Page:The story of the comets.djvu/151

IX. perihelion passage. He did this, however, with a slight reservation, because, having neglected some small quantities in the calculations, he thought that the date named might be wrong by a month either way. When Clairaut's conclusions became generally known the astronomers of Europe were soon on the qui vive, and several of them carried out a prolonged watch of the heavens, which in Messier's case extended over the whole of the year 1758. It was not destined, however, that a professional astronomer should be the first to detect the comet on its anticipated return; that honour was reserved for an amateur student of Nature, said to have been a farmer by occupation, named Palitzsch, living at Prohlis, near Dresden, who saw it on the night of Christmas Day, 1758, with a telescope of 8 ft. focus. Some curious mis- statements respecting this man have been widely circulated, and perhaps even to this day may be considered as still in circulation. Baron De Zach, who was personally acquainted with the man, has left on record some interesting particulars relating to him. Farmer though he was, he was a diligent student of Astronomy; was possessed of a strong sight; and was in the habit of scrutinising the heavens with the naked eye, which fact may perhaps have given rise to the statement that he found Halley's Comet with the naked eye at a time when the professional astronomers were vainly searching for it with their telescopes. The first man of note to find the comet appears to have been Messier, who caught it in bad weather on Jan. 21, and observed it regularly for 3 weeks. It seems that Delisle, then Director of the Observatory of Paris, would not allow Messier (who was his assistant) to disclose the fact of his discovery, and he remained the only professed astronomer who saw the comet before it became lost in the Sun's rays at its perihelion passage. Let us hope that Hind's remark on this incident will remain true:—"Such a discreditable and selfish concealment of an interesting discovery is not likely to sully again the annals of Astronomy." This strange conduct of Delisle's carried its own punishment, for when Messier's observations were afterwards published some members of the French Academy treated them as