It must be remembered that an inexperienced observer of the sun might readily mistake a spot of unusual roundness and darkness for a planet's disc. The practised observer would perceive peculiarities at once indicating the object as a spot on the sun; but these peculiarities would escape the notice of a beginner, or of one using a telescope of small power. Again, an inexperienced observer is apt to mistake the change of position which a spot on the sun undergoes on account of the diurnal motion, for a change of place on the sun's disc. At noon, for instance, the uppermost point of the sun's disc is the north point; but in the afternoon the uppermost point is east of the true north point. Thus a spot which at noon was a short distance below the highest point of the sun's disc would at two or three be considerably to the west of the highest point, though it had undergone in the interval no appreciable change of position on the solar disc. Suppose now that at two or three in the afternoon clouds come over the sun's face, and he is not seen again that day. On the morrow the spot may have disappeared, as solar spots are apt enough to do. The observer, then (assuming him to be inexperienced like most of those who have described such spots), would say, I saw at noon a small round spot which in the course of the next three hours moved over an appreciable arc towards the west (the right direction, be it remembered, for a planet to cross the sun's face). An experienced observer would not make such a mistake. But let one point be carefully noted. An experienced astronomer would be very apt to forget that such a mistake could be made. He would take it for granted that the observer who described such a change in a spot's position meant a real change, not a change due to the diurnal motion.
Therefore, although Leverrier, Moigno, Hind, and other men of science, have adopted Lescarbault's account, I hold it to be absolutely certain that that account is in some respect or other erroneous. Newcomb goes even farther. He says, it is very certain that if the disturbance of Mercury is due to a group of planets, 'they are each so small as to be invisible in transits across the sun. They must also,' he proceeds, 'be so small as to be invisible during total eclipses of the sun, because they have always failed to show themselves then.' This remark relates, of course, to naked-eye vision. As no intra-Mercurial planet had ever been searched for systematically with the telescope, before the recent eclipse, there was nothing to prevent astronomers from believing that a group of planets, visible in the telescope during total eclipse, may travel between the sun and the path of Mercury.
I proceed at once to consider the evidence afforded during the eclipse of July, 1878, not discussing further the question of Lescarbault's Vulcan, because it appears to me so clear that there must have been some mistake, and because later observations seem to throw clearer evidence on the matter than any which had been before obtained. Yet it must be admitted that even now the evidence is not all that could be desired.
Professor Watson, of Ann Arbor, the discoverer of more than a score of the small planets which travel between the paths of Mars and Jupiter, had been searching for an extra-Neptunian planet, when the approach of the eclipse of July, 1878, suggested the idea that he should return for a while from those dismal depths which lie beyond the path of Neptune to seek for a new planet within the glowing region between the sun and the path of Mercury. The occasion was exceptionally favourable because of the great height above the sea-level from which the eclipse could be observed. Accordingly he betook himself to Rawlins, Wyoming, and prepared for the search by providing his telescope with card circles in such sort that the place of any observed star could be recorded by a pencil-mark on these circles, instead of being read off (with the possibility of error) in the usual way. It is unnecessary to explain further, because every one who has ever used an equatorial telescope, or is acquainted with the nature of the instrument, will at once understand Professor Watson's plan, whereas those unfamiliar with the instrument, would not gain any insight into the nature of his plan without much more explanatory matter than could be conveniently given here, even if any explanation without illustrations could make the matter clear. Let it suffice to note that, having brought any star centrally into the telescopic field of view, Professor Watson marked in pencil where the ends of certain pointers came; and that these marks served to indicate, after the eclipse was over, the position of the observed star.
Thus provided, Professor Watson, so soon as totality began, searched on the eastern side of the sun, and there saw certain stars belonging to the constellation Cancer, where the sun was situate at the time. He then examined the western side of the sun, and having swept out to a star which he took to be Zeta Cancri (though he was rather surprised at its brightness,—but of that more anon) he returned towards the sun, encountering on his way a star of the fourth magnitude or rather less, about two degrees to the west of the sun. Close by was the star Theta Cancri; but Theta was much fainter, and was seen at the same time a little further west. It is not easy to understand why Watson did not make comparison between the position of the new star and Theta, instead of making comparison between the new star, the sun, and the star which he took to be Zeta. For a comparison with a known object so close as Theta would have given more satisfactory evidence than a comparison with objects farther away. However, as he distinctly states in a letter to Sir G. Airy that the new star was very much brighter than Theta Cancri, which was seen a little farther to the west, we cannot doubt that he had sufficient evidence to prove the new star and Theta Cancri to be distinct orbs.
He adds that there was no appearance of elongation, as might be expected if the new object were a comet. It had a perceptible disc, though the magnifying power was only forty five.
The accompanying figure will serve to give a fair idea of the position of the stranger.
