it is known as the Lexell-Brooks comet.\n\nPrevious to 1886, the comet discovered in 1889 was traveling around the\nsun in an immense ellipse, taking it out beyond the planet Uranus.\nAround and around the sun it went, as a moth flutters around a lamp,\nuntil in the year 1886 it came under the magic spell of Jupiter. Unable\nto resist this planet\u2019s persuasive influence, the path of the comet was\nreduced to a smaller one requiring only seven years for its completion.\nApparently on this occasion the comet passed too near Jupiter for\nsafety, and was reduced to four fragments in consequence. When it\napproached the sun in 1889, and was discovered by Brooks, it may\nprobably have been one of the four fragments; at any rate, this is the\nopinion of Dr. Charles Lane Poor, of New York, who made a careful and\nmost exhaustive study of the comet and its eccentricities. It remained\nvisible with telescopes of ordinary power until March, 1890, after which\ndate it could only be seen with the great telescope at the Lick\nObservatory, at Mount Hamilton, California. With this magnificent\ninstrument Professor Barnard followed the comet until January, 1891.\n\nThe path of its next return was calculated so accurately that when it\nwas rediscovered on June 20, 1896, by Javelle, it was seen within a\ndistance less than one quarter the diameter of the moon from its\npredicted place. By this time the comet had grown fainter, as though\nenfeebled by its long wanderings and the vicissitudes of its career, and\nit remained visible for only a few months, finally disappearing in\nFebruary, 1897. For a third time the comet came near enough for us to\nsee it, and this occurred during the summer of 1903, when it remained\nvisible until the following January. It was then so faint, it could only\nbe observed with the largest telescopes. The future of the comet seems\nas likely to be as interesting as its past.\n\n\u201cUnless it become wholly disintegrated by the pulling and hauling of the\nsun and planets, it will be seen again in 1910, and yet again in 1917,\u201d\nwrote Dr. Poor in 1908, but as a matter of fact it was not observed on\neither occasion. Dr. Poor also predicted that early in 1921 it would\nagain come into close approach with Jupiter, \u201cand beyond that point its\nhistory cannot be predicted. This collision will probably end its story\nas far as the earth is concerned, for it will undoubtedly be still\nfurther broken up, and its orbit may be so changed that it will never\nafterwards be seen.\u201d And we must leave it with this unsatisfactory\nconclusion, as it did not reappear in 1921, and nothing more has been\nseen or heard of this comet. By now (1925) it may be merely a derelict\nin space, at the mercy of any disturbing planet it may happen to pass on\nthe way.\n\nThese instances give some idea of the dangers to which comets are\nsubjected as they drift like frail barks on the ocean of space. Whence\nthey have come and whither they vanish, no one knows, but it has been\nsuggested that there is a home of comets. This has been described as a\nshell of nebulous matter accompanying the sun and planets, though at a\ndistance some thousands of times greater than that of the earth from the\nsun, yet much closer than the nearest star. \u201cHowever, we have no direct\nevidence of any such comet-dropping envelope,\u201d according to Professor C.\nA. Young.\n\nYet supposing it does exist, we see in imagination baby comets cradled\ntherein in nebulous mist until they are able to take care of themselves.\nThen they are presumably launched forth on their perilous career, as\nthey make their way towards their ruler, the sun, to pay their respects.\nWoe betide them should they cross the path of one of the giant planets\nat an inauspicious moment, or approach too near the sun, which would\nprove equally disastrous.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER FIVE\n PHOTOGRAPHY AS APPLIED TO COMETS\n\n\n \u201cWith its three eyes\u2014the eye of keenness, the eye of patient\n watchfulness, and the eye of artistic truth, photography promises to\n be a Cerberus to the science of the future, whose watchfulness will\n prevent the admission of error and detect truths which would otherwise\n escape us.\u201d\n\n \u2014R. A. PROCTOR.\n\n\nThese words written by my father, in his book entitled _The Universe of\nSuns_, shortly after the appearance of the comet of 1882, have since\nbeen amply confirmed, not only in connection with the sun, moon, and\nstars, but still more so regarding the hitherto unknown peculiarities of\ncomets. So far we have gained some idea of the appearance of a comet as\nseen with the naked eye, or with the aid of a telescope, but it now\nremains to be shown what can be accomplished by means of photography.\n\nPictures of the ever-varying transformations, for instance, which took\nplace in the appearance of the celebrated Morehouse comet of 1908,\nopened out new vistas in cometary wonders, hitherto beyond our ken.\nSuccessive photographs taken during the course of a night, pictured for\nus the unfolding of the comet\u2019s train, its spreading outward like a\ngigantic fan of gauze-like texture, and eventual closing up till it\nresembled a sheaf. By means of the revelations thus made by the camera,\nwe became aware of the marvelous quick-change effects produced in the\nappearance of this comet not only from night to night, but sometimes\nduring the brief interval of less than an hour. Nevertheless, as seen\nwith a telescope, the Morehouse comet appeared inconspicuous and was\ninvisible to the naked eye.\n\nThe first attempt at taking a photograph of a comet was made by Bond at\nHarvard College Observatory in 1858, in connection with the magnificent\ncomet of that year, but his efforts only met with partial success. The\nnext venture was made in 1881, by Sir William Huggins, in our country,\nand Dr. Henry Draper, of New York, but entirely satisfactory photographs\nof a comet were not obtained until 1882, when the great Daylight comet\nbecame a conspicuous object in southern skies.\n\nThis comet was first seen on September 3, by some employees of the\nrailroad in Auckland, New Zealand, and by other persons whose duties\nrequired them to rise before daylight. The names of these fortunate\nobservers are unknown, but what a privilege to obtain the first glimpse\nof the comet.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PHOTOGRAPH OF MOREHOUSE COMET, 1908 C\n\n Taken on November 19, 6 h. 4 m., at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich\n]\n\nAnyone acquainted with the clear, limpid blue of the skies at dawn in\nNew Zealand, and the brilliancy of the stars despite the near approach\nof sunrise, may gain some idea of the vivid appearance of the little\ncomet in their midst as seen on this occasion. The writer, who spent a\nyear in New Zealand (1913\u201314), has vivid recollections of the beauty of\nthe dawn ushering in daylight during the course of her travels to and\nfro, and has almost an envious feeling with regard to those fortunate\npeople \u201cwhose duties required them to rise before daylight,\u201d thus\nenabling them to obtain the first view of the comet. As in the case of\nthe brilliant star in the East, which guided the three wise men of old\nto Bethlehem, doubtless they likewise \u201crejoiced and were exceeding\nglad.\u201d\n\nThe news of the discovery of a comet was soon made known, for on\nSeptember 6 Dr. Gould, director of the Cordoba Observatory in South\nAmerica,[7] received information that a bright comet was visible in the\neast before sunrise. His informant had seen it on the morning of\nSeptember 5, when it was described as being as bright as the planet\nVenus. At Reus, near Tarragona, it was bright enough to be seen at one\ntime through a passing cloud when at a distance of only three times the\ndiameter of the sun from its edge, or \u201climb,\u201d as it is technically\ntermed. According to the report of Dr. Gould regarding the weather\nconditions prevailing at Cordoba, the morning of September 7 was cloudy\nand the eastern sky overcast on every morning during a whole week.\nNevertheless, on one occasion it was thought that a part of the comet\u2019s\ntail could be seen. It was not until September 14 that conditions were\nagain favorable for observing the comet.\n\nFortunately the link in the chain of observations was supplied by an\nenthusiastic amateur astronomer, Mr. John Tebbutt, who watched the comet\nfrom his observatory at Windsor, New South Wales. On September 8, he\nreceived a telegram from the Government Astronomer at Melbourne, to the\neffect that a large comet was reported due east at four o\u2019clock in the\nmorning. Other messages were received during the day from different\nparts of the colony, and from the information thus supplied Mr. Tebbutt\nwas enabled to observe the comet on the mornings of September 9 and 10.\nBy this time the nucleus of the comet was large and remarkably\nbrilliant, and the tail about 3\u00b0 or 4\u00b0 in length, not quite the distance\nseparating the pointers in Ursa Major.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n JOHN TEBBUTT, NOTED COMET-HUNTER OF WINDSOR, N. S. W.\n]\n\nMr. Tebbutt had already distinguished himself as a successful\ncomet-hunter, and in addition had vainly endeavored to form a society\nsuch as existed for comet-hunting in the northern hemisphere, but his\nefforts only ended in disappointment. As he wrote in his _Memoirs_,\n\u201calthough several astronomers owned telescopes suitable for the work,\nthere was obviously a distaste for systematic observation.\u201d He took\ngreat pride in his miniature observatory at Windsor, actually his own\nhandiwork, for he was his own bricklayer, carpenter, and slater\ncombined. During a visit to the observatory in 1912 the writer was shown\nnumberless books containing the records of fifty-five observations of\nthe comet of 1882, extending from September 8 of that year to March 2,\n1883. These observations were made by Mr. Tebbutt with his four and a\nhalf inch equatorial, with the exception of four made with the transit\ninstrument in full sunlight. Moreover, Mr. Tebbutt was the first to see\nthe comet in full daylight with the unaided eye.\n\nThe second series of observations of the comet in full daylight were\nmade at the Government Observatory, Melbourne, but it was not seen in\nEurope, owing to cloudy weather, until September 17, one Sunday morning.\nIt happened that Dr. A. A. Common, the well-known amateur astronomer at\nEaling, had directed his telescope to the sun for the purpose of\nobserving sun-spots, when he had a glimpse of the comet. This was at a\nquarter to eleven, at which time the comet was rapidly approaching the\nsun. Unfortunately, clouds intervened, rendering further observations\nfor the time being impossible.\n\nDr. Common sent a telegram to Dunecht (Lord Crawford\u2019s observatory near\nAberdeen) so that the astronomers there might be on the lookout for the\ncomet, with the result that it was observed by them on the following\nday. In England bad weather, as usual, had baffled all attempts at\nseeing the comet, and the clouds seemed to be in league with the powers\nof darkness in keeping it hidden from view. Those who can recall\nwatching in vain in England, for Halley\u2019s comet at its return in 1910,\ncan fully sympathize with the disappointed watchers of the sky in 1882.\n(In those days the writer was not nearly so enthusiastic as she should\nhave been at the brief view of the comet obtained early one chilly\nmorning. Admiration was slightly tinged with wonder at all the\nexcitement over \u201ca small white star with a train a yard long\u201d which\nscarcely seemed worth the trouble of getting up for during the wee sma\u2019\nhours. Nevertheless, there is comfort now in the thought, that this\u2014her\nfirst comet\u2014was one long afterward to be remembered.)\n\nDay after day the comet grew in splendor, until by September 12 it was\nalmost the cause of a momentary panic on the occasion of the attack at\nTel-el-Kebir. The story is told by Colonel E. Major, somewhat as\nfollows, in his book entitled _Lord Wolseley_: It seems that each\nmorning Sir Garnet in the early dawn had reconnoitered the enemy\u2019s\nposition from the high ground above their lines, and he had noticed that\ntheir pickets only came out beyond the defenses at daybreak. He\ntherefore decided upon a night attack, which must be sudden and\ndecisive, so that the enemy might be crushed and scattered early in the\nday. This would enable the cavalry to make an immediate dash for Cairo,\nwhile the infantry occupied Zagazig. After making all arrangements, we\nare told:\n\n \u201cThe troops set off in silence, no smoking or giving of orders aloud\n being permitted. The engineers had set up directing posts as guides\n in the earlier part of the march, but in the deep darkness of a\n moonless night these were not easy to find. Only the North Star and\n the Little Bear, shining through the drifting clouds, gave the\n leaders some fixed point by which to find the way. Sir Garnet sent\n his own naval aide-de-camp, Lieutenant Rawson, R. N., who was\n accustomed to steer by the stars, to act as a guide with Sir Edward\n Hamley\u2019s division. Even with this help the flanks of the Highland\n Brigade in the course of the night march lost their direction after\n a short halt, and circled round until a crescent-like formation was\n the result.\n\n \u201cA second halt was necessary to remedy the confusion. Soon after, a\n strange light appeared upon the horizon, and Sir Garnet feared it\n was the first sign of the coming dawn. If so, the night attack had\n failed. But no rising sun followed that long streak of light, and\n later on they learned that a comet had been observed in the heavens\n for the first time on that eve of Tel-el-Kebir.\u201d\n\nOn September 27, the comet was seen at Vienna, according to a telegram\nreceived by the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich, but meanwhile it had been\nobserved continuously at the Cape of Good Hope Observatory since\nSeptember 8. It was seen on this date by Mr. Finlay, a member of the\nobservatory staff, while he was going homeward after working all night\nat the dome. Happening to glance eastward, his attention was at once\nattracted by the comet. Returning hastily to the observatory, he\nproceeded to make the necessary measurements for recording its position\nwith regard to a small star in its neighborhood. One can imagine the\nanxiety with which its reappearance was awaited next morning by Sir\nDavid Gill, the director of the observatory, and by those who may have\nheard the good news of a comet in the offing.\n\nThe following morning the comet was again observed, and Sir David Gill\nsent a telegram to Sir James Anderson, chairman of the Eastern Telegraph\nCompany:\n\n Kindly tell Astronomer Royal, Greenwich, that bright comet was\n observed here yesterday morning by Finlay. Right ascension this\n morning, nine hours, forty minutes, increasing hourly, nine minutes.\n Declination one degree south, increasing half degree south daily.\n\nUnfortunately, the telegram failed to reach its destination, and was\ndoubtless delayed or mislaid in the confusion of numberless war\nmessages. The first news that reached Europe about the comet was\nobtained by means of a telegram on September 12, from Dr. Cruls,\ndirector of the observatory of the Emperor of Brazil. Sir David Gill was\nanxious to prove Mr. Finlay\u2019s claim to priority in discovering the\ncomet, but, as we have already seen, he had been forestalled by\nastronomers in Australia, and some claim should be allowed for the\n\u201cearly railroad workers\u201d in Auckland, New Zealand, who were actually the\nfirst to see the comet, though their observation thereof had no\npractical value. For a while the comet was known as the Cruls comet, but\nnow it is generally referred to as the great comet of 1882, or the\nDaylight comet. However, later on, as we have already noted, it had a\nrival as a Daylight comet in 1910, when a fine comet resembling the\nplume-like appearance of the comet of Donati was seen to advantage in\nEngland.\n\nThe great comet had another rival in popularity in the year 1882, for on\nMay 17, when Dr. Schuster was developing photographic plates taken\nduring a total eclipse of the sun which occurred on that date, he found\na miniature comet seemingly entangled in the outer rays of the corona.\nThis is the sun\u2019s crown of glory which can be seen only during the time\nthe glare of sunlight is hidden from view by the moon coming directly\nbetween the sun and the earth. The consequent darkness, or totality, as\nit is called, can never exceed a duration of eight minutes, and on this\noccasion during a still briefer interval of time the little comet was\ncaptured by means of the camera. Thus, a permanent record was secured of\nits presence near the sun, but as it had not been seen before nor was it\nseen afterward, its motion must have been extremely rapid, and it may\npossibly have been drawn inward and consumed by the intense solar heat.\nDespite its small size and brief career, it is distinguished by the name\nof Tewfik, after the then Khedive of Egypt. It has been suggested that\nthe comet may be kin to, or one and the same with, a comet which had its\nphotograph taken during the total eclipse of the sun, April 16, 1893,\nhaving a period like that of the sun-spots, of about eleven years.\n\nPossibly Sir David Gill may have had the photograph of Comet Tewfik in\nmind when he heard of attempts which had been made by Mr. Shoyer of Cape\nTown, and Mr. Simpson of Aberdeen, to photograph the comet of 1882. The\nresults had been so far successful as to prove that the comet was\ncapable of giving a distinct impression after sufficiently long\nexposure. But it was owing to the cordial and enthusiastic assistance of\nMr. Allis, photographer of Mowbray, that the first pictures of the comet\nwere obtained. When Mr. Allis, under the direction of Sir David Gill,\nfastened a simple portrait camera upon the tube of one of the Cape\ntelescopes, and pointed it at the great comet, little did he dream that\nthe experiment would eventually lead to such great results in the\nfuture. One can imagine the thrill of triumph as the experimenter\nwatched the gradual process of development on the photographic plate,\nuntil, as if by magic, a fine comet was revealed outlined against a\nstarry background. Thus, three or four photographs were obtained, which\nexcited the greatest interest among astronomers in the northern\nhemisphere. Possibilities were suggested with regard to the construction\nof a self-recording photographic star chart, thus replacing the\npainstaking hand-drawn star charts of the Herschels, Argelander, my\nfather, and other astronomers at various times engaged in such work.\n\nThe gigantic undertaking was ultimately divided among nineteen\nobservatories situated in northern and southern climes, which will\neventually result in a marvelous collection of star charts. These will\ninclude millions of stars, forming a celestial library which may be\nconsulted at leisure either now or a century hence when the makers\nthereof may have become a mere memory. If a supplementary set is made in\nthe future, comparisons between the two series may result in important\ninformation with regard to star drift. (It was by comparing star charts\nthus made a century apart, that my father originated the star-drift\ntheory, by his observations in connection with the five stars of Ursa\nMajor in 1868, a theory confirmed by the spectroscopic investigations of\nDr. Huggins.) Celestial photography, owing to Dr. Gill\u2019s suggestion with\nregard to the star-gemmed photographs of the comet of 1882, may add\ngreatly to our knowledge in connection with such problems, the records\nof the past thus becoming the star-lettered volumes for the students of\nthe future. Undoubtedly this achievement, the result of the photographs\ntaken of the great comet of 1882, ranks high among those which make\nastronomy appeal so vividly to the imagination.\n\nNow let us see how Mr. Allis went to work in obtaining the portrait of\nthis memorable comet. To secure a perfect picture of its delicate\ndetail, an exposure of not less than half an hour was required. To\nobviate the difficulty caused by the rotation of the earth, Mr. Allis\nattached his camera with a rapid portrait lens and sensitive dry plate\nto the declination axis of a large equatorial, and then turned both the\ntelescope of the equatorial and the camera in the direction of the\ncomet. Matters were so arranged that in whatever direction the telescope\nwas turned, the small camera would turn exactly with it, and thus by\nmeans of clockwork and proper small motions for delicate adjustment, the\ncomet was kept accurately in the field of view during the whole time of\nexposure. The camera was therefore also pointed during the whole\nexposure to precisely the same point of the comet, and in this way,\nafter one preliminary failure, three very beautiful and quite invaluable\nnegatives of the comet were obtained. These three negatives will remain\nof permanent value as a scientific record of one of the most glorious\ncomets ever seen.\n\nTo follow the progress of the comet as it increased in splendor day by\nday, let us return to the record of Dr. Gould, director of the Cordoba\nObservatory. On September 16, we are told that the brightness of the\ncomet was such that it was visible with the finding telescope throughout\nthe day. The next day it was so bright that it could be easily observed\nin full sunlight, and at eleven o\u2019clock that morning the sun and the\ncomet were in the same field of view. Then the comet was hidden for a\nwhile, as it passed between us and the disk of the sun.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE GREAT DAYLIGHT COMET, SEPTEMBER, 1882\n\n Photograph taken at the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope\n]\n\nOn Monday, September 18, the brilliancy of the comet attracted popular\nattention throughout the country, and the \u201cblazing star\u201d near the sun\nwas the one topic of conversation. In the small telescope it presented\nthe aspect of a brilliant nebulous mass, having on each side curved\nappendages like horns or wings, nearly as large as the central body, and\nat their base quite as brilliant, the general form of the whole\nreminding one of the winged globes carved on ancient monuments. This\nappearance, doubtless due to the outbreak of glowing vapors from the\nnucleus, was also exhibited, although to less extent, on the following\ntwo days, during both of which the comet remained visible to the naked\neye.\n\nObservations made of the comet with large telescopes showed that the\nnucleus had separated into six or eight star-like knots strung like\npearls along a luminous streak some fifty thousand miles in length. The\nlargest of these knots was some five thousand miles in diameter, an\ninteresting fact as compared with the size of the earth, which is 7,925\nmiles, according to the British Astronomical Association Handbook for\n1925.\n\nA faint straight-edged beam of light, or \u201csheath,\u201d accompanied the\ncomet, enveloping the head and projecting like a hood three or four\ndegrees in front. Besides this, three or four irregular shreds of\ncometary matter were detected, escorting the comet, as it were, like\nairplanes, at a distance of three or four degrees when first seen, but\ngradually receding from it, and at the same time growing fainter. The\nactual length of the comet\u2019s train at one time exceeded one hundred\nmillion miles, more than the distance of the sun from the earth. (If the\nhead of the comet had rested on the earth, and its train stretched\noutward toward the sun, it would have extended seven million miles\nbeyond that luminary.)\n\nThe trains of comets have been grouped under three types, _viz._, the\nlong straight rays as shown in the photograph of Halley\u2019s comet, though\nthis was only one of the many outlines assumed; the second is the\ncurved, plume-like train resembling that of the comet of Donati; and\nthirdly the short stubby brushes violently curved. The great Daylight\ncomet had a greatly curved train belonging to the second type, and it\nwas mainly composed of carbon compounds. The curvature of the train was\ndue to matter for which the repulsive force is only a fraction of the\ngravitational force. The pressure of light from the sun was a most\nimportant factor in the formation of its train.\n\nWhen the fierce pressure of the sun\u2019s light strikes upon the particles\nforming the train, it drives the particles which are of the same\nrelative size as the particles of light along with them, just as when\nthe waves of the sea break against a beach they tend to drive small\npebbles and sand upward along the beach.\n\n\n HINTS FOR AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHERS\n\nTo an amateur photographer who desires to obtain the picture of a comet\nwhich may appear perchance in the near future, their capricious\nappearance at unexpected periods being one of their charms, the\nfollowing hints may be most acceptable. For work of this kind an\nequatorial telescope is used with a photographic lens and camera\nstrapped thereon. The telescope is mounted on an axis that is parallel\nto the earth\u2019s axis, and is made to rotate westward by what is called a\ndriving-clock just as fast as the earth turns to the east. It will\nfollow the motion of the sky (which apparently drifts westward), and\nkeep every star approximately fixed in the field of view, or on the\nphotographic plate in the attached camera.\n\nOtherwise, the stars will appear as trails of light, caused by the\nrotation of the earth as it moves onward at the rate of nineteen miles a\nsecond, which is rather disturbing to an astronomer who may be desirous\nof obtaining a photograph of the stars overhead. What is he to do? Here\nis our planet turning eastward and the stars apparently drifting\nwestward, and unless the telescope is made to keep up with the stars by\nmeans of clockwork the results are disastrous. Consequently, the\ntelescope is made to follow the star, comet, or whatever the desired\ncelestial trophy may be, and it is kept in such a position that the\nobject in view is centrally placed at the intersection of two threads\nobtained from a spider\u2019s web. For this reason, spiders are treated with\ndue respect in observatories, and may explain the expression of dismay\nthe writer saw on the face of an Indian assistant at the Kodaikanal\nobservatory in southern India, when she nearly dispatched one of these\nnoxious insects, which succeeded, however, in deftly eluding\ndestruction.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PHOTOGRAPH OF A BRIGHT METEOR BY DR. W. J. S. LOCKYER\n]\n\nThe star trails shown in the photograph taken by Dr. W. J. S. Lockyer\ngive an excellent idea of what happens to a photograph of the stars when\nthe clockwork is allowed to run down. In this instance the telescope,\nwith the accompanying camera, was stationary during the exposure of a\nlittle over two hours, with the result that the stars photographed are\nnot points of light, but bright and faint lines in sections of circles,\nsince the telescope was pointed to the pole of the heavens. The interest\nin this photograph is increased by the fact that a meteor dashed across\nthat part of the sky during the course of the exposure, thus resulting\nin one of the finest photographs of a meteor ever obtained.[8] Had the\nexposure lasted during twenty-four hours, and the photograph been taken\nin Norway some time during the course of their long winter night, the\ntrails would have been complete circles. By this means we do not get a\npicture of the stars, but simply a photograph illustrating the rotation\nof the earth. To obtain a picture of the stars, therefore, an equatorial\nattachment, as above described, is an absolute necessity.\n\nSome people have an idea that all an astronomer has to do in making\nphotographs of a comet, or other celestial object, is to turn the\ntelescope in the direction wanted, strap on the camera, wind up the\nclock, and then go homeward for a good night\u2019s rest. Unfortunately, no\ndriving-clock has yet been devised so perfect as to move the telescope\nexactly with the stars. According to Professor E. E. Barnard, who was an\nexpert on such matters\u2014\n\n \u201cThere is always more or less irregularity of motion, all of which\n would be recorded on the plate, and the stars, instead of showing as\n merely points of light, would be elongated and blurred. The fainter\n ones would not show at all, because they could not be still long\n enough to have their pictures taken. That is why you see in the\n photograph the observer with his eye \u2018glued to the telescope,\u2019\n watching a star, a guiding star which he constantly keeps behind the\n intersection of two illuminated spider threads in the eyepiece, by\n the slow-motion rods which are controlled by his hands.\u201d\n\nThus, every star or comet is kept immovable on the sensitive plate, and\nit paints its own portrait as long as the telescope is made to turn\nwestward as fast as the earth rotates eastward. That is why a driving\nclock is absolutely necessary for the amateur comet photographer who is\ndesirous of obtaining accurate results. Many hours are required in\nobtaining a successful photograph of such comets as the Morehouse comet,\nthe sensitive plate requiring sometimes an exposure of many hours before\nit reveals satisfactory results. The observer must sit patiently hour\nafter hour, guiding the instrument, and the writer has some idea of what\nthis must mean, from a brief five minutes\u2019 experience at Mount Wilson in\nconnection with the sixty-inch reflector. As a great favor she was\nallowed to hold the bulb in her hand which by the slightest pressure\nbrought back an erring star which had attempted to stray momentarily\nfrom the center of the field of view of the telescope.\n\nWhen one considers the hours spent by the late Professor Barnard in this\nnerve-racking work, the patient endurance of the astronomers who\nspecialize in celestial photography becomes evident. It is an arduous\ntask, and one doubtless subject to many disappointments, to avoid which\nProfessor Barnard tried to formulate some set of rules that would be\ndependent on the local time and position of the comet, but these were\nfinally rejected.\n\n \u201cSo much would depend on the purity of the atmosphere at the time,\n the size and light ratio of the lens, the kind of plate used, etc.,\n that they would probably lead to the very errors against which we\n wish to guide.\u201d\n\nThe position of the comet with respect to the point of sunrise or\nsunset, and freedom from any form of haze in the sky, are important\nfactors in the exposure of comet plates. Moreover, it is necessary that\nthey should not be exposed too early in the evening or too late in the\nmorning, in either case resulting in unsatisfactory negatives. The best\nof all rules is the judgment of the observer at the moment, but only\nlong experience will warn one by a glance at the sky when there is\ndanger of failure in this class of work. It is the few moments at the\nbeginning or end of the exposure that will injure or ruin the plate.\n\nWith a small portrait lens (the most useful size is about six inches)\nessentially everything about a comet will be shown as quickly as with a\nlarger one. The main advantage of the large lens would lie in its\ngreater scale\u2014which of itself is of great importance. Another source of\ndanger is moonlight, especially in the case of a long exposure.\nNevertheless, according to Professor Barnard, important results may be\nobtained in full moonlight, if the comet is not too near the moon. Much,\nhowever, will depend upon the clearness of the atmosphere; the purer it\nis the less will the moonlight affect the plate. In this case a dew-cap\nhelps much. On an ordinary moonlit sky an exposure of half an hour with\na quick portrait lens will not ruin a fast plate if the comet is not too\nnear the moon. In full moonlight, however, a longer exposure, unless\nunder exceptional conditions, will seriously injure or ruin the plate.\nWith the half-hour exposure the plate will be fogged, and of course the\nbest quality of negatives cannot be obtained therefrom. All plates\nshould be backed to prevent halation. A backing made of sugar and burnt\nsienna is recommended as entirely satisfactory, and can be kept in\nstock.\n\nThe formula as supplied by the Cramer Dry Plate Company is as follows:\nCook two pounds of granulated sugar in a saucepan, without the addition\nof any water, until it is nearly in the caramel or fudge stage. Then\nstir in one pound of burnt sienna and cook a little longer, stirring\nwell. Do not let the backing get sticky, or it will be difficult to\nhandle and will not soften so readily when removed from the plate.\nFinally add about half an ounce of alcohol to each pint as a drier. Put\naway in a wide-mouthed stoppered bottle or jar. When needed for use,\ndilute a little of this with water to the consistency of a thick but not\ntoo wet paste. Apply (not wet enough to run) to the back of the plate\nwith a wide camel\u2019s hair brush. It is not necessary to back heavily. A\nsheet of soft paper (an old newspaper) pressed on the backed surface\nwill prevent injury to the plate, which should be freshly backed when\nready for use. If kept in stock a long time after being backed, an\nunequal fogging is likely to occur.\n\nBefore developing, remove the backing while it is still damp, with a\nmoist piece of absorbent cotton. Should a small amount remain it will\nnot affect the developer seriously. The plates should be carefully\ndusted with a broad soft camel\u2019s hair brush, after being put in the\nplate-holder. The camera tube should be wiped out frequently with a damp\ncloth to free it from dust. It should also have a tight-fitting cover at\nthe plate end to keep it closed when the plate-holder is not in\nposition. There should be four springs, one at each corner, on the back\nof the plate-holders, to press the plate forward in a constant position.\n\nOn account of its greater sensitiveness the Lumi\u00e8re Sigma plate is\nrecommended by Professor Barnard, although he draws attention to the\nfact that this plate has frequently been found defective in having\nsmall, round, transparent and opaque spots. It is also more subject to\n\u201cchemical fog\u201d than the Cramer or Seed. Otherwise, it is a beautiful and\nvery rapid plate.\n\nWhen the comet is at its brightest, the Seed 27 Gilt Edge plates are\nrecommended on account of their general freedom from defects and finer\ngrain. With these few suggestions in respect to photographing comets,\nmade by Professor Barnard in _Popular Astronomy_, No. 170, the amateur\ncomet-hunter is enabled to make an attempt, at any rate, at\nphotographing those wonders of the heavens which have proved so\nattractive on account of their varying appearance from night to night.\nFor those who may not have a ready access to astronomical libraries, the\nabove condensed account from Professor Barnard\u2019s article on the subject\nshould prove invaluable.\n\nIn an account of his life-work given by Professor Barnard during the\ncourse of an after-dinner speech in January, 1907, at Nashville, and\nentitled by him, \u201cSome Unastronomical Experiences of a Lecturer,\u201d he\nreferred to his interest in comets as follows:\n\n \u201cI have always been interested in comets. These remarkable objects,\n which sometimes sweep across the heavens with their wonderful trains\n of light, and which in all ages have been objects of superstition\n and terror, are among the most interesting in the heavens. Little by\n little the mystery attached to them is being solved. This has been\n done mainly through the aid of photography. Many of the physical\n phenomena of the tails of comets are too faint to be seen with the\n eye, although it may be aided by a powerful telescope; but the\n photographic plate secures a permanent record of these in all their\n complexity and beauty. These photographs show that the form and\n other peculiarities of a comet\u2019s tail are often utterly transformed\n from night to night. It is therefore highly important that a\n continuous series of photographs should be obtained of every active\n comet that can be observed, for their phenomena are as evanescent as\n smoke itself.\n\n \u201cIn 1892, at the Lick Observatory, I was engaged in photographing a\n comet (Swift\u2019s) then visible in the morning sky just before\n daylight. Every morning\u2019s picture increased the interest and\n importance of the work. Unfortunately, I had arranged for a lecture\n in the Normal School at San Jos\u00e9 for the night of May 6. I did not\n want to disappoint the people, and I certainly could not let the\n comet go by unphotographed. San Jos\u00e9 was nearly a mile below us in\n vertical height and twenty-seven miles distant by stage road. The\n only possible way for me to secure my photograph and not disappoint\n my audience was to return to Mt. Hamilton that night after the\n lecture. At ten o\u2019clock I hired a horse and buggy in San Jos\u00e9 and\n drove up that lonely mountain road, the journey taking five hours,\n and arrived at the summit at three o\u2019clock in the morning, in time\n to make a photograph of the comet.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n COMET 1893 IV BROOKS\n\n Exposures of October 21, 22, and 23, showing probable encounter with\n some medium which shattered the tail. Taken at Lick Observatory by\n Professor E. E. Barnard\n]\n\n \u201cThe picture that I got proved to be a very important one, as the\n comet was then undergoing the most remarkable changes. I must say\n that a good many thrills passed over me during that lonely mountain\n ride in the dead of night\u2014some for the chance that I might drive\n over into a ca\u00f1on to death, and others for the possible interruption\n of my terrestrial existence through an encounter with some hungry,\n roaming mountain lion. In the main, the journey was a most\n impressive one. Alone in the mountains, with only the horse in front\n and my friends the stars above me, I doubt if my courage had not\n failed me entirely if the friendly stars had not encouraged me with\n their presence.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER SIX\n RETURN OF HALLEY\u2019S COMET IN 1910\n\n\n \u201cIt would have been a gratification to know that everyone who saw this\n wonderful object, did so with the same feeling of elation and\n wonder\u2014one would almost say veneration\u2014with which the average\n astronomer regarded this beautiful and mysterious object stretching\n its wonderful stream of light across the sky.\u201d\n\n \u2014E. E. BARNARD.\n\n\nWhile Halley\u2019s comet, at its return in 1910, was undoubtedly a marvelous\nobject as seen in the clear skies of America and in southern climes, yet\nit was more or less of a disappointment to watchers of the sky in\nEngland, because the view was impaired by twilight and low altitude. Nor\ndid it come up to the expectations of those whose hopes had been aroused\nby the fine series of ever-varying appearances, recorded by the camera\nin connection with the Morehouse comet, referred to in the last chapter.\nNevertheless, according to Professor Barnard, expert in photography of\ncelestial objects, had it not been for the remarkable phenomena recorded\nby the camera in connection with the Brooks comet of 1893 (see\nphotograph), and the Morehouse comet of 1908, the numerous photographs\nobtained of Halley\u2019s comet would have placed it in the first rank among\nthe records of these bodies. Yet while it lacked much of interest as\nseen with the eye of the sensitive plate, it left a lasting impression\non the human eye, adding renewed interest to its long life history of\nmore than two thousand years. The train of the comet reached the\nprodigious length of 140\u00b0, owing to its being so near the earth, and its\ngreat curvature was shown by the fact that it remained visible in the\nmorning sky for two days after the head had become visible in the\nevening sky.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n HALLEY\u2019S COMET\n\n From photograph taken at Union Observatory, Johannesburg, May 5, 1910.\n Exposure 60 minutes.\n]\n\nHalley, by whose name the comet is known, was the first definitely to\nestablish the fact, suspected before, that certain comets are regular\nvisitors to the domain of the sun, returning at stated intervals. For\nthis reason they are termed periodic comets. After Halley had calculated\nthe paths of twenty-four comets, he found that three were moving in\norbits almost identical. From this he assumed that the three comets must\nbe one and the same, just as, when a train passes through a station at\nregular stated intervals, one is led to infer that it must be the same\ntrain. Naturally allowances must be made for delays due to fog or stormy\nweather, but these factors are taken into account should the train\narrive after scheduled time. In the case of a comet it may be delayed by\nmeans of the disturbing effects of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn,\nUranus, and Neptune, but in Halley\u2019s day the presence of the last two\nplanets in the solar system was as yet unknown (Uranus was discovered in\n1781, and Neptune in 1846). Therefore the following prediction made by\nHalley, when he was convinced that the paths of the comets which\nappeared in 1531, 1607, and 1682 were identical, is all the more\nwonderful, since only an approximate allowance had been made for these\ndisturbing factors. Referring to the comet of 1682, he said: \u201cIf it\nshould return according to our predictions about the year 1758,\nimpartial posterity will not refuse to acknowledge that this was first\ndiscovered by an Englishman.\u201d\n\nThis was certainly the most extraordinary prediction ever made, for\ncometary investigations were then in their infancy, and Halley was the\nonly man living who could have computed the orbit of this comet. Newton\nhad his doubts regarding the suggestion that a comet seen on one side of\nthe sun might be identical with another seen on the other side some\nweeks later, but Robert Hooke, in a letter addressed to Newton in 1679,\nsuspected that a comet could reappear after a definite period. He\ndeclared that, if gravity decreased according to the reciprocal of the\nsquare of the distance, the path of a projectile would be an ellipse.\n\nAs the year 1758 approached, one can imagine the interest aroused among\nastronomers, and the calculations which were made for determining as\naccurately as possible the disturbing effects of the larger planets\nwithin the sphere of whose influence the comet might pass. It is\nimpossible to convey an idea of the labor involved in making the\nrequired computations of the perturbations of this comet throughout a\nperiod of two revolutions, or one hundred and fifty years. It is with a\nfeeling of pride that the author notes the important part taken in this\nwork by Madame Lepaute,[9] wife of one of the assistants of the great\nmathematician Lalande. Her work proved of inestimable value according to\nthe following remarks made by her husband on the subject:\n\n \u201cDuring six months we calculated from morning till night, sometimes\n even at meals; the consequence of which was that I contracted an\n illness which changed my constitution during the remainder of my\n life. The assistance rendered by Madame Lepaute was such that\n without her we never should have dared to undertake the enormous\n labour with which it was necessary to calculate the distance of each\n of the two planets, Jupiter and Saturn, from the comet, separately\n for every degree, for one hundred and fifty years.\u201d\n\nAmid all these difficulties, the computers toiled on, and finally, as\nthe time was drawing near for the return of the comet, Clairaut, who was\nworking in conjunction with Lalande, announced that the expected comet\nwould be delayed one hundred days by the influence of Saturn, and five\nhundred and eighteen days by the action of Jupiter, and therefore fixed\nits nearest approach to the sun for April 13th, 1759. These results were\npresented to the Academy of Sciences on November 14, 1758, and as we\nhave already seen in an earlier chapter of this book, on December 25th\nof that year the first glimpse of the long-expected wanderer was\nobtained by George Palitzsch, a farmer of Saxony. His telescope was\nsmall, his vision keen, but the enthusiasm of a devoted amateur made up\nfor his lack of suitable equipment. Observations were made of the comet,\nand astronomers were soon able to prove that the perihelion passage\nwould take place on March 13, 1759, thirty-two days before the epoch\ncalculated by Clairaut. Such a triumphant success of the theory produced\na deep impression in the scientific world, and, as Lalande\nenthusiastically remarked:\n\n \u201cThe universe beholds this year the most satisfactory phenomenon\n ever presented to us by astronomy; an event which, unique until this\n day, changes our doubts to certainty, and our hypotheses to\n demonstration.... M. Clairaut asked one month\u2019s grace for the\n theory; the month\u2019s grace was just sufficient, and the comet has\n appeared after a period of 586 days longer than the previous time of\n revolution, and thirty-two days before the time fixed; but what are\n thirty-two days to an interval of more than 150 years, during only\n one two-hundredth part of which observations were made, the comet\n being out of sight all the rest of the time! What are thirty-two\n days for all the other attractions of the solar system which have\n not been included; for all the comets, the situations and masses of\n which are unknown to us; for the resistance of the ethereal medium\n which we are unable even to estimate, and for all those quantities\n which of necessity have been neglected in the approximations of the\n calculation?\u201d\n\nTwenty-five years before the comet was again due, its expected return in\n1835 began to arouse the interest of astronomers, and prizes were\noffered by two academies for the most accurate forecast of its nearest\napproach to the sun. The successful competitors were Baron Damoiseau and\nM. Pontecoulant, and several astronomers undertook and completed the\ntask of computing the planetary perturbations. Although the computers,\nas might be expected, differed slightly as to the time when the comet\nwould make its nearest approach to the sun, yet the difference was not\ndue to any defects in the methods of computation, but to the\nimperfections of the data employed, especially with regard to the\nunknown disturbing factor, the planet Neptune.\n\nNot only was the time for the nearest approach of the comet computed,\nbut its exact path among the stars was worked out with such accuracy\nthat directions could be given as to the precise point toward which the\ntelescope must be directed when the comet came within range of\nobservation. On August 5, 1835, when M. Dumouchel, director of the\nobservatory of the Roman College, turned his telescope in the direction\nindicated and looked through the tube, to his great delight he saw the\ncomet as a faint and almost invisible stain of light on the deep blue of\nthe heavens. Thus did science triumph in a most remarkable manner, the\ncomet making its nearest approach within nine days of the predicted\ntime. It appeared as a nearly circular misty object near to the\npredicted place, and began to develop a tail about the middle of\nSeptember, which attained a length of about twenty-four degrees, or\nnearly five times the distance between the pointers, Alpha and Beta, in\nthe constellation of Ursa Major. To the naked eye the head of the comet\nresembled a reddish star rather brighter than Antares in the\nconstellation of the Scorpion. Bessel compared it to a blazing coal, and\ncalled attention to the peculiar fan-like haze of luminous matter\nforming the train, which seemed to sway to and fro like a pendulum\nacross the radius vector, an imaginary line joining the sun and the\nnucleus of the comet. This oscillation took place during a period of\nfour and three-fifths days. He came to the conclusion that a repulsive\nforce about twice as powerful as the attractive force of gravity was\nresponsible for the production of these remarkable effects, thus\nanticipating the theory according to which the very fine particles\nforming the train of a comet may be driven away from the direction of\nthe sun by radiation pressure.\n\nMeanwhile Halley\u2019s comet was passing through a remarkable series of\ntransformations, first appearing as a nebula, then as a well-regulated\ncomet with nucleus and train, next shining as a star, and finally\ndilating till it resembled a ball, then assuming paraboloidal form about\nMay 5, 1836, after which it vanished as if melting into adjacent space\nthrough the excessive diffusion of its light. Moreover, it lost its tail\nprevious to its arrival at perihelion on November 16, nor did it begin\nto recover its elongated shape until more than two months later.\n\nAt the return of Halley\u2019s comet in 1910 it was conjectured that it would\nprobably be greatly disturbed by the influence of the planet Jupiter,\nand that of Uranus and the newly discovered planet Neptune. It was\ntherefore possible for Dr. P. H. Cowell and Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin (both\nof the Royal Observatory, Greenwich) to make a prediction so exact that\nthe comet was found within six minutes of arc in R. A., and four minutes\nin declination of its predicted place, as shown on the first photograph\nobtained. This was equivalent to an angular distance in the sky less\nthan one quarter of the diameter of the moon. (Incidentally, a prize of\n1,000 marks, which had been offered by Mr. Lindemann for the most\naccurate prediction of the comet\u2019s arrival at perihelion, was won and\ndivided between the two mathematicians.) De Pontecoulant had made\ncalculations regarding the return of the comet many years earlier which\nwere fairly near the truth, but one month too late. It was action of\nJupiter about the 1835 perihelion that had such an effect on the 1910\nreturn. The action of Jupiter at any return does not produce a notable\neffect till the following return.\n\nOne of the first photographs obtained of Halley\u2019s comet at this return\nwas due to the foresight of Herr Max Wolf of the Heidelberg Observatory,\nin exposing a photographic plate for several weeks beforehand, so as to\nentrap the wanderer at the first opportunity. It was caught at 2 A.M. in\nthe morning of September 12, 1909, engraving its image on the\nphotographic plate, a welcome message announcing its advent to the\nastronomical world. (The first photograph obtained of Halley\u2019s comet was\ntaken at Helwan on August 24, but Herr Wolf was the first to identify\nthe comet\u2019s image on the plate. There were also many early photographs\ntaken at Greenwich.) For thirty-two years it had remained beyond the\norbit of the outermost planet Neptune, then, obedient to the attractive\npower of its lord and master the sun, it had started on the return trip.\nDespite its enormous distance from our planet, and the fact that it was\nbeyond reach of telescope or camera, it was possible for mathematicians\nto trace its path with unerring accuracy. It had approached the orbit of\nNeptune after the year 1888, the orbit of Uranus about ten years later,\ncrossing that of Saturn in 1908. The following year it arrived at the\norbit of Jupiter, thus bringing it within the range of both the\nphotographic plate and giant telescopes. Its actual return to perihelion\nin 1910 differed by two and seven-tenths days from the prediction which\ncan be explained only by the existence of forces which are not pure\ngravitation, or the possibility of another planet beyond Neptune, as yet\nundiscovered, acting as a disturbing factor.\n\nWhen the news of Herr Wolf\u2019s success in obtaining a photograph of the\ncomet had been announced on September 12, it was followed on September\n15 by a message from the Lick Observatory to the effect that a\nphotograph of the comet had been obtained by Dr. Heber D. Curtis with\nthe aid of the Crossley reflector. On Wednesday morning, September 15,\nProfessor S. W. Burnham of the Yerkes Observatory at Williams Bay,\nWisconsin, sighted Halley\u2019s comet by means of the great refractor with\nits forty-inch lens, while at the same time it was photographed with the\ntwo-foot reflector in an adjacent dome, by Dr. Oliver J. Lee. The comet\nwas again detected by Professor Burnham the following morning, September\n16, and it was also registered on the photographic plate by Dr. Lee.\n\nThen came the morning of September 17, one of the most eventful in the\nlife of the writer, who had arrived the previous day as the guest of the\nBarnards. That night the great refractor with its forty-inch lens was in\nthe care of Professor Barnard, who courteously invited the writer to\ncome to the observatory the next morning at 3 A.M., escorted by his\nniece, Miss Calvert, for the purpose of looking through the telescope\nand obtaining a view of Halley\u2019s comet. Making a first visit to the\nobservatory in the darkness preceding dawn was an experience in itself,\nbut the glimpse of the comet after its absence of seventy-five years is\none never to be forgotten, nor is it easy to describe. For the first\nsecond or so, all seemed darkness as I gazed down the length of that\ngreat tube (63\u00bd feet) into the opening beyond. I saw nothing, and an\nintense feeling of disappointment overwhelmed me as I realized and\nstated this fact, but Professor Barnard remarked in his whimsical way:\n\u201cSurely you did not expect to see the comet with a tail?\u201d Then he\nadvised me to keep on looking, and even while he spoke I saw a faint,\nvery misty outline. \u201cIs it exactly in the center of the field of view?\u201d\nqueried Professor Barnard when I told him that I had seen a\nnebulous-looking object, and when I replied in the negative, he informed\nme that that faint object I was looking at _was the comet_, which eight\nmonths later I saw in all its splendor from the tower at the top of the\n_Times_ Building in New York City.\n\nMeanwhile, the comet had been slowly increasing in size, and by March 4,\n1910, it presented the appearance shown in a remarkable photograph\nobtained at the Helwan Observatory. It was then suggestive of the\nnebulous-looking objects which had been catalogued as such by Herschel\nand Messier, but the latter, being more interested in comets, would soon\nhave recognized, by means of the method already referred to, the\ndifference as the comet slowly moved against the background of the\nstars. This is no reflection on the marvelous sight of Herschel, but\nwhen one reflects on the enthusiasm with which Messier hunted for\ncomets, we may be sure any suspicious-looking object he came across was\nsubjected to keen scrutiny before it was catalogued finally as one of\nthose \u201cembarrassing objects\u201d he named \u201cnebul\u00e6.\u201d During the autumn of\n1909 and the early part of the year 1910 the comet was photographed and\nobserved visually at all the great observatories. At the Royal\nObservatory, Greenwich, a fine series of photographs were obtained\ndespite the trying climate of our country. Up on the heights, at the\nGovernment Observatory at Kodaikanal in southern India, the progress of\nthe comet was recorded by telescope and camera, so that our planet might\nbe said on this occasion to have kept its Argus eye constantly directed\ntoward the celestial visitant.\n\nAccording to Professor Barnard, who made a special study of the comet,\nits first appearance resembled that of a small and rather faint speck of\nlight, very much like a faint stellar nebula. The increase in brightness\nwas not very rapid, and as late as the final observations in February,\n1910, before the comet passed behind the sun, it gave very little\npromise of the splendid display it was destined to make later on in the\nmonth of May. However, its reappearance from behind the sun in the\nmorning skies of April and May could not have been under more\nunfortunate circumstances for observation at the Yerkes Observatory.\nAccording to Professor Barnard:\n\n \u201cthat part of the year is always unpropitious here, and it seemed as\n if everything combined, on this particular occasion, to hide from us\n the growth of the comet and its approach to the earth. Forest fires\n in the northern part of the State (Wisconsin) produced a densely\n smoky sky, which, even when the clouds were merciful to us and would\n have let us see the comet, cut off with a thick yellow veil all but\n a glimpse of the bright head.\u201d\n\nThe comet was seen for the first time with the naked eye at the Yerkes\nObservatory on April 29, the nucleus being bright and of the second\nmagnitude. The tail was visible for a couple of degrees, but with\nfield-glasses it could be traced for four or five degrees. On May 3, at\n3 h. 40 m. (civil time), the comet was seen for about one minute in a\nthin streak of clearer sky, but the next morning at about the same hour\nit was a beautiful object with a long tail streaming upward toward the\nright, as shown on the magnificent photograph obtained by Professor\nBarnard. The photograph facing Chapter VI, taken at the Union\nObservatory, Johannesburg, on May 5, 1910, may give some idea of what\nwas expected but not realized by watchers of the sky in England.\n\nWhen it was announced on April 29 that the comet had come within range\nof naked-eye observations, it occurred to the writer, who was in New\nYork City at the time, that a desperate attempt must be made to see the\ncomet, despite the smoke, and electric lights turning night into day.\n\u201cWhen there\u2019s a will there\u2019s a way,\u201d and while walking along Broadway on\nthe afternoon of April 30, wondering how these difficulties might be\novercome, a glance in the direction of the _Times_ Building solved the\nproblem. On explaining to Mr. Van Anda, the assistant editor of the\n_Times_, what a very desirable spot the summit of the _Times_ Building\nwould be for observing the comet, a permit was obtained to be handed to\nthe janitor the next morning at 3 A.M. on May day. It was indeed a case\nof \u201cCall me early, mother dear,\u201d but an alarm clock served the purpose\nequally well on this momentous occasion.\n\nPromptly at three o\u2019clock the permit was presented to the janitor, and\nthe writer, ascending in the lift, was transported to the twenty-third\nstory, and escorted up a spiral staircase leading to the tower. The door\nwas unlocked by the janitor, and the writer, stepping out on to the\nparapet surrounding the tower, gazed eastward for the comet, which\nfailed to materialize, owing to a dense haze. Awaiting until dawn, the\nidea of seeing the comet was given up, but, nothing daunted, the same\nprogram was carried out at the same hour on May 2, and May 3, but\nwithout avail.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n HALLEY\u2019S COMET\n\n Photograph taken on May 4, 1910, by Professor E. E. Barnard at the\n Yerkes Observatory, Williams Bay, Wisconsin\n]\n\nThen came May 4, a bitterly cold morning; but the stars shone brightly\nand there was every hope of the comet being visible from the tower\nheights. These hopes were confirmed, for on stepping out on to the\nparapet the writer saw the comet in all its splendor. The hazy-looking\nobject seen on September 17, 1909, had developed into a full-grown comet\nwith a head shining as a star of about the second magnitude, and\nsurrounded by a nucleus. Extending outward like the beam of a\nsearchlight gleamed the tail nearly fifteen degrees in length. Calling\ndown to the janitor to make known the good news, the balcony was soon\nfilled with eager members of the _Times_ staff, who were thus enabled to\nobtain a view of the comet. By means of a field-glass thoughtfully\nprovided by Mr. Van Anda, it was possible to see a further extension of\nthe train, making it in all thirty degrees in length. Spurts of light\nlike tiny waves seemed to flow out from the nucleus to a distance of two\nor three degrees. At twenty minutes to four, the writer, on looking\ndownward at the horizon, was startled by what appeared to be a streak of\nflame, but as it rose higher it proved to be the crescent moon, which\nwith the comet and the planet Venus, completed a wonderful trio. The\ncomet remained visible, resembling a bright star with a slender stream\nof silvery mist trailing a few degrees after. By four o\u2019clock it had\nfaded in the light of approaching dawn. A glance at the photograph of\nHalley\u2019s comet obtained by Professor Barnard at the Yerkes Observatory\non May 4 will give an idea of its splendor.\n\nFor the next few mornings observations of the comet were disappointing,\nowing to heavy mists in the eastern skies. The comet was almost\ncompletely hidden from view, except on the morning of May 8, when\noccasional glimpses were obtained of it through rifts in the clouds. On\nMay 10, the nucleus of the comet, from which extended a diminutive train\neight degrees in length and fan-like in appearance, could be seen for a\nfew brief moments, after which it remained hidden behind clouds until\ndawn, making further observations impossible.\n\nIt was not until the morning of Friday, May 13, that the comet once more\ndeigned to reveal itself to the straining eyes of the lonely watcher on\nthe tower. The first glimpse was obtained at ten minutes past three. The\ncomet then resembled a faint white streak drifting in the sky. A minute\nor so later the planet Venus came into view, gaining in brilliancy as it\nrose above the mists near the horizon. At twenty-five minutes past three\nthe train of the comet was twenty degrees in length, and by half past\nthree it extended to a distance of thirty-five degrees, or seven times\nthe distance between the pointers (Alpha and Beta in Ursa Major). It\nspread out like a partly opened fan, its greatest width at the extreme\nend being about five degrees or more. The nucleus shone brightly as a\nstar of the second magnitude, but by half past three it began to grow\nless distinct, and at twenty minutes past four the comet had faded from\nview on the arrival of the first few streaks of dawn.\n\nThe comet was barely visible the next few mornings, though watched for\nanxiously, since there was always the possibility that it might reveal\nitself, but these hopes were not realized. A glance at the cloudy skies\non the morning of May 18 suggested the impossibility of seeing the\ncomet, and for the first time since the morning of May 1, the writer\nmissed her vigil at the tower.\n\nInterest was revived, however, on learning that Professor Barnard had\nseen that morning\n\n \u201ca narrow twilight (which later proved to be the tail of the comet)\n which seemed to extend along the eastern horizon.... The head of the\n comet could not be seen when it rose, with either the five-inch or\n the forty-inch telescope, because of the thick sky near the\n horizon.... The observations show that the tail was at least 109\u00b0\n long on that date. (_Astrophysical Journal_, vol. XXXIX, no 5, pp.\n 387\u2013388, June, 1914.)\n\nNow despite the fact that an astronomer at Columbia University had\ndeclared the comet would be in the evening sky, and it was useless\nlooking for it in the morning sky of May 19, the writer decided,\nnevertheless, to watch for the comet at about the usual hour, and with\nthe most gratifying results.\n\nThe parapet surrounding the tower was crowded to its utmost capacity by\na favored few on the eventful evening of May 18, awaiting they knew not\nwhat, for a report had gone forth that we were scheduled to pass through\nthe train of the comet. Below us we could see comet parties in progress\non the roof gardens of some of the leading hotels. Sounds of merriment\noccasionally reached us, but by half past ten we\u2014that is, Miss L., who\nhad offered to share the lonely vigil with the writer until dawn\u2014were\nthe only watchers on the tower. The hush of a great silence had\ngradually fallen over the city, and in silence, too, we watched the\neastern sky for any further trace of the comet.\n\nNotes made by the writer on this occasion record 11.10, red flash\n(auroral); 11.22, flash resembling an arch of glowing white surmounted\nby a crest of crimson. The display occurred above a low-lying bank of\nmist and rose to about five degrees above the horizon. It was not of any\nconsiderable breadth, and resembled rather a glow of color against the\ndark background of the sky than a wide band of light. The moon, which\nwas shining brightly, interfered seriously with the observations of\nauroral displays which appeared faint in its light. About 12.15 a mist\nappeared to spread over the city, and the air had become damp and\nchilly. By 1.30 the mist had cleared away. At 2 o\u2019clock a meteor flashed\nacross the eastern sky, downward in the direction of the star Gamma in\nthe constellation Pegasus. It was bluish-green in color, pear-shaped in\nappearance, leaving a streak five degrees in length behind it as it\nflashed to within ten degrees above the horizon. It remained visible for\nabout five seconds, and the display was vivid while it lasted. At 2.30\nthe moon, low down in the western sky, appeared of a ruddy hue as it\n\u201csank in a sea of gloom.\u201d\n\nTurning eastward, we saw a soft glow in the sky spreading from below\nPegasus and upward as far as the stars of Cassiopeia. At 2.34 a glow of\ngrayish hue extended over the northeastern sky. At 2.43 a bright meteor\nwas seen by Miss L., but she made no note of its direction, except that\nit was eastward, and a brief glimpse obtained by the writer showed its\ncolor as bluish.\n\nAt 2.45 streamers, which later proved to be the comet, were observed\nreaching from the eastern horizon, below Gamma Pegasi, and curving\nupward through Aquarius as far as Altair, and brighter in appearance\nthan the Milky Way. At its widest part, just beneath the first-magnitude\nstar Altair, the width of the band was about ten degrees, and throughout\nits length it had a brilliancy equal to that of the Milky Way, near\nwhich it terminated. The path of this band of light was very nearly that\nalong which the comet was last seen, and the writer was convinced that\nit was the outer boundary of the tail through which the earth was\npassing. Beneath this streamer, and apparently resting along the\nsoutheastern horizon, was a secondary band resembling a haze-like misty\nstreamer. This was not as clearly defined as was the upper band, and,\nmoreover, it merged into the mists of the horizon.\n\nIn connection with a sketch made by the writer on this occasion, and\nshown to Professor Barnard, he referred to it as follows in his account\nof \u201cVisual Observations of Halley\u2019s Comet in 1910,\u201d published in the\n_Astrophysical Journal_ for June, 1914:\n\n \u201cWith the exception of a sketch by Miss Mary Proctor in New York\n City, and a newspaper account by Professor D. P. Todd of Amherst\n (whose observation seemed to refer to May 16th), I have seen no\n reference from northern observers to the second, fainter and broader\n tail shown in my drawings of May 17 and 18, south of the bright beam\n and separated from it by a distinct dark space, perhaps ten degrees\n wide. The head of the comet was of course invisible, being below the\n horizon.\u201d\n\nThis was all the more pleasing to the writer, as doubts had been\nexpressed in no uncertain terms by a well-known authority, according to\nthe following statement published in an afternoon paper. \u201cSome one\nthinks she saw the comet in the eastern sky, when it is really in the\nwest.\u201d One can imagine the anxious time experienced while awaiting\nconfirmation of the observation, but it came in due course from Yerkes,\nLick, Argentine Republic, South Africa, and the writer felt rewarded for\nthe many dreary waits in the tower during the \u201cwee sma\u2019 hours\u201d since May\n1.\n\nOn the morning of May 20, the writer again watched from the _Times_\ntower, in the hope of seeing some straggling streamers trailing along\nthe sky, denoting the presence of the comet. Between half past two and a\nquarter past three a ghostly apparition resembling a slender band of\nlight was seen extending upward, though almost parallel with the\nnortheastern horizon. It seemed to rest on a darker band of luminous\nhaze beneath. Surely this was the last fragment of the train of the\ncomet, outlined faintly against the dark void of space.\n\nThat same morning Professor Barnard at Yerkes detected a hazy luminous\nstreak about five degrees broad extending from Aquil\u00e6 to the east and\nonward toward Alpha Pegasi. \u201cThis resembled the comet\u2019s tail,\u201d recorded\nProfessor Barnard,\n\n \u201cbut was doubtless a strip of haze. I looked at it several times,\n taking it for a strip of haze, but it did not seem to move. There\n were masses of moving haze overhead toward the north. To all\n appearance it looked like the comet\u2019s tail of the mornings of May 18\n and 19. I cannot be certain that it was not haze, but it was a\n singular coincidence of position, appearance, etc., if it was. It\n remained visible for fully fifteen or twenty minutes.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n COMET 1861, JULY 2, AS SEEN AND DRAWN BY R. A. PROCTOR\n\n The tail of the comet was near the earth, which passed through it on\n this occasion\n]\n\nThe train may have been fan-like, as in the case of the comet of 1861,\ndiscovered on May 13, by Mr. John Tebbutt of Windsor, New South Wales,\nalready referred to in the chapter on \u201cComet-hunting as a Hobby.\u201d In my\nfather\u2019s book, _Mysteries of Time and Space_, he records as follows his\nview of that comet in connection with the drawing here given:\n\n \u201cThe first recorded observations (of the comet of 1861, in Europe)\n were made on the evening of June 30, nineteen days after it had\n passed its point of nearest approach to the sun. I remember well\n observing it on the morning of July 2, 1861. For some reason I found\n it impossible to sleep that morning, and getting up about three (the\n exact hour I do not remember, but it must have been very early), I\n saw in the east what looked at first like the rays of an aurora\n borealis. But presently I noticed that these rays proceeded (unlike\n those of the aurora) from a bright center, which had been hidden by\n clouds when my observations began. I used at that time to keep a\n four-inch telescope, mounted on a three-legged stand, in my bedroom.\n This I had quickly ready for action (noting that the object, owing\n to the approach of sunrise, was getting fainter every minute), and\n turning it on the comet, I drew a picture of the nucleus and coma,\n so closely resembling that which appeared a week or two later in the\n _Illustrated London News_, that I might have supposed my picture had\n been surreptitiously sent to the office of the _Illustrated_, had I\n not found it resting just where I had put it in my scientific\n portfolio.\u201d\n\nReturning to the discussion of Halley\u2019s comet, it was seen on May 21, at\n4.30 A.M., by Professor Evershed, (then director of the Kodaikanal\nObservatory, Southern India), appearing no broader than on May 18, but\nfainter. He described it as passing centrally through the square of\nPegasus, which was nearly filled with the faint light. The tail could be\ntraced, as before, right up to the Milky Way. The star \u03b5 Pegasi was\nnearly in the center of the band of light, and the star \u03b1 Aquil\u00e6 near\nits southern edge. This was the last observation Professor Evershed made\nbefore dawn. He considered it remarkable that the tail of the comet\nshould have remained visible in the morning sky as a narrow band of\nlight, nearly two days after the head of the comet had passed to the\nother side of the sun. He suggested that this might be due to the fact\nthat the tail may have been strongly curved and very broad in the\ndirection of the comet\u2019s motion, although narrow and straight in the\ndirection at right angles thereto. If so, the passage of the earth\nthrough the tail, if it occurred at all, must have been delayed one or\ntwo days and probably occupied more time than a single day. There is\nsome doubt whether the tail did actually touch the earth, for\nobservations of its position in the sky on May 11 and 15 show that its\naxis was inclined very considerably northward from the direction of the\nradius vector, a straight line drawn from the nucleus of the comet to\nthe sun of the comet.\n\nIn the forenoon of May 19 certain peculiarities observed suggested that\nour planet may have been actually immersed in the cometary d\u00e9bris of the\ntrain of Halley\u2019s comet. These consisted of a peculiar iridescence and\nunnatural appearance of the clouds near the sun, and a bar of prismatic\ncolors on the clouds in the south. This, combined with the general\neffect of the sky and clouds\u2014for the entire sky had a most unnatural and\nwild look\u2014would have attracted marked attention at any other time than\nwhen one was looking, as on this occasion, for something out of the\nordinary. According to the observations made by Professor Barnard at the\nYerkes Observatory, the sky had been watched carefully during the\nforenoon of this date, but nothing unusual had appeared until close to\nnoon, when the conditions became abnormal. Later on in June, and for at\nleast a year afterward, slowly moving strips and masses of luminous haze\nwere observed in the sky, which were not confined to any one part.\nReports of like unusual phenomena were received from the Transvaal, and\nfrom elsewhere in southern climes.\n\nOn the evening of May 21 the comet made its first appearance in the\nwest, as seen by watchers on the _Times_ tower, but it failed to be very\nimpressive. It was to the left and a few degrees north of the star\nBetelgeuse in the constellation of Orion, and it resembled a star of the\nthird magnitude. It was surrounded by a hazy cloud-like mist that made\nit appear nearly as large as the space covered by the moon. To the left\nof it, and extending outward about three or four degrees, were three or\nfour fan-like streamers. At 8.25 the nucleus seemed brighter and more\nstar-like in the center, but the streamers had faded from view and the\nmist surrounding the nucleus had become hazy and ill-defined. Five\nminutes later only the star-like nucleus could be seen, doubtless owing\nto the combination of the glare of moonlight and the haze that reflected\nthe city lights below.\n\nOn May 24 the comet appeared hovering for a brief interval over the\nwestern horizon, resembling a faint star enveloped in mist, and adorned\nwith a short fan-like tail. On May 25 the comet could not be seen, owing\nto the mist and a drizzling rain, but on May 26 it was visible on two\noccasions for intervals of about five minutes. It then resembled a\nfairly bright star of the third magnitude, surrounded by a misty halo,\nbut was devoid of a tail. It seemed that our chances of seeing the comet\nagain under favorable conditions were slight, but on the evening of May\n27 we were once more regaled with a fine view, which proved to be final\nas far as the writer was concerned.\n\nAt a few minutes past eight the nucleus of the comet appeared, as usual,\nhazy and ill-defined, but gradually it brightened until it equaled the\nglow of the first-magnitude star Regulus, in the constellation of Leo\nnear by. Only a few degrees of tail were visible at first, but as the\ntwilight deepened into night more and more came into view. By 8.40 P.M.\nit stretched outward about twenty degrees in the direction of the planet\nJupiter. The train was long and slender, and not more than five degrees\nat its greatest width. By 9 o\u2019clock it was clearly visible, a dark\nstreak apparently dividing it just beyond the nucleus; the edges were\nmore or less sharply defined for a distance of about three or four\ndegrees. By 10.30 the train of the comet had almost faded from view; at\n10.40 it had become invisible and the nucleus was barely perceptible.\nWithin three minutes the nucleus was almost lost to sight in the haze\nand mist near the horizon.\n\nMeanwhile, the moon had risen in the eastern sky, and by eleven o\u2019clock\nit was several degrees above the horizon. Its arrival on the scene was\nthe climax of an evening rich in glory, as far as the celestial display\nwas concerned. The view of the comet on this occasion was the best that\nhad been obtained since May 20, and settled beyond doubt the vexed\nquestion that had arisen as to whether the comet had lost its tail or\nhad divided in two. Nevertheless, a glance at a photograph taken by\nProfessor Barnard on June 6, shows an apparently smaller comet nestling\nto the left of the larger, keeping it company, as it were, in its\ncelestial voyage outward from the neighborhood of the sun. By this time\nthe comet had faded sadly, as Professor Barnard expressed it, and,\nthough a noticeable object, was only the ghost of its former self.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n HALLEY\u2019S COMET\n\n From photograph taken by Professor E. E. Barnard, June 6, 1910, at the\n Yerkes Observatory, Williams Bay, Wisconsin\n]\n\nWhere is it now in its outward journey, at the present time of writing\n(1925)? Science can answer the question as definitely as though it were\nactually possessed of magic glasses, enabling it to follow the path of\nthe retreating comet, although it has long since passed beyond our range\nof view. It is now approaching the orbit of the planet Neptune, crossing\nit in 1933, and reaches its greatest distance outward from the sun in\n1943, or 3,200 million miles. In 1964 it draws near to Neptune again,\nand will be halfway between Neptune and Uranus in 1974, arriving at the\norbit of Saturn in 1984. Once more it will gladden the eyes of mortals\nas it approaches the planet Jupiter, and draws near to pay its respects\nto its mighty ruler, the sun.\n\nAt its return in 1758 the prediction erred on the side of thirty-two\ndays; at the return in 1835, by a margin of only two days; and in 1910,\nby the amount of two and one-half days. Perchance, ere it makes its next\nappearance in 1985,[10] the presence of another planet beyond Neptune\nmay have been detected, explaining the disturbing factor resulting in\nthat small discrepancy. The astronomers at that remote date (1984) may\nsucceed, therefore, in making a prediction so exact that the comet may\n\u201cswim into their ken\u201d promptly to scheduled time. Few, if any, of the\npresent-time readers of this book (unless it falls into the hands of a\nvery youthful enthusiast) will be here to welcome the comet at its next\nreturn, and even the youthful enthusiast may have the distressing\nexperience of the American astronomer Dr. Lewis Swift, who saw Halley\u2019s\ncomet in 1835, and was able to welcome it at its return in 1910, but,\nowing to failing eyesight, was unable to see it, much to his regret.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n The orbit of Halley\u2019s Comet, which it passes over in 75 to 77 years,\n showing where the comet is to be found now, and during its course\n until its next return in 1985.\n]\n\nWith regard to my first visit to the Yerkes Observatory, the following\nfacts regarding the great refractor may be of interest, as well as the\nincident narrated to me by Miss Calvert while we were awaiting Professor\nBarnard\u2019s invitation to look for Halley\u2019s comet, on that momentous\noccasion. The story was deferred, in my account, to the final part of\nthis chapter, so as not to break the thread of the actual account of my\nfirst view of the comet. Following the description of the telescope, the\nstory of a catastrophe which nearly ended its career is best told in\nProfessor Barnard\u2019s own words, as quoted from the after-dinner speech,\nin January, 1907, at Nashville, already referred to in this book.\n\n \u201cThe tube of this instrument is about sixty-four feet long. In the\n farther end of this tube is placed the great object glass, forty\n inches clear in aperture. When one is looking overhead with this\n giant telescope, he must be at a point some thirty feet or more\n lower than when the tube is pointed toward the horizon. To avoid the\n use of a high ladder to reach the observing end of the telescope in\n its various positions, the floor of the dome itself is made into a\n giant elevator, sixty-five feet in diameter. The rising and lowering\n of this floor\u2014which is done by electric motors\u2014always keeps the\n observer in a convenient and safe position with reference to the\n eye-end. This floor is suspended by heavy steel cables which go over\n wheels at the tops of four towers attached to the inside walls of\n the dome. The floor is counterpoised by heavy iron weights at the\n other ends of the cables.\n\n \u201cWithin a little over a week after the completion of the instrument\n and when we had seen through it only once or twice, the two south\n cables pulled out of their sockets and the floor fell through fifty\n feet to the ground and was destroyed. It was a terrible wreck. This\n was on the morning of May 29, 1897, at 6.30 o\u2019clock. Mr. Ellerman\n and I had been working all night observing with the telescope. When\n we quit at daylight we left the floor at its highest point for the\n convenience of some workmen who were to be at work on the tube in\n the morning. When the floor fell there was not a soul in the\n building, and no one was injured. A couple of hours either way, and\n death in all probability would have come to one or the other of us.\n Only a few nights before this accident the president of the\n University of Chicago and thirty or more trustees and prominent men\n of the university had seen through the telescope, and the floor had\n been up and down with them on it. If it had fallen then a heavy loss\n of life would have been almost certain. A few days before that, Mr.\n Clark, who made the great glass, had unpacked the forty-inch disks\n on the floor at its highest point, and had put them in the cell\n which he finally bolted to the end of the telescope. If the floor\n had fallen then, the great lens would have been destroyed, with the\n probability that no one would be able to make another, for Mr. Clark\n died within a few days after he returned to Cambridge. It was\n providential, then, that the floor fell when it did; for the fault\n in the attachment of the cables made it certain that it must soon\n have fallen.\n\n \u201cBut this is not the end of the story. When the floor fell, it\n lurched against the great iron pier of the telescope and must have\n given it a violent blow. There was some fear that the great glass\n might have been injured by the shock. It was nearly a hundred feet\n up in the air and could not be reached to see if it was unharmed. By\n climbing up on the dome (which is one hundred and ten feet high) and\n looking down at the glass, it was seen to be apparently uninjured.\n Still, the test could only be made by examining the stars through\n it, which was not possible until the floor was replaced by a new\n one. Four months were occupied in taking out the wreck and putting\n in the new floor.\n\n \u201cThere was great anxiety to see the sky through the glass, and the\n first night available it was turned to the stars. To our\n consternation, there was a great, long flare of light running\n through every bright star we examined. This was so strong and\n conspicuous that it would make the instrument utterly useless. It\n looked as if the lens had been injured by the shock of the floor\n against the pier. We examined it in all positions of the instrument,\n but we could not get rid of the glaring defect. As I had used the\n glass more than anyone else before the accident, my statement that\n the defect did not then exist made the matter all the more serious.\n It was with heavy hearts that we waited for day to again critically\n examine the lens. The next day we all examined the great glass very\n carefully, but could see nothing wrong with it. Then Professor Hale\n noticed that just back of the glass in the tube was a thick mass of\n spider webs stretched across the tube, all running in the same\n direction. Upon comparing notes we found that the direction of the\n spider webs coincided with that of the flare of light seen the night\n before. It seemed that a spider had evidently got in the tube before\n the object glass was put on by Clark, and had been unable to get\n out; for there was no opening in the tube. During the time the tube\n remained at rest, while the new floor was being put in, he had\n climbed up to the great glass in the direction of the light; and\n when he found his egress barred by the great window, he spun his\n web, perhaps as a signal of distress, or maybe in the hope that some\n unlucky fly might get in through the glass that he could not get out\n of\u2014anyway, with the result that he caused several astronomers the\n most uneasy time of their lives. When these webs were swept out by\n one of the astronomers climbing up in the tube with a feather\n duster, it was found that night, when the stars were examined, that\n the flare had vanished and the mighty glass was uninjured.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER SEVEN\n ORIGIN OF COMETS AND METEORS\n\n\n (THEORIES ADVANCED BY THE LATE RICHARD A. PROCTOR.)\n\nAmong the author\u2019s most treasured possessions is a clipping from the\nCincinnati _Daily Gazette_ for February 18, 1874, containing a report of\na lecture given by her father, on \u201cComets and Meteors,\u201d from which the\nfollowing is an extract:\n\n \u201cIn this lecture on comets and meteors, I promised to give some\n account of what is expelled from the sun when great explosions take\n place. If I were to say that the comets were shot out from the sun\n you might be startled, or if I asserted that they were also thrown\n out of Jupiter and Saturn. But the evidence in connection therewith\n is very curious. In the first place, we know that matter is shot out\n from the sun, with a velocity so great as to be carried away from\n him altogether and so would travel into space. That has only been\n observed a few times, but the occurrence is probably very frequent.\n The matter which was expelled, if it struck the earth at all, would\n strike in the daytime. The side of the earth facing the sun will be\n the illuminated side. The meteoric matter coming from the sun can\n only strike the illuminated part, and this can only happen in the\n daytime. You throw a stone at any object, and it must strike the\n side of the object you aim at, that is turned toward you. Humboldt\n affirmed that the largest number of meteoric masses had fallen in\n the daytime. The larger a\u00ebrolites have been examined and their\n microscopic structure studied. Sorby of Sheffield, who examined some\n of them, says they consist of a number of small globules and were\n originally in a vaporous state before assuming their present\n condition. Then came a chemical analysis by Professor Graham and\n Chandler Roberts of London. They found in the iron of the meteoric\n mass more hydrogen than iron in a natural condition. Professor\n Graham said that in his opinion meteors certainly contained iron,\n and that probably they had been expelled from one of the stars that\n people space. He drew attention to the fact that stars contained\n hydrogen in their atmosphere. These are some of the facts concerned\n with the larger meteoric masses.\n\n \u201cHow shall we account for those meteoric streams which travel close\n to the path of Jupiter? All comets of short period have paths\n closely approaching some of the large planets. The comet of 1680\n went close to Jupiter, long before the explosive power of the sun\n was noticed. I call them Jupiter\u2019s family of comets. Sir John\n Herschel said that it was very curious that they had that relation.\n If we put forward the theory that Jupiter expelled these comets, we\n have a very startling theory, but many of the theories which have\n been propounded, some of the most important character and which have\n been proved to be true, have been the most startling. It is said\n that as Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus go along their paths, they draw\n in the comets which travel close to them, and capture them.\n\n \u201cI made a calculation about the November meteors to see how close\n they must go to the path of Uranus in order to be captured, and\n found that they must approach nearly as close as the nearest\n satellite. Only those which came almost in contact with the planet\n could be captured. Now, if they were shot out when Uranus was in a\n sun-like condition, then it would be explained, whereas we find\n great difficulty in imagining that a comet coming out of space would\n be captured bodily by a planet like Uranus. Let us consider the\n matter thus: if comets are expelled from a planet, they will be\n carried along with the forward motion. If it could appear that some\n of them went backward, then we would have no evidence of the theory\n I have been advancing. If most of them travel forward, then we would\n have some evidence for the theory. Now there is the curious fact\n that among the comets of short period the whole of Jupiter\u2019s family\n travel forward. They do not travel in all directions of slope; all\n have a very moderate slope to the paths of the planets. They do not\n have the slope even of the asteroids. That is precisely what we\n notice\u2014that they travel very much with Jupiter. Taking the balance\n between the two theories\u2014that of expulsion and that of capture\u2014it\n seems to be in favor of the more startling one\u2014that Jupiter has had\n the power to expel these objects.\u201d\n\nIt is interesting, in connection with this extract from the report of a\nlecture given by my father some fifty years ago at present time of\nwriting (1925), to turn to a passage in the chapter on comets, by Dr. A.\nC. D. Crommelin, in the _Splendour of the Heavens_, page 414, where he\nrefers as follows to the capture theory:\n\n \u201cThe fact that the members of the Jupiter family (of comets) have\n direct motion in all cases appears to give a fatal blow to the\n capture theory. Practically as many comets would approach the planet\n with retrograde motion as with direct; there is, indeed, the point\n that those travelling in the same direction as the planet would\n remain longer in its neighbourhood, and so have more time to be\n perturbed, which would have some weight; but that out of some fifty\n comets there is not a single retrograde one is too remarkable a fact\n to pass over, and it clearly suggests that Jupiter played a\n different part from that of a mere enslaver, and was concerned with\n the origin of these bodies in a more intimate manner.\n\n \u201cMany of the considerations I have brought forward were stated by\n Mr. R. A. Proctor some fifty years ago; they have therefore been\n accessible to astronomers, who nevertheless have been, as a rule,\n quite unaffected by them, so that it is time to state them afresh.\n The consideration that the life of a short-period comet is limited\n by the rapid wastage to which it is subject by the joint action of\n the sun and Jupiter was not, I think, so fully realised, when\n Proctor wrote as it is now. It serves further to invalidate the\n capture theory, since it prevents our assigning to these bodies such\n extended lives as that theory demands.\u201d\n\nAccording to my father\u2019s theory, the giant planets are themselves the\nparents of their comet-families, and he pictured their birth as having\noccurred in a remote past, when the planets were more sun-like than they\nare to-day. We have a great amount of evidence as to the energy of the\nprocesses that are at work on Jupiter, as evidenced, for instance, by\nthe great Red Spot (though some have hinted at the possibility of its\nbeing an early stage in the formation of a new satellite); Saturn,\nUranus, and Neptune also indicate vast upheavals, though distance in\ntheir case hinders observation, and even on our own planet we have some\nstriking instances of the power of volcanic energy, as at the eruption\nof Krakatoa in 1883. Sounds of the explosion were heard three thousand\nmiles away, and a huge volume of dust was blown to the highest regions\nof the atmosphere, but we are entitled to expect much vaster convulsions\nin Jupiter, which outweighs the earth three hundred times and is in a\nmuch hotter state, judging by the deep envelope of vapours surrounding\nit, and the rapid changes that are constantly taking place in its\nappearance, on an enormous scale, as shown by the fine series of\nphotographs which have been obtained of the planet with the giant\ntelescopes.\n\nWriting in his magazine, _Knowledge_, for January 1, 1887, page 64, my\nfather states:\n\n \u201cThe theory of ejection was adopted as the only theory by which the\n chemical, physical, and microscopic structure of meteorites of all\n orders\u2014from bolosiderites to asiderites\u2014can be accounted for. They\n were certainly once exposed to such conditions as exist only in the\n interior of large orbs\u2014suns or planets. And as certainly they have\n somehow come forth from such interiors. The expulsive force shown by\n observation to reside in the only sun-like body we can examine,\n indicates the only way in which such expulsion can conceivably have\n been effected. Hence, I infer (for my own part I feel assured of the\n weight of evidence) that all orders of meteorites were expelled from\n some orbs at some time when such orbs were in the sun-like stage.\n Generalizing, I include in this theory all orders of meteors, and\n find all their most characteristic peculiarities explained, and all\n orders of meteor systems or comets, finding their several orders\n thus and thus only explicable (if we include all suns now and in the\n past, all planets in all solar systems, in their past sun-like\n state, among the sources of meteors and comets). No other general\n theory seems to me possible.\u201d\n\nAgain, in an article in _Knowledge_ for April, 1887, page 135, my father\nmakes the following statement regarding his theory concerning comets and\nmeteors:\n\n \u201cAll comets and meteors are sun-born. But it is not to our own sun,\n nor to those other suns, the stars, that I attribute all comets and\n meteor systems. Many millions have come doubtless from our sun\n during the many millions of years he has been a sun, though few of\n his cometic children are known to terrestrial astronomers. Millions\n of millions have come from the many millions of suns in our galaxy\n during the many millions of years of their sun-like existence. But\n the giant planets were once suns,[11] and in their sun-like state,\n which must have lasted millions of years, they must have ejected\n their smaller comets and meteor systems which even now, after\n millions of years, have paths passing near the orbits of their\n parent orbs. Our earth and her fellow terrestrial planets had their\n sun-like stage of life, too, and it must have been while the earth\n was a sun that the meteors explained specially by Tschermak\u2019s theory\n were expelled.\u201d\n\nAccording to his theory, Tschermak, noting the resemblance of structure\nbetween meteorites and volcanic products, suggests that meteors of all\norders (which would include meteor streams, and therefore comets) were\nshot out from the earth in the days when she was young. But though this\nis better than the other theories, in at least suggesting some sort of\nan origin for comets and meteors, it will not account for comets which\ndo not approach within many millions of miles of the earth\u2019s orbit,[12]\nand a theory which fails for some among the comets cannot be the true\ngeneral theory for meteors either.\n\nMr. Sorby of Sheffield, the eminent mineralogist already referred to,\ndeduced from the microscopic structure of certain meteorites the\nstartling theory that they had once been inside the sun; for there is\nevidence that their substance once existed in the form of globules of\nmolten metal, which aggregated with large masses, which in turn were\nexposed to violent friction, indicating conflicting motions of very high\nvelocities.\n\n\u201cWhere else,\u201d wrote Sorby, in 1864, \u201ccould such conditions exist, except\nfirst in the interior, and afterwards in the immediate neighborhood of\nour sun!\u201d But it is absolutely certain that the theory as thus suggested\ncannot possibly be true, either as a general explanation of comets and\nmeteors, or even as an explanation of any known meteor system or comet,\nunless, perhaps, a few of the comets whose orbits pass very near the sun\nwere sun-born, and subsequently disturbed by planetary attractions so as\nnot to return to their parent orb.\n\nAccording to my father\u2019s views on the subject:\n\n \u201cA flight of meteors shot out from the sun, as Sorby suggested,\n might have velocity enough to get away from him forever, in which\n case we should never see a trace of it again, even though we waited\n for millions of years. If, however, it could not get away, then it\n must return to its starting-place\u2014that is, back to the sun\u2019s\n globe\u2014unless, passing near enough to one of the giant planets, it\n were so far disturbed as only to return by grazing past the sun\u2019s\n surface. (The comets of 1843, 1880, and 1882, which all traveled in\n paths near the sun, almost grazing his surface, may well have been\n parts of a single meteor-flight shot out from his interior millions\n of years ago.)\u201d\n\nAfter the appearance of the new comet of 1887 in the southern skies, it\nwas found to be following along the same track as the comets of 1843,\n1880, and 1882, thus confirming my father\u2019s theory that these comets\nwere parts of one large comet, dissipated, doubtless, some millions of\nyears ago.\n\nThese comets were so bright when near the sun that they could be seen at\nnoon with the naked eye. As regards the heat experienced by the comet of\n1843 when near the sun, Sir John Herschel remarked:\n\n \u201cImagine a glare 25,000 times fiercer than that of an equatorial\n sunshine at noonday. In such a heat there is no solid substance we\n know of which would not run like water\u2014boil\u2014and be converted into\n smoke or vapor.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Knowledge_\n\n THE SOUTHERN COMET OF JANUARY, 1887\n]\n\nIn _Knowledge_ for November 1, 1887, an account is given of the\nremarkable southern comet first observed in January of that year, and as\nit is the last article on this topic written by my father for his\nmagazine, giving a more or less detailed account of his views on the\nsubject, the author of this book has deemed it advisable to quote it in\nfull. It is of special interest, not only on account of its giving his\ntheories on the subject, but for the reason that it helps to supply part\nof the missing chapter on \u201cComets and Meteors,\u201d which he had planned for\nhis final but unfortunately unfinished work, _Old and New Astronomy_.\nThis work had been in course of preparation for thirty years, and that\nthe material for such a chapter was partially compiled the writer knows\nfrom the fact that she has a keen recollection of clippings, MSS., and\nnotes which she saw apparently awaiting classification and arrangement,\na short while before her father\u2019s departure from Florida, September 8,\n1888. What became of them after his sudden death in New York a few days\nlater, it is impossible to conjecture, unless A. C. Ranyard, who\ncompleted the book, found the chapter on comets too difficult to arrange\nsatisfactorily. Yet even the fragments so arduously arranged and\ncollected by my father would have been better than a missing chapter on\na subject in which he was so deeply interested and to which he had\ndevoted so much attention.\n\nTo return to my father\u2019s account of the comet of January, 1887:\n\n \u201cThe comet was first seen by a farmer and a fisherman of Blauwberg,\n near Cape Town, on the night of January 18\u201319. The same night it was\n seen at the Cordoba University by M. Thom\u00e9. On the next night Mr.\n Todd discovered it independently at the Adelaide Observatory, and\n watched it till the 27th. On the 22d Mr. Finlay detected the comet\n and was able to watch it till the 29th. At Rio de Janeiro, Mr. Cruls\n observed it from the 23d to the 25th, and at Windsor, New South\n Wales, Mr. Tebbutt observed the comet on the 28th and 30th.\n Moonlight interfered with further observations.\n\n \u201cThe comet\u2019s appearance was remarkable. Its tail, long and straight,\n extended over an arc of thirty degrees, but there was no appreciable\n condensation which could be called the comet\u2019s head. The long train\n of light, described as nearly equal in brightness to the Magellanic\n clouds, seemed to be simply cut off at that end where in most comets\n a nucleus and coma are shown.\n\n \u201cThis comet has helped to throw light on one of the most perplexing\n of all the puzzles which those most perplexing of all the heavenly\n bodies, comets, have presented to astronomers. In the year 1668, a\n comet was seen in the southern skies which attracted very little\n notice at the time, and would probably have been little thought of\n since had not attention been directed to it by the appearance and\n behavior of certain comets seen during the last half-century.\n Visible for about three weeks, and discovered after it had already\n passed the point of its nearest approach to the sun, the comet of\n 1668 was not observed so satisfactorily that its orbit could be\n precisely determined. In fact, two entirely different orbits would\n satisfy the observations fairly, though only one could be regarded\n as satisfying them well.\n\n \u201cThis orbit, however, was so remarkable that astronomers were led to\n prefer the other, less satisfactory though it was, in explaining the\n observed motions of the comet. For the orbit which best explained\n the comet\u2019s movements carried the comet so close to the sun as\n actually to graze his visible surface. Moreover, there was this\n remarkable and, indeed, absolutely unique peculiarity about the\n orbit thus assigned: the comet (whose period of revolution was to be\n measured by hundreds of years) actually passed through the whole of\n that part of its course during which it was north of our earth\u2019s\n orbit plane in less than two hours and a half! though this part of\n its course is a half-circuit around the sun, so far as direction\n (not distance of travel) is concerned. That comet, when at its\n nearest to the sun, was traveling at the rate of about 330 miles per\n second. It passed through regions near the sun\u2019s surface commonly\n supposed to be occupied by atmospheric matter.\n\n \u201cNow, had the comet been so far checked in its swift rush through\n those regions as to lose one-thousandth part of its velocity, it\n would have returned in less than a year. But the way in which the\n comet retreated showed that nothing of this sort was to be expected.\n I am not aware, indeed, that any anticipations were ever suggested\n in regard to the return of the comet of 1668 to our neighborhood. It\n was not till the time of Halley\u2019s comet, 1682, that modern astronomy\n began to consider the question of the possibly periodic character of\n cometic motions with attention. (For my own part, I reject as\n altogether improbable the statement of Seneca that the ancient\n Chaldean astronomers could calculate the return of comets. The comet\n of 1680, called Newton\u2019s, was the very first whose orbital motions\n were dealt with on the principles of Newtonian astronomy, and\n Halley\u2019s was the first whose periodic character was recognized.)\n\n \u201cIn 1843, another comet came up from the south, and presently\n returned thither. It was, indeed, only seen during its return,\n having, like the comet of 1668, been discovered only a day or two\n after perihelion passage. Astronomers soon began to notice a curious\n resemblance between the orbits of the two comets. Remembering the\n comparative roughness of the observations made in 1668, it may be\n said that the two comets moved in the same orbit, so far as could be\n judged from observation. The comet of 1843 came along a path\n inclined at apparently the same angle to the earth\u2019s orbit plane,\n crossed that plane ascendingly at appreciably the same point, swept\n round in about two hours and a half that part of its angular circuit\n which lay north of the earth\u2019s orbit plane, and, crossing that plane\n descendingly at the same point as the comet of 1668, passed along\n appreciably the same course towards the southern stellar regions!\n The close resemblance of two paths, each so strikingly remarkable in\n itself, could not well be regarded as a mere accidental coincidence.\n\n \u201cHowever, at that time no very special attention was directed to the\n resemblance between the paths of the comets of 1843 and 1668. It was\n not regarded as anything very new or striking that a comet should\n return after making a wide excursion round the sun; and those who\n noticed that the two comets really had traversed appreciably the\n same path around the immediate neighborhood of the sun, simply\n concluded that the comet of 1668 had come back in 1843, after 175\n years, and not necessarily for the first time.\n\n \u201cIt must be noticed, however, before leaving this part of the\n record, that the comet of 1843 was suspected of behaving in a rather\n strange way when near the sun. For the first observation, made\n rather roughly, indeed, with a sextant, by a man who had no idea of\n the interest his observations might afterwards have, could not be\n reconciled by mathematicians (including the well-known\n mathematician, Benjamin Pierce) with the movement of the comet as\n subsequently observed. It seemed as though when in the sun\u2019s\n neighborhood the comet had undergone some disturbance, possibly\n internal, which had in slight degree affected its subsequent career.\n\n \u201cAccording to some calculations the comet of 1843 seemed to have a\n period of about thirty-five years, which accorded well with the idea\n that it was the comet of 1668, returned after five circuits. Nor was\n it deemed at all surprising that the comet, conspicuous though it\n is, had not been detected in 1713, 1748, 1783, and 1818, for its\n path would carry it where it would be very apt to escape notice\n except in the southern hemisphere, and even there it might quite\n readily be missed. The appearance of the comet of 1668 corresponded\n well with that of the comet of 1843. Each was remarkable for its\n long tail and for the comparative insignificance of its head. In the\n northern skies, indeed, the comet of 1843 showed a very straight\n tail, and it is usually depicted in that way, whereas the comet of\n 1668 had a tail showing curvature. But pictures of the comet of\n 1843, as seen in the southern hemisphere, show it with a curved\n tail, and also the tail appeared forked toward the end, during that\n part of the comet\u2019s career. However, the best observations, and the\n calculations based on them, seemed to show that the period of the\n comet of 1843 could not be less than 500 years.\n\n \u201cAstronomers were rather startled, therefore, when, in 1880, a comet\n appeared in the southern skies which traversed appreciably the same\n course as the comets of 1668 and 1843. When I was in Australia in\n 1880, a few months after the great comet had passed out of view, I\n met several persons who had seen both the comet of that year and the\n comet of 1843. They all agreed in saying that the resemblance\n between the two comets was very close. Like the comet of 1843, that\n of 1880 had a singularly long tail, and both comets were remarkable\n for the smallness and dimness of their heads. One observer told me\n that at times the head of the comet could barely be discerned.\n\n \u201cLike the comets of 1668 and 1843, the comet of 1880 grazed close\n past the sun\u2019s surface. Like them it was but about two hours and a\n half north of the earth\u2019s orbit plane. Had it only resembled the\n other two in these remarkable characteristics, the coincidence would\n have been remarkable. But of course the real evidence by which the\n association between the comets was shown was of a more decisive\n kind. It was not in general character only, but in details that the\n path of the comet of 1880 resembled those on which the other two\n comets had traveled. Its path had almost exactly the same slant to\n the earth\u2019s orbit plane as theirs, crossed that plane ascendingly\n and descendingly at almost exactly the same points, and made its\n nearest approach to the sun at very nearly the same place.\n\n \u201cTo the astronomer such evidence is decisive. Mr. Hind, the\n superintendent of the _Nautical Almanac_, and as sound and cautious\n a student of cometic astronomy as any man living, remarked, so soon\n as the resemblance of these comets\u2019 paths had been ascertained, that\n if it were merely accidental the case was most unusual; nay, it\n might be described as unique. And, be it noticed, he was referring\n only to the resemblance between the comets of 1880 and 1843. Had he\n recalled at the time the comet of 1668, and its closely similar\n orbit, he would have admitted that the double coincidence could not\n possibly be merely casual.\n\n \u201cBut this was by no means the end of the matter. Indeed, thus far,\n although the circumstances were striking, there was nothing to\n prevent astronomers from interpreting them as other cases of\n coincident, or nearly coincident, comet paths, had been interpreted.\n Hind and others, myself included, inferred that the comets of 1880,\n 1843, and 1668 were simply one and the same comet, whose return in\n 1880 probably followed the return in 1843 after a single revolution.\n\n \u201cIn 1882, however, two years and a half after the appearance of the\n comet of 1880, another comet came up from the south, which followed\n in the sun\u2019s neighborhood almost the same course as the comets of\n 1668, 1843, and 1880. The path it followed was not quite so close to\n those followed by the other three as these had been to each other,\n but yet was far too close to indicate possibly a mere casual\n resemblance; on the contrary, the resemblance in regard to shape,\n slope, and those peculiarities which render this family of comets\n unique in the cometary system, was of the closest and most startling\n kind.\n\n \u201cMany will remember the startling ideas which were suggested by\n Professor Piazzi Smyth respecting the portentous significance of the\n comet of 1882. He regarded it as confirming the great pyramid\u2019s\n teaching (according to the views of orthodox pyramidalists)\n respecting the approaching end of the Christian dispensation. It was\n seen under very remarkable circumstances, blazing close by the sun,\n within a fortnight or three weeks of the precise date which had been\n announced as marking that critical epoch in the history of the\n earth.\n\n \u201cMoreover, even viewing the matter from a scientific standpoint,\n Professor Smyth (who, outside his pyramidal paradoxes, is an\n astronomer of well-deserved repute) could recognize sufficient\n reason for regarding the comet as portentous. Many others, indeed,\n both in America and in Europe, shared his opinion in this respect. A\n very slight retardation of the course of the comet of 1880, during\n its passage close to the surface of the sun, would have sufficed to\n alter its period of revolution from the thirty-seven years assigned\n on the supposition of its identity with the comet of 1843, to the\n two and a half years indicated by its apparent return in 1882, and\n if this had occurred in 1880, a similar interruption in 1882 would\n have caused its return in less than two and a half years.\n\n \u201cThus, circling in an ever-narrowing (or rather shortening) orbit,\n it would presently, within a quarter of a century or so, perhaps,\n have become so far entangled among the atmospheric matter around the\n sun, that it would have been unable to resist absolute absorption.\n What the consequences to the solar system might have been none\n ventured to suggest. Newton had expressed his belief that the effect\n of such absorption would be disastrous, but the physicists of the\n nineteenth century, better acquainted with the laws associating heat\n and motion, were not so despondent. Only Professor Smyth seems to\n have felt assured (not being despondent but confident) that the\n comet portended, in a very decisive way, the beginning of the end.\n\n \u201cHowever, we were all mistaken. The comet of 1882 retreated on such\n a course, and with such variation of velocity as to show that its\n real period must be measured not by months, as had been supposed,\n nor even by years, but by centuries. Probably it will not return\n till 600 or 700 years have passed. Had this not been proved, we\n might have been not a little perplexed by the return of apparently\n the same comet in this present year (1887). A comet was discovered\n in the south early in January, whose course, dealt with by Professor\n Kruger, one of the most zealous of our comet calculators, is found\n to be partially identical with that of the four remarkable comets we\n have been considering. Astronomers have not been moved by this new\n visitant on the well-worn track, as we were by the arrival of the\n comet of 1882, or as we should have been if either the comet of 1882\n had never been seen, or its path had not been shown to be so wide\n ranging. Whatever the comet of the present year may be, it was not\n the comet of 1882 returned. No one even supposes that it was the\n comet of 1880, or 1843, or 1668. Nevertheless, rightly apprehended,\n the appearance of a comet traveling on appreciably the same track as\n those four other comets is of extreme interest, and indeed\n practically decisive as to the interpretation we must place on these\n repeated coincidences.\n\n \u201cObserve, we are absolutely certain that the five comets are\n associated together in some way; but we are as absolutely certain\n that they are not one and the same comet which had traveled along\n the same track and returned after a certain number of circuits. We\n need not trouble ourselves with the question whether two or more of\n the comets may not have been in reality one and the same body at\n different returns. It suffices that they all five were not one;\n since we deduce precisely the same conclusion whether we regard the\n five as in reality but four or three or two. But it may be\n mentioned, in passing, as appearing altogether more probable, when\n all the evidence is considered, that there were no fewer than five\n distinct comets, all traveling on what was practically the selfsame\n track when in the neighborhood of the sun.\n\n \u201cThere can be but one interpretation of this remarkable fact\u2014a fact\n really proved, be it noticed (as I and others have maintained since\n the retreat of the comet of 1882), independently of the evidence\n supplied by the great southern comet of the present year. These\n comets must all originally have been one comet, though now they are\n distinct bodies. For there is no reasonable way (indeed no possible\n way) of imagining the separate formation of two or more comets at\n different times, which should thereafter travel in the same path.\n\n \u201cNo theory of the origin of comets ever suggested, none even which\n can be imagined, could account for such a peculiarity. Whereas, on\n the other hand, we have direct evidence showing how a comet,\n originally single, may be transformed into two or more comets\n traveling on the same, or nearly the same, track.\n\n \u201cThe comet called Biela\u2019s, which had circuited as a single comet up\n to the year 1846 (during a period of unknown duration in the\n past\u2014probably during millions of years), divided then into two, and\n has since broken up into so many parts that each cometic fragment is\n separately indiscernible. The two comets into which Biela\u2019s divided,\n in 1846, were watched long enough to show that, had their separate\n existence continued (visibly), they would have been found, in the\n fullness of time, traveling at distances very far apart, though on\n nearly the same orbit. The distance between them, which in 1846 had\n increased only to about a quarter of a million of miles, had in 1852\n increased to five times that space.\n\n \u201cProbably a few thousand years would have sufficed to set these\n comets so far apart (owing to some slight difference of velocity,\n initiated at the moment of their separation) that when one would\n have been at its nearest to the sun, the other would have been at\n its farthest from him. If we could now discern the separate\n fragments of the comet, we should doubtless recognize a process in\n progress by which, in the course of many centuries, the separate\n cometic bodies will be disseminated all round the common orbit. We\n know, further, that already such a process has been at work on\n portions removed from the comet many centuries ago, for as our earth\n passes through the track of this comet she encounters millions of\n meteoric bodies which are traveling in the comet\u2019s orbit, and once\n formed part of the substance of a comet doubtless much more\n distinguished in appearance than Biela\u2019s.\n\n \u201cThere can be little doubt that this is the true explanation of the\n origin of that family of comets, five of whose members returned to\n the neighborhood of the sun (possibly their parent) in the years\n 1668, 1843, 1880, 1882, and 1887. But it is not merely as thus\n explaining what had been a most perplexing problem that I have dealt\n with the evidence supplied by the practical identity of the orbits\n of these five comets. When once we recognize that this, and this\n only, can be the explanation of the associated group of five comets,\n we perceive that very interesting and important light has been\n thrown on the subject of comets generally.\n\n \u201cTo begin with, what an amazing comet that must have been from which\n these five, and we know not how many more, were formed by\n disaggregative processes\u2014probably by the divellent action of\n repulsive forces exerted by the sun! Those who remember the comets\n of 1843 and 1882 as they appeared when at their full splendor will\n be able to imagine how noble an appearance a comet would present\n which was formed of these combined together in one. But the comet of\n 1880 was described by all who saw it in the southern hemisphere as\n most remarkable in appearance, despite the faintness of its head.\n The great southern comet of the present year (1887) was a striking\n object in the skies, though it showed the same weakness about the\n head. That of 1668 was probably as remarkable in appearance as even\n the comet of 1882. A comet formed by combining all these together\n would certainly surpass in magnificence all the comets ever observed\n by astronomers.\n\n \u201cAnd then, what enormous periods of time must have been required to\n distribute the fragments of a single comet so widely that one would\n be found returning to its perihelion more than two centuries after\n another! When I spoke of one member of the Biela group being in\n aphelion, when another would be in perihelion, I was speaking of a\n difference of only three and one-third years in time; and even that\n would require thousands of years. But the scattered cometic bodies\n which returned to the sun\u2019s neighborhood in 1668 and 1887 speak\n probably of millions of years which have passed since first this\n comet was formed. It would be a matter of curious inquiry to\n determine what may have been the condition of our sun, what even his\n volume, at that remote period in history.\u201d\n\nIn view of our present knowledge of the status of the sun as a\ncomparative dwarf in the stellar system, may it not have been a giant\nstar at that remote period of its existence above referred to, rivaling\nin volume the giant star Betelgeuse with its diameter exceeding two\nhundred million miles.[13] At that period of the evolution of the sun,\nhow terrific must have been the force of the upheavals which rent its\nsurface, flinging forth cometic material with incalculable speed, to\ndistances far exceeding any known in connection with the comets with\nwhich we are familiar.\n\nRegarding the solar origin of comets, Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin writes as\nfollows in _Splendour of the Heavens_, page 407:\n\n \u201cWhen we note that the orbit of the great comet of 1882 almost\n grazes the sun\u2019s surface, there is a natural tendency to attribute a\n solar origin to it. We know from the phenomena of the solar\n prominences that the sun is continually erupting torrents of matter\n with very high speeds; a speed of 270 miles per second would suffice\n to send the matter round the sun in a circular orbit; if it rose to\n 382 miles per second the orbit would be parabolic; while for any\n intermediate speed it would be elliptic. By combining the observed\n speed of ascent of the prominence matter with the speed of approach\n or recession that is indicated by the shift of the lines in the\n spectrum, we conclude that speeds of this order are quite common, so\n that no difficulty arises on that account. I feel rather more\n difficulty from the consideration that the meteoric masses that\n compose a comet\u2019s head could not exist in the sun in a solid state;\n the heat would suffice to vaporize them. The materials would\n solidify in the cold of space, but as they would be under no\n pressure, I imagine that the resulting solid particles would be\n microscopically small, not of the size required to form reservoirs\n for a large amount of gas. All objects ejected by the sun would move\n in orbits that intersect the sun, except in so far as their orbits\n are modified by planetary action. This latter might readily be large\n enough to change the orbit to one just outside the sun (like those\n of the sun-grazing comets of 1680, 1843, 1882, etc.). However, the\n great majority of known comets have orbits whose least distance from\n the sun is so large that we cannot imagine an origin for these by\n simple solar eruption.\n\n \u201cThe question arises, Can the comets have existed for so long a\n period in view of the wastage that they undergo? According to the\n geologists the date of the approach of another sun to ours (as\n suggested in the planetesimal hypothesis) must be put at least a\n thousand million years ago; in such an interval, even the comets of\n longest period would have returned thousands of times, and I gravely\n doubt whether they could continue to be such compact bodies as they\n appear to be; I frankly admit that I have no plausible suggestion to\n offer for evading the difficulty; it is one of the numerous cases in\n astronomy (the status of the spiral nebul\u00e6 is another) in which we\n must be content for the present to record observed facts and\n suggested interpretations, leaving full understanding to come at a\n later date, if at all.\u201d\n\nAccording to the same authority, in connection with his views on the\nsubject, as expressed after reading the MSS. prepared for this chapter,\nhe writes, as follows:\n\n \u201cI have noted a paper by A. A. Newton (see _Observatory_ for 1894,\n page 250), in which he says, that out of 1,000 million comets\n approaching the sun, 126 comets will have periods reduced to 6\n years, 839 to 12 years, 1,701 to 18 years, and 2,670 to 24 years.\n Further, of the 839 no less than 203, or a quarter of the whole,\n will have retrograde orbits after perturbation. I think these\n results go very strongly against the capture hypothesis. There would\n only be one short-period comet in something like 2 million years;\n whereas the experience of Biela\u2019s, Brorsen\u2019s (and perhaps also\n Tempel 1 and Holmes), suggests that several of them have become\n extinct in a century, so an equal number of new ones is required to\n keep up the supply. It is a matter of surprise to me that the\n difficulty is not more generally recognized.\u201d\n\nThe following brief abstract, condensed from an article written by\nProfessor W. W. Payne, for _Popular Astronomy_, April, 1906, page 221,\nregarding \u201cJupiter\u2019s Family of Comets,\u201d with accompanying chart, may be\nof interest in connection with the matter under discussion in this\nchapter:\n\n \u201cThis notable family of comets is more and more of a wonder, the\n further its study is pursued. It is remarkable on account of its\n size, and\u2014if the capture theory be correct\u2014of the power of Jupiter\n to capture comets and make them members of his family, if they, in\n their wild flights through space, happen to come too near to him as\n they sometimes do in certain parts of his orbital path around the\n sun. But a close study of the chart showing the paths of Jupiter\u2019s\n family of comets would seem to indicate that nearly all the farthest\n points of the comet\u2019s orbits from the sun are on one side of\n Jupiter\u2019s orbit. These points are marked by short cross lines. Now\n if Jupiter obtained his family by capture, why should he be more\n successful on one side of the orbit than the other?\n\n Moreover, the motions of all these bodies about the sun, and about\n Jupiter, are direct, that is, contrary to those of the hands of a\n watch. Does not this fact of the comets traveling in the same\n direction, point to the supposition that they were originally\n ejected from the planet rather than that they were captured by\n Jupiter?\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER EIGHT\n METEOR STREAMS\n\n\n Whence come these uncounted millions of bodies, rushing through space\n with inconceivable velocity? What purpose do they fulfill in the\n economy of the solar system? Are they the chips in the great workshop\n of Nature, the sparks which have flown from the mighty grindstone, the\n shreds of clay which the giant potters, Attraction and Repulsion, have\n cast aside as useless?\n\n \u2014R. A. PROCTOR.\n\n\nSo far, we have traced the story of comets and meteors, and theories\nconcerning their origin, but there still remains the fascinating chapter\nregarding those meteor streams which cross the earth\u2019s path in uncounted\nthousands and at regular intervals. For instance there are the great\nNovember showers unsurpassed by any, except perhaps the August meteor\nsystem. From recent investigations it has been shown that the\nindependent particles of which these systems are composed form part of a\ngreat throng moving in orderly paths around the sun. They have proved\ntheir right to a place in the \u201cobedient family\u201d which Copernicus\nrecognized as forming the solar system. In those days meteors were\nregarded as a species of exhalation from the earth and consumed during\nsome processes of change in the upper regions of the atmosphere. Later\non, they had attained to the rank of volcanic missiles ejected from the\nmoon, and ascending still higher they were said to be stones falling\nfrom the sky, not only on land, but \u201cin the great sea, where they\nremained concealed.\u201d\n\nIt was not until the impressive meteoric shower of 1833 that suspicions\nwere aroused concerning a connection between these apparently erratic\nwanderers in the sky and comets. When Professors Twining and Olmsted of\nNew Haven, U. S. A., observed that the paths of all the meteors during\nthe November shower of 1833 could be traced back to what is termed a\n\u201cradiant,\u201d and Olmsted went so far as to call the densest part of the\nswarm a \u201ccomet,\u201d these objects attained a new interest in the\nastronomical world. Olmsted and Twining were the first to show that the\nmeteors are not terrestrial and atmospheric, but bodies truly cosmical.\n\nCould Kepler and Copernicus have revisited the former scene of their\nlabors and listened to the discussions concerning the theories advanced\nin connection with comets and meteors during the latter part of the\nnineteenth century, they would scarcely have recognized the scheme of\nthe solar system thus unfolded to their view! Not only has the claim of\nmeteorites to membership in that system been firmly established, but the\ndefinite seasons for their appearance, and the well-known orbits along\nwhich certain meteor streams travel, can now be confidently predicted by\nastronomers. It is true, unfortunate circumstances may cause delay, as\nin the case of the failure of the expected return of the November\nmeteor-shower in 1899, November 14\u201315, but this was undoubtedly due to\nthe disturbing influence of Jupiter and Saturn.\n\nHowever, there could be no delay and consequent disappointment at the\nreturn of this meteor swarm in 1833, which was not only totally\nunexpected, but furnished a scene of such splendor that words fail to\nconvey an idea of its impressive character. We are told, by those who\nwere so fortunate as to witness it, that the meteors fell as thickly as\nsnowflakes. My father used to relate the following story regarding one\nof the planters of South Carolina who gave a most impressive account of\nthe consternation caused among the negroes on this occasion. To quote\nthe words of the planter:\n\n \u201cI was suddenly awakened by the most distressing cries that ever\n fell on my ears. Shrieks of horror and cries for mercy I could hear\n from most of the negroes of the three plantations, amounting in all\n to about six or eight hundred. While earnestly listening for the\n cause, I heard a faint voice near the door calling my name. I arose\n and, taking my sword, stood at the door.\n\n \u201cAt this moment I heard the same voice still beseeching me to rise,\n assuring me that the world was on fire. I then opened the door, and\n it is difficult to say which excited me the most, the awfulness of\n the scene or the distressed cries of the negroes. Upward of a\n hundred lay prostrate on the ground, some speechless and some giving\n utterance to the bitterest cries. With hands upraised, they implored\n God to save the world and them. The scene was truly awful, for never\n did rain fall much thicker than the meteors fell towards the\n earth\u2014east, west, north and south, it was the same.\u201d\n\nRenewed interest was taken in the subject as the year 1866 drew near,\nfor Professor Newton of New Haven, U. S. A., had found, after a careful\nexamination of records in 1864, that there had been a number of great\nautumnal meteoric star-showers separated by periods of about\nthirty-three years. As a result of his investigations, he predicted that\na shower would occur in 1866, and conjectured that the path along which\nthe meteor stream would travel might have one of five different orbits;\none with a period of thirty-three and a quarter years, two with periods\nof one year plus or minus eleven days, and two with periods of half a\nyear plus or minus five and a half days.\n\nProfessor John Couch Adams, with the same patience and accuracy which\nhad enabled him to discover the planet Neptune, concentrated all his\nefforts in tracing by means of the most laborious calculations the\ndisturbing effects of the planets upon the November meteor stream in\nconnection with each of the five orbits suggested by Newton. He came to\nthe conclusion that the true orbit must be the largest, _viz._, the one\nhaving a period of thirty-three and a quarter years. Accordingly, he\nconfirmed the prediction that the meteoric shower was due to return in\n1866, and not only was that prediction confirmed, but the meteor stream\nwas seen again in 1867, the procession stretching out along the orbit\nfor such a distance that it required three years to pass a given point.\n\nUnfortunately, as far as Professor Newton and his fellow-countrymen in\nAmerica were concerned, they were unable to witness the wonderful\ndisplay, for on this occasion it favored our side of the world. In other\nwords, the encounter between the earth and the dense part of the meteor\nstream which had caused such a spectacular display in 1833, preceded the\ntime predicted for it only by the brief interval separating the\nsuccessive passages of England and America across a given rotation\nspace.\n\n \u201cIf we imagine that from some distant orb, a being were watching the\n event, knowing the nature of Newton\u2019s prediction and uncertain as to\n the result, then this being would have seen the meteor swarm rushing\n onwards to the scene of encounter on the one part, and the earth\n sweeping towards the same point on the other. He could see that all\n over Europe and the western parts of Asia, and in a less degree over\n the foreshortened Atlantic, the meteors were already falling, the\n display would grow richer and richer, but after a while it would\n diminish in splendor. Finally, just as America began to show on the\n exposed hemisphere, the encounter would come to an end, the earth\n passing onwards to the relatively barren portions lying beyond the\n meteor orbit.\u201d (R. A. Proctor, _The Orbs Around Us_, pp. 180\u2013181.)\n\nSuch was the occurrence which astonished the world on the nights of\nNovember 13\u201314, 1866, according to Sir Robert Ball\u2019s experience, which\nhe has portrayed in such vivid language in _The Story of the Heavens_:\n\n \u201cThe night was fine; the moon was absent. The meteors were\n distinguished not only by their enormous multitude, but by their\n intrinsic magnificence. I shall never forget that night. On the\n memorable evening, I was engaged in my usual duty at that time of\n observing nebul\u00e6 with Lord Rosse\u2019s great reflecting telescope. I was\n of course aware that a shower of meteors had been predicted, but\n nothing that I had heard prepared me for the splendid spectacle so\n soon to be unfolded. It was about ten o\u2019clock at night when an\n exclamation from an attendant by my side made me look up from the\n telescope, just in time to see a fine meteor dash across the sky. It\n was presently followed by another, and then again by others in twos\n and in threes, which showed that the prediction of a great shower\n was likely to be verified.\n\n \u201cAt this time, the Earl of Rosse (then Lord Oxmantown) joined me at\n the telescope, and after a brief interval we decided to cease our\n observations of the nebul\u00e6 and ascend to the top of the wall of the\n great telescope, from whence a clear view of the whole hemisphere of\n the heavens could be obtained. There, for the next three or four\n hours, we witnessed a spectacle which can never fade from my memory.\n The shooting stars gradually increased in number until sometimes\n several were seen at once. Sometimes they swept over our heads,\n sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left, but they all diverged\n from the east. All the tracks of the meteors radiated from Leo.\n\n \u201cSometimes a meteor appeared to come almost directly towards us, and\n then its path was so foreshortened that it had hardly any\n appreciable length, and looked like an ordinary fixed star swelling\n into brilliancy and then as rapidly vanishing. Occasionally luminous\n trains would linger on for many minutes after the meteor had flashed\n across, but the great majority of the trains in this shower were\n evanescent. It would be impossible to say how many thousands of\n meteors were seen, each one of which was bright enough to have\n elicited a note of admiration on any ordinary night.\u201d\n\nSoon after the remarkable display of meteors in 1866, Schiaparelli of\nMilan, whose interest had been aroused by the researches of Newton and\nAdams, published a paper upon the Perseids, or August meteors, in which\nhe drew attention to the fact that they were moving in the same path as\nthat of the bright comet of 1862, known as Tuttle\u2019s comet. Shortly after\nthis Leverrier published his orbit of the Leonid meteors derived from\nthe observed position of the radiant (within the sickle-shaped group of\nstars in Leo), in connection with the periodic time assigned by Adams;\nand almost simultaneously, but without any idea of a connection between\nthem, Oppolzer published his orbit of Tempel\u2019s comet of 1866, and the\ntwo orbits were at once seen to be practically identical.\n\nNow a _single_ case of such a coincidence as that pointed out by\nSchiaparelli might possibly be accidental, but hardly _two_. Then five\nyears later in 1872 came the meteoric shower of the Bielids, the\ndisintegrated particles following in the track of Biela\u2019s comet, and\nsince then scores of meteor streams have been apparently detected with\n\u201ca comet annexed,\u201d firmly establishing the theory regarding the\nconnection between comets and meteor streams as a well-proved fact.\n\nThe longer a comet has been in the solar system, the more widely\nscattered will be its accompanying meteor stream. According to this\ntheory, the Perseids which are scattered more or less uniformly along\ntheir orbit of enormous extent ranging far beyond the orbit of the\noutermost planet Neptune, are undoubtedly old inhabitants of the solar\nsystem. The Leonids, on the contrary, are comparatively newcomers\nintroduced into the solar system (according to the calculations of\nLeverrier, and admitting the capture theory, though the ejection theory\nis far more plausible), in A.D. 126, when Tempel\u2019s comet, of which they\nformed part, passed very near Uranus.\n\nSince the mystery regarding these celestial wanderers has been cleared,\nit might almost seem as if every comet of distinction had its own\nspecial host of meteoric attendants following closely in its wake, their\nnumber constantly increased by the addition of discarded fragments\nforming the train of the comet at each visit paid by it to the sun. The\nfollowing is a list compiled by Mr. W. F. Denning of the chief meteoric\ndisplays of the year.\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n _Name of \u2502 _Date of \u2502 _Radiant \u2502 _Appearance of meteors_\n shower_ \u2502 maximum_ \u2502 point_ \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n \u2502 \u2502 R.A. Dcl. \u2502\n Quadrantids \u2502January 3 \u2502 230\u00b0 + 52\u00b0\u2502Slowish, long paths\n Lyrids \u2502April 21 \u2502 270\u00b0 + 33\u00b0\u2502Swift, streaks\n \u03b7 Aquarids \u2502May 2\u20136 \u2502 338\u00b0 \u2212 2\u00b0\u2502Swift, very long paths\n Draconids \u2502June 28 \u2502 228\u00b0 + 54\u00b0\u2502Very slow, short paths\n \u03b4 Aquarids \u2502July 28\u201330 \u2502339\u00b0 \u2212 120\u00b0\u2502Slow, long paths\n \u03b1 Capricornids\u2502July 25-August 4\u2502 303\u00b0 \u2212 10\u00b0\u2502Very slow, brilliant, long\n Perseids \u2502August 11 \u2502 45\u00b0 + 57\u00b0\u2502Swift, streaks\n Orionids \u2502October 19 \u2502 92\u00b0 + 15\u00b0\u2502Swift, streaks\n Leonids \u2502November 14\u201315 \u2502 151\u00b0 + 23\u00b0\u2502Very swift, streaks\n Andromedids \u2502November 17\u201327 \u2502 25\u00b0 + 44\u00b0\u2502Very slow, short, trained\n Geminids \u2502December 11\u201312 \u2502 110\u00b0 + 33\u00b0\u2502Swift, white, short paths\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n\nThe _Lyrids_ are connected with Comet 1861 I, having a period of about\n415 years.\n\nThe _Perseids_ are connected with Comet 1862 III, having a period of\nabout 120 years.\n\nThe _Leonids_ are connected with Comet 1866 I, having a period of 33\u2153\nyears.\n\nThe _Bielids_, or _Andromedids_, are connected with Biela\u2019s comet, and\nhave a period of 6\u00be years.\n\nWe are now aware of meteor streams which at certain stated intervals,\ncross the earth\u2019s orbit. They are regular visitors for which we may\nwatch with every certainty that a few, if not thousands, will be\ncaptured by too near an approach to the atmospheric net encircling our\nplanet. The whole of the solar domain may be alive with meteors, but by\nno possibility can we become aware of their presence until they take the\nfatal plunge which ultimately causes their destruction. The space\nactually traversed by the earth in its journey around the sun, is but\nthe minutest fraction of that vast sphere over which the sun holds sway,\n\n \u201cyet it has been estimated by Professor Newcomb of America, on\n grounds which are perfectly reliable, that in including telescopic\n meteors (that is, meteors so small as only to be visible when they\n happen to pass across the field of view of a telescope), no less\n than 146,000 millions of meteoric bodies fall each year upon the\n earth. If one in a thousand struck a human being the inhabitants of\n the earth would be decimated in a single year.\u201d (R. A. Proctor, _The\n Expanse of Heaven_, p. 164.)\n\nFortunately for us, the earth is protected by the surrounding air, which\noffers a most effective resistance to the swift motion of the celestial\nmissiles with which it is bombarded from above. The swifter their\nmotion, the more effective the resistance.\n\nWhen meteors are first seen they are mostly at a height of seventy\nmiles, vanishing at a height of about fifty miles. But the actual course\nthey pursue through the air is nearly always much longer, because they\ndo not descend vertically, but aslant.\n\nMr. Denning remarks, in his account of meteors for _Splendour of the\nHeavens_, \u201cthere are comparatively few astronomers, either professional\nor amateur, who cultivate the meteoric branch. They evidently do not\nregard it as an attractive study. In any case, it does not appeal to\nthem sufficiently to enlist their sympathies, and so it has been\ncomparatively neglected in recent years. A few ardent observers have, it\nis true, continued to devote themselves to the subject,\u201d and he cites\ninstances where two English ladies, Miss A. Grace Cook, director of the\nMeteoric Section of the B. A. A., in 1922, and the late Mrs. Fiammetta\nWilson, endeavored to arouse more enthusiasm in this field of work by\nboth practical example and advice. As an instance of the splendid\nenthusiasm of the latter, she has to her credit for meteoric\nobservations carried on during an interval of ten years, the record of\nabout ten thousand meteors. This is an average of a thousand a year, and\nanyone who has attempted to keep a steady watch on a starlit night in\nthe hope of observing an evanescent meteor will realize what such a\nrecord means. It must have required an immense amount of patience,\nendurance, and untiring vigilance, for the wily meteor is so apt to take\nus unawares.\n\nThe writer has had but one experience of the kind, and it was upon the\noccasion of the expected display of Leonids in 1899. The night was\nextremely cold, as one might expect during the month of November, when\nwith two friends, Miss Harpham and Miss Tarbox, I stationed myself on\nthe roof of an apartment house in New York City, on November 15, at\n12.55. The record of our observations, which were continued until 6.00\nA.M. at the hour of dawn, was afterward printed in _Popular Astronomy_,\nVol. IX, 1901, pp. 82\u201383. During that time we observed sixty-eight\nmeteors, of which, as the account shows, a few were intruders.\n\nNever was dawn so welcome to the weary observers, who were not nearly so\nmuch chilled by the November weather, as by the disappointment at the\nmeager display. Possibly the bright moonlight in the earlier part of the\nwatch had dimmed the splendor of many of the Leonids, but where were the\ntens of thousands which were said to have fallen in 1833, or even the\nthousands which were observed in 1866, for not even one hundred rewarded\nus for our vigil in 1899? However, we were told to watch again the\nfollowing year, when possibly we might meet with better luck, but our\nrecord as given in _Popular Astronomy_, Vol. IX, 1901, shows that only\nforty-four meteors were seen between midnight and dawn, and of these,\nseven were intruders. The cause of the failure of the return of the\nLeonids in 1899 was due to the fact that the planet Jupiter had so much\ndisturbed the orbit of the meteor group of 1866, that from calculations\nmade it was estimated that it would pass about two millions of miles\noutside of the earth\u2019s orbit, and thus escape collision with our\natmosphere. For this reason, few meteors were seen in 1899 and 1900,\nthough in 1901 and 1903 pretty brisk showers of Leonids were visible,\nthough they were nothing like the magnificent displays of 1799, 1833,\nand 1866. A new shower derived from Pons-Winnecke\u2019s periodical comet was\nwitnessed from Bristol on June 28, 1916. A very brilliant and abundant\nreturn of this display may occur during the last week of June, 1927,\nwhen the earth and comet will be exceedingly near each other.\n\nThe following suggestions may be helpful to those who may feel inclined\nto make a hobby of recording meteors which are far more plentiful (quite\na number making their appearance on any clear night) than comets, which\nare, comparatively speaking, rare visitors. Practically no appliances of\nany kind are required. The main essential is a knowledge of the various\nconstellations and of the stars visible to the naked eye, a knowledge\nsoon acquired by a study of some good atlas of the heavens, such as my\nfather\u2019s _Half Hours with the Stars_. This contains twelve charts, one\nfor each month of the year, with accompanying letter press.\n\nA beginner generally finds great difficulty in locating the beginning\nand ending of the course of a meteor, as these seldom occur close to any\nwell-known star. It will always be found useful to have a straight rod\nabout four feet long. This should be held up so that it seems to lie\nalong the path of the meteor. A rapid glance along the rod, backward and\nforward, will generally be sufficient to enable one to detect some stars\nwithin the radius of a circle. The beginning and ending of the trail of\nthe meteors can then be recorded, as the eye easily estimates the length\nof the arc between various points of the heavens. In this way one\nrecords the observation made\u2014let us say, at 4.39, for November 15, 1899.\nThe direction followed by the meteor was from the radiant toward Castor\nand Pollux, the streak remaining visible for three seconds. The meteor\nwas very bright, meaning that it equaled a first-magnitude star, and the\ntrain was 5\u00b0 in length. Though the color was not recorded at the time,\nyet it is possible to make a very sure guess, that it was blue, the\nusual color of Leonids.\n\nIt is not advisable to look for meteors very far from the radiant, as\nthat is the main point from which they are seen to emanate. Therefore,\nit will be sufficient to confine the attention to a region within 30\u00b0 to\n40\u00b0 from the radiant. Meteors appearing near the radiant have short\ntrains, while those at a greater distance have generally longer trains.\nWhen a meteor is observed, the time, magnitude, beginning and ending of\ncourse, duration of flight, and any special characteristics should be\nrecorded as quickly as possible, using a system of abbreviations.\nPossibly the writer, at the next display which is expected in 1933, may\nbe prepared\u2014with the assistance of a few enthusiasts\u2014to carry out this\nelaborate program, but it is impossible for one or even three to make an\naccurate record of so many happenings regarding a meteor which may have\nremained on view but a second or so.\n\nIn judging the time of flight a stop-watch is very useful, but in\nthe case of slow meteors it is easy to estimate the time\napproximately by counting at a certain rate, say 180 to the minute.\nThe writer was told to recite a nursery rhyme at a certain pace,\nsuch as hickory-dickory-dock, and note the syllable or word uttered\nat disappearance of meteor, but in the case of the Leonids the word\n\u201chickory\u201d had scarcely been uttered before the Leonid had vanished,\nso that the simpler method of counting \u201cone, two, three,\u201d was\nadopted, proving entirely satisfactory, when we remembered to count!\n\nIt might be a good idea, before making the observations, to mark off on\nthe rod, with luminous paint or radium, such as is used with watches,\n3\u00b0, the distance between the three stars in the belt of Orion; 5\u00b0, the\ndistance between the pointers in Ursa Major; 10\u00b0, the distance from\nAlpha to Delta in the same group of stars; 15\u00b0 from Delta through Alpha;\nand 26\u00b0 from Alpha to Eta, at the extremity of the Bear\u2019s tail, or the\nDipper handle, according to the popular nomenclature used in America,\nwhere the seven stars of the Plough, or Charles\u2019s Wain, are usually\nreferred to as the Great Dipper.\n\nSpecial attention should be given in recording very bright meteors or\nfireballs. In many cases fireballs may be seen by other persons, and the\ndata supplied by any two observers situated at different places. Their\ncombined observations are sufficient to determine the real path,\nradiant, etc., of the celestial object.\n\nWe have a fine illustration of this in the drift of a meteor trail which\nwas observed by Mr. Denning at 7.33 P.M. on February 22, 1909, passing\nin a southwest direction over the northern coast of France. The luminous\ntrail left in its wake persisted as a visible object for over two hours,\nduring which time it drifted in a northwest direction at 120 miles an\nhour, under the influence of a violent wind in the upper atmosphere. As\nusual on every clear starlit night there are a number of enthusiastic\nobservers keeping close watch of the sky, ready to trap with their\ncameras any unwary meteor which may flash into view. On this occasion\nthere were at least 250 observers in different parts of the country\nwatching the phenomenon during the whole two hours the meteor trail\nremained visible.\n\nThere is a branch of the British Astronomical Association which deals\nwith records and observations of meteors, and it is known as the Meteor\nSection. \u201cMr. Denning has proved a faithful friend,\u201d as Miss A. Grace\nCook remarks in her report of the Section for 1922, \u201cand has encouraged\nthe Section in every possible way.\u201d Sometime one of the enthusiastic\nobservers in search of meteors may be rewarded by a discovery of larger\nprey, in the form of a comet. Imagine the delight of having a comet one\ncould thus claim, as it were, as one\u2019s own personal property!\n\nFireballs differ vastly from shooting stars in exposing a larger surface\nto the opposing atmosphere, as they make their downward plunge from\nspace therein. It is when they suddenly come in contact with the\nparticles of which the air surrounding our planet is composed, that\ntheir presence is first made known to us. When a shooting star finally\nblazes out, owing to the friction caused by the encounter, it is at a\nheight of from thirty to fifty-five miles above the ground. It is then\ndissipated in vapor, and vanishes. No wonder these balls of fire caused\nterror among the ignorant and superstitious in the days when their\nmeaning was unknown. In Mr. Denning\u2019s book, _Telescopic Work for\nStarlight Evenings_, page 269, there is a drawing made by J. Plant of\nSalford, as an illustration, giving an excellent idea of the imposing\naspect of a fireball, seen by this observer on November 23, 1877, as it\nemerged from behind a cloud. Judging from the date, it might have been\none of the Bielids, provided its radiant was in the constellation\nAndromeda. It was, however, in Taurus.\n\nFireballs are usually silent, but sometimes they have been known to\nexplode with a loud noise. The fireball which was observed (as above) in\nNovember, 1877, is said to have \u201cgiven a sound like salvos of artillery,\nand doors and windows were violently shaken.\u201d As a rule, however, there\nis no audible explosion, the bright nucleus fading out until it is\nreduced to a mere spark before disappearing.\n\nOccasionally fireballs have been known to give out three or four\nbrilliant flashes before fading from view. These flashes, often of\nstartling intensity, have been described as \u201ccoming less swiftly than\nflashes of lightning.\u201d They remind one forcibly of moonlight breaking\nthrough the clear intervals in passing clouds. There is always something\nmysterious about these luminous objects as they emerge so stealthily\nfrom the darkness, vanishing as silently as they came.\n\nDuring the month of August fine meteoric displays may be looked for,\nbetween the 10th and 13th of that month. They are sometimes referred to\nas \u201cthe tears of St. Lawrence,\u201d since the 10th of August is dedicated to\nthe memory of that saint. However, they are more generally known as the\nPerseids, their radiant being in the constellation Perseus. As this\ngroup of stars has risen tolerably high about nine o\u2019clock in the\nnortheastern sky during the month of August, watching for Perseids is an\neasier matter than in the case of the Leonids, which do not appear at\ntheir best until \u201cthe wee sma\u2019 hours.\u201d\n\nThe meteors belonging to the Perseid family are yellow in color, moving\nat the rate of thirty-eight miles a second, as compared with the swift\nonrush of the November meteors at forty-four miles a second, the latter\nflashing into view with the rapidity of a skyrocket, and as swiftly\ndisappearing. The Bielids, on the contrary, travel with medium velocity,\ntheir stately glide at ten miles per second, being in marked contrast to\nthe speed of the Perseids or Leonids. The Bielids, also called the\nAndromedids, are due November 23\u201327, and, as already noted, may be seen\nto radiate from a point near Gamma in the constellation Andromeda. In\nthe case of the Perseids, a few brilliant streaks often herald their\napproach, usually giving promise of an especially fine display. The\nAugust meteor showers yield the smallest shooting stars and the largest\ntype of fireballs. Observers startled by the sudden appearance of the\nlatter are rather apt to give exaggerated accounts of their appearance,\nneglecting to note the direction whence they came, the time or duration\nof their flight, and other necessary data, rendering the observations,\nin consequence, practically useless.\n\nWe now come to shooting stars, the kindergarten\u2014as it were\u2014of the\nmeteoric system. Weighing practically but a few ounces at the most, they\ncan be easily handled or put into one\u2019s pocket without discomfort.\nAnalysis of those which have sunk to rest on our planet, as a result of\nsuccessfully penetrating right through the atmospheric net surrounding\nour domain, has shown that they are composed of iron and many of the\nchemical elements, such as sodium and carbon, which are to be found on\nthe earth.\n\nFor vast periods of time they may have been pursuing a seemingly endless\nvoyage along the highways and byways of the solar system, wending their\nway in safety amid the intricate paths traversed by the planets. They\nhave been traveling at a speed far exceeding that of the swiftest cannon\nball, and doubtless with an average velocity of about twenty-five miles\na second. A shooting star moving at such a rate would pass from the\nearth to the moon in a couple of hours, or from London to Edinburgh in\nabout ten seconds. All goes well with the little traveler as long as it\nkeeps at a discreet distance from the a\u00ebrial torpedo net surrounding our\nplanet, seemingly set for the purpose of entrapping such intruders.\nHowever, should the shooting star venture too near, plunging through the\natmosphere at the pace which kills, it is bound to come to grief.\nRubbing against every particle it meets on the way, friction is caused,\nresulting in the blaze of glory which makes its presence known to us,\nswiftly followed by its exit when it is reduced to ashes.\n\nSome of the particles, if any are left (for usually they are dissipated\nin vapor in the upper regions of the air), sift down upon our planet in\nthe form of fine dust. From the top of a high mountain Dr. Reichenbach\ncollected dust which had never been touched by spade or pick-ax; and in\nanalysis he found this dust to consist of almost identically the same\nelements as those of which meteoric stones are composed\u2014nickel, cobalt,\niron, and phosphorus. Dr. Phipson, in his interesting work on _Meteors,\nA\u00ebrolites, and Shooting Stars_, remarks that\n\n \u201cwhen a glass covered with pure glycerine is exposed to a strong\n wind, late in November, it receives a number of _black angular\n particles_, which can be dissolved in strong hydrochloric acid, and\n produces yellow chloride of _iron_ upon the glass plate.\u201d\n\nIt is a strange thought that the air which sifts in through the window,\nand settles on the tables and chairs, nay even the very air we breathe,\nmay contain particles of matter which have at one time circled in\nmeteoric form around the sun!\n\nShould this be the case, and if, as Professor Newcomb, the American\nastronomer, tells us, no less than 146,000 million meteoric particles\nfall on the earth during the course of a year, may we not infer that\nthis means an increase in its mass? In my father\u2019s book, _The Orbs\nAround Us_ (page 195), he writes:\n\n \u201cIf we assign a single grain as the weight of each meteor visible to\n the naked eye, we deduce fifteen millions of grains as the earth\u2019s\n daily increase of weight. This is rather less than a ton. So that in\n the course of about three years the earth\u2019s weight must increase\n (even on the very low value here assigned to a meteor\u2019s weight) by a\n thousand tons; and in the course of the three thousand years during\n which astronomy has been a science the earth\u2019s weight must have\n increased a million tons. This is a mere trifle compared with the\n earth\u2019s own weight, which is 6,000 millions of millions of times\n greater. Indeed, it may easily be shown that the actual increase of\n the earth\u2019s radius in this interval of 3,000 years, would be about\n the 70,000,000th part of an inch.\u201d\n\nFrom time immemorial legend and superstition have interwoven themselves\naround these small members of the solar system as they silently and\nswiftly sweep across the vault of heaven, vanishing mysteriously as\nthough extinguished by some invisible hand. Dante describes them:\n\n \u201cAs oft along the still and pure serene\n At nightfall glides a sudden trail of fire,\n Attracting with involuntary heed\n The eye to follow it, erewhile it rest\n And seems some star that shifted place in heaven.\u201d\n\nFor the Oriental believer, the shooting stars are the fiery darts hurled\nby the angels at the evil spirits or genii when the latter are caught\neavesdropping at the gates of heaven. This legend is to be found in the\nKoran, and is referred to by Moore in his \u201cParadise and the Peri,\u201d in\nthe lines:\n\n \u201cFleeter than the starry brands\n Flung at night from angel hands,\n At those dark and daring sprites\n Who would climb th\u2019 empyreal heights.\u201d\n\nAccording to a Lithuanian myth as told by Grimm in his _Deutsche\nMythologie_, the spinstress Werpega spins the thread of a child\u2019s life\nat birth, and each thread ends in a star. When death approaches, the\nthread breaks and the star falls to earth, quenching its light.\n\nIn Galicia, the province northeast of Hungary, the peasants believe that\nwhen a star falls to earth it is at once transformed into a rarely\nbeautiful maiden with long, glittering, golden hair. She is supposed to\nexert a magical influence on all who come in contact with her, but the\neffect is evil unless certain words are uttered ere the star falls to\nearth. From this superstition doubtless springs the custom of \u201cwishing\u201d\nwhile a shooting star is seen gliding swiftly eastwards. The wish will\nsurely come true, it is said, if fully expressed before the star fades\nfrom view. Finally, we have the fanciful idea suggested in the following\nlines by Fiona Macleod:\n\n \u201cA star was loosed from heaven;\n All saw it fall, in wonder,\n Where universe clashed universe\n With solar thunder.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER NINE\n DID LIFE FIRST COME TO THIS EARTH IN A METEOR?\n\n\n Among the most startling suggestions recently thrown out by men of\n science, not one, perhaps, has seemed more amazing to the general\n public than the idea put forward by Sir William Thomson in the able\n address with which he inaugurated the meeting of the British\n Association (1871)\u2014that life on the earth may have had its origin from\n seeds borne to our planet by meteors, the remnants of former worlds.\n\n \u2014R. A. PROCTOR.\n\n\nThe quaint suggestion thus advanced by Lord Kelvin regarding the\npossibility of the first germs of life reaching our planet in the form\nof \u201ca fragment of an exploded world,\u201d was taken seriously at the time by\nsome, but was undoubtedly merely a jest on the part of the able speaker.\nAs my father remarked in the book from which the above quotation is made\n(_The Orbs Around Us_): \u201cI can scarcely bring myself to believe that the\neminent professor was serious in urging his hypothesis of seed-bearing\nmeteors. Englishmen speak sometimes of the slowness with which a\nScotsman apprehends a jest; but the Scotsman may return the compliment,\nso far, at least, as the southern estimate of Scottish humor is\nconcerned. For a true Scot makes his jest with a gravity and _aplomb_\nunequaled among Sassenach humorists. It is far from improbable that the\nseriousness with which the seed-bearing meteorites have been discussed\nproved infinitely amusing to the gathering of the clans in Edinburgh.\u201d\n\nNevertheless, that there were some believers who were convinced that\nLord Kelvin would not have advanced such a theory without some solid\nbasis for its foundation, was shown by the fact that the great Swedish\nscientist, Svante Arrhenius, considered it worth while, in his book\nentitled _The Life of the Universe_, to refer to the various\ndifficulties which have made it next to impossible to establish the\ntheory, which he compares (from the standpoint of arousing popular\ninterest) with the problem of perpetual motion. He concluded his remarks\non the subject by the statement (which has already been confirmed) that\nthe problem of spontaneous generation in the actual form of a meteor\nwill, \u201cit is to be expected, be eliminated from the scientific program,\njust as the problem of perpetual motion has been discarded.\u201d\n\nNevertheless, there is something fascinating about this myth which\nappealed strongly, at the time it was advanced, to the imagination,\nthough it led to queries which when answered led nowhere. If the worlds\nby bursting supplied space with seed-bearing meteors, how were they\nthemselves peopled with living beings? \u201cThis circumstance of itself\nthrows an air of doubt over the new hypothesis,\u201d according to my\nfather\u2019s views on the subject, \u201cas a seriously intended account of the\norigin of life on our earth.\u201d\n\nIt recalls the cumbersome way in which the Hindu accounted for the\nsupport of our planet in space, supposing it rested upon the back of a\ntortoise, but the Hindu student of science might well ask how is the\ntortoise itself supported? Or again, supposing life-bearing meteorites\nreached our planet from exploded worlds, what would be their condition\nby the time they were deposited on a soil favorable for their\ndevelopment?\n\nAccording to Flammarion regarding the possibility of meteoric fragments\ncoming to our planet from an ancient satellite of the earth which was\nshattered to pieces, the germs shut up in the interior of the meteorite\nwould remain in a kind of lethargic sleep without losing any of their\ngerminative qualities during their plunge through interplanetary space.\nIn fact, the author lends a seductive air of plausibility to the myth,\nsuggesting that the fragments would reach our planet fresh and cold, to\nbe again rejuvenated and come to life, but even Flammarion is compelled\nto acknowledge that we have found nothing to prove such a theory true.\nBut if this new theory should be accepted, as my father wrote in 1871,\n\u201cwe have reason to regard with apprehension the too close approach of\none of these visitants; because, if one meteor supplied the seeds of the\nliving things now existing on the world, another may supply myriads of\nseeds of undesirable living things; and perhaps the sequent struggle for\nlife may result in the survival of the fittest.\u201d\n\nIt may seem superfluous to add that, in a collision by which a world was\nshivered into fragments, the seeds of life would have what may be\ndescribed as a warm time, since the collision could hardly fail to\nvaporize the destroyed world. The fiery heat generated by the collision,\nfollowed by a voyage during myriads of millions of ages through the\ninconceivable cold of space, and the effect of the fierce heat which\naccompanies the fall of meteoric masses upon our earth, would seem so\nunfavorable to the germs of life that we may accept with confidence the\nbelief that all such germs had been completely destroyed before reaching\nthis planet.\n\nArrhenius reversing the seed-bearing-meteor theory in connection with a\nmeteorite bringing the seeds of life to our planet, makes a neat\ncalculation showing the time which would be required for a tiny\nparticle, drawn from our planet and hurled into space, to arrive at the\nsurface of a planet circling around the star Alpha in the constellation\nof the Centaur. It would be twenty days on its way to Mars (traveling at\nthe usual rate of speed assigned to meteors, _viz._, some twenty-six\nmiles a second.) A year would elapse before it reached the outermost\nplanet Neptune, which travels on the confines of the solar system, and\nsome nine thousand years ere it plunged through the atmosphere\nsurrounding a planet circling round the nearest star, and finally\ncrashed on its surface. Endless are the speculations which might thus be\nindulged in regarding the celestial voyages of meteors through\ninterplanetary space, but though the misguided ones which have rashly\nventured too near our planet have been trapped in its atmosphere,\nlanding on its surface before suffering complete annihilation, have been\nweighed, measured, and tested by chemical analysis, the past history of\ntheir excursions into space is enshrouded in a mysterious silence as\nunbroken as that of the Sphinx.[14]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n OUTH LODGE, KEITHICK, WHERE THE STRATHMORE METEORITE FELL THROUGH THE\n ROOF, DECEMBER 3, 1917\n\n Photograph of the lodge and Mr. and Mrs. Hill taken by H. Coates\n]\n\nThe writer at one time had a paper weight to which she attached great\nvalue, despite the fact that it was an apparently insignificant metallic\nstone weighing a few ounces, but there was a fascination in the\nconjecture as to where it had come from. That was the query which could\nnever be answered, for all that was actually known of the past history\nof this celestial visitor dated from one eventful evening when it was\nseen for a few brief seconds as a momentary streak of light, revealing\nthe course of its descent, so that a fortunate mortal here below was\nenabled to locate it after its swift plunge to earth. After it had\ncooled sufficiently to bear handling, it was carefully examined and its\nsubstance was found to be thickly interspersed with carbon particles,\nrevealing, like so many telltale imps, that this inert mass had once\nknown better days when its life was filled with activity until it took\nthe fatal plunge which ended so disastrously. \u201cIf you only knew what I\nhave seen, and where I have been during my wanderings in space,\u201d one\ncould imagine the meteorite saying in reply to the numerous queries,\nregarding its origin, in the mind of the writer; until this fascinating\nlittle visitor in space vanished as mysteriously as it had come, through\ntoo great a confidence placed in an audience in the Far West, where the\nmeteorite was passed round for inspection and never returned.\n\nHowever, the writer was enabled to resume her study of the subject on a\nlarger scale while visiting the famous Foyer collection of meteorites at\nthe American Museum of Natural History, New York, where the specimens\nare a little too hefty for transportation. No one, for instance, would\nbe able to depart with the Ahnighito, the great Cape York meteorite,\nwhich was found on the north coast of Melville Bay near Cape York,\nGreenland, by Commander Robert E. Peary, in 1894, without attracting a\nconsiderable amount of attention. It is the largest and heaviest\nmeteorite known, weighing over thirty-six tons. It possibly weighed more\nup to the date of its fall, as the guide Tallakoteah, who enabled Peary\nto discover the meteorite, informed him that up to the early part of the\nnineteenth century, members of the Eskimo tribe had found it very useful\nin providing them with material for knives and hatchets.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n STRATHMORE METEORITE, ESSENDY FRAGMENT\n\n Photograph taken December 3, 1917, by H. Coates\n]\n\nThere are really three masses, the largest already referred to being ten\nfeet eleven inches long, six feet nine inches high, and five feet two\ninches thick. It was called Ahnighito after the name of the daughter of\nthe explorer. The next larger mass weighing about three tons was named\n\u201cThe Woman,\u201d because the shape suggested the idea of a woman seated on\nthe ground with a babe in her arms and a shawl around her shoulders. The\nthird and smallest mass weighing about 1,000 pounds, was called \u201cThe\nDog,\u201d and the three meteorites were known as a group to the Eskimo under\nthe name of \u201cSaviksue,\u201d or \u201cThe Great Irons.\u201d\n\nThe Woman and The Dog were visited by Peary in 1894, and were obtained\nthe following year after much difficulty and exciting work, an incident\nof which was the breaking up of the cake of ice on which The Woman had\nbeen ferried from the shore to the ship, just as the mass was about to\nbe hoisted aboard. Fortunately there was enough tackle around the\nmeteorite to prevent its loss. In 1895 Commander Peary visited\nAhnighito, which lay on an island only four miles from the two smaller\nmasses, but he could do little toward its removal. The next year he made\nanother voyage for the purpose of getting the Great Iron, but was again\nunsuccessful. This third attempt was made in 1897, when the meteorite\nwas brought in safety to New York in the ship _Hope_.\n\nIn the Foyer collection is also the famous Willamette meteorite, which\nweighs more than fifteen tons. Its height is over six feet, its width\nfour feet, and its length ten feet. It is one of the most interesting\nmeteoric fragments in the collection, though not the largest.\nNevertheless, its appearance tells a wondrous story of the experience it\nmust have had during its swift rush through the air. The deep hollows in\nits surface were probably caused by friction with the particles\nencountered during its swift flight through the atmosphere surrounding\nour planet. This resulted in the melting of part of the metallic\nsubstance of which it is composed, chemical analysis showing that it\ncontains an admixture of iron, nickel, a small amount of cobalt, and in\naddition some phosphorus and sulphur. To give an idea of the depth of\nthe hollows, the curator of the Museum showed the writer a photograph of\ntwo boys seated in two of the largest.\n\nThe Willamette was discovered in the autumn of 1902, in the forest about\nnineteen miles south of Portland, by a Welsh miner named Ellis Hughes.\nAt first he thought he had discovered an iron mine, but on digging away\nthe earth surrounding it, he found that it was a meteorite.\n\nThe miner, who was well acquainted with the handling of such masses,\nconstructed a low wooden truck, on to which he managed to overturn the\nfifteen-ton mass, and then, with no other motive power than an old horse\nwindlassing a rope round a capstan as a winch, which had to be moved and\nreanchored as the truck with its load was drawn up to it, he and his\nfifteen-year-old son, working so quietly during the winter that not even\nthe nearest neighbor suspected what they were doing, dragged the mass\nthree-quarters of a mile on to his own land.\n\nApparently this mass of iron was known before the discovery above\nrelated, as an Indian relic, revered from time immemorial by the Siwash\nIndians. When the Portland Land Company, who owned the land on which the\nmeteorite was found, instituted legal proceedings in the matter,\nclaiming the right of possession, the lawyer engaged by Ellis Hughes to\nplead his cause was of the opinion that the meteorite was not \u201creal\nestate,\u201d but \u201cdiscarded personal property,\u201d belonging to whoever might\nfind it. In support of this statement he called a very old Siwash Indian\nas a witness, who testified that the mass of iron had long been known to\nmembers of his tribe, who attributed to it magic virtue. As a youth, he\nsaid, he had been conducted to it by one of the medicine-men, and\ninformed that if arrows were dipped in the water which collected in the\nhollows they would always wing their way to the heart of the game shot\nat. However, the judge ruled that the meteorite went with the land, and\nan order was issued giving possession thereof to the Portland Land\nCompany. It was purchased later on by Mrs. William E. Dodge, and\npresented to the Museum of Natural History in New York City.\n\nNear the Willamette meteorite is one called the Canyon Diablo, famous\nchiefly on account of the fact that it contains diamonds. It was found\nin 1891, near Coon Butte, Arizona, in the neighborhood of the town of\nCanyon Diablo. The original size of the mass is not known, but thousands\nof fragments have been collected, varying in weight from a fraction of\nan ounce up to 1,087 pounds. More than sixteen tons of this material are\nsaid to have been found within a radius of two and a half miles of Coon\nButte, a conical hill rising from 130 to 160 feet above the surrounding\nplain, and containing a crater-like hollow about three-quarters of a\nmile in diameter and probably originally 1,460 feet deep. The appearance\nof this region seems at first sight, to the casual visitor, far more\nsuggestive of a terrific explosion at a remote period of the past,\nresulting in an upheaval causing the vast crater from which the\nmeteoritic-looking masses scattered over the surrounding plain had been\nejected, but Dr. Hovey is of the opinion that their presence has been\ncaused by the downfall of an immense meteorite from above. According to\nhis investigations of the scene, \u201cthere is no lava of any kind in Coon\nButte or in its immediate vicinity, such as is found in volcanic\nregions.\u201d He also asserts that the main part of the mass has not yet\nbeen discovered, the fragments so far found being only the portions\nseparated from the original mass during its passage through the\natmosphere and at the time of its impact with the earth. There are two\nfragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite in the Foyer collection, and\nthe largest piece discovered is the one weighing 1,087 pounds, to which\nreference has already been made. A slice of the meteorite, in which a\ndiamond was found, undoubtedly attracts the greatest amount of attention\nfrom visitors to the museum. \u201cDiamonds falling from the sky,\u201d they have\nbeen heard to remark, \u201cthen why not make a search for the missing\nfragment which may be a depository of unknown wealth?\u201d However, the\npossibilities are that it has buried itself to such a depth in its crash\nto earth, that a search for it would be a stupendous undertaking, with\npossibly no results as far as diamonds are concerned.\n\nThe importance attached to the discovery of diamonds in the Canyon\nDiablo meteorite hinges upon the well-known fact that the diamond is the\npurest carbon in nature. Charcoal is almost pure carbon, and, as\neveryone knows, common charcoal is the product of combustion, the\nresidue from the burning of a piece of woody tissue excluded from the\nair. This is the everyday teaching of chemistry in the college\nlaboratory. According to Dr. Hovey, regarding the fact that the Canyon\nDiablo meteorite contains diamonds, \u201cThis gem-stone diamond has been\ndefinitely proved to occur in only two meteorites, the other being a\nRussian fall, although many masses are known to contain carbon in the\nform of a soft, black powder.\u201d The discovery of diamonds in Canyon\nDiablo was made in 1891, by Professor G. A. Koenig of Philadelphia, and\nwas afterward confirmed by Dr. George F. Kunz of New York, Professor\nMoissau of Paris, and other investigators. In 1905, Moissau dissolved a\nfragment of Canyon Diablo weighing several pounds, and obtained not only\nrecognizable crystals of the diamond, but also crystals of a mineral\ncorresponding exactly in composition to the extremely hard artificial\nsilicide of carbon known as carborundum. The new mineral has been named\nMoissauite, and this is the first time that it has been found in nature.\n\nGeology teaches us not only that charcoal and the mineral coals are\ndifferent forms of that wonderful element we call carbon, but also that\nbituminous and anthracite coals are the transformed products of ancient\nvegetation, through the combined agencies of heat, enormous pressure,\nand the slow transmuting effect of ages. This talismanic element is ever\nfound associated in some form with organic substance, and organic\nsubstance is life substance, animal as well as vegetable.\n\nHence comes the all-engrossing conclusion that wherever carbon exists\nthere organic matter exists or has existed; and, if organic matter, then\nits essential companion life! Does the meteoric fragment Canyon Diablo,\nwhich fell from the sky upon our planet, come from a world now or at one\ntime the abode of life? Seemingly, we have drifted back to the original\nargument, Did life first come to this earth in a meteor? and we are no\nnearer a solution of the problem unless\u2014as some one facetiously\nremarked, an enterprising individual inclosed a message within a meteor\nere it took its departure for our planet from some distant world. As\nFlammarion says in his book on _The Plurality of Worlds_: \u201cThe problem\nremains the same. We want to know how life first appeared, and this\nproblem has not been advanced in the slightest degree by the theory\nadopted by Lord Kelvin and Arrhenius.\u201d But, as already stated, no one\ndreamed of taking the suggestion made by Lord Kelvin, seriously.\n\n\n THE END\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n Chambers\u2019s _Story of the Comets_, pp. 211\u2013212.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n _Journal_ of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.\n xxiii. Account of comets given by Mohammedan historians.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n This disposes of the story according to which, when the reporter of a\n Sydney newspaper asked the writer if she had discovered any comets,\n she modestly replied, \u201cYes, a few.\u201d\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n _Nature_, June 16, 1887.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n See Flammarion\u2019s _History of the Heavens_, p. 348.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n _Monthly Notices_, R.A.S., vol. vii, p. 73, March, 1846.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n See _Astronomische Nachrichten_, vol. 104, p. 129.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n The camera with which the meteor was photographed by Dr. W. J. S.\n Lockyer is placed specially for recording meteors. It is orientated to\n the polar stars simply for the purpose of being able to identify the\n stars to deduce the path of the meteor, should one be recorded.\n Otherwise, no interest is attached to the polar star trails, as such.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n In Rebi\u00e8r\u00e9s\u2019 _Les Femmes dans la Science_ he writes as follows about\n Madame Lepaute: \u201cA little girl of six years when taunted one day by\n her sister with the remark, \u2018I am prettier than you,\u2019 made the ready\n rejoinder, \u2018But I am wiser.\u2019 The future career of Nicole R\u00eaine \u00c9table\n de la Bri\u00e9re, afterwards wife of the famous clock-maker, Jean Andr\u00e9\n Lepaute, proved the truthfulness of her boast.\u201d\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n Perihelion about February, 1986. The comet probably will be first seen\n during the spring of 1965.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n It is now thought that the temperature of such small bodies will never\n have been high enough to call them suns. Eddington says a mass\n one-eighth of that of the sun would be required for this.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Perturbations will make very great changes in the orbits. The\n perihelion distance of Pons-Winnecke has increased twenty million\n miles or more in the past sixty years.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n Recent papers tend to the conclusion that the transformation from\n giants to dwarfs is very slow. Jeans and Jeffreys both think that the\n change in the sun in 1,000 million years has been slight.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n On rare occasions meteors have fallen on houses, as in the case of the\n Strathmore meteorite, photographed by H. Coates. He also took a\n photograph of Outh Lodge, Keithick, on which the meteorite fell,\n December 3, 1917. It made a hole in the roof of the house. The owners\n thereof, Mr. and Mrs. Hill, are included in the photograph, which was\n sent to the writer by Mr. W. E. Denning.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n Page Changed from Changed to\n\n 137 would approach the comet with would approach the planet with\n retrograde retrograde\n\n \u25cf Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.\n \u25cf Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last\n chapter.\n \u25cf Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"The romance of comets","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":44177}