216 Dr, Buacpen’s Account of 
imputing the whole to an aifrighted imagination, or an illufi 1018 
produced by the fancied analogy of fireworks... The teftimony 
in fupport of it 1s, however, fo confiderable, on the occafion 
of this as well as former meteors, that I cannot venture to 
reject it, however improbable it may be thought, but would 
jeave it as a point to be cleared up by future obfervers. bs? 
§ 7. To determine the bulk of the fire-ball, we muft not 
only have calculated its diftance, but alfo know the angle un- 
der which it appeared. For this purpofe the moon is the ufual 
term of ‘comparifon; but as it was thought, at very different 
‘diftances, to prefent a difk equal to that luminary’s, and the 
fame expreflions have been applied to meft preceding fire-balls, I 
‘conceive this eftimation rather to be a general effect of the 
ftrong impreffion produced by fuch fplendid obje@s on the 
mind, than to convey any determinate idea of their fize. How- 
ever, if we fuppofe its tranfverfe diameter to have fubtended 
an angle of 30’ when it pafied over the zenith, which probably 
is not very wide of the truth, and that it was 50 miles high, 
it muft have been almoft half a mile acrofs. ‘The tail fome- 
times appeared 10 or 12 times longer than the body ; but moft 
‘of this was train, and the real elongation behind feems feldom 
to have exceeded twice or thrice its tranfverfe diameter, con> 
dequently was between one and two miles long. Now if the 
cubical contents be confidered, for it appeared equally round 
‘and full in all directions, fuch an enormous: mafs, moving 
with extreme velocity, .affords juft matter of aftonifhment. 
§ 8. The duration of the meteor is very differently flated, 
partly becaufe fome obfervers had it in view a much longer 
time than others, and partly becaufe they formed different 
judgements of the time. Thofe who faw leaft of it feem to 
‘have perceived its illumination about ten feconds, and thofe 
who 

