The figure illustrating this article is taken from L'Astronomie, and represents the remarkable southern comet of January, 1887, as drawn on successive days by Mr. Finlay, of Cape Town.

The comet was first seen by a farmer and a fisherman of Blauwberg, near Cape Town, on the night of January 18-19. The same night it was seen at the Cordoba Observatory by M. Thome. On the next Mr. Todd discovered it independently at the Adelaide Observatory, and watched it till the 27th. On the 22d Mr. Finlay detected the comet, and was able to watch it till the 29th. At Rio de Janeiro M. Cruls observed it from the 23d to the 25th; and at Windsor, New South Wales, Mr. Tebbutt observed the comet on the 28th and 30th. Moonlight interfered with further observations.

The comet's appearance was remarkable. Its tail, long and straight, extended over an arc of 30 degrees, but there was no appreciable condensation which could be called the comet's head. The long train of light, described as nearly equal in brightness to the Magellanic clouds, seemed to be simply cut off at that end where in most comets a nucleus and coma are shown.

This comet has helped to throw light on one of the most perplexing puzzles which those most perplexing of all the heavenly bodies, comets, have presented to astronomers.

In the year 1668 a comet was seen in the southern skies which attracted very little notice at the time, and would probably have been little thought of since had not attention been directed to it by the appearance and behavior of certain comets seen during the last half century. Visible for about three weeks, and discovered after it had already passed the point of its nearest approach to the sun, the comet of 1668 was not observed so satisfactorily that its orbit could be precisely determined. In fact, two entirely different orbits would satisfy the observations fairly, though one only could be regarded as satisfying them well.

This orbit, however, was so remarkable that astronomers were led to prefer the other, less satisfactory though it was, in explaining the observed motions of the comet. For the orbit which best explained the comet's movements carried the comet so close to the sun as actually to graze his visible surface.

Moreover, there was this remarkable, and, indeed, absolutely unique peculiarity about the orbit thus assigned: the comet (whose period of revolution was to be measured by hundreds of years) actually passed through the whole of that part of its course during which it was north of our earth's orbit plane in less than two hours and a half! though this part of its course is a half circuit around the sun, so far as direction (not distance of travel) is concerned. That comet, when at its nearest to the sun, was traveling at the rate of about 330 miles per second. It passed through regions near the sun's surface commonly supposed to be occupied by atmospheric matter.

Now, had the comet been so far checked in its swift rush through those regions as to lose one thousandth part of its velocity, it would have returned in less than a year. But the way in which the comet retreated showed that nothing of this sort was to be expected. I am not aware, indeed, that any anticipations were ever suggested in regard to the return of the comet of 1668 to our neighborhood. It was not till the time of Halley's comet, 1682, that modern astronomy began to consider the question of the possibly periodic character of cometic motions with attention. (For my own part, I reject as altogether improbable the statement of Seneca that the ancient Chaldean astronomers could calculate the return of comets.) The comet of 1680, called Newton's, was the very first whose orbital motions were dealt with on the principles of Newtonian astronomy, and Halley's was the first whose periodic character was recognized.

In 1843 another comet came up from the south, and presently returned thither. It was, indeed, only seen during its return, having, like the comet of 1668, been only discovered a day or two after perihelion passage. Astronomers soon began to notice a curious resemblance between the orbits of the two comets. Remembering the comparative roughness of the observations made in 1668, it may be said that the two comets moved in the same orbit, so far as could be judged from observation. The comet of 1843 came along a path inclined at apparently the same angle to the earth's orbit plane, crossed that plane ascendingly at appreciably the same point, swept round in about two hours and a half that part of its angular circuit which lay north of the earth's orbit plane, and, crossing that plane descendingly at the same point as the comet of 1668, passed along appreciably the same course toward the southern stellar regions! The close resemblance of two paths, each so strikingly remarkable in itself, could not well be regarded as a mere accidental coincidence.

Sky With Comets The Constellations, though unnamed, can readily be identified, when it is noted that the Comet's course, as here represented, began in the constellation of the Crane.

However, at that time no very special attention was directed to the resemblance between the paths of the comets of 1843 and 1668. It was not regarded as anything very new or striking that a comet should return after making a wide excursion round the sun; and those who noticed that the two comets really had traversed appreciably the same path around the immediate neighborhood of the sun, simply concluded that the comet of 1668 had come back in 1843, after 175 years, and not necessarily for the first time.

It must be noticed, however, before leaving this part of the record, that the comet of 1843 was suspected of behaving in a rather strange way when near the sun. For the first observation, made rather roughly, indeed, with a sextant, by a man who had no idea of the interest his observation might afterward have, could not be reconciled by mathematicians (including the well-known mathematician, Benjamin Pierce) with the movement of the comet as subsequently observed. It seemed as though when in the sun's neighborhood the comet had undergone some disturbance, possibly internal, which had in slight degree affected its subsequent career.