98 
It was of course immediately maintained by some that an 
explosion had occurred, and it became a question of great 
interest to all astronomers, when, how, and through what 
agency the separation had been brought about. And yet 
another curious circumstance was this: — that whereas the 
northern and preceding component was at first so decidedly 
the fainter of the two as to receive the name of the “ compan- 
ion,” while the southerly one was regarded as the comet 
proper ; — yet this companion, or northerly component, 
gradually increased in brilliancy, until about the time of peri- 
helion-passage, surpassing the primary nucleus for several 
days, and then again diminishing in relative brightness s0 
long as observations could be made. 
‘Husparp, who had observed this comet at Washington 
early in January, 1846, had been deeply impressed with 
these inexplicable phenomena, and no astronomer looked 
forward to its return in 1852 with more anxious interest than 
he. Would two independent comets be found traversing the 
same path? or would the phenomenon of a double nucleus 
be again exhibited? or would the two components manifest 
mutual relations analogous to those of satellite and primary, 
or at least to those of binary stars? © Would it be possible 
for observations of each component at the coming perihelion 
passage to be combined with those made at the last return, 
so that an ellipse could be deduced for each, and the point 
of intersection thus determined? These and many similar 
queries were often discussed ; and immediately on the com- 
pletion of his paper on the comet of 1843, he began his 
preparations for an equally thorough investigation of Biela’s 
comet so soon as its approaching return to the sun should 
have been thoroughly observed. 
For a month previous to the detection of the comet, HuB- 
BARD had been engaged in the preparation of an ephemeris 
dire 
| 
3 
: 
j 
4 
, 
| 
