The description of these two comets to which I have alluded, will be found in General J. A. Ewart’s “_Story of a Soldier’s Life_,” published in 1881. Writing first of all of the comet of 1843, General Ewart says:—
“It was during our passage from the Cape of Good Hope to the Equator, and when not far from St. Helena, that we first came in sight of the great comet of 1843. In the first instance a small portion of the tail only was visible, at right angles to the horizon; but night after night as we sailed along, it gradually became larger and larger, till at last up came the head, or nucleus, as I ought properly to call it. It was a grand and wonderful sight, for the comet now extended the extraordinary distance of one-third of the heavens, the nucleus being, perhaps, about the size of the planet Venus.”—(Vol. i., p. 75.)
[Illustration: Fig. 28.—The Great Comet of 1882, on October 19 (Artus).]
As regards Donati’s comet of 1858, what the General says is:—
“A very large comet made its appearance about this time, and continued for several weeks to be a magnificent object at night; it was, however, _nothing to the one I had seen in the year 1843_, when on the other side of the equator.”—(Vol. ii., p. 205.)
Passing over the great comet of 1861, on which I have already said a good deal, I must quit the subject of famous comets by a few words about that of 1882, which, though by no means one of the largest, was, in some respects, one of the most remarkable of modern times. It was visible for the long period of nine months, and was conspicuously prominent to the naked eye during September, but these facts, though note-worthy, would not have called for particular remark, had not the comet exhibited some special peculiarities which distinguished it from all others. In the first place, it seems to have undergone certain disruptive changes, in virtue of which the nucleus became split up into four independent nuclei. Then the tail may have been tubular, its extremity being not only bifid, but totally unsymmetrical with respect to the main part. The tubular character of the tail was suggested by Tempel. To other observers, this feature gave the idea of the comet, properly so-called, being enclosed in a cylindrical envelope, which completely surrounded the comet, and overlapped it for a considerable distance at both ends. Finally (and in this resembling Biela’s comet) the comet of 1882 seems to have thrown off a fragment which became an independent body.