Webb derived from observation with it. Speaking of it, he says that
smaller ones will, of course, do less, especially with faint objects,
but are often very perfect and distinct, and that even diminutive
glasses, if good, will, at least, show something never seen without
them. He adds: "I have a little hand telescope twenty-two and
one-quarter inches long, when fully drawn out, with a focus of about
fourteen inches, and one and one-third inches aperture; this, with an
astronomical eye-piece, will show the _existence_ of sun spots, the
mountains in the moon, Jupiter's satellites and Saturn's ring." In
another place, speaking of the sun, he says that an object glass of
only two inches will exhibit a curdled or marbled appearance over the
whole solar disk, caused by the intermixture of spaces of different
brightness. And I may add here that Dawes recommends a small aperture
for sun work, including spectroscopic examinations, he himself, like
Mr. Miller, our librarian, preferring to use for that purpose a four
inch refractor.

As you know, the North Star is a most beautiful double. Its companion
is of the ninth order of magnitude, that is, three magnitudes smaller
than the smallest star visible to the naked eye on a dark night. There
was a time when Polaris, as a double, was regarded as an excellent
test for a good three inch telescope; that is any three inch
instrument in which the companion could be seen was pronounced to be
first-class. But so persistently have instruments of small aperture
been improved that that star is no longer an absolute test for three
inch objectives of fine quality, or any first-rate objective exceeding
two inches for which Dawes proposed it as a standard of excellence, he
having found that if the eye and telescope be good, the companion to
Polaris may be seen with such an aperture armed with a power of
eighty. As a matter of fact, Dawes, who was, like Burnham, blessed