454 MR WILLIAM SWAN ON THE 
made from memory, or hastily sketched during the totality ; there seems suffi- 
cient resemblance between them, to shew that they all represent the same object.* 
But here again, if the differences in the drawings are thought sufficient to shew 
that the objects were optical phenomena,—differently delineated by the observers, 
because their forms actually varied when seen at different stations,—it will be 
found that the difficulties are as great as before. 
If the figures given by Mr LasseLy, Mr Wiuuiams, and Mr SrannisTREET 
(See fig. 9, Nos. 1, 2, 3), who observed from the windows of the same house, 
be compared, it will be found that they exhibit as great inconsistencies as 
any of the other drawings: for all assign to the hook-shaped prominence different 
forms ; and while Mr Wiutiams did not see the detached prominence, nor Mr 
LAssELL the low one, Mr SrannisTREET saw both. Again, Professor CHEVALLIER 
and Mr Avie (See fig. 9, Nos. 4 and 5), who observed from the roof of the 
same house, differ greatly in the delineation of the hook-shaped prominence ; 
for while the latter saw the detached prominence, the former did not see it. 
Lieutenant Perrersson also, who was scarcely a mile distant from them, 
gives a figure of the hook-shaped prominence totally unlike their drawings 
(See No. 6). Contrasted with this, we have Mr Arry’s and Mr CHEVALLIER’s 
drawings agreeing well with that of Mr WinuiAms (See Nos. 7, 4, and 2), who 
was distant 40 miles from them; and Mr Hrinp’s and Mr Dawes’ resemble closely 
my own (fig. 9, Nos. 8 and 9, and fig. 8), although we observed at a distance of 
nearly 100 miles. In this case, then, as formerly, the optical hypothesis is of no 
service in reconciling discrepancies between the observations; for we have the 
observations agreeing, where on that hypothesis we should expect them to differ, 
and differing where they ought to agree. 
It thus appears, that any objections to the hypothesis, that the prominences 
are objects existing in the sun or moon, founded on a want of agreement in the 
observed angles of position, and in the: forms assigned to those objects, apply 
with at least equal force to the hypotheses that they are optical phenomena ; 
while it has already been shewn, that the latter hypotheses labour under insur- 
mountable difficulties peculiar to themselves. The objections to the idea, that 
the prominences are material objects being thus more than neutralised, the coin- 
cidence in the observations of position at tolerably distant stations in cases 
where the angles were carefully ascertained, affords the undiminished weight of 
* While the causes now enumerated account sufficiently for much of the general diversity in the 
representations of the hook-shaped prominence, there are at the same time certain different types of 
form which may be observed among the drawings, and which can scarcely be referred to these causes. 
On comparing Nos. 2, 4, 7 with Nos. 8, 9, fig. 9, and also with fig. 8, it will be seen that the first 
three drawings are very like each other, as are also the last three, while there is little resemblance 
between the two sets. The first three represent the hook-shaped prominence as seen through rather 
large telescopes; the second, through small ones; and, as it is well known that certain telescopic 
objects vary greatly in appearance according to the instrumental power brought to bear on them, it 
may be worth inquiry, whether the same is not also the case with the red prominences. 
- 
“— 
hn ee 
ff otatee 
