The extraordinary aspect of comets, their rapid and seemingly irregular motions, the unexpected manner in which they often burst upon us, and the imposing magnitudes which they occasionallyassume, have in all ages rendered them objects of astonishment, not unmixed with superstitious dread to the uninstructed, and an enigma to those most conversant with the wonders of creation and the operations of natural causes. Even now, that we have ceased to regard their movements as irregular, or as governed by other laws than those which retain the planets in their orbits, their intimate nature, and the offices they perform in the economy of our system, are as much unknown as ever. No distinct and satisfactory account has yet been rendered of those immensely voluminous appendages which they bear about with them, and which are known by the name of their tails (though improperly, since they often precede them in their motions), any more than of several other singularities which they present.
The number of comets which have been astronomically observed, or of which notices have been recorded in history, is very great, amounting to several hundreds, and when we consider that in the earlier ages of astronomy, and indeed in more recent times, before the invention of the telescope, only large and conspicuous ones were noticed; and that, since due attention has been paid to the subject, scarcely a year has passed without the observation of one or two of these bodies, and that sometimes two and even three have appeared at once; it will be easily supposed that their actual number must be at least many thousands. Multitudes, indeed, must escape all observation, by reason of their paths traversing only that part of the heavens which is above the horizon in the daytime. Comets so circumstancedcan only become visible by the rare coincidence of a total eclipse of the sun—a coincidence which happened, as related by Seneca, sixty-two years before Christ, when a large comet was actually observed very near the sun. Several, however, stand on record as having been bright enough to be seen with the naked eye in the daytime, even at noon and in bright sunshine. Such were the comets of 1402, 1532 and 1843, and that of 43B. C.which appeared during the games celebrated by Augustus in honor of Venus shortly after the death of Cæsar, and which the flattery of poets declared to be the soul of that hero taking its place among the divinities.
Comets consist for the most part of a large and more or less splendid but ill-defined nebulous mass of light called the head, which is usually much brighter toward its centre, and offers the appearance of a vividnucleus, like a star or planet. From the head, and in a directionopposite to that in which the sun is situatedfrom the comet, appear to diverge two streams of light, which grow broader and more diffused at a distance from the head, and which most commonly close in and unite at a little distance behind it, but sometimes continue distinct for a great part of their course; producing an effect like that of the trains left by some bright meteors, or like the diverging fire of a sky-rocket (only without sparks or perceptible motion). This is the tail. This magnificent appendage attains occasionally an immense apparent length. Aristotle relates of the tail of the comet of 371B. C., that it occupied a third of thehemisphere, or 60°; that ofA. D.1618 is stated to have been attended by a train no less than 104° in length. The comet of 1680, the most celebrated of modern times, and on many accounts the most remarkable of all, with a head not exceeding in brightness a star of the second magnitude, covered with its tail an extent of more than 70° of the heavens, or, as some accounts state, 90°; that of the comet of 1769 extended 97°, and that of the comet of 1843 was estimated at about 65° when longest.
The tail is, however, by no means an invariable appendage of comets. Many of the brightest have been observed to have short and feeble tails, and a few great comets have been entirely without them. Those of 1585 and 1763 offered no vestige of a tail; and Cassini describes the comets of 1665 and 1682 as being as round and as well defined as Jupiter. On the other hand, instances are not wanting of comets furnished with many tails or streams of diverging light. That of 1744 had no less than six, spread out like an immense fan, extending to a distance of nearly 30° in length. The small comet of 1823 had two, making an angle of about 160°, the brighter turned as usual from the sun, the fainter toward it, or nearly so. The tails of comets, too, are often somewhat curved, bending, in general, toward the region which the comet has left, as if moving somewhat more slowly, or as if resisted in their course.
The smaller comets, such as are visible only in telescopes, or with difficulty by the naked eye, and which are by far the most numerous, offer very frequently no appearance of a tail, and appear onlyas round or somewhat oval vaporous masses, more dense toward the centre, where, however, they appear to have no distinct nucleus, or anything which seems entitled to be considered as a solid body. This was shown in a very remarkable manner in the case of the comet discovered by Miss Mitchell in 1847, which on the 5th of October in that year passedcentrallyover a star of the fifth magnitude:socentrally that with a magnifying power of 100 it was impossible to determine in which direction the extent of the nebulosity was greatest. The star’s light seemed in no degree enfeebled; yet such a star would be completely obliterated by a moderate fog, extending only a few yards from the surface of the earth. And since it is an observed fact that even those larger comets which have presented the appearance of a nucleus have yet exhibitedno phases, though we can not doubt that they shine by the reflected solar light, it follows that even these can only be regarded as great masses of thin vapor, susceptible of being penetrated through their whole substance by the sun-beams, and reflecting them alike from their interior parts and from their surfaces. Nor will any one regard this explanation as forced, or feel disposed to resort to a phosphorescent quality in the comet itself, to account for the phenomena in question, when we consider the enormous magnitude of the space thus illuminated, and the extremely smallmasswhich there is ground to attribute to these bodies. It will then be evident that the most unsubstantial clouds which float in the highest regions of our atmosphere, and seem at sunset to be drenched in light, and toglow throughout their whole depth as if in actual ignition, without any shadow or dark side, must be looked upon as dense and massive bodies compared with the filmy and all but spiritual texture of a comet. Accordingly, whenever powerful telescopes have been turned on these bodies, they have not failed to dispel the illusion which attributessolidityto that more condensed part of the head which appears to the naked eye as a nucleus; though it is true that in some a very minute stellar pointhasbeen seen, indicating the existence of something more substantial.
Fig. 24.—Head of Comet
Fig. 24.—Head of Comet
That the luminous part of a comet is something in the nature of a smoke, fog, or cloud, suspended in a transparent atmosphere, is evident from a fact which has been often noticed, viz., that the portion of the tail where it comes closest to and surrounds the head is yet separated from it by an interval less luminous, as if sustained and kept off from contact by a transparent stratum, as we often see one layer of clouds over another with a considerable clear space between. These, and most of the other facts observed in the history of comets, appear to indicate that the structure of a comet, as seen in section in the direction of its length, must be that of a hollow envelope, of a parabolic form, inclosing near its vertex thenucleus and head, something as represented in the preceding figure. This would account for the apparent division of the tail into two principal lateral branches, the envelope being oblique to the line of sight at its borders, and therefore a greater depth of illuminated matter being there exposed to the eye. In all probability, however, they admit great varieties of structure, and among them may very possibly be bodies of widely different physical constitution, and there is no doubt that one and the same comet at different epochs undergoes great changes, both in the disposition of its materials and in their physical state.
We come now to speak of the motions of comets. These are apparently most irregular and capricious. Sometimes they remain in sight only for a few days, at others for many months; some move with extreme slowness, others with extraordinary velocity; while not infrequently the two extremes of apparent speed are exhibited by the same comet in different parts of its course. The comet of 1472 described an arc of the heavens of 40° of a great circle in a single day. Some pursue a direct, some a retrograde, and others a tortuous and very irregular course; nor do they confine themselves, like the planets, within any certain region of the heavens, but traverse indifferently every part. Their variations in apparent size, during the time they continue visible, are no less remarkable than those of their velocity; sometimes they make their first appearance as faint and slow-moving objects, with little or no tail; but by degrees accelerate, enlarge, and throw out from them this appendage,which increases in length and brightness till (as always happens in such cases) they approach the sun, and are lost in his beams. After a time they again emerge on the other side, receding from the sun with a velocity at first rapid, but gradually decaying. It is for the most part after thus passing the sun that they shine forth in all their splendor, and that their tails acquire their greatest length and development; thus indicating plainly the action of the sun’s rays as the exciting cause of that extraordinary emanation. As they continue to recede from the sun, their motion diminishes and the tail dies away, or is absorbed into the head, which itself grows continually feebler, and is at length altogether lost sight of, in by far the greater number of cases never to be seen more.
Without the clew furnished by the theory of gravitation, the enigma of these seemingly irregular and capricious movements might have remained forever unresolved. But Newton, having demonstrated the possibility of any conic section whatever being described about the sun, by a body revolving under the dominion of that law, immediately perceived the applicability of the general proposition to the case of cometary orbits; and the great comet of 1680, one of the most remarkable on record, both for the immense length of its tail and for the excessive closeness of its approach to the sun (within one-sixth of the diameter of that luminary), afforded him an excellent opportunity for the trial of his theory. The success of the attempt was complete. From that time it became a received truth, that the motions of comets areregulated by the same general laws as those of the planets.
Drawing of comet orbitFig. 25.—Orbit of Newton’s Comet (1680)
Fig. 25.—Orbit of Newton’s Comet (1680)
Now calculations lead to the surprising fact, that the comets are by far the most voluminous bodies in our system. The following are the dimensions of some of those which have been made the subjects of such inquiry.
The tail of the great comet of 1680, immediately after its perihelion passage, was found by Newton to have been no less than 20,000,000 of leagues in length, and to have occupied only two days in its emission from the comet’s body! a decisive proofthis of its being darted forth by some active force, the origin of which, to judge from the direction of the tail, must be sought in the sun itself. Its greatest length amounted to 41,000,000 leagues, a length much exceeding the whole interval between the sun and earth. The tail of the comet of 1769 extended 16,000,000 leagues, and that of the great comet of 1811, 36,000,000. The portion of the head of this last, comprised within the transparent atmospheric envelope which separated it from the tail, was 180,000 leagues in diameter. It is hardly conceivable that matter once projected to such enormous distances should ever be collected again by the feeble attraction of such a body as a comet—a consideration which accounts for the surmised progressive diminution of the tails of such as have been frequently observed.
The most remarkable of those comets which have been ascertained to move in elliptic orbits is that of Halley, so called from the celebrated Edmund Halley, who, on calculating its elements from its perihelion passage in 1682, when it appeared in great splendor, with a tail 30° in length, was led to conclude its identity with the great comets of 1531 and 1607, whose elements he had also ascertained. The intervals of these successive apparitions being 75 and 76 years, Halley was encouraged topredictits reappearance about the year 1759. So remarkable a prediction could not fail to attract the attention of all astronomers, and, as the time approached, it became extremely interesting to know whether the attractions of the larger planets might not materiallyinterfere withits orbital motion. The computation of their influence from the Newtonian law of gravity, a most difficult and intricate piece of calculation, was undertaken and accomplished by Clairaut, who found that the action of Saturn would retard its return by 100 days, and that of Jupiter by no less than 518, making in all 618 days, by which the expected return would happen later than on the supposition of its retaining an unaltered period—and that, in short, the time of the expected perihelion passage would take place within a month, one way or other, of the middle of April, 1759. It actually happened on the 12th of March in that year. Its next return was calculated by several eminent geometers, and fixed successively for the 4th, the 7th, the 11th, and the 26th of November, 1835; the two latter determinations appearing entitled to the higher degree of confidence, owing partly to the more complete discussion bestowed on the observations of 1682 and 1759, and partly to the continually improving state of our knowledge of the methods of estimating the disturbing effect of the several planets. The last of these predictions, that of M. Lehmann, was published on the 25th of July. On the 5th of August the comet first became visible in the clear atmosphere of Rome as an exceedingly faint telescopic nebula, within a degree of its place as predicted by M. Rosenberger for that day. On or about the 20th of August it became generally visible, and, pursuing very nearly its calculated path among the stars, passed its perihelion on the 16th of November; after which, its course carrying it south, it ceased to bevisible in Europe, though it continued to be conspicuously so in the Southern Hemisphere throughout February, March, and April, 1836, disappearing finally on the 5th of May.
Drawing of conic pathsFig. 26.—Forms of Cometary Orbits
Fig. 26.—Forms of Cometary Orbits
Its first appearance, while yet very remote from the sun, was that of a small round or somewhat oval nebula, quite destitute of tail, and having a minute point of more concentrated light eccentrically situated within it. It was not before the 2d of October that the tail began to be developed, and thenceforwardincreased pretty rapidly, being already 4° or 5° long on the 5th. It attained its greatest apparent length (about 20°) on the 15th of October. From that time, though not yet arrived at its perihelion, it decreased with such rapidity that already on the 29th it was only 3°, and on November the 5th 2½° in length. There is every reason to believe that before the perihelion, the tail had altogether disappeared, as, though it continued to be observed at Pulkowa up to the very day of its perihelion passage, no mention whatever is made of any tail being then seen.
Reflecting on these phenomena, and carefully considering the evidence afforded by the numerous and elaborately executed drawings which have been placed on record by observers, it seems impossible to avoid the following conclusions: 1st. That the matter of the nucleus of a comet is powerfully excited and dilated into a vaporous state by the action of the sun’s rays, escaping in streams and jets at those points of its surface which oppose the least resistance, and in all probability throwing that surface or the nucleus itself into irregular motions by its reaction in the act of so escaping, and thus altering its direction.
2. That this process chiefly takes place in that portion of the nucleus which is turned toward the sun; the vapor escaping chiefly in that direction.
3. That when so emitted, it is prevented from proceeding in the direction originally impressed upon it by some force directedfromthe sun, drifting it back and carrying it out to vast distances behind the nucleus, forming the tail or so much of the tail ascan be considered as consisting of material substance.
4th. That this force, whatever its nature, acts unequally on the materials of the comet, the greater portion remaining unvaporized, and a considerable part of the vapor actually produced remaining in its neighborhood, forming the head and coma.
5th. That the force thus acting on the materials of the tail can not possibly be identical with the ordinary gravitation of matter, being centrifugal or repulsive, as respects the sun, and of an energy very far exceeding the gravitating force toward that luminary. This will be evident if we consider the enormous velocity with which the matter of the tail is carried backward, in opposition both to the motion which it had as part of the nucleus and to that which it acquired in the act of its emission, both which motions have to be destroyed in the first instance, before any movement in the contrary direction can be impressed.
6th. That unless the matter of the tail thus repelled from the sun be retained by a peculiar and highly energetic attraction to the nucleus, differing from and exceptional to the ordinary power of gravitation, it must leave the nucleus altogether; being in effect carried far beyond the coercive power of so feeble a gravitating force as would correspond to the minute mass of the nucleus; and it is therefore very conceivable that a comet may lose, at every approach to the sun, a portion of that peculiar matter, whatever it be, on which the production of its tail depends, the remainder being of course less excitableby the solar action, and more impassive to his rays, and therefore,pro tanto, more nearly approximating to the nature of the planetary bodies.
7th. That, considering the immense distances to which at least some portion of the matter of the tail is carried from the comet, and the way in which it is dispersed through the system, it is quite inconceivable that the whole of that matter should be reabsorbed—that therefore it must lose during its perihelion passage some portion of its matter, and if, as would seem far from improbable, that matter should be of a nature to be repelled from, not attracted by, the sun, the remainder will, by consequence, be,pro quantitate inertiæ, more energetically attracted to the sun than the mean of both. If then the orbit be elliptic, it will perform each successive revolution in a shorter time than the preceding, until, at length, the whole of the repulsive matter is got rid of.
Drawing of the orbitFig. 27.—Halley’s Comet
Fig. 27.—Halley’s Comet
Besides the comet of Halley, several other of the great comets recorded in history have been surmised with more or less probability to return periodically, and therefore to move in elongated ellipses around the sun. Such is the great comet of 1680, whose period is estimated at 575 years, and which has been considered, with at least a highprima facieprobability, to be identical with a magnificent comet observed at Constantinople and in Palestine, and referred by contemporary historians, both European and Chinese, to the yearA. D.1106; with that ofA. D.531, which was seen at noonday close to the sun; with the comet of 43B. C., already spoken of as having appearedafter the death of Cæsar, and which was also observed in the daytime; and finally with two other comets, mention of which occurs in the Sibylline Oracles, and in a passage of Homer, and which are referred, as well as the obscurity of chronology and the indications themselves will allow, to the years 618 and 1194B. C.It is to the assumed near approach of this comet to the earth, about the time ofthe Deluge, that Whiston ascribed that overwhelming tide-wave to whose agency his wild fancy ascribed that great catastrophe—a speculation, it is needless to remark, purely visionary. These coincidences of time are certainly remarkable, especially when it is considered how very rare are the appearances of comets of this class. Professor Encke, however, has discussed, with all possible care, the observations recorded of the comet of 1680, taking into consideration the perturbations of the planets (which are of trifling importance, by reason of the great inclination of its orbit to the ecliptic), and his calculations show that no elliptic orbit, with such a period as 575 years, is competent to represent them within any probable or even possible limits of error, the most probable period assigned by them being 8814 Julian years. Independent of this consideration, there are circumstances recorded of the comet ofA. D.1106 incompatible with its motion in any orbit identical with that of the comet of 1680, so that the idea of referring all these phenomena to one and the same comet, however seducing, must be relinquished.
Another great comet, whose return about the year 1848 had been considered by more than one eminent authority in this department of astronomy highly probable, is that of 1556, to the terror of whose aspect some historians have attributed the abdication of the Emperor Charles V. This comet is supposed to be identical with that of 1264, mentioned by many historians as a great comet, and observed also in China.
In 1661, 1532, 1402, 1145, 891, and 243 great comets appeared—that of 1402 being bright enough tobe seen at noonday. A period of 129 years would conciliate all these appearances, and should have brought back the comet in 1789 or 1790 (other circumstances agreeing). That no such comet was observed about that time is no proof that it did not return, since, owing to the situation of its orbit, had the perihelion passage taken place in July it might have escaped observation.
We come now, however, to a class of comets of short period, respecting whose return there is no doubt, inasmuch as two at least of them have been identified as having performed successive revolutions round the sun; have had their return predicted already several times; and have on each occasion scrupulously kept to their appointments. The first of these is the comet of Encke, so called from Professor Encke of Berlin, who first ascertained its periodical return. It revolves in an ellipse of great eccentricity (though not comparable to that of Halley’s), the plane of which is inclined at an angle of about 13° 22′ to the plane of the ecliptic, and in the short period of 1,211 days, or about 3⅓ years. This remarkable discovery was made on the occasion of its fourth recorded appearance, in 1819. From the ellipse then calculated by Encke, its return in 1822 was predicted by him, and observed at Paramata, in New South Wales, by M. Rümker, being invisible in Europe: since which it has been repredicted and reobserved in all the principal observatories, both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, as a phenomenon of regular occurrence.
Another comet of short period is that ofBiela,so called from M. Biela of Josephstadt, who first arrived at this interesting conclusion on the occasion of its appearance in 1826. It is considered to be identical with comets which appeared in 1772, 1805, etc., and describes its very eccentric ellipse about the sun in 2,410 days, or about 6¾ years; and in a plane inclined 12° 34′ to the ecliptic. It appeared again, according to the prediction, in 1832 and in 1846.
This comet is small and hardly visible to the naked eye, even when brightest. Nevertheless, as if to make up for its seeming insignificance by the interest attaching to it in a physical point of view, it exhibited, at its appearance in 1846, a phenomenon which struck every astronomer with amazement, as a thing without previous example in the history of our system. It was actually seen to separate itself into two distinct comets, which, after thus parting company, continued to journey along amicably through an arc of upward of 70° of their apparent orbit, keeping all the while within the same field of view of the telescope pointed toward them. The first indication of something unusual being about to take place might be, perhaps, referred to the 19th of December, 1845, when the comet appeared to Mr. Hind pear-shaped, the nebulosity being unduly elongated in a direction inclining northward. But on the 13th of January, at Washington, in America, and on the 15th and subsequently in every part of Europe, it was distinctly seen to have become double; a very small and faint cometic body, having a nucleus of its own, being observed appended to it, at a distance of about 2′ (in arc) from its centre, andin a direction forming an angle of about 328° with the meridian, running northward from the principal or original comet. From this time the separation of the two comets went on progressively, though slowly. On the 30th of January the apparent distance of the nucleus had increased to 3′, on the 7th of February to 4′, and on the 13th to 5′, and so on, until on the 5th of March the two comets were separated by an interval of 9′ 19″, the apparent direction of the line of junction all the while varying but little with respect to the parallel.
During this separation, very remarkable changes were observed to be going on, both in the original comet and its companion. Both had nuclei, both had short tails, parallel in direction and nearly perpendicular to the line of junction; but whereas at its first observation, on January 13th, the new comet was extremely small and faint in comparison with the old, the difference both in point of light and apparent magnitude diminished. On the 10th of February they were nearly equal, although the day before the moonlight had effaced the new one, leaving the other bright enough to be well observed. On the 14th and 16th, however, the new comet had gained a decided superiority of light over the old, presenting at the same time a sharp and star-like nucleus, compared by Lieutenant Maury to a diamond spark. But this state of things was not to continue. Already, on the 18th, the old comet had regained its superiority, being nearly twice as bright as its companion, and offering an unusually bright and star-like nucleus. From this period the new companion began to fadeaway, but continued visible up to the 15th of March. On the 24th the comet appeared again single, and on the 22d of April both had disappeared.
While this singular interchange of light was going forward, indications of some sort of communication between the comets were exhibited. The new or companion comet, besides its tail, extending in a direction parallel to that of the other, threw out a faint arc light which extended as a kind of bridge from the one to the other; and after the restoration of the original comet to its former pre-eminence, it, on its part, threw forth additional rays, so as to present the appearance of a comet with three faint tails forming angles of about 120° with each other, one of which extended toward its companion.
On the 22d of August, 1844, Signor de Vico, director of the observatory of the Collegio Romano, discovered a comet, the motions of which, a very few observations sufficed to show, deviated remarkably from a parabolic orbit. It passed its perihelion on the 2d of September, and continued to be observed until the 7th of December. Elliptic elements of this comet, agreeing remarkably well with each other, were accordingly calculated by several astronomers, from which it appears that the period of revolution is about 1,990 days, or 5½ (5.4357) years, which (supposing its orbit undisturbed in the interim) would bring it back to the perihelion on or about the 13th of January, 1850, on which occasion, however, by reason of its unfavorable situation with respect to the sun and earth, it could not be observed.
This comet, when brightest, was visible to thenaked eye, and had a small tail. It is especially interesting to astronomers from the circumstance of its having been rendered exceedingly probable by the researches of M. Leverrier, that it is identical with one which appeared in 1678, with some of its elements considerably changed by perturbation. This comet is further remarkable from having been concluded, by Messrs. Laugier and Mauvais, to be identical with the comet of 1585 observed by Tycho Brahe, and possibly also with those of 1743, 1766, and 1819.
By far the most remarkable comet, however, which has been seen during the present century, is that which appeared in the spring of 1843, and whose tail became visible in the twilight of the 17th of March in England as a great beam of nebulous light, extending from a point above the western horizon, through the stars of Eridanus and Lepus, under the belt of Orion. This situation was low and unfavorable; and it was not till the 19th that the head was seen, and then only as a faint and ill-defined nebula, very rapidly fading on subsequent nights. In more southern latitudes, however, not only the tail was seen, as a magnificent train of light extending 50° or 60° in length; but the head and nucleus appeared with extraordinary splendor, exciting in every country where it was seen the greatest astonishment and admiration. Indeed, all descriptions agree in representing it as a stupendous spectacle, such as in superstitious ages would not fail to have carried terror into every bosom. In tropical latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, the tail appeared on the 3d ofMarch, and in Van Diemen’s Land so early as the 1st, the comet having passed its perihelion on the 27th of February.
There is abundant evidence of the comet in question having been seen in full daylight, and in the sun’s immediate vicinity. It was so seen on the 28th of February, the day after its perihelion passage, by every person on board the H.E.I.C.S. “Owen Glenndower,” then off the Cape, as a short dagger-like object close to the sun a little before sunset. On the same day at 3h6mP. M., and consequently in full sunshine, the distance of the nucleus from the sun was actually measured with a sextant by Mr. Clarke of Portland, United States, the distance centre from centre being then only 3° 50′ 43″.
Drawing of orbitsFig. 28.—Orbits of the Nine Comets Captured by JupiterScale: 5 millimetres = 1 radius of the Earth’s orbit
Fig. 28.—Orbits of the Nine Comets Captured by JupiterScale: 5 millimetres = 1 radius of the Earth’s orbit
It is by no means merely as a subject of antiquarian interest, or on account of the brilliant spectacle which comets occasionally afford, that astronomers attach a high degree of importance to all that regards them. Apart even from the singularity and mystery which appertains to their physical constitution, they have become, through the medium of exact calculation, unexpected instruments of inquiry into points connected with the planetary system itself, of no small importance. We have seen that the movements of the comet Encke, thus minutely and perseveringly traced by the eminent astronomer whose name is used to distinguish it, have afforded ground for believing in the presence of a resisting medium filling the whole of our system. Similar inquiries, prosecuted in the cases of other periodical comets, will extend, confirm, or modify our conclusionson this head. The perturbations, too, which comets experience in passing near any of the planets, may afford, and have afforded, information as to the magnitude of the disturbing masses, which could not well be otherwise obtained. Thus the approach of this comet to the planet Mercury in 1838 afforded an estimation of the mass of that planet the more precious, by reason of the great uncertainty under which all previous determinations of that element labored. Its approach to the same planet in theyear 1848 was still nearer. On the 22d of November their mutual distance was only fifteen times the moon’s distance from the earth.
It is, however, in a physical point of view that these bodies offer the greatest stimulus to our curiosity. There is, beyond question, some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails. Perhaps it is not too much to hope that future observation, borrowing every aid from rational speculation, grounded on the progress of physical science generally (especially those branches of it which relate to the ethereal or imponderable elements), may ere long enable us to penetrate this mystery, and to declare whether it is reallymatterin the ordinary acceptation of the term which is projected from their heads with such extravagant velocity, and if not impelled, at leastdirected, in its course by a reference to the sun, as its point of avoidance. In no respect is the question as to the materiality of the tail more forcibly pressed on us for consideration than in that of the enormous sweep which it makes round the sun in perihelio, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the received laws of motion, extending (as we have seen in the comets of 1680 and 1843) from near the sun’s surface to the earth’s orbit, yet whirled round unbroken: in the latter case through an angle of 180° in little more than two hours. It seems utterly incredible that in such a case it is one and the same material object which is thus brandished. If there could be conceived such a thing as anegative shadow, a momentary impressionmade upon the luminiferous ether behind the comet, this would represent in some degree the conception such a phenomenon irresistibly calls up. But this is not all. Even such an extraordinary excitement of the ether, conceive it as we will, will afford no account of the projection of lateral streamers; of the effusion of light from the nucleus of a comet toward the sun; and its subsequentrejection; of the irregular and capricious mode in which that effusion has been seen to take place; none of the clear indications of alternate evaporation and condensation going on in the immense regions of space occupied by the tail and coma—none, in short, of innumerable other facts which link themselves with almost equally irresistible cogency to our ordinary notions of matter and force.