e direction from the comet. Thus space appeared to
be strewn with the filmy debris of this beautiful but fragile structure
all along the track of its retreat from the sun.

Its tail was only equalled (if it were equalled) in length by that of
the comet of 1843. It extended in space to the vast distance of 200
millions of miles from the head; but, so imperfectly were its
proportions displayed to terrestrial observers, that it at no time
covered an arc of the sky of more than 30 deg. This apparent extent was
attained, during a few days previous to September 25, by a faint, thin,
rigid streak, noticed only by a few observers--by Elkin at the Cape
Observatory, Eddie at Grahamstown, and Cruls at Rio Janeiro. It diverged
at a low angle from the denser curved train, and was produced, according
to Bredikhine,[1334] by the action of a repulsive force twelve times as
strong as the counter-pull of gravity. It belonged, that is, to type 1;
while the great bifurcate appendage, obvious to all eyes, corresponded
to the lower rate of emission characteristic of type 2. This was
remarkable for the perfect definiteness of its termination, for its
strongly-forked shape, and for its unusual permanence. Down to the end
of January, 1883, its length, according to Schmidt's observations, was
still 93 million miles; and a week later it remained visible to the
naked eye, without notable abridgment.

Most singular of all was an anomalous extension of the appendage
_towards_ the sun. During the greater part of October and November, a
luminous "tube" or "sheath," of prodigious dimensions, seemed to
surround the head, and project in a direction nearly opposite to that of
the usual outpourings of attentuated matter. (See Plate III.) Its
diameter was computed by Schmidt to be, October 15, no less than four
million miles, and it was described by Cruls as a "truncated cone of
nebulosity," stretching 3 deg. or 4 deg. sunwards.[1335] This, and the
entire anterior part of the comet, were again surrounded by a thin, but
enormously voluminous paraboloidal envelope, observed by Schiaparelli
for a full month from October 19.[1336] There can be little doubt that
these abnormal effluxes were a consequence of the tremendous physical
disturbance suffered at perihelion; and it is worth remembering that
something analogous was observed in the comet of 1680 (Newton's), also
noted for its excessively close approach to the sun, and possibly moving
in a related orbit. T