At first the mirrors of reflecting telescopes were made of an alloy known as speculum metal, which consisted of practically 4 parts of copper to 1 of tin; but during the last half-century this metal has been entirely superseded by mirrors made of glass ground to the proper figure, and then polished and silvered on the face by a chemical process. To the reflecting form of construction belong some of the largest telescopes in the world, such as the Rosse 6-foot (metal mirrors), Fig. 6, the Common 5-foot (silver on glass), the Melbourne 4-foot (metal mirrors, Cassegrain form), and the 5-foot constructed by Mr. Ritchey for the Yerkes Observatory. Probably the most celebrated, as it was also the first of these monsters, was the 4-foot telescope of Sir William Herschel, made by himself on the principle which goes by his name. It was used by him to some extent in the discoveries which have made his name famous, and nearly everyone who has ever opened an astronomical book is familiar with the engraving of the huge 40-foot tube, with its cumbrous staging, which Oliver Wendell Holmes has so quaintly celebrated in 'The Poet at the Breakfast Table' (Fig. 7). [Illustration: FIG. 7.--HERSCHEL'S 4-FOOT REFLECTOR.] CHAPTER II THE TELESCOPE--PRACTICAL Having thus briefly sketched the history of the telescope, we turn now to consider the optical means which are most likely to be in the hands or within the reach of the beginner in astronomical observation. Let us, first of all, make the statement that any telescope, good, bad, or indifferent, is better than no telescope. There are some purists who would demur to such a statement, who make the beginner's heart heavy with the verdict that it is better to have no telescope at all than one that is not of the utmost perfection, and, of course, of corresponding costliness, and who seem to believe that the performance of an inferior glass may breed disgust at astronomy altogether. This is surely mere nonsense. For most amateurs at the beginning of their astronomical work the question is not between a good telescope and an inferior one, it is between a telescope and no telescope. Of course, no one would be so foolish as willingly to observe with an inferior instrument if a better could be had; but even a comparatively poor glass will reveal much that is of great interest and beauty, and its defects must even be put up with sometimes for the sake of its advantages until something more satisfactory can be obtained. An instrument which will show fifty stars where the naked eye sees five is not to be despised, even though it may show wings to Sirius that have no business there, or a brilliant fringe of colours round Venus to which even that beautiful planet can lay no real claim. Galileo's telescope would be considered a shockingly bad instrument nowadays; still, it had its own little influence upon the history of astronomy, and the wonders which it first revealed are easily within the reach of