As my above-mentioned observations on the comet appeared too incorrect to undertake a calculation for the ascertaining of its path from the theory, I contented myself with effecting it by a construction. By this means I found, on a figure, whose globular or spherical diameter was 13½ Rhineland inches, as follows:
That the comet was in its perihelion the 21st of October, at two of the clock in the afternoon: the place of the perihelion 3 degrees in Leo. The comet’s distance in the perihelion from the sun was about 34 parts, whereof 100 make the mean distance between the sun and the earth. The inclination of the comet’s orbit with the ecliptic 13 degrees; and the southern latitude of the perihelion also 13 decrees: the ascending or north node ☊ 4⅓ degrees in Scorpio; and the comet’s motion direct, or according to the order of the signs of the zodiac. On this supposition I have, for some of the times of observations, estimated the apparent places of the comet, and found them as follows:
| Long. | Latit. | |||||||||||
| Sept. | 18, | at | 3¾ | ante merid. In | ♋ | 18¹⁄₁₂ | and | 9 | deg. | North. | ||
| 19 | — | 4 | — | — | — | ♋ | 22 | —— | 8⅖ | |||
| 22 | — | 2¾ | — | — | — | ♌ | 3⅝ | —— | 6¼ | |||
| 23 | — | 4 | — | — | — | ♌ | 7⅗ | —— | 5½ | |||
| 25 | — | 4¼ | — | — | — | ♌ | 14⅔ | —— | 4 | |||
| 28 | — | 4 | — | — | — | ♌ | 24⅓ | —— | 1¾ | |||
| Oct. | 4 | — | 4½ | — | — | — | ♍ | 9⅓ | —— | 2 | —— | South. |
| 9 | — | 4¾ | — | — | — | ♍ | 19⅔ | —— | 3⅖ | |||
| 11 | — | 5 | — | — | — | ♍ | 23⅛ | —— | 3⅘ | |||
The observations, which I have taken, to ground the measurement on, are those of the 16th and 23d of September, and of the 1st of October. It appears very evident, not only from this rough calculation, but every other circumstance of this comet, that it is not the same with that in the year 1682: which, on certain accounts, is very desirable to be known; for both here, and in other parts of the Netherlands, there have been some people, who have published mere conjectures; and have ventured (very minutely and exactly, as they pretended) about the time that this comet first made its appearance, to predict the return of the comet of the year 1682. But by the above, the weakness of their pretensions is very evident to all the world: whereas, if this had proved to be the expected comet, they would have assumed to themselves much undue praise, and have pretended to knowlege even superior to the every-where much celebrated Newton and Halley.
It appears also probable to me, that this comet is none of those already calculated, or brought upon a list, by Messieurs Halley and Struyk. It is somewhat remarkable, that the line of the nodes is almost at right angles with the long axis of the ellipsis; which corresponds nearly with the comets of the years 1580, 1683, and 1686: but those had their perihelions northward of the ecliptic; whereas the perihelion of the last, which we have lately seen, was to the southward of the ecliptic.
I have the honour to subscribe myself, with the most perfect esteem for you, and your sublime studies, very respectfully,
SIR,
Your very humble and obedient Servant,
D. Klinkenberg.
Hague, 13th Dec. 1757.