, Athens local time, there was no
star above the fourth magnitude in the place occupied by the new star.
So that, if this negative evidence can be implicitly relied on, the new
star must have sprung at least from the fourth, and probably from a much
lower magnitude, to the second, in less than three hours--eleven o'clock
at Athens corresponding to about nine o'clock by Irish railway time. A
Mr. Barker, of London, Canada, put forward a claim to having seen the
new star as early as May 4--a claim not in the least worth
investigating, so far as the credit of first seeing the new star is
concerned, but exceedingly important in its bearing on the nature of the
outburst affecting the star in Corona. It is unpleasant to have to throw
discredit on any definite assertion of facts; unfortunately, however,
Mr. Barker, when his claim was challenged, laid before Mr. Stone, of the
Greenwich Observatory, such very definite records of observations made
on May 4, 8, 9, and 10, that we have no choice but either to admit these
observations, or to infer that he experienced the delusive effects of a
very singular trick of memory. He mentions in his letter to Mr. Stone
that he had sent full particulars of his observations on those early
dates to Professor Watson, of Ann Arbor University, on May 17; but
(again unfortunately) instead of leaving that letter to tell its own
story in Professor Watson's hands, he asked Professor Watson to return
it to him: so that when Mr. Stone very naturally asked Professor Watson
to furnish a copy of this important letter, Professor Watson had to
reply, 'About a month ago, Mr. Barker applied to me for this letter, and
I returned it to him, as requested, without preserving a copy. I can,
however,' he proceeded, 'state positively that he did not mention any
actual observation earlier than May 14. He said he thought he had
noticed a strange star in the Crown about two weeks before the date of
his first observation--May 14--but not particularly, and that he did not
recognise it until the 14th. He did not give any date, and did not even
seem positive as to identity.... When I returned the letter of May 17, I
made an endorsement across the first page, in regard to its genuineness,
and attached my signature. I regret that I did not preserve a copy of
the letter in question; but if the original is produced, it will appear
that my recollection of its contents is correct.' I think no one can
blame Mr. Stone, if, on the rec