300 



NATURE 



[Jan. 29, 1880 



unintentionally of course, done me not a little injustice, owing 

 to a misconception of what I have written, and, strangely 

 enough, you have changed my language, giving it not merely a 

 different, but an opp site, meaning. 



I regret that I cannot look at all charitably on your baseless 

 charges that I have "made different statements, and exhibited a 

 degree of hesitancy about it." I had thought that my meaning 

 regarding this question could not possibly be misconstrued, but, 

 perhaps, in going over so much ground in so short a letter, I 

 may not have been so clear on every point as I supposed. My 

 desire to dive-t the subject of all ambiguity, and to defend my 

 observations, if not my character, from the grave charges you 

 have made, is my only excuse for again appearing before the 

 world. Now, if you will give me a little space in your widely- 

 read journal, I will, as briefly as I can, endeavour to make the 

 subject as plain as written language will allow. If in any per- 

 son's mind there yet lingers the idea that I have made different 

 and contrary statements, my first effort shall be to set him right. 

 Surmising that in one of your charges (different statements) you 

 refer to the estimated distance of 12' between the two objects 

 seen by me during the total phase of the eclipse, I answer by 

 emphatically saying that I have never published such a state- 

 ment. A little explanation, however, is here necessary for 

 clearness of conception. As soon as I saw the two stars 1 was 

 confronted with half a dozen questions which required immediate 

 answers, for time was precious, viz. : I. What stars are they? 

 2. Mow far and in what direction from the sun? 3. How far 

 apart? 4. Of what magnitudes? 5. In what direction do they 

 point? What star, in the clearest, darkest night, appears to the 

 naked eye as bright as do these? In response to 3, my instan- 

 taneous impression was about 12', but, as quickly thinking how 

 wide of the mark I might be in the estimation of so large a 

 distance, I chose to impress it on my mind, knowing that, after 

 arriving at home, I could soon find two stars « hose apparent 

 distance would be sensibly the same. This I did, and have 

 several times published to the world the result, viz., that they 

 were a little over half that between Mizar and Alcor, or about 

 7' apart. What I wrote in my note-book of the 12' I discarded 

 immediately, and all the time have said, in language too plain 

 to be misunderstood, that it was of no value at all. Every pub- 

 lished statement has been a reiteration of this, and where, I ask, 

 is the excuse for any who ha/e read my letters :.nd reports to 

 misunderstand this ? The distance recorded in my note-book 

 was merely for reference, to see how near the truth the guess 

 would couie out. I repeat that I have never published that they 

 were 12' apart, and your charge that I have made "different 

 statements " falls harmlessly to the ground. Have I not ad- 

 hered with unyielding pertinacity to the facts first published, 

 that they were about 3 south-west of the sun ? That they were 

 exactly equal in brightness, and of the fifth ma nitude? That 

 the disks were large and red ? That they were about f apart ? 

 And that they pointed towards the sun's centre ? In all I have 

 written I have been as guarded as possible, knowing that the 

 time might come when every word would possess a significance 

 not now anticipated. How, then, with any kind of justice, can 

 I be accused and published to the world as having made different 

 and contradictory statements? 



Perhap- you base your charge on the mathematical error made 

 in reducing the e-timated di-tance in arc to that of time, in order 

 to show the near agreement in R.A. between Prof. Watson's 

 star and mine, but does that come under the head of "different 

 statements?" If all numerical errors are to be thus classed, 

 who, without sin, can be found to cast the first stone? 



I wi-h it to be distinctly understood that up to this time I 

 supposed (and the fact was disputed by none) that one of my 

 objects was Cancri, and the other Watson's planet (a), and I 

 was extremely desirous, while it all was fresh in our minds, to 

 settle the matter, so I wrote to him that I could not harmonise 

 his observations — as published — with my own, though I did not 

 tell him what changes were necessary to attain this result. lie 

 replied that after making the necessary collections, the Dec. 

 comes out + 18 3 16', while his previous statement, made before 

 the corrections were applied, declared it to be but 18 . That 

 16' helped matters very much, but still was only half enough, as 

 the following facts will show. The Dec. of 6 is 1S 30' 20", 

 that of the sun at the time of the eclipse was about the same, 

 and, as my two objects ranged with the sun's centre, my new- 

 one (his planet (a) as I then supposed) mu-t have had a Dec. 

 almost identical with both, but it is clear that no object with a 

 Dec. of lS° 16' could range with the sun's centre, or anything like 



it if one were 8. This is what I meant when, in my reply to 

 Peters, I said, "our difference in Dec. was a source of solicitude 

 to n e." 



To show that you did not clearly understand the matter you 

 corrected me, inserting in parentheses after Dec. these characters 

 (?R.A.), as though I had made a mistake. No, I made no 

 mistake but meant just as I said. I had, at that time, bur little 

 anxiety about the R.A., supposing that the distance between us 

 was not an irreconcilable one (being ignorant as yet of the error 

 you afterwards pointed out), and this was the way I reasoned. 

 The R.A. of 9 was accurately known. I did not, however, 

 know which was 6 and which planet (a), but Watson wrote me 

 the planet was nearest the sun, though he located it in R.A. 

 Sh. 27m. 35s., which was too far east to agree with my observa- 

 tion. But I, with great reluctance, increased my estimated 

 distance 1', calling it 8' instead of 7', and, reducing this to time, 

 erroneously called it 2m. ; while it was really but 32s. This was as 

 far east, or as near to him, as I could go without doing violence 

 to my better judgment. Here arose the question, "Can I not 

 bring Watson nearer to me?" He said: "I consider my 

 observation trustworthy to within 5' of arc." So I brought him 

 5' farther w.st. Nearer to him I could not go, nor nearer to 

 me could I consistently bring him, as he was certain no error had 

 been made. After all, we were too far apart to harmonise things, 

 and, after much reflection, I made anoiher attempt to shorten 

 the bridge over the chasm between us. I tried to imagine that 

 the planet bad ju^t passed its inferior conjunction, and, during 

 the five minutes that elapsed between our observation^ (mine 

 being the later), it had retrograded a little. This was why I 

 contended that it had just passed its inferior conjunction, and 

 that the evidence adduced from their exceptionally lar^e disks 

 was inadequate to prove that it was approaching superior con- 

 junction, when it would, of course, have a very large gibbous 

 disk. 



Up to this time the thought that I had seen anything else than 

 6 and Watson's planet (<?) had not entered my mind. Being 

 unable to reconcile our difference in R. A., though I then sup- 

 posed we were not far apart (having as yet no intimation of the 

 above-named error), I turned my attention to the matter of 

 difference of Dec, which I could see no way to reconcile, as it 

 amounted to over 14' as follows : — ■ 



Dec. + Swift = 18 30 25 

 ,, + Watson = 18 16 00 



14 25 



The above Dec, as deduced by me, was published in 

 Nature, vol. xviii. p. 539, in which I also computed its R.A. to 

 have been (erroneously, as before stated) 8h. 26m. 40-. Com- 

 menting on this letter, you pointed out the error of the reduction 

 of the 8' of arc to time. I instantly saw that 8' was but 32s. , 

 and that we were really wider apart in K.A. than in Dec. 'Ihen 

 I said in reply to Dr. Peters, "The scales fell from my eyes, 

 and I was able to see my way clearly through the mystery, viz., 

 that Watson's planet [a) and 6 Cancri were not the objects seen 

 by me." 



Up to this point I have endeavoured to make the subject con- 

 nected and plain, and if I have not then I despair of ever being 

 able to do so. 



1 now return to your editorial, which, except what you say of 

 myself, is a fair and candid one. Please allow me to quote a 

 few lines from that part of it where you attempt to quote me in 

 my reply to Peters : " He now writes that the difference in Dec. 

 (? R.A.) -hown by his own and Watson's observations bad been 

 a source of solicitude, and he could see no way to harmonise 

 them till Nature pointed out the error," &c. I said nothing 

 of the kind, hut something as different as the zenith is from the 

 nadir. You, by inserting the characters in. parentheses, make me 

 say that I felt solicitude about the R.A. My concern was for 

 the Dec. as I stated it, that of R.A. being nearly wi, ed out, as 

 I then — unconscious as yet of the aforesaid mistake — supposed. 



But the most curious thing of all is that you should interpret 

 me as saying that Watson's and my own observations were har- 

 monised by your detection and pointing out of the error, when 

 ju^t the opposite was the effect. It (&harmonised them for it 

 showed me that instead of our'objects being quite near together 

 in K.A., we were more than a half degree apart. This, coupled 

 with our irreconcilable difference in Dec, caused, as I said, 

 "the scales to fall from my eyes," &c. This matter, which 

 at first sight might appear trivial, is a vital one in my defence, 





