The seconds fled, the light broke out again, and so did the hubbub of voices,--it was all over, and what had been missed then could not be recovered. The sense of self-reproach for wasted opportunity is a common enough feeling at this time, though one may have done his best, so little it seems to each he has accomplished; but when all the results had been brought together, we found that the spectroscopes, cameras, and polariscopes had each done their work, and the journey had not been taken in vain. In one point only we all differed, and this was about the direct ocular evidence, for each seemed to have seen a different corona, and the drawings of it were singularly unlike. Here are two (Figs. 33 and 34) taken at this eclipse at the same time, and from neighboring stations, by two most experienced astronomers, Tacchini and Watson. No one could guess that they represented the same object, and a similar discrepancy was common. [Illustration: FIG. 37.--ENLARGEMENT OF PART OF FIG. 38.] Considering that these were trained experts, whose special task it was, in this case, to draw the corona, which therefore claimed their undivided attention, I hardly know a more striking instance of the fallibility of human testimony. The evidence of several observers, however, pointed to the fact that the light really was more nearly confined to the part next the sun than the year before, so that the corona had probably changed during that interval, and grown smaller, which was remarkable enough. The evidence of the polariscope, on the whole, showed it to be partly due to reflected sunlight, while the spectroscope in the hands of Professor Young confirmed the last year’s observation, that it was also, and largely, self-luminous. Finally, the photographs, taken at very distant stations, showed the same dark rifts in the same place, and thus brought confirmatory evidence that it was not a local phenomenon in our own atmosphere. A photograph of it, taken by Mr. Brothers in Sicily, is the subject of the annexed illustration (Fig. 35), in which the very bright lights which, owing to “photographic irradiation,” seem to indent the moon, are chiefly due to the colored flames I have spoken of, which will be described later. It may be observed that the photographs taken in the next year (1871) were still more successful, and began to show still more of the structure, whose curious forms, resembling large petals, had already been figured by Liais. His drawing (Fig. 36), made in 1857, was supposed to be rather a fanciful sketch than a trustworthy one; but, as it will be seen, the photograph goes far to justify it.