346 Clusters, Nebulae, and Occultations. 



CLUSTERS, NEBULA AND OCCULTATIONS. 



BY THE EEV. T. W. WEBB, H.A., E.E.A.S. 



NEBULAE. 



We opened our list with a promise of glorious and wonderful 

 objects of contemplation, and our readers, we believe, will not 

 have found themselves hitherto deceived by overwrought ex- 

 pectations. We cannot ensure them a continuous succession 

 of scenes of equal interest and wonder ; our next, however, 

 will be little inferior to its great predecessor ; and those ac- 

 customed to a search after obscure and difficult objects will 

 readily adopt the epithet of " overpowering,''' which Smyth 

 has so characteristically applied to it. It is 



3. The Great Nebula in Andromeda. Being readily visible 

 to the unarmed eye, in consequence of its brightness and ex- 

 tent, it will give but little trouble in the finding. Haviug first 

 identified jB Andromedce from the directions following No. 63 

 of the Double Star list; (Int. Obs., vol. ii., 374), we shall per- 

 ceive that this star is the lowermost of a short line of stars 

 tending in a nf direction: of these the next to /3 is yu-; the 

 third is v ; and a little jo, or to the right of v, the nebula 

 will be immediately recognized by its misty aspect. It is so 

 conspicuous that, like the nebula in Orion, it is singular that 

 it should have found no place among the " Nebulosas 3> of the 

 ancients. It was, however, perceived before the invention 

 of the telescope, being represented in a diagram whose date 

 seems to have been towards the close of the 10th century.* 

 Tycho Brahe, strange to say, makes no mention of it, though 

 he carefully observed the adjacent stars ; and no further refer- 

 ence to it occurs till 1612, Dec. 15, when Simon Marius first, 

 as it would appear, viewed it with the telescope, and gave a 

 very good account of it. This, however, seems to have drawn 

 little attention, as the great observer Huygens was ignorant 

 of its existence even in 1659; but in 1664 the passage of a 

 comet through that region was the means of bringing it finally 

 into general notice. For a length of time subsequently it was 

 so differently described by different observers, that Le Gentil, 



* Hcrschcl II. and Smyth have given a.d. 905 ; upon what authority does 

 not appear ; but from Bond's statement it would tecem to follow that this is a 

 misprint for 995. Bond in turn has misprinted 1662 for 1612, and the Latin 

 title of one of Bouillaud's treatises, as cited by him, contains several strange 

 errata. lie is also mistaken in supposing that no intimation of its having been 

 seen is to bo found between Kil^ and 1664, as Smyth tells us that Bouillaud, in 

 1667, mention* its having been noticed 150 years previously by an expert 

 though anonymous astronomer. 



