{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26556/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26556","id":"gutenberg_26556","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26556","summary":null,"tags":["Astronomy","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Science - Physics"],"text":"Produced by Brenda Lewis, Scott Marusak, Greg Bergquist\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/American\nLibraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  Transcriber's Note\n\n  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. A list of corrections\n  is found at the end of the text.\n\n[Illustration: LILLY'S HIEROGLYPHS (PUBLISHED IN 1651)]\n\n\n\n\n  MYTHS AND MARVELS\n  OF ASTRONOMY\n\n  BY\n  RICHARD A. PROCTOR\n\n  AUTHOR OF\n\n  \"ROUGH WAYS MADE SMOOTH,\" \"THE EXPANSE OF HEAVEN,\" \"OUR PLACE\n  AMONG INFINITIES,\" \"PLEASANT WAYS IN SCIENCE,\"\n  ETC., ETC.\n\n  _NEW EDITION_\n\n  LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.\n  LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY\n  1896\n\n\n\n\n  _Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO\n\n  _At the Ballantyne Press_\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe chief charm of Astronomy, with many, does not reside in the wonders\nrevealed to us by the science, but in the lore and legends connected\nwith its history, the strange fancies with which in old times it has\nbeen associated, the half-forgotten myths to which it has given birth.\nIn our own times also, Astronomy has had its myths and fancies, its wild\ninventions, and startling paradoxes. My object in the present series of\npapers has been to collect together the most interesting of these old\nand new Astronomical myths, associating with them, in due proportion,\nsome of the chief marvels which recent Astronomy has revealed to us. To\nthe former class belong the subjects of the first four and the last five\nessays of the present series, while the remaining essays belong to the\nlatter category.\n\nThroughout I have endeavoured to avoid technical expressions on the one\nhand, and ambiguous phraseology (sometimes resulting from the attempt\nto avoid technicality) on the other. I have, in fact, sought to present\nmy subjects as I should wish to have matters outside the range of my\nspecial branch of study presented for my own reading.\n\n  RICHARD A. PROCTOR.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                   PAGE\n\n  I. ASTROLOGY                                        1\n\n  II. THE RELIGION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID              53\n\n  III. THE MYSTERY OF THE PYRAMIDS                   78\n\n  IV. SWEDENBORG'S VISIONS OF OTHER WORLDS          106\n\n  V. OTHER WORLDS AND OTHER UNIVERSES               135\n\n  VI. SUNS IN FLAMES                                160\n\n  VII. THE RINGS OF SATURN                          191\n\n  VIII. COMETS AS PORTENTS                          212\n\n  IX. THE LUNAR HOAX                                242\n\n  X. ON SOME ASTRONOMICAL PARADOXES                 268\n\n  XI. ON SOME ASTRONOMICAL MYTHS                    299\n\n  XII. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTELLATION-FIGURES      332\n\n\n\n\nMYTHS AND MARVELS\n\nOF\n\nASTRONOMY\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n_ASTROLOGY._\n\n     Signs and planets, in aspects sextile, quartile, trine, conjoined,\n     or opposite; houses of heaven, with their cusps, hours, and\n     minutes; Almuten, Almochoden, Anahibazon, Catahibazon; a thousand\n     terms of equal sound and significance.--_Guy Mannering._\n\n  ... Come and see! trust thine own eyes.\n  A fearful sign stands in the house of life,\n  An enemy: a fiend lurks close behind\n  The radiance of thy planet--oh! be warned!--COLERIDGE.\n\n\nAstrology possesses a real interest even in these days. It is true that\nno importance attaches now even to the discussion of the considerations\nwhich led to the rejection of judicial astrology. None but the most\nignorant, and therefore superstitious, believe at present in divination\nof any sort or kind whatsoever. Divination by the stars holds no higher\nposition than palmistry, fortune-telling by cards, or the indications of\nthe future which foolish persons find in dreams, tea-dregs,\nsalt-spilling, and other absurdities. But there are two reasons which\nrender the history of astrology interesting. In the first place, faith\nin stellar influences was once so widespread that astrological\nterminology came to form a part of ordinary language, insomuch that it\nis impossible rightly to understand many passages of ancient and\nmediaeval literature, or rightly to apprehend the force of many allusions\nand expressions, unless the significance of astrological teachings to\nthe men of those times be recognised. In the second place, it is\ninteresting to examine how the erroneous teachings of astrology were\ngradually abandoned, to note the way in which various orders of mind\nrejected these false doctrines or struggled to retain them, and to\nperceive how, with a large proportion of even the most civilised races,\nthe superstitions of judicial astrology were long retained, or are\nretained even to this very day. The world has still to see some\nsuperstitions destroyed which are as widely received as astrology ever\nwas, and which will probably retain their influence over many minds long\nafter the reasoning portion of the community have rejected them.\n\nEven so far back as the time of Eudoxus the pretensions of astrologers\nwere rejected, as Cicero informs us ('De Div.' ii. 42). And though the\nRomans were strangely superstitious in such matters, Cicero reasons with\nexcellent judgment against the belief in astrology. Gassendi quotes the\nargument drawn by Cicero against astrology, from the predictions of the\nChaldaeans that Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey would die 'in a full old age,\nin their own houses, in peace and honour,' whose deaths, nevertheless,\nwere 'violent, immature, and tragical.' Cicero also used an argument\nwhose full force has only been recognised in modern times. 'What\ncontagion,' he asked, 'can reach us from the planets, whose distance is\nalmost infinite?' It is singular that Seneca, who was well acquainted\nwith the uniform character of the planetary motions, seems to have\nentertained no doubt respecting their influence. Tacitus expresses some\ndoubts, but was on the whole inclined to believe in astrology.\n'Certainly,' he says, 'the majority of mankind cannot be weaned from the\nopinion that at the birth of each man his future destiny is fixed;\nthough some things may fall out differently from the predictions, by the\nignorance of those who profess the art; and thus the art is unjustly\nblamed, confirmed as it is by noted examples in all ages.'[1]\n\nProbably, the doubt suggested by the different fortunes and characters\nof men born at the same time must have occurred to many before Cicero\ndwelt upon it. Pliny, who followed Cicero in this, does not employ the\nargument quite correctly, for he says that, 'in every hour, in every\npart of the world, are born lords and slaves, kings and beggars.' But of\ncourse, according to astrological principles, it would be necessary that\ntwo persons, whose fortunes were to be alike, should be born, not only\nin the same hour, but in the same place. The fortunes and character of\nJacob and Esau, however, should manifestly have been similar, which was\ncertainly not the case, if their history has been correctly handed down\nto us. An astrologer of the time of Julius Caesar, named Publius Nigidius\nFigulus, used a singular argument against such reasoning. When an\nopponent urged the different fortunes of men born nearly at the same\ninstant, Nigidius asked him to make two contiguous marks on a potter's\nwheel which was revolving rapidly. When the wheel was stopped, the two\nmarks were found to be far apart. Nigidius is said to have received the\nname of Figulus (the potter), in remembrance of the story; but more\nprobably he was a potter by trade, and an astrologer only during those\nleisure hours which he could devote to charlatanry. St. Augustine, who\nrelates the story (which I borrow from Whewell's 'History of the\nInductive Sciences'), says, justly, that the argument of Nigidius was as\nfragile as the ware made on the potter's wheel.\n\nThe belief must have been all but universal in those days that at the\nbirth of any person who was to hold an important place in the world's\nhistory the stars would either be ominously conjoined, or else some\nblazing comet or new star would make its appearance. For we know that\nsome such object having appeared, or some unusual conjunction of planets\nhaving occurred, near enough to the time of Christ's birth to be\nassociated in men's minds with that event, it came eventually to be\nregarded as belonging to his horoscope, and as actually indicating to\nthe Wise Men of the East (Chaldaean astrologers, doubtless) the future\ngreatness of the child then born. It is certain that that is what the\nstory of the Star in the East means as it stands. Theologians differ as\nto its interpretation in points of detail. Some think the phenomenon was\nmeteoric, others that a comet then made its appearance, others that a\nnew star shone out, and others that the account referred to a\nconjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars, which occurred at about that\ntime. As a matter of detail it may be mentioned, that none of these\nexplanations in the slightest degree corresponds with the account, for\nneither meteor, nor comet, nor new star, nor conjoined planets, would go\nbefore travellers from the east, to show them their way to any place.\nYet the ancients sometimes regarded comets as guides. Whichever view we\naccept, it is abundantly clear that an astrological significance was\nattached by the narrator to the event. And not so very long ago, when\nastrologers first began to see that their occupation was passing from\nthem, the Wise Men of the East were appealed to against the enemies of\nastrology,[2]--very much as Moses was appealed to against Copernicus\nand Galileo, and more recently to protect us against certain\nrelationships which Darwin, Wallace, and Huxley unkindly indicate for\nthe human race divine.\n\nAlthough astronomers now reject altogether the doctrines of judicial\nastrology, it is impossible for the true lover of that science to regard\nastrology altogether with contempt. Astronomy, indeed, owes much more to\nthe notions of believers in astrology than is commonly supposed.\nAstrology bears the same relation to modern astronomy that alchemy bears\nto modern chemistry. As it is probable that nothing but the hope of\ngain, literally in this case _auri sacra fames_, would have led to those\nlaborious researches of the alchemists which first taught men how to\nanalyse matter into its elementary constituents, and afterwards to\ncombine these constituents afresh into new forms, so the belief that, by\ncarefully studying the stars, men might acquire the power of predicting\nfuture events, first directed attention to the movements of the\ncelestial bodies. Kepler's saying, that astrology, though a fool, was\nthe daughter of a wise mother,[3] does not by any means present truly\nthe relationship between astrology and astronomy. Rather we may say that\nastrology and alchemy, though foolish mothers, gave birth to those wise\ndaughters, astronomy and chemistry. Even this way of speaking scarcely\ndoes justice to the astrologers and alchemists of old times. Their views\nappear foolish in the light of modern scientific knowledge, but they\nwere not foolish in relation to what was known when they were\nentertained. Modern analysis goes far to demonstrate the immutability,\nand, consequently, the non-transmutability of the metals, though it is\nby no means so certain as many suppose that the present position of the\nmetals in the list of _elements_ is really correct. Certainly a chemist\nof our day would be thought very unwise who should undertake a series of\nresearches with the object of discovering a mineral having such\nqualities as the alchemists attributed to the philosopher's stone. But\nwhen as yet the facts on which the science of chemistry is based were\nunknown, there was nothing unreasonable in supposing that such a mineral\nmight exist, or the means of compounding it be discovered. Nay, many\narguments from analogy might be urged to show that the supposition was\naltogether probable. In like manner, though the known facts of astronomy\noppose themselves irresistibly to any belief in planetary influences\nupon the fates of men and nations, yet before those facts were\ndiscovered it was not only not unreasonable, but was in fact, highly\nreasonable to believe in such influences, or at least that the sun, and\nmoon, and stars moved in the heavens in such sort as to indicate what\nwould happen. If the wise men of old times rejected the belief that 'the\nstars in their courses fought' for or against men, they yet could not\nvery readily abandon the belief that the stars were for signs in the\nheavens of what was to befall mankind.\n\nIf we consider the reasoning now commonly thought valid in favour of the\ndoctrine that other orbs besides our earth are inhabited, and compare it\nwith the reasoning on which judicial astrology was based, we shall not\nfind much to choose between the two, so far as logical weight is\nconcerned. Because the only member of the solar system which we can\nexamine closely is inhabited, astronomers infer a certain degree of\nprobability for the belief that the other planets of the system are also\ninhabited. And because the only sun we know much about is the centre of\na system of planets, astronomers infer that probably the stars, those\nother suns which people space, are also the centres of systems; although\nno telescope which man can make would show the members of a system like\nours, attending on even the nearest of all the stars. The astrologer had\na similar argument for his belief. The moon, as she circles around the\nearth, exerts a manifest influence upon terrestrial matter--the tidal\nwave rising and sinking synchronously with the movements of the moon,\nand other consequences depending directly or indirectly upon her\nrevolution around the earth. The sun's influence is still more manifest;\nand, though it may have required the genius of a Herschel or of a\nStephenson to perceive that almost every form of terrestrial energy is\nderived from the sun, yet it must have been manifest from the very\nearliest times that the greater light which rules the day rules the\nseasons also, and, in ruling them, provides the annual supplies of\nvegetable food, on which the very existence of men and animals depends.\nIf these two bodies, the sun and moon, are thus potent, must it not be\nsupposed, reasoned the astronomers of old, that the other celestial\nbodies exert corresponding influences? _We_ know, but they did not know,\nthat the moon rules the tides effectually because she is near to us, and\nthat the sun is second only to the moon in tidal influence because of\nhis enormous mass and attractive energy. We know also that his position\nas fire, light, and life of the earth and its inhabitants, is due\ndirectly to the tremendous heat with which the whole of his mighty\nframe is instinct. Not knowing this, the astronomers of old times had no\nsufficient reason for distinguishing the sun and moon from the other\ncelestial bodies, so far at least as the general question of celestial\ninfluences was concerned.\n\nSo far as particulars were concerned, it was not altogether so clear to\nthem as it is to us, that the influence of the sun must be paramount in\nall respects save tidal action, and that of the moon second only to the\nsun's in other respects, and superior to his in tidal sway alone. Many\nwriters on the subject of life in other worlds are prepared to show (as\nBrewster attempts to do, for example) that Jupiter and Saturn are far\nnobler worlds than the earth, because superior in this or that\ncircumstance. So the ancient astronomers, in their ignorance of the\nactual conditions on which celestial influences depend, found abundant\nreasons for regarding the feeble influences exerted by Saturn, Jupiter,\nand Mars, as really more potent than those exerted by the sun himself\nupon the earth. They reasoned, as Milton afterwards made Raphael reason,\nthat 'great or bright infers not excellence,' that Saturn or Jupiter,\nthough 'in comparison so small, nor glist'ring' to like degree, may yet\n'of solid good contain more plenty than the sun.' Supposing the\ninfluence of a celestial body to depend on the magnitude of its sphere,\nin the sense of the old astronomy (according to which each planet had\nits proper sphere, around the earth as centre), then the influence of\nthe sun would be judged to be inferior to that of either Saturn,\nJupiter, or Mars; while the influences of Venus and Mercury, though\ninferior to the influence of the sun, would still be held superior to\nthat of the moon. For the ancients measured the spheres of the seven\nplanets of their system by the periods of the apparent revolution of\nthose bodies around the celestial dome, and so set the sphere of the\nmoon innermost, enclosed by the sphere of Mercury, around which in turn\nwas the sphere of Venus, next the sun's, then, in order, those of Mars,\nJupiter, and Saturn. We can readily understand how they might come to\nregard the slow motions of the sphere of Saturn and Jupiter, taking\nrespectively some thirty and twelve years to complete a revolution, as\nindicating power superior to the sun's, whose sphere seemed to revolve\nonce in a single year. Many other considerations might have been urged,\nbefore the Copernican theory was established, to show that, possibly,\nsome of the planets exert influences more effective than those of the\nsun and moon.\n\nIt is, indeed, clear that the first real shock sustained by astrology\ncame from the arguments of Copernicus. So long as the earth was regarded\nas the centre round which all the celestial bodies move, it was hopeless\nto attempt to shake men's faith in the influences of the stars. So far\nas I know, there is not a single instance of a believer in the old\nPtolemaic system who rejected astrology absolutely. The views of\nBacon--the last of any note who opposed the system of\nCopernicus[4]--indicate the extreme limits to which a Ptolemaist could\ngo in opposition to astrology. It may be worth while to quote Bacon's\nopinion in this place, because it indicates at once very accurately the\nposition held by believers in astrology in his day, and the influence\nwhich the belief in a central fixed earth could not fail to exert on the\nminds of even the most philosophical reasoners.\n\n'Astrology,' he begins, 'is so full of superstition that scarce anything\nsound can be discovered in it; though we judge it should rather be\npurged than absolutely rejected. Yet if any one shall pretend that this\nscience is founded not in reason and physical contemplations, but in the\ndirect experience and observation of past ages, and therefore not to be\nexamined by physical reasons, as the Chaldaeans boasted, he may at the\nsame time bring back divination, auguries, soothsaying, and give in to\nall kinds of fables; for these also were said to descend from long\nexperience. But we receive astrology as a part of physics, without\nattributing more to it than reason and the evidence of things allow, and\nstrip it of its superstition and conceits. Thus we banish that empty\nnotion about the horary reign of the planets, as if each resumed the\nthrone thrice in twenty-four hours, so as to leave three hours\nsupernumerary; and yet this fiction produced the division of the\nweek,[5] a thing so ancient and so universally received. Thus likewise\nwe reject as an idle figment the doctrine of horoscopes, and the\ndistribution of the houses, though these are the darling inventions of\nastrology, which have kept revel, as it were, in the heavens. And\nlastly, for the calculation of nativities, fortunes, good or bad hours\nof business, and the like fatalities, they are mere levities, that have\nlittle in them of certainty and solidity, and may be plainly confuted by\nphysical reasons. But here we judge it proper to lay down some rules for\nthe examination of astrological matters, in order to retain what is\nuseful therein, and reject what is insignificant. Thus, 1. Let the\ngreater revolutions be retained, but the lesser, of horoscopes and\nhouses, be rejected--the former being like ordnance which shoot to a\ngreat distance, whilst the other are but like small bows, that do no\nexecution. 2. The celestial operations affect not all kinds of bodies,\nbut only the more sensible, as humours, air, and spirits. 3. All the\ncelestial operations rather extend to masses of things than to\nindividuals, though they may obliquely reach some individuals also which\nare more sensible than the rest, as a pestilent constitution of the air\naffects those bodies which are least able to resist it. 4. All the\ncelestial operations produce not their effects instantaneously, and in a\nnarrow compass, but exert them in large portions of time and space. Thus\npredictions as to the temperature of a year may hold good, but not with\nregard to single days. 5. There is no fatal necessity in the stars; and\nthis the more prudent astrologers have constantly allowed. 6. We will\nadd one thing more, which, if amended and improved, might make for\nastrology--viz. that we are certain the celestial bodies have other\ninfluences besides heat and light, but these influences act not\notherwise than by the foregoing rules, though they lie so deep in\nphysics as to require a fuller explanation. So that, upon the whole, we\nmust register as needed,[6] an astrology written in conformity with\nthese principles, under the name of _Astrologia Sana_.'\n\nHe then proceeds to show what this just astrology should comprehend--as,\n1, the doctrine of the commixture of rays; 2, the effect of nearest\napproaches and farthest removes of planets to and from the point\noverhead (the planets, like the sun, having their summer and winter); 3,\nthe effects of distance, 'with a proper enquiry into what the vigour of\nthe planets may perform of itself, and what through their nearness to\nus; for,' he adds, but unfortunately without assigning any reason for\nthe statement, 'a planet is more brisk when most remote, but more\ncommunicative when nearest;' 4, the other accidents of the planet's\nmotions as they pursue\n\n  Their wand'ring course, now high, now low, then hid,\n  Progressive, retrograde, or standing still;\n\n5, all that can be discovered of the general nature of the planets and\nfixed stars, considered in their own essence and activity; 6, lastly,\nlet this just astrology, he says, 'contain, from tradition, the\nparticular natures and alterations of the planets and fixed stars; for'\n(here is a reason indeed) 'as these are delivered with general consent,\nthey are not lightly to be rejected, unless they directly contradict\nphysical considerations. Of such observations let a just astrology be\nformed; and according to these alone should schemes of the heavens be\nmade and interpreted.'\n\nThe astrology thus regarded by Bacon as sane and just did not differ, as\nto its primary object, from the false systems which now seem to us so\nabsurd. 'Let this astrology be used with greater confidence in\nprediction,' says Bacon, 'but more cautiously in election, and in both\ncases with due moderation. Thus predictions may be made of comets, and\nall kinds of meteors, inundations, droughts, heats, frosts, earthquakes,\nfiery eruptions, winds, great rains, the seasons of the year, plagues,\nepidemic diseases, plenty, famine, wars, seditions, sects,\ntransmigrations of people, and all commotions, or great innovations of\nthings, natural and civil. Predictions may possibly be made more\nparticular, though with less certainty, if, when the general tendencies\nof the times are found, a good philosophical or political judgment\napplies them to such things as are most liable to accidents of this\nkind. For example, from a foreknowledge of the seasons of any year, they\nmight be apprehended more destructive to olives than grapes, more\nhurtful in distempers of the lungs than the liver, more pernicious to\nthe inhabitants of hills than valleys, and, for want of provisions, to\nmonks than courtiers, etc. Or if any one, from a knowledge of the\ninfluence which the celestial bodies have upon the spirits of mankind,\nshould find it would affect the people more than their rulers, learned\nand inquisitive men more than the military, etc. For there are\ninnumerable things of this kind that require not only a general\nknowledge gained from the stars which are the agents, but also a\nparticular one of the passive subjects. Nor are elections to be wholly\nrejected, though not so much to be trusted as predictions; for we find\nin planting, sowing, and grafting, observations of the moon are not\nabsolutely trifling, and there are many particulars of this kind. But\nelections are more to be curbed by our rules than predictions; and this\nmust always be remembered, that election only holds in such cases where\nthe virtue of the heavenly bodies, and the action of the inferior bodies\nalso, is not transient, as in the examples just mentioned; for the\nincreases of the moon and planets are not sudden things. But punctuality\nof time should here be absolutely rejected. And perhaps there are more\nof these instances to be found in civil matters than some would\nimagine.'\n\nThe method of inquiry suggested by Bacon as proper for determining the\njust rules of the astrology he advocated, was, as might be expected,\nchiefly inductive. There are, said he, 'but four ways of arriving at\nthis science, viz.--1, by future experiments; 2, past experiments; 3,\ntraditions; 4, physical reasons.' But he was not very hopeful as to the\nprogress of the suggested researches. It is vain, he said, to think at\npresent of future experiments, because many ages are required to procure\na competent stock of them. As for the past, it is true that past\nexperiments are within our reach, 'but it is a work of labour and much\ntime to procure them. Thus astrologers may, if they please, draw from\nreal history all greater accidents, as inundations, plagues, wars,\nseditions, deaths of kings, etc., as also the positions of the celestial\nbodies, not according to fictitious horoscopes, but the above-mentioned\nrules of their revolutions, or such as they really were at the time,\nand, when the event conspires, erect a probable rule of prediction.'\nTraditions would require to be carefully sifted, and those thrown out\nwhich manifestly clashed with physical considerations, leaving those in\nfull force which complied with such considerations. Lastly, the physical\nreasons worthiest of being enquired into are those, said Bacon, 'which\nsearch into the universal appetites and passions of matter, and the\nsimple genuine motions of the heavenly bodies.'\n\nIt is evident there was much which, in our time at least, would be\nregarded as wild and fanciful in the 'sound and just astrology'\nadvocated by Bacon. Yet, in passing, it may be noticed that even in our\nown time we have seen similar ideas promulgated, not by common\nastrologers and fortune-tellers (who, indeed, know nothing about such\nmatters), but by persons supposed to be well-informed in matters\nscientific. In a roundabout way, a new astrology has been suggested,\nwhich is not at all unlike Bacon's 'astrologia sana,' though not based,\nas he proposed that astrology should be, on experiment, or tradition, or\nphysical reasons. It has been suggested, first, that the seasons of our\nearth are affected by the condition of the sun in the matter of spots,\nand very striking evidence has been collected to show that this must be\nthe case. For instance, it has been found that years when the sun has\nbeen free from spots have been warmer than the average; and it has also\nbeen found that such years have been cooler than the average: a\ndouble-shotted argument wholly irresistible, especially when it is also\nfound that when the sun has many spots the weather has sometimes been\nexceptionally warm and sometimes exceptionally cold. If this be not\nconsidered sufficient, then note that in one country or continent or\nhemisphere the weather, when the sun is most spotted (or least, as the\ncase may be), may be singularly hot, while in another country,\ncontinent, or hemisphere, the weather may be as singularly cold. So with\nwind and calm, rain and drought, and so forth. Always, whether the sun\nis very much spotted or quite free from spots, something unusual in the\nway of weather must be going on somewhere, demonstrating in the most\nsignificant way the influence of sun-spots or the want of sun-spots on\nthe weather. It is true that captious minds might say that this method\nof reasoning proved too much in many ways, as, for example,\nthus--always, whether the sun is very much spotted or quite free from\nspots, some remarkable event, as a battle, massacre, domestic tragedy on\na large scale, or the like, may be going on, demonstrating in the most\nsignificant way the influence of sun-spots or the want of sun-spots on\nthe passions of men--which sounds absurd. But the answer is twofold.\nFirst, such reasoning is captious, and secondly, it is not certain that\nsun-spots, or the want of them, may not influence human passions; it may\nbe worth while to enquire into this possible solar influence as well as\nthe other, which can be done by crossing the hands of the new\nfortune-tellers with a sufficient amount of that precious metal which\nastrologers have in all ages dedicated to the sun.\n\nThat the new system of divination is not solely solar, but partly\nplanetary also, is seen when we remember that the sun-spots wax and wane\nin periods of time which are manifestly referable to the planetary\nmotions. Thus, the great solar spot-period lasts about eleven years, the\nsuccessive spotless epochs being separated on the average by about that\ntime; and so nearly does this period agree with the period of the planet\nJupiter's revolution around the sun, that during eight consecutive\nspot-periods the spots were most numerous when Jupiter was farthest from\nthe sun, and it is only by going back to the periods preceding these\neight that we find a time when the reverse happened, the spots being\nmost numerous when Jupiter was nearest to the sun. So with various other\nperiods which the ingenuity of Messrs. De la Rue and Balfour Stewart has\ndetected, and which, under the closest scrutiny, exhibit almost exact\nagreement for many successive periods, preceded and followed by almost\nexact disagreement. Here, again, the captious may argue that such\nalternate agreements and disagreements may be noted in every case where\ntwo periods are not very unequal, whether there be any connection\nbetween them or not; but much more frequently when there is no\nconnection: and that the only evidence really proving a connection\nbetween planetary motions and the solar spots would be constant\nagreement between solar spot periods and particular planetary periods.\nBut the progress of science, and especially the possible erection of a\nnew observatory for finding out ('for a consideration') how sun-spots\naffect the weather, etc., ought not to be interfered with by captious\nreasoners in this objectionable manner. Nor need any other answer be\ngiven them. Seeing, then, that sun-spots manifestly affect the weather\nand the seasons, while the planets rule the sun-spots, it is clear that\nthe planets really rule the seasons. And again, seeing that the planets\nrule the seasons, while the seasons largely affect the well-being of men\nand nations (to say nothing of animals), it follows that the planets\ninfluence the fates of men and nations (and animals). _Quod erat\ndemonstrandum._\n\nLet us return, however, to the more reasonable astrology of the\nancients, and enquire into some of the traditions which Bacon considered\nworthy of attention in framing the precepts of a sound and just\nastrology.\n\nIt was natural that the astrologers of old should regard the planetary\ninfluences as depending in the main on the position of the celestial\nbodies on the sky above the person or place whose fortunes were in\nquestion. Thus two men at the same moment in Rome and in Persia would by\nno means have the same horoscope cast for their nativities, so that\ntheir fortunes, according to the principles of judicial astrology, would\nbe quite different. In fact it might happen that two men, born at the\nsame instant of time, would have all the principal circumstances of\ntheir lives contrasted--planets riding high in the heavens of one being\nbelow the horizon of the other, and _vice versa_.\n\nThe celestial sphere placed as at the moment of the native's birth was\ndivided into twelve parts by great circles supposed to pass through the\npoint overhead, and its opposite, the point vertically beneath the feet.\nThese twelve divisions were called 'houses.'\n\nTheir position is illustrated in the following figure, taken from\nRaphael's Astrology.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Particular Significations\n  OF THE\n  _Twelve Celestial Houses_,\n  According to various\n  Astrological Authors.\n\n  Sun-rise.\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Ascendant_.\n\n  LIFE\n  and\n  HEALTH\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Second House_.\n\n  RICHES\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Third House_.\n\n  KINDRED\n  and\n  SHORT JOURNEYS\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Fourth House_.\n\n  INHERITANCES\n\n  Mid-night.\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Fifth House_.\n\n  CHILDREN\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Sixth House_.\n\n  SICKNESS\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Seventh House_.\n\n  MARRIAGE\n\n  Sun-set.\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Eighth House_.\n\n  DEATH\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Ninth House_.\n\n  LONG JOURNEYS\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Mid-heaven_.\n\n  HONOR\n\n  Noon-day.\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Eleventh House_.\n\n  FRIENDS\n\n  Cusp of the\n  _Twelfth House_.\n\n  ENEMIES\n\n]\n\nThe first, called the Ascendant House, was the portion rising above the\nhorizon at the east. It was regarded as the House of Life, the planets\nlocated therein at the moment of birth having most potent influence on\nthe life and destiny of the native. Such planets were said to rule the\nascendant, being in the ascending house; and it is from this usage that\nour familiar expression that such and such an influence is 'in the\nascendant' is derived. The next house was the House of Riches, and was\none-third of the way from the east below the horizon towards the place\nof the sun at midnight. The third was the House of Kindred, short\njourneys, letters, messages, etc. It was two-thirds of the way towards\nthe place of the midnight sun. The fourth was the House of Parents, and\nwas the house which the sun reached at midnight. The fifth was the House\nof Children and Women, also of all sorts of amusements, theatres,\nbanquets, and merry-making. The sixth was the House of Sickness. The\nseventh was the House of Love and Marriage. These three houses (the\nfifth, sixth, and seventh) followed in order from the fourth, so as to\ncorrespond to the part of the sun's path below the horizon, between his\nplace at midnight and his place when descending in the west. The\nseventh, opposite to the first, was the Descendant. The eighth house was\nthe first house above the horizon, lying to the west, and was the House\nof Death. The ninth house, next to the mid-heaven on the west, was the\nHouse of Religion, science, learning, books, and long voyages. The\ntenth, which was in the mid-heaven, or region occupied by the sun at\nmidday, was the House of Honour, denoting credit, renown, profession or\ncalling, trade, preferment, etc. The eleventh house, next to the\nmid-heaven on the east, was the House of Friends. Lastly, the twelfth\nhouse was the House of Enemies.\n\nThe houses were not all of equal potency. The _angular_ houses, which\nare the first, the fourth, the seventh, and the tenth--lying east,\nnorth, west, and south--were first in power, whether for good or evil.\nThe second, fifth, eighth, and eleventh houses were called _succedents_,\nas following the angular houses, and next to them in power. The\nremaining four houses--viz. the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth\nhouses--were called _cadents_, and were regarded as weakest in\ninfluence. The houses were regarded as alternately masculine and\nfeminine: the first, third, fifth, etc., being masculine; while the\nsecond, fourth, sixth, etc., were feminine.\n\nThe more particular significations of the various houses are shown in\nthe accompanying figure from the same book.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  A\n  CELESTIAL DIAGRAM\n  representing at one view the\n  various symbolical significations\n  of the\n  _Twelve Heavenly Houses_;\n  according to ancient manuscript\n  writers of the twelfth century;\n  _and not to be found in Authors_.\n\n  Brethren\n  of\n  friends, fathers\n  of kings, sickness of\n  public enemies, wives of\n  enemies, death of servants,\n  long journeys of children, friends\n  of brethren, thoughts of the asker.\n\n  The end of youth, brethren of private\n  enemies, fathers and grandsires of\n  friends, king's sons, enemies\n  of wives, magistery of\n  children, private\n  enemies of\n  brethren.\n\n  Sects,\n  dreams,\n  churches, fathers\n  of private enemies, sons\n  of friends, sickness of kings,\n  enemies of the religious, trade of\n  servants, private enemies of fathers.\n\n  Dead men's goods, castles, treasure hid,\n  the fate of the corpse in the grave,\n  money of brethren, children\n  of private enemies, sickness\n  of friends, king's\n  enemies, friends\n  of servants.\n\n  Cards,\n  dice, brethren's\n  brethren, father's money,\n  sickness of private enemies,\n  enemies of friends, death of kings,\n  friends of enemies, enemies of servants.\n\n  Vassals, children's money, brethren's\n  fathers, father's brethren, enemies'\n  enemies, death of friends,\n  journeys and religion of\n  kings, lay dignities,\n  enemies of\n  wives.\n\n  Fines,\n  pleas, laws,\n  nuptials, death of\n  enemies, friends of brethren,\n  sons of friends, sisters\n  of brethren, death of enemies and\n  of great beasts, religion of friends.\n\n  Labour, sorrow, inheritance of the dead,\n  money of enemies, brethren of servants,\n  sickness of brethren,\n  dignity of friends, king's\n  friends, enemies\n  of religious\n  persons.\n\n  Prophets, prayers, visions, omens, divine\n  worship, wife's brethren, fathers of\n  servants, children's children,\n  sickness of fathers, enemies\n  of brethren,\n  friends of friends,\n  enemies of\n  kings.\n\n  Judges, brethren\n  of enemies,\n  servants, fathers of enemies,\n  children of servants,\n  sickness of sons, death of brethren,\n  friends of enemies, enemies of friends.\n\n  Knights, esquires, children of enemies,\n  sickness of servants, enemies\n  and wives of offspring,\n  death of fathers, journeys\n  of brethren, enemies\n  of enemies.\n\n  Envy, sorrow, guile, long hidden wrath,\n  money of friends, brethren of kings,\n  sickness of wives, servants'\n  enemies, death of children,\n  trade of brethren,\n  a prison.\n\n]\n\nIt will be easily understood how these houses were dealt with in\nerecting a scheme of nativity. The position of the planets at the moment\nof the native's birth, in the several houses, determined his fortunes\nwith regard to the various matters associated with these houses. Thus\nplanets of good influence in the native's ascendant, or first house,\nsignified generally a prosperous life; but if at the same epoch a planet\nof malefic influence was in the seventh house, then the native, though\non the whole prosperous, would be unfortunate in marriage. A good planet\nin the tenth house signified good fortune and honour in office or\nbusiness, and generally a prosperous career as distinguished from a\nhappy life; but evil planets in the ninth house would suggest to the\nnative caution in undertaking long voyages, or entering upon religious\nor scientific controversies.\n\nSimilar considerations applied to questions relating to horary\nastronomy, in which the position of the planets in the various houses at\nsome epoch guided the astrologer's opinion as to the fortune of that\nhour, either in the life of a man or the career of a State. In such\ninquiries, however, not only the position of the planets, etc., at the\ntime had to be considered, but also the original horoscope of the\nperson, or the special planets and signs associated with particular\nStates. Thus if Jupiter, the most fortunate of all the planets, was in\nthe ascendant, or in the House of Honour, at the time of the native's\nbirth, and at some epoch this planet was ill-aspected or afflicted by\nother planets potent for evil in the native's horoscope, then that epoch\nwould be a threatening one in the native's career.\n\nThe sign Gemini was regarded by astrologers as especially associated\nwith the fortunes of London, and accordingly they tell us that the great\nfire of London, the plague, the building of London Bridge, and other\nevents interesting to London, all occurred when this sign was in the\nascendant, or when special planets were in this sign.[7]\n\nThe signs of the zodiac in the various houses were in the first place\nto be noted, because not only had these signs special powers in special\nhouses, but the effects of the planets in particular houses varied\naccording to the signs in which the planets were situated. If we were to\nfollow the description given by the astrologers themselves, not much\ninsight would be thrown upon the meaning of the zodiacal signs. For\ninstance, astrologers say that Aries is a vernal, dry, fiery, masculine,\ncardinal, equinoctial, diurnal, movable, commanding, eastern, choleric,\nviolent, and quadrupedalian sign. We may, however, infer generally from\ntheir accounts the influences which they assigned to the zodiacal signs.\n\nAries is the house and joy of Mars, signifies a dry constitution, long\nface and neck, thick shoulders, swarthy complexion, and a hasty,\npassionate temper. It governs the head and face, and all diseases\nrelating thereto. It reigns over England, France, Switzerland, Germany,\nDenmark, Lesser Poland, Syria, Naples, Capua, Verona, etc. It is a\nmasculine sign, and is regarded as fortunate.\n\nTaurus gives to the native born under his auspices a stout athletic\nframe, broad bull-like forehead, dark curly hair, short neck, and so\nforth, and a dull apathetic temper, exceedingly cruel and malicious if\nonce aroused. It governs the neck and throat, and reigns over Ireland,\nGreat Poland, part of Russia, Holland, Persia, Asia Minor, the\nArchipelago, Mantua, Leipsic, etc. It is a feminine sign, and\nunfortunate.\n\nGemini is the house of Mercury. The native of Gemini will have a\nsanguine complexion and tall, straight figure, dark eyes quick and\npiercing, brown hair, active ways, and will be of exceedingly ingenious\nintellect. It governs the arms and shoulders, and rules over the\nsouth-west parts of England, America, Flanders, Lombardy, Sardinia,\nArmenia, Lower Egypt, London, Versailles, Brabant, etc. It is a\nmasculine sign, and fortunate.\n\nCancer is the house of the Moon and exaltation of Jupiter, and its\nnative will be of fair but pale complexion, round face, grey or mild\nblue eyes, weak voice, the upper part of the body large, slender arms,\nsmall feet, and an effeminate constitution. It governs the breast and\nthe stomach, and reigns over Scotland, Holland, Zealand, Burgundy,\nAfrica, Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, Constantinople, New York, etc. It is a\nfeminine sign, and unfortunate.\n\nThe native born under Leo will be of large body, broad shoulders,\naustere countenance, with dark eyes and tawny hair, strong voice, and\nleonine character, resolute and ambitious, but generous, free, and\ncourteous. Leo governs the heart and back, and reigns over Italy,\nBohemia, France, Sicily, Rome, Bristol, Bath, Taunton, Philadelphia,\netc. It is a masculine sign, and fortunate.\n\nVirgo is the joy of Mercury. Its natives are of moderate stature, seldom\nhandsome, slender but compact, thrifty and ingenious. It governs the\nabdomen, and reigns over Turkey both in Europe and Asia, Greece, and\nMesopotamia, Crete, Jerusalem, Paris, Lyons, etc. It is a feminine sign,\nand generally unfortunate.\n\nLibra is the house of Venus. The natives of Libra are tall and well\nmade, elegant in person, round-faced and ruddy, but plain-featured and\n'inclined to eruptions that disfigure the face when old; they' (the\nnatives) 'are of sweet disposition, just and upright in dealing.' It\ngoverns the lumbar regions, and reigns over Austria, Alsace, Savoy,\nPortugal, Livonia, India, Ethiopia, Lisbon, Vienna, Frankfort, Antwerp,\nCharleston, etc. It is a masculine sign, and fortunate.\n\nScorpio is, like Aries, the house of Mars, 'and also his joy.' Its\nnatives are strong, corpulent, and robust, with large bones, 'dark curly\nhair and eyes' (presumably the eyes dark only, not curly), middle\nstature, dusky complexion, active bodies; they are usually reserved in\nspeech. It governs the region of the groin, and reigns over Judaea,\nMauritania, Catalonia, Norway, West Silesia, Upper Batavia, Barbary,\nMorocco, Valentia, Messina, etc. It is feminine, and unfortunate. (It\nwould appear likely, by the way, that astrology was a purely masculine\nscience.)\n\nSagittarius is the house and joy of Jupiter. Its natives are well formed\nand tall, ruddy, handsome, and jovial, with fine clear eyes, chestnut\nhair, and oval fleshy face. They are 'generally jolly fellows at either\nbin or board,' active, intrepid, generous, and obliging. It governs the\nlegs and thighs,[8] and reigns over Arabia Felix, Spain, Hungary,\nMoravia, Liguria, Narbonne, Cologne, Avignon, etc. It is masculine, and\nof course fortunate.\n\nCapricorn is the house of Saturn and exaltation of Mars. This sign gives\nto its natives a dry constitution and slender make, with a long thin\nvisage, thin beard (a generally goaty aspect, in fact), dark hair, long\nneck, narrow chin, and weak knees. It governs, nevertheless, the knees\nand hams, and reigns over India, Macedonia, Thrace and Greece, Mexico,\nSaxony, Wilna, Mecklenburgh, Brandenburg, and Oxford. It is feminine,\nand unfortunate.\n\nAquarius also is the house of Saturn. Its natives are robust, steady,\nstrong, healthy, and of middle stature; delicate complexion, clear but\nnot pale, sandy hair, hazel eyes, and generally an honest disposition.\nIt governs the legs and ankles, and reigns over Arabia, Petraea, Tartary,\nRussia, Denmark, Lower Sweden, Westphalia, Hamburg, and Bremen. It is\nmasculine, and fortunate.\n\nPisces is the house of Jupiter and exaltation of Venus. Its natives are\nshort, pale, thick-set, and round-shouldered (like fish), its character\nphlegmatic and effeminate. It governs the feet and toes, and reigns over\nPortugal, Spain, Egypt, Normandy, Galicia, Ratisbon, Calabria, etc. It\nis feminine, and therefore, naturally, unfortunate.\n\nLet us next consider the influences assigned to the various planets and\nconstellations.\n\nThough we can understand that in old times the planets and stars were\nregarded as exercising very potent influences upon the fates of men and\nnations,[9] it is by no means easy to understand how astrologers came to\nassign to each planet its special influence. That is, it is not easy to\nunderstand how they could have been led to such a result by actual\nreasoning, still less by any process of observation.[10] There was a\ncertain scientific basis for the belief in the possibility of\ndetermining the special influences of the stars; and we should have\nexpected to find some scientific process adopted for the purpose. Yet,\nso far as can be judged, the influences assigned to the planets depended\non entirely fanciful considerations. In some cases we seem almost to see\nthe line along which the fancies of the old astrologers led them, just\nas in some cases we can perceive how mythological superstitions (which\nare closely related to astrological ideas) had their origin; though it\nis not quite clear whether the planets were first regarded as deities\nwith special qualities, and these qualities afterwards assigned to the\nplanetary influences, or whether the planetary influences were first\nassigned, and came eventually to be regarded as the qualities of the\ndeities associated with the several planets.\n\nIt is easy, for instance, to understand why astrologers should have\nregarded the sun as the emblem of kingly power and dignity, and equally\neasy to understand why, to the sun regarded as a deity, corresponding\nqualities should have been ascribed; but it is not easy to determine\nwhether the astrological or the Sabaistic superstitions were the\nearlier. And in like manner of the moon and planets. There seems to me\nno sufficient evidence in favour of Whewell's opinion, that 'in whatever\nmanner the sun, moon, and planets came to be identified with gods and\ngoddesses, the characters ascribed to these gods and goddesses,\nregulated the virtues and powers of the stars which bear their names.'\nAs he himself very justly remarks, 'We do not possess any of the\nspeculations of the earlier astrologers; and we cannot, therefore, be\ncertain that the notions which operated in men's minds when the art had\nits birth, agreed with the views on which it was afterwards defended.'\nHe does not say why he infers that, though at later periods supported by\nphysical analogies, it was originally suggested by mythological beliefs.\nQuite as probably mythological beliefs were suggested by astrological\nnotions. Some of these beliefs, indeed, seem manifestly to have been so\nsuggested; as the character of the deity Mercury, from the rapid motions\nof the planet Mercury, and the difficulty of detecting it; the character\nof Mars from the blood-red hue of the planet when close to the horizon,\nand so forth.\n\nLet us examine, however, the characteristics ascribed by astrologers to\nvarious planets.\n\nIt is unfortunate for astrology that, despite the asserted careful\ncomparison of events with the planetary positions preceding and\nindicating them, nothing was ever observed which seemed to suggest the\npossibility that there may be an unknown planet ruling very strongly the\naffairs of men. Astrologers tell us now that Uranus is a very potent\nplanet; yet the old astrologers seem to have got on very well without\nhim. By the way, one of the moderns, the grave Raphael, gives a very\nsingular account of the discovery of Uranus, in a book published sixteen\nyears before Neptune was discovered by just such a process as Raphael\nimagined in the case of Uranus. He says that Drs. Halley, Bradley, and\nothers, having frequently observed that Saturn was disturbed in his\nmotion by some force exerted from beyond his orbit, and being unable to\naccount for the disturbance on the known principles of gravitation,\npursued their enquiry into the matter, 'till at length the discovery of\nthis hitherto unknown planet covered their labours with success, and has\nenabled us to enlarge our present solar system to nearly double its\nbounds.' Of course there is not a word of truth in this; Uranus having\nbeen discovered by accident long after Halley and Bradley were in the\ngrave. But the account suggests what might have been, and curiously\nanticipates the actual manner in which Neptune was discovered.\n\nAstrologers agree in attributing evil effects to Uranus. But the evil he\ndoes is always peculiarly strange, unaccountable, and totally\nunexpected. He causes the native born under his influence to be of a\nvery eccentric and original disposition, romantic, unsettled, addicted\nto change, a seeker after novelty; though, if the moon or Mercury have a\ngood aspect towards Uranus, the native will be profound in the secret\nsciences, magnanimous, and lofty of mind. But let all beware of marriage\nwhen Uranus is in the seventh house, or afflicting the moon. And in\ngeneral, let the fair sex remember that Uranus is peculiarly hostile to\nthem, and very evil in love.\n\nSaturn is the Greater Infortune of the old system of astrology, and is\nby universal experience acknowledged to be the most potent, evil, and\nmalignant of all the planets. Those born under him are of dark and pale\ncomplexion, with small, black, leering eyes, thick lips and nostrils,\nlarge ears, thin face, lowering looks, cloudy aspect, and seemingly\nmelancholy and unhappy; and though they have broad shoulders, they have\nbut short lips and a thin beard, They are in character austere and\nreserved, covetous, laborious, and revengeful; constant in friendship,\nand good haters. The most remarkable and certain characteristic of the\nSaturnine man is that, as an old author observes 'he will never look\nthee in the face.' 'If they have to love any one, these Saturnines,'\nsays another old author, 'they love most constantly; and if they hate,\nthey hate to the death.' The persons signified symbolically by Saturn\nare grandparents, and other old persons, day labourers, paupers,\nbeggars, clowns, husbandmen of the meaner sort, and especially\nundertakers, sextons, and gravediggers. Chaucer thus presents the chief\neffects which Saturn produces in the fortunes of men and nations--Saturn\nhimself being the speaker:--\n\n          ... quod Saturne\n  My cours, that hath so wide for to turne,\n  Hath more power than wot any man.\n  Min is the drenching in the sea so wan,\n  Min is the prison in the derke cote,\n  Min is the strangel and hanging by the throte,\n  The murmure and the cherles rebelling,\n  The groyning, and the prive empoysoning,\n  I do vengaunce and pleine correction,\n  While I dwell in the signe of the leon;\n  Min is the ruine of the high halles,\n  The falling of the toures and of the walles\n  Upon the minour or the carpenter:\n  I slew Sampson in shaking the piler.\n  Min ben also the maladies colde,\n  The derke tresons, and the castes olde:\n  My loking is the fader of pestilence.\n\nJupiter, on the contrary, though Saturn's next neighbour in the solar\nsystem, produces effects of an entirely contrary kind. He is, in fact,\nthe most propitious of all the planets, and the native born under his\ninfluence has every reason to be jovial in fact as he is by nature. Such\na native will be tall and fair, handsome and erect, robust, ruddy, and\naltogether a good-looking person, whether male or female. The native\nwill also be religious, or at least a good moral honest man, unless\nJupiter be afflicted by the aspects of Saturn, Mars, or Uranus; in which\ncase he may still be a jolly fellow, no man's enemy but his own--only he\nwill probably be his own enemy to a very considerable extent,\nsquandering his means and ruining his health by gluttony and\nintoxication. The persons represented by Jupiter (when he is not\nafflicted) are judges, counsellors, church dignitaries, from cardinals\nto curates, scholars, chancellors, barristers, and the highest orders of\nlawyers, woollendrapers (possibly there may be some astral significance\nin the woolsack), and clothiers. When Jupiter is afflicted, however, he\ndenotes quacks and mountebanks, knaves, cheats, and drunkards. The\ninfluence of the planet on the fortunes is nearly always good.\nAstrologers, who to a man reverence dignities, consider Great Britain\nfortunate in that the lady whom, with customary effusion, they term 'Our\nMost Gracious Queen,' was born when Jupiter was riding high in the\nheavens near his culmination, this position promising a most fortunate\nand happy career. The time has passed when the fortunes of this country\nwere likely to be affected by such things; but we may hope, for the\nlady's own sake, that this prediction has been fulfilled. Astrologers\nassert the same about the Duke of Wellington, assigning midnight, May 1,\n1769, as the hour of his birth. There is some doubt both as to the date\nand place of the great soldier's birth; but the astrologer finds in the\nfacts of his life the means of removing all such doubts.[11]\n\nNext in order comes Mars, inferior only in malefic influence to Saturn,\nand called by the old astrologers the Lesser Infortune. The native born\nunder the influence of Mars is usually of fierce countenance, his eyes\nsparkling, or sharp and darting, his complexion fiery or yellowish, and\nhis countenance scarred or furrowed. His hair is reddish or sandy,\nunless Mars chances to be in a watery sign, in which case the hair will\nbe flaxen; or in an earthly sign, in which case the hair will be\nchestnut. The Martialist is broad-shouldered, steady, and strong, but\nshort,[12] and often bony and lean. In character the Martialist is fiery\nand choleric, naturally delighting in war and contention, but generous\nand magnanimous. This when Mars is well aspected; should the planet be\nevil aspected, then will the native be treacherous, thievish,\ntreasonable, cruel, and wicked. The persons signified by Mars are\ngenerals, soldiers, sailors (if he is in a watery sign), surgeons,\nchemists, doctors, armourers, barbers, curriers, smiths, carpenters,\nbricklayers, sculptors, cooks, and tailors. When afflicted with Mercury\nor the moon, he denotes thieves, hangmen, and 'all cut throat people.'\nIn fact, except the ploughboy, who belongs to Saturn, all the members of\nthe old septet, 'tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, apothecary, ploughboy,\nthief,' are favourites with Mars. The planet's influence is not quite so\nevil as Saturn's, nor are the effects produced by it so long-lasting.\n'The influence of Saturn,' says an astrologer, 'may be compared to a\nlingering but fatal consumption; that of Mars to a burning fever.' He is\nthe cause of anger, quarrels, violence, war, and slaughter.\n\nThe sun comes next; for it must be remembered that, according to the old\nsystem of astronomy, the sun was a planet. Persons born under the sun as\nthe planet ruling their ascendant, would be more apt to be aware of the\nfact than Saturnine, Jovial, Martial, or any other folk, because the\nhour of birth, if remembered, at once determines whether the native is a\nsolar subject or not. The solar native has generally a round face (like\npictures of the sun in old books of astronomy), with a short chin; his\ncomplexion somewhat sanguine; curling sandy hair, and a white tender\nskin. As to character, he is bold and resolute, desirous of praise, of\nslow speech and composed judgment; outwardly decorous, but privately not\naltogether virtuous. The sun, in fact, according to astrologers, is the\nnatural significator of respectability; for which I can discover no\nreason, unless it be that the sun travelling always in the ecliptic has\nno latitude, and so solar folk are allowed none. When the sun is ill\naspected, the native is both proud and mean, tyrannical and sycophantic,\nexceedingly unamiable, and generally disliked because of his arrogance\nand ignorant pomposity. The persons signified by the sun are emperors,\nkings, and titled folk generally, goldsmiths, jewellers, and coiners.\nWhen 'afflicted,' the sun signifies pretenders either to power or\nknowledge. The sun's influence is not in itself either good or evil, but\nis most powerful for good when he is favourably aspected, and for evil\nwhen he is afflicted by other planets.\n\nVenus, the next in order, bore the same relation to the Greater Fortune\nJupiter which Mars bore to Saturn the Greater Ill-fortune. She was the\nLesser Fortune, and her influence was in nearly all respects benevolent.\nThe persons born under the influence of this planet are handsome, with\nbeautiful sparkling hazel or black eyes (but another authority assigns\nthe subject of Venus, 'a full eye, usually we say goggle-eyed,' by which\nwe do not usually imply beauty), ruddy lips, the upper lip short, soft\nsmooth hair, dimples in the cheek and chin, an amorous look and a sweet\nvoice. One old astrologer puts the matter thus pleasantly:--'The native\nof Venus hath,' quoth he, 'a love-dimple in the chin, a lovely mouth,\ncherry lips, and a right merry countenance.' In character the native of\nVenus is merry 'to a fault,' but of temper engaging, sweet and cheerful,\nunless she be ill aspected, when her native is apt to be too fond of\npleasure and amusement. That her influence is good is shown (in the\nopinion of Raphael, writing in 1828) by the character of George IV.,\n'our present beloved monarch and most gracious majesty, who was born\njust as this benevolent star' was in the ascendant; 'for it is well\nknown to all Europe what a refined and polished genius, and what\nexquisite taste, the King of England possesses, which therefore may be\ncited as a most illustrious proof of the celestial science; a proof\nlikewise which is palpably demonstrable, even to the most casual\nobserver, since the time of his nativity is taken from the public\njournals of the period, and cannot be gainsaid.' 'This illustrious and\nregal horoscope is replete with wonderful verifications of planetary\ninfluence, and England cannot but prosper while she is blessed with the\nmild and beneficent sway of this potent monarch.' Strengthened in faith\nby this convincing proof of the celestial science, we proceed to notice\nthat Venus is the protectrice of musicians, embroiderers, perfumers,\nclassic modellers, and all who work in elegant attire or administer to\nthe luxuries of the great; but when she is afflicted, she represents\n'the lower orders of the votaries of voluptuousness.'\n\nMercury is considered by astrologers 'a cold, dry, melancholy star.' The\nMercurial is neither dark nor fair, but between both, long-faced, with\nhigh forehead and thin sharp nose, 'thin beard (many times none at all),\nslender of body, and with small weak eyes;' long slender hands and\nfingers are 'especial marks of Mercury,' says Raphael. In character the\nMercurial is busy and prattling. But when well affected, Mercury gives\nhis subjects a strong, vigorous, active mind, searching and exhaustive,\na retentive memory, a natural thirst for knowledge.[13] The persons\nsignified by Mercury are astrologers, philosophers, mathematicians,\npoliticians, merchants, travellers, teachers, poets, artificers, men of\nscience, and all ingenious, clever men. When he is ill affected,\nhowever, he represents pettifoggers, cunning vile persons, thieves,\nmessengers, footmen, and servants, etc.\n\nThe moon comes last in planetary sequence, as nearest to the earth. She\nis regarded by astrologers as a cold, moist, watery, phlegmatic planet,\nvariable to an extreme, and, like the sun, partaking of good or evil\naccording as she is aspected favourably or the reverse. Her natives are\nof good stature, fair, and pale, moon-faced, with grey eyes, short arms,\nthick hands and feet, smooth, corpulent and phlegmatic body. When she is\nin watery signs, the native has freckles on the face, or, says Lilly,\n'he or she is blub-cheeked, not a handsome body, but a muddling\ncreature.' Unless the moon is very well aspected, she ever signifies an\nordinary vulgar person. She signifies sailors (not as Mars does, the\nfighting-men of war-ships, but nautical folk generally) and all persons\nconnected with water or any kind of fluid; also all who are engaged in\ninferior and common offices.\n\nWe may note, in passing, that to each planet a special metal is\nassigned, as also particular colours. Chaucer, in the Chanones Yemannes'\nTale, succinctly describes the distribution of the metals among the\nplanets:--\n\n  Sol gold is, and Luna silver we threpe;\n  Mars iren, Mercurie silver we clepe:\n  Saturnus led, and Jupiter is tin,\n  And Venus coper, by my [the Chanones Yemannes'] faderkin.\n\nThe colours are thus assigned:--to Saturn, black; to Jupiter, mixed red\nand green; to Mars, red; to the sun, yellow or yellow-purple; to Venus,\nwhite or purple; to Mercury, azure blue; to the moon, a colour spotted\nwith white and other mixed colours.\n\nAgain, the planets were supposed to have special influence on the seven\nages of human life. The infant, 'mewling and puking in the nurse's\narms,' was very appropriately dedicated to the moist moon; the whining\nschoolboy (did schoolboys whine in the days of good Queen Bess?) was\nless appropriately assigned to Mercury, the patron of those who eagerly\nseek after knowledge: then very naturally, the lover sighing like\nfurnace was regarded as the special favourite of Venus. Thus far the\norder has been that of the seven planets of the ancient astrology, in\nsupposed distance. Now, however, we have to pass over the sun, finding\nMars the patron of mid life, appropriately (in this respect) presiding\nover the soldier full of strange oaths, and so forth; the 'justice in\nfair round belly with good capon lined' is watched over by the\nrespectable sun; maturer age by Jupiter; and, lastly, old age by Saturn.\n\nColours were also assigned to the twelve zodiacal signs--to Aries, white\nand red; to Taurus, white and lemon; to Gemini, white and red (the same\nas Aries); to Cancer, green or russet; to Leo, red or green; to Virgo,\nblack speckled with blue; to Libra, black, or dark crimson, or tawny\ncolour; to Scorpio, brown; to Sagittarius, yellow, or a green sanguine\n(this is as strange a colour as the _gris rouge_ of Moliere's\n_L'Avare_); Capricorn, black or russet, or a swarthy brown; to Aquarius,\na sky-coloured blue; to Pisces, white glistening colour (like a fish\njust taken out of the water).\n\nThe chief fixed stars had various influences assigned to them by\nastrologers. These influences were mostly associated with the imaginary\nfigures of the constellations. Thus the bright star in the head of\nAries, called by some the Ram's Horn, was regarded as dangerous and\nevil, denoting bodily hurts. The star Menkar in the Whale's jaw denoted\nsickness, disgrace, and ill-fortune, with danger from great beasts.\nBetelgeux, the bright star on Orion's right shoulder, denoted martial\nhonours or wealth; Bellatrix, the star on Orion's left shoulder, denoted\nmilitary or civic honours; Rigel, on Orion's left foot, denoted honours;\nSirius and Procyon, the greater and lesser Dog Stars, both implied\nwealth and renown. Star clusters seem to have portended loss of sight;\nat least we learn that the Pleiades were 'eminent stars,' but denoting\naccidents to the sight or blindness, while the cluster Praesepe or the\nBeehive in like manner threatened blindness. The cluster in Perseus does\nnot seem to have been noticed by astrologers. The variable star Algol or\nCaput Medusae, which marks the head of Gorgon, was accounted 'the most\nunfortunate, violent, and dangerous star in the heavens.' It is\ntolerably clear that the variable character of this star had been\ndetected long before Montanari (to whom the discovery is commonly\nattributed) noticed the phenomenon. The name Algol is only a variation\nof Al-ghul, the monster or demon, and it cannot be doubted that the\ndemoniac, Gorgonian character assigned to this star was suggested by its\nominous change, as though it were the eye of some fierce monster slowly\nwinking amid the gloom of space. The two stars called the Aselli, which\nlie on either side of the cluster Praesepe, 'are said' (by astrologers)\n'to be of a burning nature, and to give great indications of a violent\ndeath, or of violent and severe accidents by fire.' The star called Cor\nHydrae, or the serpent's heart, denotes trouble through women (said I not\nrightly that Astrology was a masculine science?); the Lion's heart,\nRegulus, implied glory and riches; Deneb, the Lion's tail, misfortune\nand disgrace. The southern scale of Libra meant bad fortune, while the\nnorthern was eminently fortunate.\n\nAstrology was divided into three distinct branches--the doctrine of\nnativities, horary astrology, and state astrology. The first assigned\nthe rules for determining the general fortunes of the native, by drawing\nup his scheme of nativity or casting his horoscope. It took into account\nthe positions of the various planets, signs, stars, etc., at the time of\nthe native's birth; and as the astrologer could calculate the movements\nof the planets thereafter, he could find when those planets which were\nobserved by the horoscope to be most closely associated with the\nnative's fortunes would be well aspected or the reverse. Thus the\nauspicious and unlucky epochs of the native's life could be\npredetermined. The astrologer also claimed some degree of power to rule\nthe planets, not by modifying their movements in any way, but by\nindicating in what way the ill effects portended by their positions\ncould be prevented. The Arabian and Persian astrologers, having less\nskill than the followers of Ptolemy, made use of a different method of\ndetermining the fortunes of men, not calculating the positions of the\nplanets for many years following the birth of the native, but assigning\nto every day after his birth a whole year of his life and for every two\nhours' motion of the moon one month. Thus the positions of the stars and\nplanets, twenty-one days after the birth of the native, would indicate\nthe events corresponding to the time when he would have completed his\ntwenty-first year. There was another system called the Placidian, in\nwhich the effects of the positions of the planets were judged with sole\nreference to the motion of the earth upon her axis. It is satisfactory\nto find astrologers in harmony amongst each other as to these various\nmethods, which one would have supposed likely to give entirely different\nresults. 'Each of them,' says a modern astrologer, 'is not only correct\nand approved by long-tried practice, but may be said to defy the least\ncontradiction from those who will but take the pains to examine them\n(and no one else should deliver an opinion upon the subject). Although\neach of the above methods are different, yet they by no means contradict\neach other, but each leads to _true results_, and in many instances they\neach lead to the foreknowledge of the same event; in which respect they\nmay be compared to the ascent of a mountain by different paths, where,\nalthough some paths are longer and more difficult than others, they\nnotwithstanding all lead to the same object.' All which, though\nplausible in tone labours under the disadvantage of being untrue.\n\nPtolemy is careful to point out, in his celebrated work the\n'Tetrabiblos,' that, of all events whatsoever which take place after\nbirth, the most essential is the continuance of life. 'It is useless,'\nhe says, 'to consider what events might happen to the native in later\nyears if his life does not extend, for instance, beyond one year. So\nthat the enquiry into the duration of life takes precedence of all\nothers.' In order to deal properly with this question, it is necessary\nto determine what planet shall be regarded as the Hyleg, Apheta, or Lord\nof Life, for the native. Next the Anareta, or Destroyer of Life, must be\nascertained. The Anaretic planets are, by nature, Saturn, Mars, and\nUranus, though the sun, moon, and Mercury may be endowed with the same\nfatal influence, if suitably afflicted. The various ways in which the\nHyleg, or Giver of Life, may be afflicted by the Anareta, correspond to\nthe various modes of death. But astrologers have always been singularly\ncareful, in casting horoscopes, to avoid definite reference to the\nnative's death. There are but few cases where the actual day of death is\nsaid to have been assigned. One is related in Clarendon's 'History of\nthe Rebellion.' He tells us that William Earl of Pembroke died at the\nage of fifty, on the day upon which his tutor Sandford had predicted his\ndecease. Burton, the author of the 'Anatomy of Melancholy,' having cast\nhis own horoscope, and ascertained that he was to die on January 23,\n1639, is said to have committed suicide in order that the accuracy of\nhis calculations might not be called in question. A similar story is\nrelated of Cardan by Dr. Young (Sidrophel Vapulans), on the authority of\nGassendi, who, however, says only that either Cardan starved himself,\nor, being confident in his art, took the predicted day for a fatal one,\nand by his fears made it so. Gassendi adds that while Cardan pretended\nto describe the fates of his children in his voluminous commentaries, he\nall the while never suspected, from the rules of his great art, that his\ndearest son would be condemned in the flower of his youth to be beheaded\non a scaffold, by an executioner of justice, for destroying his own wife\nby poison.\n\nHorary astrology relates to particular questions, and is a comparatively\neasy branch of the science. The art of casting nativities requires many\nyears of study; but horary astrology 'may be well understood,' says\nLilly, 'in less than a quarter of a year.' 'If a proposition of any\nnature,' he adds, 'be made to any individual, about the result of which\nhe is anxious, and therefore uncertain whether to accede to it or not,\nlet him but note the hour and minute when it was _first_ made, and erect\na figure of the heavens, and his doubts will be instantly resolved. He\nmay thus in five minutes learn whether the affair will succeed or not:\nand consequently whether it is prudent to accept the offer made or not.\nIf he examine the sign on the first house of the figure, the planet\ntherein, or the planet ruling the sign, _will exactly describe the party\nmaking the offer_, both in person and character, and this may at once\nconvince the enquirer for truth of the reality of the principles of the\nscience. Moreover, the descending sign, etc., _will describe his own\nperson and character_--a farther proof of the truth of the science.'\n\nThere is one feature of horary astrology which is probably almost as\nancient as any portion of the science, yet which remains even to the\npresent day, and will probably remain for many years to come. I refer to\nthe influence which the planets were supposed to exert on the\nsuccessive hours of every day--a belief from which the division of time\ninto weeks of seven days unquestionably had its origin--though we may\nconcede that the subdivision of the lunar month into four equal parts\nwas also considered in selecting this convenient measure of time. Every\nhour had its planet. Now dividing twenty-four by seven, we get three and\nthree over; whence, each day containing twenty-four hours, it follows\nthat in each day the complete series of seven planets was run through\nthree times, and three planets of the next series were used. The order\nof the planets was that of their distances, as indicated above. Saturn\ncame first, then Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon.\nBeginning with Saturn, as ruling the first hour of Saturn's day\n(Saturday), we get through the above series three times, and have for\nthe last three hours of the day, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars. Thus the\nnext hour, the first hour of the next day, belongs to the sun--Sunday\nfollows Saturday. We again run three times through the series, and the\nthree remaining hours are governed by the sun, Venus, and\nMercury,--giving the moon as the first planet for the next day. Monday\nthus follows Sunday. The last three hours of Monday are ruled by the\nmoon, Saturn, and Jupiter; leaving Mars to govern the next day--Martis\ndies, Mardi, Tuesday or Tuisco's day. Proceeding in the same way, we get\nMercury for the next day, Mercurii dies, Mercredi, Wednesday or Woden's\nday; Jupiter for the next day, Jovis dies, Jeudi, Thursday or Thor's\nday; Venus for the next day, Veneris dies, Vendredi, Friday or Freya's\nday; and so we come to Saturday again.[14]\n\nThe period of seven days, which had its origin in, and derived its\nnomenclature from astrological ideas, shows by its wide prevalence how\nwidely astrological superstitions were once spread among the nations. As\nWhewell remarks (though, for reasons which will readily be understood he\nwas by no means anxious to dwell upon the true origin of the Sabbatical\nweek), 'the usage is found over all the East; it existed among the\nArabians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. The same week is found in India,\namong the Brahmins; it has there also its days marked by the names of\nthe heavenly bodies; and it has been ascertained that the same day has,\nin that country, the name corresponding with its designation in other\nnations.... The period has gone on without interruption or irregularity\nfrom the earliest recorded times to our own days, traversing the extent\nof ages and the revolutions of empires; the names of ancient deities,\nwhich were associated with the stars, were replaced by those of the\nobjects of the worship of our Teutonic ancestors, according to their\nviews of the correspondence of the two mythologies; and the Quakers, in\nrejecting these names of days, have cast aside the most ancient existing\nrelic of astrological as well as idolatrous superstition.\n\nNot only do the names remain, but some of the observances connected with\nthe old astrological systems remain even to this day. As ceremonies\nderived from Pagan worship are still continued, though modified in form,\nand with a different interpretation, in Christian and especially Roman\nCatholic observances, so among the Jews and among Christians the rites\nand ceremonies of the old Egyptian and Chaldaean astrology are still\ncontinued, though no longer interpreted as of yore. The great Jewish\nLawgiver and those who follow him seem, for example, to have recognised\nthe value of regular periods of rest (whether really required by man or\nbecome a necessity through long habit), but to have been somewhat in\ndoubt how best to continue the practice without sanctioning the\nsuperstitions with which it had been connected. At any rate two\ndifferent and inconsistent interpretations were given in the earlier and\nlater codes of law. But whether the Jews accepted the Sabbath because\nthey believed that an All-powerful Being, having created the world in\nsix days, required and took rest ('and was refreshed') on the seventh,\nas stated in Exodus (xx. 11 and xxxi. 17), or whether they did so in\nremembrance of their departure from Egypt, as stated in Deuteronomy (v.\n15), there can be no question that among the Egyptians the Sabbath or\nSaturn's day was a day of rest because of the malignant nature of the\npowerful planet-deity who presided over that day. Nor can it be\nseriously doubted that the Jews descended from the old Chaldaeans, among\nwhom (as appears from stone inscriptions recently discovered) the very\nword Sabbath was in use for a seventh day of rest connected with\nastrological observances, were familiar with the practice even before\ntheir sojourn in Egypt. They had then probably regarded it as a\nsuperstitious practice to be eschewed like those idolatrous observances\nwhich had caused Terah to remove with Abraham and Lot from Ur of the\nChaldees. At any rate, we find no mention of the seventh day of rest as\na religious observance until after the Exodus.[15] It was not their only\nreligious observance having in reality an astrological origin. Indeed,\nif we examine the Jewish sacrificial system as described in Numbers\nxxviii. and elsewhere, we shall find throughout a tacit reference to the\nmotions or influences of the celestial bodies. There was the morning and\nevening sacrifice guided by the movements of the sun; the Sabbath\noffering, determined by the predominance of Saturn; the offering of the\nnew moon, depending on the motions of the moon; and lastly, the Paschal\nsacrifice, depending on the combined movements of the sun and\nmoon--made, in fact, during the lunation following the sun's ascending\npassage of the equator at the sign of Aries.\n\nLet us return, however, after this somewhat long digression, to\nastrological matters.\n\nHorary astrology is manifestly much better fitted than the casting of\nnativities for filling the pocket of the astrologer himself; because\nonly one nativity can be cast, but any number of horary questions can be\nasked. It is on account of their skill in horary astrology that the\nZadkiels of our own time have occasionally found their way into the\ntwelfth house, or House of Enemies. Even Lilly himself, not devoting, it\nwould seem, five minutes to inquire into the probable success of the\naffair, was indicted in 1655 by a half-witted young woman, because he\nhad given judgment respecting stolen goods, receiving two shillings and\nsixpence, contrary to an Act made under and provided by the wise and\nvirtuous King James, First of England and Sixth of Scotland.\n\nState astrology relates to the destinies of kingdoms, thrones, empires,\nand may be regarded as a branch of horary science relating to subjects\n(and rulers) of more than ordinary importance.\n\nIn former ages all persons likely to occupy an important position in the\nhistory of the world had their horoscopes erected; but in these\ndegenerate days neither the casting of nativities nor the art of ruling\nthe planets flourishes as it should do. Our Zadkiels and Raphaels\npublish, indeed, the horoscopes of kings and emperors, princes and\nprincesses, and so forth; but their fate is as that of Benedict\n(according to Beatrice)--men 'wonder they will still be talking, for\nnobody marks them.' Even those whose horoscopes have been erected show\nno proper respect for the predictions made in their behalf. Thus the\nPrince of Wales being born when Sagittarius was in the ascendant should\nhave been, according to Zadkiel, a tall man, with oval face, ruddy\ncomplexion, somewhat dusky, and so forth; but I understand he has by no\nmeans followed these directions as to his appearance. The sun, being\nwell aspected, prognosticated honours--a most remarkable and\nunlooked-for circumstance, strangely fulfilled by the event; but then\nbeing in Cancer, in sextile with Mars, the Prince of Wales was to be\npartial to maritime affairs and attain naval glory, whereas as a\nfield-marshal he can only win military glory. (I would not be understood\nto say that he is not quite as competent to lead our fleets as our\nbattalions into action.) The House of Wealth was occupied by Jupiter,\naspected by Saturn, which betokened great wealth through inheritance--a\nprognostication, says Professor Miller, which is not unlikely to come\ntrue. The House of Marriage was unsettled by the conflicting influences\nof Venus, Mars, and Saturn; but the first predominating, the Prince,\nafter some trouble in his matrimonial speculations, was to marry a\nPrincess of high birth, and one not undeserving of his kindest and most\naffectionate attention, probably in 1862. As to the date, an almanack\ninforms me that the Prince married a Danish Princess in March 1863,\nwhich looks like a most culpable neglect of the predictions of our\nnational astrologer. Again, in May 1870, when Saturn was stationary in\nthe ascending degree, the Prince ought to have been injured by a horse,\nand also to have received a blow on the left side of the head, near the\near; but reprehensibly omitted both these ceremonies. A predisposition\nto fever and epileptic attacks was indicated by the condition of the\nHouse of Sickness. The newspapers described, a few years since, a\nserious attack of fever; but as most persons have some experience of the\nkind, the fulfilment of the prediction can hardly be regarded as very\nwonderful. Epileptic attacks, which, as less common, might have saved\nthe credit of the astrologers, have not visited 'this royal native.' The\nposition of Saturn in Capricorn betokened loss or disaster in one or\nother of the places ruled over by Capricorn--which, as we have seen, are\nIndia, Macedonia, Thrace, Greece, Mexico, Saxony, Wilna, Mecklenburgh,\nBrandenburgh, and Oxford. Professor Miller expresses the hope that\nOxford was the place indicated, and the disaster nothing more serious\nthan some slight scrape with the authorities of Christchurch. But\nprinces never get into scrapes with college dons. Probably some one or\nother of the 'hair-breadth 'scapes' chronicled by the reporters of his\ntravels in India was the event indicated by the ominous position of\nSaturn in Capricorn.\n\nA remarkable list of characteristics were derived by Zadkiel from the\npositions of the various planets and signs in the twelve houses of the\n'royal native.' Some, of course, were indicated in more ways than one,\nwhich will explain the parenthetical notes in the following alphabetical\ntable which Professor Miller has been at the pains to draw up from\nZadkiel's predictions. The prince was to be 'acute, affectionate,\namiable, amorous, austere, avaricious, beneficent, benevolent, brave,\nbrilliant, calculated for government' (a quality which may be understood\ntwo ways), 'candid, careful of his person, careless, compassionate,\ncourteous (twice over), delighting in eloquence, discreet, envious, fond\nof glory, fond of learning, fond of music, fond of poetry, fond of\nsports, fond of the arts and sciences, frank, full of expedients,\ngenerous (three times), gracious, honourable, hostile to crime,\nimpervious, ingenious, inoffensive, joyous, just (twice), laborious,\nliberal, lofty, magnanimous, modest, noble, not easy to be understood\n(!), parsimonious, pious (twice), profound in opinion, prone to regret\nhis acts, prudent, rash, religious, reverent, self-confident, sincere,\nsingular in mode of thinking, strong, temperate, unreserved, unsteady,\nvaluable in friendship, variable, versatile, violent, volatile, wily,\nand worthy.' Zadkiel concludes thus:--'The square of Saturn to the moon\nwill add to the gloomy side of the picture, and give a tinge of\nmelancholy at times to the native's character, and also a disposition to\nlook at the dark side of things, and lead him to despondency; nor will\nhe be at all of a sanguine character, but cool and calculating, though\noccasionally rash. Yet, all things considered, though firm and sometimes\npositive in opinion, this royal native, if he live to mount the throne,\nwill sway the sceptre of these realms in moderation and justice, and be\na pious and benevolent man, and a merciful sovereign.' Fortunately, the\ntime has long since passed when swaying the sceptre of these realms had\nany but a figurative meaning, or when Englishmen who obeyed their\ncountry's laws depended on the mercy of any man, or when even bad\ncitizens were judged by princes. But we still prefer that princes should\nbe well-mannered gentlemen, and therefore it is sincerely to be hoped\nthat Zadkiel's prediction, so far as it relates to piety and\nbenevolence, may be fulfilled, should this 'royal native' live to mount\nthe throne. As for mercy, it is a goodly quality even in these days and\nin this country; for if the law no longer tolerates cruelty to men, even\non the part of princes, who once had prescribed rights in that\ndirection, there are still some cruel, nay brutal sports in which 'royal\nnatives' might sometimes be tempted to take part. Wherefore let us hope\nthat, even in regard to mercy, the predictions of astrologers respecting\nthis 'royal native' may be fulfilled.\n\nPassing however, from trivialities, let us consider the lessons which\nthe history of astrology teaches us respecting the human mind, its\npowers and weaknesses. It has been well remarked by Whewell that for\nmany ages 'mysticism in its various forms was a leading character both\nof the common mind and the speculations of the most intelligent and\nprofound reasoners.' Thus mysticism was the opposite of that habit of\nthought which science requires, 'namely, clear ideas, distinctly\nemployed to connect well-ascertained facts; inasmuch as the ideas in\nwhich it dealt were vague and unstable, and the temper in which they\nwere contemplated was an urgent and aspiring enthusiasm, which could not\nsubmit to a calm conference with experience upon even terms.' We have\nseen what has been the history of one particular form of the mysticism\nof ancient and mediaeval ages. If we had followed the history of alchemy,\nmagic, and other forms of mysticism, we should have seen similar\nresults. True science has gradually dispossessed science falsely so\ncalled, until now none but the weaker minds hold by the tenets formerly\nalmost universally adopted. In mere numbers, believers in the ancient\nsuperstitions may be by no means insignificant; but they no longer have\nany influence. It has become a matter of shame to pay any attention to\nwhat those few say or do who not merely hold but proclaim the ancient\nfaith in these matters. We can also see why this has been. In old times\nenthusiasm usurped the place of reason in these cases; but opinions so\nformed and so retained could not maintain their ground in the presence\nof reasoning and experience. So soon as intelligent and thoughtful men\nperceived that facts were against the supposed mysterious influences of\nthe stars, the asserted powers of magicians, the pretended knowledge of\nalchemists, the false teachings of magic, alchemy, and astrology, were\nrejected. The lesson thus learned respecting erroneous doctrines which\nwere once widely prevalent has its application in our time, when, though\nthe influence of those teachings has passed away, other doctrines\nformerly associated with them still hold their ground. Men in old times,\ninfluenced by erroneous teachings, wasted their time and energies in\nidle questionings of the stars, vain efforts to find Arcana of\nmysterious power, and to acquire magical authority over the elements. Is\nit altogether clear that in these our times men are not hampered,\nprevented to some degree from doing all the good they might do in the\nshort life-time allotted to them, by doctrines of another kind? Is there\nin our day no undue sacrifice of present good in idle questionings? is\nthere no tendency to trust in a vain fetishism to prevent or remove\nevils which energy could avert or remedy? The time will come, in my\nbelief, when the waste of those energies which in these days are devoted\n(not merely with the sanction, but the high approval, of some of the\nbest among us) to idle aims, will be deplored as regretfully--but, alas,\nas idly--as the wasted speculations and labours of those whom Whewell\nhas justly called the most intelligent and profound reasoners of the\n'stationary age' of science. The words with which Whewell closes his\nchapter on the 'Mysticism of the Middle Ages' have their application to\nthe mysticism of the nineteenth century:--'Experience collects her\nstores in vain, or ceases to collect them, when she can only pour them\ninto the flimsy folds of the lap of Mysticism, who is, in truth, so much\nabsorbed in looking for the treasures which are to fall from the skies,\nthat she heeds little how scantily she obtains, or how loosely she\nholds, such riches as she might find beside her.'\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n_THE RELIGION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID._\n\n\nDuring the last few years a new sect has appeared which, though as yet\nsmall in numbers, is full of zeal and fervour. The faith professed by\nthis sect may be called the religion of the Great Pyramid, the chief\narticle of their creed being the doctrine that that remarkable edifice\nwas built for the purpose of revealing--in the fulness of time, now\nnearly accomplished--certain noteworthy truths to the human race. The\nfounder of the pyramid religion is described by one of the present\nleaders of the sect as 'the late worthy John Taylor, of Gower Street,\nLondon;' but hitherto the chief prophets of the new faith have been in\nthis country Professor Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, and in\nFrance the Abbe Moigno. I propose to examine here some of the facts most\nconfidently urged by pyramidalists in support of their views.\n\nBut it will be well first to indicate briefly the doctrines of the new\nfaith. They may be thus presented:\n\nThe great pyramid was erected, it would seem, under the instructions of\na certain Semitic king, probably no other than Melchizedek. By\nsupernatural means, the architects were instructed to place the pyramid\nin latitude 30 deg. north; to select for its figure that of a square\npyramid, carefully oriented; to employ for their unit of length the\nsacred cubit corresponding to the 20,000,000th part of the earth's\npolar axis; and to make the side of the square base equal to just so\nmany of these sacred cubits as there are days and parts of a day in a\nyear. They were further, by supernatural help, enabled to square the\ncircle, and symbolised their victory over this problem by making the\npyramid's height bear to the perimeter of the base the ratio which the\nradius of a circle bears to the circumference. Moreover, the great\nprecessional period, in which the earth's axis gyrates like that of some\nmighty top around the perpendicular to the ecliptic, was communicated to\nthe builders with a degree of accuracy far exceeding that of the best\nmodern determinations, and they were instructed to symbolise that\nrelation in the dimensions of the pyramid's base. A value of the sun's\ndistance more accurate by far than modern astronomers have obtained\n(even since the recent transit) was imparted to them, and they embodied\nthat dimension in the height of the pyramid. Other results which modern\nscience has achieved, but which by merely human means the architects of\nthe pyramid could not have obtained, were also supernaturally\ncommunicated to them; so that the true mean density of the earth, her\ntrue shape, the configuration of land and water, the mean temperature of\nthe earth's surface, and so forth, were either symbolised in the great\npyramid's position, or in the shape and dimensions of its exterior and\ninterior. In the pyramid also were preserved the true, because\nsupernaturally communicated, standards of length, area, capacity,\nweight, density, heat, time, and money. The pyramid also indicated, by\ncertain features of its interior structure, that when it was built the\nholy influences of the Pleiades were exerted from a most effective\nposition--the meridian, through the points where the ecliptic and\nequator intersect. And as the pyramid thus significantly refers to the\npast, so also it indicates the future history of the earth, especially\nin showing when and where the millennium is to begin. Lastly, the apex\nor crowning stone of the pyramid was no other than the antitype of that\nstone of stumbling and rock of offence, rejected by builders who knew\nnot its true use, until it was finally placed as the chief stone of the\ncorner. Whence naturally, 'whosoever shall fall upon it'--that is, upon\nthe pyramid religion--'shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall\nit will grind him to powder.'\n\nIf we examine the relations actually presented by the great pyramid--its\ngeographical position, dimensions, shape, and internal\nstructure--without hampering ourselves with the tenets of the new faith\non the one hand, or on the other with any serious anxiety to disprove\nthem, we shall find much to suggest that the builders of the pyramid\nwere ingenious mathematicians, who had made some progress in astronomy,\nthough not so much as they had made in the mastery of mechanical and\nscientific difficulties.\n\nThe first point to be noticed is the geographical position of the great\npyramid, so far, at least, as this position affects the aspect of the\nheavens, viewed from the pyramid as from an observatory. Little\nimportance, I conceive, can be attached to purely geographical relations\nin considering the pyramid's position. Professor Smyth notes that the\npyramid is peculiarly placed with respect to the mouth of the Nile,\nstanding 'at the southern apex of the Delta-land of Egypt.' This region\nbeing shaped like a fan, the pyramid, set at the part corresponding to\nthe handle, was, he considers, 'that monument pure and undefiled in its\nreligion through an idolatrous land, alluded to by Isaiah; the monument\nwhich was both \"an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt,\nand a pillar at the border thereof,\" and destined withal to become a\nwitness in the latter days, and before the consummation of all things,\nto the same Lord, and to what He hath purposed upon man kind.' Still\nmore fanciful are some other notes upon the pyramid's geographical\nposition: as (i.) that there is more land along the meridian of the\npyramid than on any other all the world round; (ii.) that there is more\nland in the latitude of the pyramid than in any other; and (iii.) that\nthe pyramid territory of Lower Egypt is at the centre of the dry land\nhabitable by man all the world over.\n\nIt does not seem to be noticed by those who call our attention to these\npoints that such coincidences prove too much. It might be regarded as\nnot a mere accident that the great pyramid stands at the centre of the\narc of shore-line along which lie the outlets of the Nile; or it might\nbe regarded as not a mere coincidence that the great pyramid stands at\nthe central point of all the habitable land-surface of the globe; or,\nagain, any one of the other relations above mentioned might be regarded\nas something more than a mere coincidence. But if, instead of taking\nonly one or other of these four relations, we take all four of them, or\neven any two of them, together, we must regard peculiarities of the\nearth's configuration as the result of special design which certainly\nhave not hitherto been so regarded by geographers. For instance, if it\nwas by a special design that the pyramid was placed at the centre of the\nNile delta, and also by special design that the pyramid was placed at\nthe centre of the land-surface of the earth, if these two relations are\neach so exactly fulfilled as to render the idea of mere accidental\ncoincidence inadmissible, then it follows, of necessity, that it is\nthrough no merely accidental coincidence that the centre of the Nile\ndelta lies at the centre of the land-surface of the earth; in other\nwords, the shore-line along which lie the mouths of the Nile has been\ndesignedly curved so as to have its centre so placed. And so of the\nother relations. The very fact that the four conditions _can_ be\nfulfilled simultaneously is evidence that a coincidence of the sort may\nresult from mere accident.[16] Indeed, the peculiarity of geographical\nposition which really seems to have been in the thoughts of the pyramid\narchitects, introduces yet a fifth condition which by accident could be\nfulfilled along with the four others.\n\nIt would seem that the builders of the pyramid were anxious to place it\nin latitude 30 deg., as closely as their means of observation permitted.\nLet us consider what result they achieved, and the evidence thus afforded\nrespecting their skill and scientific attainments. In our own time, of\ncourse, the astronomer has no difficulty in determining with great\nexactness the position of any given latitude-parallel. But at the time\nwhen the great pyramid was built it must have been a matter of very\nserious difficulty to determine the position of any required\nlatitude-parallel with a great degree of exactitude. The most obvious\nway of dealing with the difficulty would have been by observing the\nlength of shadows thrown by upright posts at noon in spring and autumn.\nIn latitude 30 deg. north, the sun at noon in spring (or, to speak\nprecisely, on the day of the vernal equinox) is just twice as far from\nthe horizon as he is from the point vertically overhead; and if a\npointed post were set exactly upright at true noon (supposed to occur at\nthe moment of the vernal or autumnal equinox), the shadow of the post\nwould be exactly half as long as a line drawn from the top of the pole\nto the end of the shadow. But observations based on this principle would\nhave presented many difficulties to the architects of the pyramid. The\nsun not being a point of light, but a globe, the shadow of a pointed rod\ndoes not end in a well-defined point. The moment of true noon, which is\nnot the same as ordinary or civil noon, never does agree exactly with\nthe time of the vernal or autumnal equinox, and may be removed from it\nby any interval of time not exceeding twelve hours. And there are many\nother circumstances which would lead astronomers, like those who\ndoubtless presided over the scientific preparations for building the\ngreat pyramid, to prefer a means of determining the latitude depending\non another principle. The stellar heavens would afford practically\nunchanging indications for their purpose. The stars being all carried\nround the pole of the heavens, as if they were fixed points in the\ninterior of a hollow revolving sphere, it becomes possible to determine\nthe position of the pole of the star sphere, even though no bright\nconspicuous star actually occupies that point. Any bright star close by\nthe pole is seen to revolve in a very small circle, whose centre is the\npole itself. Such a star is our present so-called pole-star; and, though\nin the days when the great pyramid was built, that star was not near the\npole, another, and probably a brighter star lay near enough to the\npole[17] to serve as a pole-star, and to indicate by its circling motion\nthe position of the actual pole of the heavens. This was at that time,\nand for many subsequent centuries, the leading star of the great\nconstellation called the Dragon.\n\nThe pole of the heavens, we know, varies in position according to the\nlatitude of the observer. At the north pole it is exactly overhead; at\nthe equator the poles of the heavens are both on the horizon; and, as\nthe observer travels from the equator towards the north or south pole of\nthe earth, the corresponding pole of the heavens rises higher and higher\nabove the horizon. In latitude 30 deg. north, or one-third of the way from\nthe equator to the pole, the pole of the heavens is raised one-third of\nthe way from the horizon to the point vertically overhead; and when this\nis the case the observer knows that he is in latitude 30 deg. The builders\nof the great pyramid, with the almost constantly clear skies of Egypt,\nmay reasonably be supposed to have adopted this means of determining the\ntrue position of that thirtieth parallel on which they appear to have\ndesigned to place the great building they were about to erect.\n\nIt so happens that we have the means of forming an opinion on the\nquestion whether they used one method or the other; whether they\nemployed the sun or the stars to guide them to the geographical position\nthey required. In fact, were it not for this circumstance, I should not\nhave thought it worth while to discuss the qualities of either method.\nIt will presently be seen that the discussion bears importantly on the\nopinion we are to form of the skill and attainments of the pyramid\narchitects. Every celestial object is apparently raised somewhat above\nits true position by the refractive power of our atmosphere, being most\nraised when nearest the horizon and least when nearest the point\nvertically overhead. This effect is, indeed, so marked on bodies close\nto the horizon that if the astronomers of the pyramid times had observed\nthe sun, moon, and stars attentively when so placed, they could not have\nfailed to discover the peculiarity. Probably, however, though they noted\nthe time of rising and setting of the celestial bodies, they only made\ninstrumental observations upon them when these bodies were high in the\nheavens. Thus they remained ignorant of the refractive powers of the\nair.[18] Now, if they had determined the position of the thirtieth\nparallel of latitude by observations of the noonday sun (in spring or\nautumn), then since, owing to refraction, they would have judged the sun\nto be higher than he really was, it follows that they would have\nsupposed the latitude of any station from which they observed to be\nlower than it really was. For the lower the latitude the higher is the\nnoonday sun at any given season. Thus, when really in latitude 30 deg.\nthey would have supposed themselves in a latitude lower than 30 deg., and\nwould have travelled a little further north to find the proper place, as\nthey would have supposed, for erecting the great pyramid. On the other\nhand, if they determined the place from observations of the movements of\nstars near the pole of the heavens, they would make an error of a\nprecisely opposite nature. For the higher the latitude the higher is the\npole of the heavens; and refraction, therefore, which apparently raises\nthe pole of the heavens, gives to a station the appearance of being in\na higher latitude than it really is, so that the observer would consider\nhe was in latitude 30 north when in reality somewhat south of that\nlatitude. We have only then to inquire whether the great pyramid was set\nnorth or south of latitude 30 deg., to ascertain whether the pyramid\narchitects observed the noonday sun or circumpolar stars to determine\ntheir latitude; always assuming (as we reasonably may) that those\narchitects did propose to set the pyramid in that particular latitude,\nand that they were able to make very accurate observations of the apparent\npositions of the celestial bodies, but that they were not acquainted\nwith the refractive effects of the atmosphere. The answer comes in no\ndoubtful terms. The centre of the great pyramid's base lies about one\nmile and a third _south_ of the thirtieth parallel of latitude; and from\nthis position the pole of the heavens, as raised by refraction, would\nappear to be very near indeed to the required position. In fact, if the\npyramid had been set about half a mile still farther south the pole\nwould have _seemed_ just right.\n\nOf course, such an explanation as I have here suggested appears\naltogether heretical to the pyramidalists. According to them the pyramid\narchitects knew perfectly well where the true thirtieth parallel lay,\nand knew also all that modern science has discovered about refraction;\nbut set the pyramid south of the true parallel and north of the position\nwhere refraction would just have made the apparent elevation of the pole\ncorrect, simply in order that the pyramid might correspond as nearly as\npossible to each of two conditions, whereof both could not be fulfilled\nat once. The pyramid would indeed, they say, have been set even more\nclosely midway between the true and the apparent parallels of 30 deg.\nnorth, but that the Jeezeh hill on which it is set does not afford a rock\nfoundation any farther north. 'So very close,' says Professor Smyth,\n'was the great pyramid placed to the northern brink of its hill, that\nthe edges of the cliff might have broken off under the terrible\npressure had not the builders banked up there most firmly the immense\nmounds of rubbish which came from their work, and which Strabo looked so\nparticularly for 1800 years ago, but could not find. Here they were,\nhowever, and still are, utilised in enabling the great pyramid to stand\non the very utmost verge of its commanding hill, within the limits of\nthe _two_ required latitudes, as well as over the centre of the land's\nphysical and radial formation, and at the same time on the sure and\nproverbially wise foundation of rock.'\n\nThe next circumstance to be noted in the position of the great pyramid\n(as of all the pyramids) is that the sides are carefully oriented. This,\nlike the approximation to a particular latitude, must be regarded as an\nastronomical rather than a geographical relation. The accuracy with\nwhich the orientation has been effected will serve to show how far the\nbuilders had mastered the methods of astronomical observation by which\norientation was to be secured. The problem was not so simple as might be\nsupposed by those who are not acquainted with the way in which the\ncardinal points are correctly determined. By solar observations, or\nrather by the observations of shadows cast by vertical shafts before and\nafter noon, the direction of the meridian, or north and south line, can\ntheoretically be ascertained. But probably in this case, as in\ndetermining the latitude, the builders took the stars for their guide.\nThe pole of the heavens would mark the true north; and equally the\npole-star, when below or above the pole, would give the true north, but,\nof course, most conveniently when below the pole. Nor is it difficult to\nsee how the builders would make use of the pole-star for this purpose.\nFrom the middle of the northern side of the intended base they would\nbore a slant passage tending always from the position of the pole-star\nat its lower meridional passage, that star at each successive return to\nthat position serving to direct their progress; while its small range,\neast and west of the pole, would enable them most accurately to\ndetermine the star's true mid-point below the pole; that is, the true\nnorth. When they had thus obtained a slant tunnel pointing truly to the\nmeridian, and had carried it down to a point nearly below the middle of\nthe proposed square base, they could, from the middle of the base, bore\nvertically downwards, until by rough calculation they were near the\nlower end of the slant tunnel; or both tunnels could be made at the same\ntime. Then a subterranean chamber would be opened out from the slant\ntunnel. The vertical boring, which need not be wider than necessary to\nallow a plumb-line to be suspended down it, would enable the architects\nto determine the point vertically below the point of suspension. The\nslant tunnel would give the direction of the true north, either from\nthat point or from a point at some known small distance east or west of\nthat point.[19] Thus, a line from some ascertained point near the mouth\nof the vertical boring to the mouth of the slant tunnel would lie due\nnorth and south, and serve as the required guide for the orientation of\nthe pyramid's base. If this base extended beyond the opening of the\nslant tunnel, then, by continuing this tunnelling through the base tiers\nof the pyramid, the means would be obtained of correcting the\norientation.\n\nThis, I say, would be the course naturally suggested to astronomical\narchitects who had determined the latitude in the manner described\nabove. It may even be described as the only very accurate method\navailable before the telescope had been invented. So that if the\naccuracy of the orientation appears to be greater than could be obtained\nby the shadow method, the natural inference, even in the absence of\ncorroborative evidence, would be that the stellar method, and no other,\nhad been employed. Now, in 1779, Nouet, by refined observations, found\nthe error of orientation measured by less than 20 minutes of arc,\ncorresponding roughly to a displacement of the corners by about 37-1/2\ninches from their true position, as supposed to be determined from the\ncentre; or to a displacement of a southern corner by 53 inches on an\neast and west line from a point due south of the corresponding northern\ncorner. This error, for a base length of 9140 inches, would not be\nserious, being only one inch in about five yards (when estimated in the\nsecond way). Yet the result is not quite worthy of the praise given to\nit by Professor Smyth. He himself, however, by much more exact\nobservations, with an excellent altazimuth, reduced the alleged error\nfrom 20 minutes to only 4-1/2, or to 9-40ths of its formerly supposed\nvalue. This made the total displacement of a southern corner from the\ntrue meridian through the corresponding northern corner, almost exactly\none foot, or one inch in about twenty-one yards--a degree of accuracy\nrendering it practically certain that some stellar method was used in\norienting the base.\n\nNow there _is_ a slanting tunnel occupying precisely the position of the\ntunnel which should, according to this view, have been formed in order\naccurately to orient the pyramid's base, assuming that the time of the\nbuilding of the pyramid corresponded with one of the epochs when the\nstar Alpha Draconis was distant 3 deg. 42' from the pole of the heavens.\nIn other words, there is a slant tunnel directed northwards and upwards\nfrom a point deep down below the middle of the pyramid's base, and\ninclined 26 deg. 17' to the horizon, the elevation of Alpha Draconis at\nits lower culmination when 3 deg. 42' from the pole. The last epoch when\nthe star was thus placed was _circiter_ 2160 B.C.; the epoch next before\nthat was 3440 B.C. Between these two we should have to choose, on the\nhypothesis that the slant tunnel was really directed to that star when\nthe foundations of the pyramid were laid. For the next epoch before the\nearlier of the two named was about 28,000 B.C., and the pyramid's date\ncannot have been more remote than 4000 B.C.\n\nThe slant tunnel, while admirably fulfilling the requirements suggested,\nseems altogether unsuited for any other. Its transverse height (that is,\nits width in a direction perpendicular to its upper and lower faces) did\nnot amount to quite four feet; its breadth was not quite three feet and\na half. It was, therefore, not well fitted for an entrance passage to\nthe subterranean chamber immediately under the apex of the pyramid (with\nwhich chamber it communicates in the manner suggested by the above\ntheory). It could not have been intended to be used for observing\nmeridian transits of the stars in order to determine sidereal time; for\nclose circumpolar stars, by reason of their slow motion, are the least\nsuited of all for such a purpose. As Professor Smyth says, in arguing\nagainst this suggested use of the star, 'no observer in his senses, in\nany existing observatory, when seeking to obtain the time, would observe\nthe transit of a circumpolar star for anything else than _to get the\ndirection of the meridian to adjust his instrument by_.' (The italics\nare his.) It is precisely such a purpose (the adjustment, however, not\nof an instrument, but of the entire structure of the pyramid itself),\nthat I have suggested for this remarkable passage--this 'cream-white,\nstone-lined, long tube,' where it traverses the masonry of the pyramid,\nand below that dug through the solid rock to a distance of more than 350\nfeet.\n\nLet us next consider the dimensions of the square base thus carefully\nplaced in latitude 30 deg. north to the best of the builders' power, with\nsides carefully oriented.\n\nIt seems highly probable that, whatever special purpose the pyramid was\nintended to fulfil, a subordinate idea of the builders would have been\nto represent symbolically in the proportions of the building such\nmathematical and astronomical relations as they were acquainted with.\nFrom what we know by tradition of the men of the remote time when the\npyramid was built, and what we can infer from the ideas of those who\ninherited, however remotely, the modes of thought of the earliest\nastronomers and mathematicians, we can well believe that they would look\nwith superstitious reverence on special figures, proportions, numbers,\nand so forth. Apart from this, they may have had a quasi-scientific\ndesire to make a lasting record of their discoveries, and of the\ncollected knowledge of their time.\n\nIt seems altogether probable, then, that the smaller unit of measurement\nused by the builders of the great Pyramid was intended, as Professor\nSmyth thinks, to be equal to the 500,000,000th part of the earth's\ndiameter, determined from their geodetical observations. It was\nperfectly within the power of mechanicians and mathematicians so\nexperienced as they undoubtedly were--the pyramid attests so much--to\nmeasure with considerable accuracy the length of a degree of latitude.\nThey could not possibly (always setting aside the theory of divine\ninspiration) have known anything about the compression of the earth's\nglobe, and therefore could not have intended, as Professor Smyth\nsupposes, to have had the 500,000,000th part of the earth's polar axis,\nas distinguished from any other, for their unit of length. But if they\nmade observations in or near latitude 30 deg. north on the supposition\nthat the earth is a globe, their probable error would exceed the\ndifference even between the earth's polar and equatorial diameters. Both\ndifferences are largely exceeded by the range of difference among the\nestimates of the actual length of the sacred cubit, supposed to have\ncontained twenty-five of these smaller units. And, again, the length of\nthe pyramid base-side, on which Smyth bases his own estimate of the\nsacred cubit, has been variously estimated, the largest measure being\n9168 inches, and the lowest 9110 inches. The fundamental theory of the\npyramidalists, that the sacred cubit was exactly one 20,000,000th part\nof the earth's polar diameter, and that the side of the base contained\nas many cubits and parts of a cubit as there are days and parts of a day\nin the tropical year (or year of seasons), requires that the length of\nthe side should be 9140 inches, lying between the limits indicated, but\nstill so widely removed from either that it would appear very unsafe to\nbase a theory on the supposition that the exact length is or was 9140\ninches. If the measures 9168 inches and 9110 inches were inferior, and\nseveral excellent measures made by practised observers ranged around the\nlength 9140 inches, the case would be different. But the best recent\nmeasures gave respectively 9110 and 9130 inches; and Smyth exclaims\nagainst the unfairness of Sir H. James in taking 9120 as 'therefore the\n[probable] true length of the side of the great pyramid when perfect,'\ncalling this 'a dishonourable shelving of the honourable older observers\nwith their larger results.' The only other measures, besides these two,\nare two by Colonel Howard Vyse and by the French _savants_, giving\nrespectively 9168 and 9163.44 inches. The pyramidalists consider 9140\ninches a fair mean value from these four. The natural inference,\nhowever, is, that the pyramid base is not now in a condition to be\nsatisfactorily measured; and assuredly no such reliance can be placed\non the mean value 9140 inches that, on the strength of it, we should\nbelieve what otherwise would be utterly incredible, viz. that the\nbuilders of the great pyramid knew 'both the size and shape of the earth\nexactly.' 'Humanly, or by human science, finding it out in that age was,\nof course, utterly impossible,' says Professor Smyth. But he is so\nconfident of the average value derived from widely conflicting base\nmeasures as to assume that this value, not being humanly discoverable,\nwas of necessity 'attributable to God and to His Divine inspiration.' We\nmay agree, in fine, with Smyth, that the builders of the pyramid knew\nthe earth to be a globe; that they took for their measure of length the\nsacred cubit, which, by their earth measures, they made very fairly\napproximate to the 20,000,000th part of the earth's mean diameter; but\nthere seems no reason whatever for supposing (even if the supposition\nwere not antecedently of its very nature inadmissible) that they knew\nanything about the compression of the earth, or that they had measured a\ndegree of latitude in their own place with very wonderful accuracy.[20]\n\nBut here a very singular coincidence may be noticed, or, rather, is\nforced upon our notice by the pyramidalists, who strangely enough\nrecognise in it fresh evidence of design, while the unbeliever finds in\nit proof that coincidences are no sure evidence of design. The side of\nthe pyramid containing 365-1/4 times the sacred cubit of 25 pyramid\ninches, it follows that the diagonal of the base contains 12,912 such\ninches, and the two diagonals together contain 25,824 pyramid inches, or\nalmost exactly as many inches as there are years in the great\nprecessional period. 'No one whatever amongst men,' says Professor Smyth\nafter recording various estimates of the precessional period, 'from his\nown or school knowledge, knew anything about such a phenomenon, until\nHipparchus, some 1900 years after the great pyramid's foundation, had a\nglimpse of the fact; and yet it had been ruling the heavens for ages,\nand was recorded in Jeezeh's ancient structure.' To minds not moved to\nmost energetic forgetfulness by the spirit of faith, it would appear\nthat when a square base had been decided upon, and its dimensions fixed,\nwith reference to the earth's diameter and the year, the diagonals of\nthe square base were determined also; and, if it so chanced that they\ncorresponded with some other perfectly independent relation, the fact\nwas not to be credited to the architects. Moreover it is manifest that\nthe closeness of such a coincidence suggests grave doubts how far other\ncoincidences can be relied upon as evidence of design. It seems, for\ninstance, altogether likely that the architects of the pyramid took the\nsacred cubit equal to one 20,000,000th part of the earth's diameter for\ntheir chief unit of length, and intentionally assigned to the side of\nthe pyramid's square base a length of just so many cubits as there are\ndays in the year; and the closeness of the coincidence between the\nmeasured length and that indicated by this theory strengthens the idea\nthat this was the builder's purpose. But when we find that an even\ncloser coincidence immediately presents itself, which manifestly is a\ncoincidence _only_, the force of the evidence before derived from mere\ncoincidence is _pro tanto_ shaken. For consider what this new\ncoincidence really means. Its nature may be thus indicated: Take the\nnumber of days in the year, multiply that number by 50, and increase the\nresult in the same degree that the diagonal of a square exceeds the\nside--then the resulting number represents very approximately the number\nof years in the great precessional period. The error, according to the\nbest modern estimates, is about one 575th part of the true period. This\nis, of course, a merely accidental coincidence, for there is no\nconnection whatever in nature between the earth's period of rotation,\nthe shape of a square, and the earth's period of gyration. Yet this\nmerely accidental coincidence is very much closer than the other\nsupposed to be designed could be proved to be. It is clear, then, that\nmere coincidence is a very unsafe evidence of design.\n\nOf course the pyramidalists find a ready reply to such reasoning. They\nargue that, in the first place, it may have been by express design that\nthe period of the earth's rotation was made to bear this particular\nrelation to the period of gyration in the mighty precessional movement:\nwhich is much as though one should say that by express design the height\nof Monte Rosa contains as many feet as there are miles in the 6000th\npart of the sun's distance.[21] Then, they urge, the architects were\nnot bound to have a square base for the pyramid; they might have had an\noblong or a triangular base, and so forth--all which accords very ill\nwith the enthusiastic language in which the selection of a square base\nhad on other accounts been applauded.\n\nNext let us consider the height of the pyramid. According to the best\nmodern measurements, it would seem that the height when (if ever) the\npyramid terminated above in a pointed apex, must have been about 486\nfeet. And from the comparison of the best estimates of the base side\nwith the best estimates of the height, it seems very likely indeed that\nthe intention of the builders was to make the height bear to the\nperimeter of the base the same ratio which the radius of a circle bears\nto the circumference. Remembering the range of difference in the base\nmeasures it might be supposed that the exactness of the approximation to\nthis ratio could not be determined very satisfactorily. But as certain\ncasing stones have been discovered which indicate with considerable\nexactness the slope of the original plane-surfaces of the pyramid, the\nratio of the height to the side of the base may be regarded as much more\nsatisfactorily determined than the actual value of either dimension. Of\ncourse the pyramidalists claim a degree of precision indicating a most\naccurate knowledge of the ratio between the diameter and the\ncircumference of a circle; and the angle of the only casing stone\nmeasured being diversely estimated at 51 deg. 50' and 51 deg. 52-1/4',\nthey consider 50 deg. 51' 14.3\" the true value, and infer that the\nbuilders regarded the ratio as 3.14159 to 1. The real fact is, that the\nmodern estimates of the dimensions of the casing stones (which, by the\nway, ought to agree better if these stones are as well made as stated)\nindicate the values 3.1439228 and 3.1396740 for the ratio; and all we\ncan say is, that the ratio really used lay _probably_ between these\nlimits, though it may have been outside either. Now the approximation of\neither is not remarkably close. It requires no mathematical knowledge at\nall to determine the circumference of a circle much more exactly. 'I\nthought it very strange,' wrote a circle-squarer once to De Morgan\n(_Budget of Paradoxes_, p. 389), 'that so many great scholars in all\nages should have failed in finding the true ratio, and have been\ndetermined to try myself.' 'I have been informed,' proceeds De Morgan,\n'that this trial makes the diameter to the circumference as 64 to 201,\ngiving the ratio equal to 3.1410625 exactly. The result was obtained by\nthe discoverer in three weeks after he first heard of the existence of\nthe difficulty. This quadrator has since published a little slip and\nentered it at Stationers' Hall. He says he has done it by actual\nmeasurement; and I hear from a private source that he uses a disc of\ntwelve inches diameter which he rolls upon a straight rail.' The\n'rolling is a very creditable one; it is as much below the mark as\nArchimedes was above it. Its performer is a joiner who evidently knows\nwell what he is about when he measures; he is not wrong by 1 in 3000.'\nSuch skilful mechanicians as the builders of the pyramid could have\nobtained a closer approximation still by mere measurement. Besides, as\nthey were manifestly mathematicians, such an approximation as was\nobtained by Archimedes must have been well within their power; and that\napproximation lies well within the limits above indicated. Professor\nSmyth remarks that the ratio was 'a quantity which men in general, and\nall human science too, did not begin to trouble themselves about until\nlong, long ages, languages, and nations had passed away after the\nbuilding of the great pyramid; and after the sealing up, too, of that\ngrand primeval and prehistoric monument of the patriarchal age of the\nearth according to Scripture.' I do not know where the Scripture records\nthe sealing up of the great pyramid; but it is all but certain that\nduring the very time when the pyramid was being built astronomical\nobservations were in progress which, for their interpretation, involved\nof necessity a continual reference to the ratio in question. No one who\nconsiders the wonderful accuracy with which, nearly two thousand years\nbefore the Christian era, the Chaldaeans had determined the famous cycle\nof the Saros, can doubt that they must have observed the heavenly bodies\nfor several centuries before they could have achieved such a success;\nand the study of the motions of the celestial bodies compels 'men to\ntrouble themselves' about the famous ratio of the circumference to the\ndiameter.\n\nWe now come upon a new relation (contained in the dimensions of the\npyramid as thus determined) which, by a strange coincidence, causes the\nheight of the pyramid to appear to symbolise the distance of the sun.\nThere were 5813 pyramid inches, or 5819 British inches, in the height of\nthe pyramid according to the relations already indicated. Now, in the\nsun's distance, according to an estimate recently adopted and freely\nused,[22] there are 91,400,000 miles or 5791 thousand millions of\ninches--that is, there are approximately as many thousand millions of\ninches in the sun's distance as there are inches in the height of the\npyramid. If we take the relation as exact we should infer for the sun's\ndistance 5819 thousand millions of inches, or 91,840,000 miles--an\nimmense improvement on the estimate which for so many years occupied a\nplace of honour in our books of astronomy. Besides, there is strong\nreason for believing that, when the results of recent observations are\nworked out, the estimated sun distance will be much nearer this pyramid\nvalue than even to the value 91,400,000 recently adopted. This result,\nwhich one would have thought so damaging to faith in the evidence from\ncoincidence--nay, quite fatal after the other case in which a close\ncoincidence had appeared by merest accident--is regarded by the\npyramidalist as a perfect triumph for their faith.\n\nThey connect it with another coincidence, viz. that, assuming the height\ndetermined in the way already indicated, then it so happens that the\nheight bears to half a diagonal of the base the ratio 9 to 10. Seeing\nthat the perimeter of the base symbolises the annual motion of the earth\nround the sun, while the height represents the radius of a circle with\nthat perimeter, it follows that the height should symbolise the sun's\ndistance. 'That line, further,' says Professor Smyth (speaking on behalf\nof Mr. W. Petrie, the discoverer of this relation), 'must represent'\nthis radius 'in the proportion of 1 to 1,000,000,000' (or _ten_ raised\nto power _nine_), 'because amongst other reasons 10 to 9 is practically\nthe shape of the great pyramid.' For this building 'has such an angle at\nthe corners, that for every ten units its structure advances inwards on\nthe diagonal of the base, it practically rises upwards, or points to\nsunshine' (_sic_) 'by _nine_. Nine, too, out of the ten characteristic\nparts (viz. five angles and five sides) being the number of those parts\nwhich the sun shines on in such a shaped pyramid, in such a latitude\nnear the equator, out of a high sky, or, as the Peruvians say, when the\nsun sets on the pyramid with all its rays.' The coincidence itself on\nwhich this perverse reasoning rests is a singular one--singular, that\nis, as showing how close an accidental coincidence may run. It amounts\nto this, that if the number of days in the year be multiplied by 100,\nand a circle be drawn with a circumference containing 100 times as many\ninches as there are days in the year, the radius of the circle will be\nvery nearly one 1,000,000,000th part of the sun's distance. Remembering\nthat the pyramid inch is assumed to be one 500,000,000th part of the\nearth's diameter, we shall not be far from the truth in saying that, as\na matter of fact, the earth by her orbital motion traverses each day a\ndistance equal to two hundred times her own diameter. But, of course,\nthis relation is altogether accidental. It has no real cause in\nnature.[23]\n\nSuch relations show that mere numerical coincidences, however close,\nhave little weight as evidence, except where they occur in series. Even\nthen they require to be very cautiously regarded, seeing that the\nhistory of science records many instances where the apparent law of a\nseries has been found to be falsified when the theory has been extended.\nOf course this reason is not quoted in order to throw doubt on the\nsupposition that the height of the pyramid was intended to symbolise the\nsun's distance. That supposition is simply inadmissible if the\nhypothesis, according to which the height was already independently\ndetermined in another way, is admitted. Either hypothesis might be\nadmitted were we not certain that the sun's distance could not possibly\nhave been known to the builders of the pyramid; or both hypotheses may\nbe rejected: but to admit both is out of the question.\n\nConsidering the multitude of dimensions of length, surface, capacity,\nand position, the great number of shapes, and the variety of material\nexisting within the pyramid, and considering, further, the enormous\nnumber of relations (presented by modern science) from among which to\nchoose, can it be wondered at if fresh coincidences are being\ncontinually recognised? If a dimension will not serve in one way, use\ncan be found for it in another; for instance, if some measure of length\ndoes not correspond closely with any known dimension of the earth or of\nthe solar system (an unlikely supposition), then it can be understood to\ntypify an interval of time. If, even after trying all possible changes\nof that kind, no coincidence shows itself (which is all but impossible),\nthen all that is needed to secure a coincidence is that the dimensions\nshould be manipulated a little.\n\nLet a single instance suffice to show how the pyramidalists (with\nperfect honesty of purpose) hunt down a coincidence. The slant tunnel\nalready described has a transverse height, once no doubt uniform, now\ngiving various measures from 47.14 pyramid inches to 47.32 inches, so\nthat the vertical height from the known inclination of the tunnel would\nbe estimated at somewhere between 52.64 inches and 52.85. Neither\ndimension corresponds very obviously with any measured distance in the\nearth or solar system. Nor when we try periods, areas, etc., does any\nvery satisfactory coincidence present itself. But the difficulty is\neasily turned into a new proof of design. Putting all the observations\ntogether (says Professor Smyth), 'I deduced 47.24 pyramid inches to be\nthe transverse height of the entrance passage; and computing from thence\nwith the observed angle of inclination the vertical height, that came\nout 52.76 of the same inches. But the sum of those two heights, or the\nheight taken up and down, equals 100 inches, which length, as elsewhere\nshown, is the general pyramid linear representation of a day of\ntwenty-four hours. And the mean of the two heights, or the height taken\none way only, and impartially to the middle point between them, equals\nfifty inches; which quantity is, therefore, the general pyramid linear\nrepresentation of only half a day. In which case, let us ask what the\nentrance passage has to do with half rather than a whole day?'\n\nOn relations such as these, which, if really intended by the architect,\nwould imply an utterly fatuous habit of concealing elaborately what he\ndesired to symbolise, the pyramidalists base their belief that 'a Mighty\nIntelligence did both think out the plans for it, and compel unwilling\nand ignorant idolators, in a primal age of the world, to work mightily\nboth for the future glory of the one true God of Revelation, and to\nestablish lasting prophetic testimony touching a further development,\nstill to take place, of the absolutely Divine Christian dispensation.'\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n_THE MYSTERY OF THE PYRAMIDS._\n\n\nFew subjects of inquiry have proved more perplexing than the question of\nthe purpose for which the pyramids of Egypt were built. Even in the\nremotest ages of which we have historical record, nothing seems to have\nbeen known certainly on this point. For some reason or other, the\nbuilders of the pyramids concealed the object of these structures, and\nthis so successfully that not even a tradition has reached us which\npurports to have been handed down from the epoch of the pyramids'\nconstruction. We find, indeed, some explanations given by the earliest\nhistorians; but they were professedly only hypothetical, like those\nadvanced in more recent times. Including ancient and modern theories, we\nfind a wide range of choice. Some have thought that these buildings were\nassociated with the religion of the early Egyptians; others have\nsuggested that they were tombs; others, that they combined the purposes\nof tombs and temples, that they were astronomical observatories,\ndefences against the sands of the Great Desert, granaries like those\nmade under Joseph's direction, places of resort during excessive\noverflows of the Nile; and many other uses have been suggested for them.\nBut none of these ideas are found on close examination to be tenable as\nrepresenting the sole purpose of the pyramids, and few of them have\nstrong claims to be regarded as presenting even a chief object of these\nremarkable structures. The significant and perplexing history of the\nthree oldest pyramids--the Great Pyramid of Cheops, Shofo, or Suphis,\nthe pyramid of Chephren, and the pyramid of Mycerinus; and the most\nremarkable of all the facts known respecting the pyramids generally,\nviz., the circumstance that one pyramid after another was built as\nthough each had become useless soon after it was finished, are left\nentirely unexplained by all the theories above mentioned, save one only,\nthe tomb theory, and that does not afford by any means a satisfactory\nexplanation of the circumstances.\n\nI propose to give here a brief account of some of the most suggestive\nfacts known respecting the pyramids, and, after considering the\ndifficulties which beset the theories heretofore advanced, to indicate a\ntheory (new so far as I know) which seems to me to correspond better\nwith the facts than any heretofore advanced; I suggest it, however,\nrather for consideration than because I regard it as very convincingly\nsupported by the evidence. In fact, to advance any theory at present\nwith confident assurance of its correctness, would be simply to indicate\na very limited acquaintance with the difficulties surrounding the\nsubject.\n\nLet us first consider a few of the more striking facts recorded by\nhistory or tradition, noting, as we proceed, whatever ideas they may\nsuggest as to the intended character of these structures.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to say, perhaps, that the history of the Great\nPyramid is of paramount importance in this inquiry. Whatever purpose\npyramids were originally intended to subserve, must have been conceived\nby the builders of _that_ pyramid. New ideas may have been superadded by\nthe builders of later pyramids, but it is unlikely that the original\npurpose can have been entirely abandoned. Some great purpose there was,\nwhich the rulers of ancient Egypt proposed to fulfil by building very\nmassive pyramidal structures on a particular plan. It is by inquiring\ninto the history of the first and most massive of these structures, and\nby examining its construction, that we shall have the best chance of\nfinding out what that great purpose was.\n\nAccording to Herodotus, the kings who built the pyramids reigned not\nmore than twenty-eight centuries ago; but there can be little doubt that\nHerodotus misunderstood the Egyptian priests from whom he derived his\ninformation, and that the real antiquity of the pyramid-kings was far\ngreater. He tells us that, according to the Egyptian priests, Cheops 'on\nascending the throne plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed\nthe temples, and forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling\nthem instead to labour one and all in his service, viz., in building the\nGreat Pyramid.' Still following his interpretation of the Egyptian\naccount, we learn that one hundred thousand men were employed for twenty\nyears in building the Great Pyramid, and that ten years were occupied in\nconstructing a causeway by which to convey the stones to the place and\nin conveying them there. 'Cheops reigned fifty years; and was succeeded\nby his brother Chephren, who imitated the conduct of his predecessor,\nbuilt a pyramid--but smaller than his brother's--and reigned fifty-six\nyears. Thus during one hundred and six years, the temples were shut and\nnever opened.' Moreover, Herodotus tells us that 'the Egyptians so\ndetested the memory of these kings, that they do not much like even to\nmention their names. Hence they commonly call the pyramids after\nPhilition, a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place.'\n'After Chephren, Mycerinus, son of Cheops, ascended the throne, he\nreopened the temples, and allowed the people to resume the practice of\nsacrifice. He, too, left a pyramid, but much inferior in size to his\nfather's. It is built, for half of its height, of the stone of\nEthiopia,' or, as Professor Smyth (whose extracts from Rawlinson's\ntranslation I have here followed) adds 'expensive red granite.' 'After\nMycerinus, Asychis ascended the throne. He built the eastern gateway of\nthe Temple of Vulcan (Phtha); and, being desirous of eclipsing all his\npredecessors on the throne, left as a monument of his reign a pyramid of\nbrick.'\n\nThis account is so suggestive, as will presently be shown, that it may\nbe well to inquire whether it can be relied on. Now, although there can\nbe no doubt that Herodotus misunderstood the Egyptians in some matters,\nand in particular as to the chronological order of the dynasties,\nplacing the pyramid kings far too late, yet in other respects he seems\nnot only to have understood them correctly, but also to have received a\ncorrect account from them. The order of the kings above named\ncorresponds with the sequence given by Manetho, and also found in\nmonumental and hieroglyphic records. Manetho gives the names Suphis I.,\nSuphis II., and Mencheres, instead of Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus;\nwhile, according to the modern Egyptologists, Herodotus's Cheops was\nShofo, Shufu, or Koufou; Chephren was Shafre, while he was also called\nNou-Shofo or Noum-Shufu as the brother of Shofo; and Mycerinus was\nMenhere or Menkerre. But the identity of these kings is not questioned.\nAs to the true dates there is much doubt, and it is probable that the\nquestion will long continue open; but the determination of the exact\nepochs when the several pyramids were built is not very important in\nconnection with our present inquiry. We may, on the whole, fairly take\nthe points quoted above from Herodotus, and proceed to consider the\nsignificance of the narrative, with sufficient confidence that in all\nessential respects it is trustworthy.\n\nThere are several very strange features in the account.\n\nIn the first place, it is manifest that Cheops (to call the first king\nby the name most familiar to the general reader) attached great\nimportance to the building of his pyramid. It has been said, and perhaps\njustly, that it would be more interesting to know the plan of the\narchitect who devised the pyramid than the purpose of the king who built\nit. But the two things are closely connected. The architect must have\nsatisfied the king that some highly important purpose in which the king\nhimself was interested, would be subserved by the structure. Whether the\nking was persuaded to undertake the work as a matter of duty, or only to\nadvance his own interests, may not be so clear. But that the king was\nmost thoroughly in earnest about the work is certain. A monarch in those\ntimes would assuredly not have devoted an enormous amount of labour and\nmaterial to such a scheme unless he was thoroughly convinced of its\ngreat importance. That the welfare of his people was not considered by\nCheops in building the Great Pyramid is almost equally certain. He\nmight, indeed, have had a scheme for their good which either he did not\ncare to explain to them or which they could not understand. But the most\nnatural inference from the narrative is that his purpose had no\nreference whatever to their welfare. For though one could understand his\nown subjects hating him while he was all the time working for their\ngood, it is obvious that his memory would not have been hated if some\nimportant good had eventually been gained from his scheme. Many a\nfar-seeing ruler has been hated while living on account of the very work\nfor which his memory has been revered. But the memory of Cheops and his\nsuccessors was held in detestation.\n\nMay we, however, suppose that, though Cheops had not the welfare of his\nown people in his thoughts, his purpose was nevertheless not selfish,\nbut intended in some way to promote the welfare of the human race? I say\nhis purpose, because, whoever originated the scheme, Cheops carried it\nout; it was by means of his wealth and through his power that the\npyramid was built. This is the view adopted by Professor Piazzi Smyth\nand others, in our own time, and first suggested by John Taylor.\n'Whereas other writers,' says Smyth, 'have generally esteemed that the\nmysterious persons who directed the building of the Great Pyramid (and\nto whom the Egyptians, in their traditions, and for ages afterwards,\ngave an immoral and even abominable character) must therefore have been\nvery bad indeed, so that the world at large has always been fond of\nstanding on, kicking, and insulting that dead lion, whom they really\nknew not; he, Mr. John Taylor, seeing how religiously bad the Egyptians\nthemselves were, was led to conclude, on the contrary, that those _they_\nhated (and could never sufficiently abuse) might, perhaps, have been\npre-eminently good; or were, at all events, of _different religious\nfaith_ from themselves.' 'Combining this with certain unmistakable\nhistorical facts,' Mr. Taylor deduced reasons for believing that the\ndirectors of the building designed to record in its proportions, and in\nits interior features, certain important religious and scientific\ntruths, not for the people then living, but for men who were to come\n4000 years or so after.\n\nI have already considered at length (see the preceding Essay) the\nevidence on which this strange theory rests. But there are certain\nmatters connecting it with the above narrative which must here be\nnoticed. The mention of the shepherd Philition, who fed his flocks about\nthe place where the Great Pyramid was built, is a singular feature of\nHerodotus's narrative. It reads like some strange misinterpretation of\nthe story related to him by the Egyptian priests. It is obvious that if\nthe word Philition did not represent a people, but a person, this\nperson must have been very eminent and distinguished--a shepherd-king,\nnot a mere shepherd. Rawlinson, in a note on this portion of the\nnarrative of Herodotus, suggests that Philitis was probably a\nshepherd-prince from Palestine, perhaps of Philistine descent, 'but so\npowerful and domineering, that it may be traditions of his oppressions\nin that earlier age which, mixed up afterwards in the minds of later\nEgyptians with the evils inflicted on their country by the subsequent\nshepherds of better known dynasties, lent so much fear to their\nreligious hate of Shepherd times and that name.' Smyth, somewhat\nmodifying this view, and considering certain remarks of Manetho\nrespecting an alleged invasion of Egypt by shepherd-kings, 'men of an\nignoble race (from the Egyptian point of view) who had the confidence to\ninvade our country, and easily subdued it to their power without a\nbattle,' comes to the conclusion that some Shemite prince, 'a\ncontemporary of, but rather older than, the Patriarch Abraham,' visited\nEgypt at this time, and obtained such influence over the mind of Cheops\nas to persuade him to erect the pyramid. According to Smyth, the prince\nwas no other than Melchizedek, king of Salem, and the influence he\nexerted was supernatural. With such developments of the theory we need\nnot trouble ourselves. It seems tolerably clear that certain\nshepherd-chiefs who came to Egypt during Cheops' reign were connected in\nsome way with the designing of the Great Pyramid. It is clear also that\nthey were men of a different religion from the Egyptians, and persuaded\nCheops to abandon the religion of his people. Taylor, Smyth, and the\nPyramidalists generally, consider this sufficient to prove that the\npyramid was erected for some purpose connected with religion. 'The\npyramid,' in fine, says Smyth, 'was charged by God's inspired\nshepherd-prince, in the beginning of human time, to keep a certain\nmessage secret and inviolable for 4000 years, and it has done so; and in\nthe next thousand years it was to enunciate that message to all men,\nwith more than traditional force, more than all the authenticity of\ncopied manuscripts or reputed history; and that part of the pyramid's\nusefulness is now beginning.'\n\nThere are many very obvious difficulties surrounding this theory; as,\nfor example (i.) the absurd waste of power in setting supernatural\nmachinery at work 4000 years ago with cumbrous devices to record its\nobject, when the same machinery, much more simply employed now, would\neffect the alleged purpose far more thoroughly; (ii.) the enormous\namount of human misery and its attendant hatreds brought about by this\nalleged divine scheme; and (iii.) the futility of an arrangement by\nwhich the pyramid was only to subserve its purpose when it had lost that\nperfection of shape on which its entire significance depended, according\nto the theory itself. But, apart from these, there is a difficulty,\nnowhere noticed by Smyth or his followers, which is fatal, I conceive,\nto this theory of the pyramid's purpose. The second pyramid, though\nslightly inferior to the first in size, and probably far inferior in\nquality of masonry, is still a structure of enormous dimensions, which\nmust have required many years of labour from tens of thousands of\nworkmen. Now, it seems impossible to explain why Chephren built this\nsecond pyramid, if we adopt Smyth's theory respecting the first pyramid.\nFor either Chephren knew the purpose for which the Great Pyramid was\nbuilt, or he did not know it. If he knew that purpose, and it was that\nindicated by Smyth, then he also knew that no second pyramid was wanted.\nOn that hypothesis, all the labour bestowed on the second pyramid was\nwittingly and wilfully wasted. This, of course is incredible. But, on\nthe other hand, if Chephren did not know what was the purpose for which\nthe Great Pyramid was built, what reason could Chephren have had for\nbuilding a pyramid at all? The only answer to this question seems to be\nthat Chephren built the second pyramid in hopes of finding out why his\nbrother had built the first, and this answer is simply absurd. It is\nclear enough that whatever purpose Cheops had in building the first\npyramid, Chephren must have had a similar purpose in building the\nsecond; and we require a theory which shall at least explain why the\nfirst pyramid did not subserve for Chephren the purpose which it\nsubserved or was meant to subserve for Cheops. The same reasoning may be\nextended to the third pyramid, to the fourth, and in fine to all the\npyramids, forty or so in number, included under the general designation\nof the Pyramids of Ghizeh or Jeezeh. The extension of the principle to\npyramids later than the second is especially important as showing that\nthe difference of religion insisted on by Smyth has no direct bearing on\nthe question of the purpose for which the Great Pyramid itself was\nconstructed. For Mycerinus either never left or else returned to the\nreligion of the Egyptians. Yet he also built a pyramid, which, though\nfar inferior in size to the pyramids built by his father and uncle, was\nstill a massive structure, and relatively more costly even than theirs,\nbecause built of expensive granite. The pyramid built by Asychis, though\nsmaller still, was remarkable as built of brick; in fact, we are\nexpressly told that Asychis desired to eclipse all his predecessors in\nsuch labours, and accordingly left this brick pyramid as a monument of\nhis reign.\n\nWe are forced, in fact, to believe that there was some special relation\nbetween the pyramid and its builder, seeing that each one of these kings\nwanted a pyramid of his own. This applies to the Great Pyramid quite as\nmuch as to the others, despite the superior excellence of that\nstructure. Or rather, the argument derives its chief force from the\nsuperiority of the Great Pyramid. If Chephren, no longer perhaps having\nthe assistance of the shepherd-architects in planning and superintending\nthe work, was unable to construct a pyramid so perfect and so stately as\nhis brother's, the very fact that he nevertheless built a pyramid shows\nthat the Great Pyramid did not fulfil for Chephren the purpose which it\nfulfilled for Cheops. But, if Smyth's theory were true, the Great\nPyramid would have fulfilled finally and for all men the purpose for\nwhich it was built. Since this was manifestly not the case, that theory\nis, I submit, demonstrably erroneous.\n\nIt was probably the consideration of this point, viz. that each king had\na pyramid constructed for himself, which led to the theory that the\npyramids were intended to serve as tombs. This theory was once very\ngenerally entertained. Thus we find Humboldt, in his remarks on American\npyramids, referring to the tomb theory of the Egyptian pyramids as\nthough it were open to no question. 'When we consider,' he says, 'the\npyramidical monuments of Egypt, of Asia, and of the New Continent, from\nthe same point of view, we see that, though their form is alike, their\ndestination was altogether different. The group of pyramids of Ghizeh\nand at Sakhara in Egypt; the triangular pyramid of the Queen of the\nScythians, Zarina, which was a stadium high and three in circumference,\nand which was decorated with a colossal figure; the fourteen Etruscan\npyramids, which are said to have been enclosed in the labyrinth of the\nking Porsenna, at Clusium--were reared to serve as the sepulchres of the\nillustrious dead. Nothing is more natural to men than to commemorate the\nspot where rest the ashes of those whose memory they cherish whether it\nbe, as in the infancy of the race, by simple mounds of earth, or, in\nlater periods, by the towering height of the tumulus. Those of the\nChinese and of Thibet have only a few metres of elevation. Farther to\nthe west the dimensions increase; the tumulus of the king Alyattes,\nfather of Croesus, in Lydia, was six stadia, and that of Ninus was\nmore than ten stadia in diameter. In the north of Europe the sepulchre\nof the Scandinavian king Gormus and the queen Daneboda, covered with\nmounds of earth, are three hundred metres broad, and more than thirty\nhigh.'\n\nBut while we have abundant reason for believing that in Egypt, even in\nthe days of Cheops and Chephren, extreme importance was attached to the\ncharacter of the place of burial for distinguished persons, there is\nnothing in what is known respecting earlier Egyptian ideas to suggest\nthe probability that any monarch would have devoted many years of his\nsubjects' labour, and vast stores of material, to erect a mass of\nmasonry like the Great Pyramid, solely to receive his own body after\ndeath. Far less have we any reason for supposing that many monarchs in\nsuccession would do this, each having a separate tomb built for him. It\nmight have been conceivable, had only the Great Pyramid been erected,\nthat the structure had been raised as a mausoleum for all the kings and\nprinces of the dynasty. But it seems utterly incredible that such a\nbuilding as the Great Pyramid should have been erected for one king's\nbody only--and that, not in the way described by Humboldt, when he\nspeaks of men commemorating the spot where rest the remains of those\nwhose memory they cherish, but at the expense of the king himself whose\nbody was to be there deposited. Besides, the first pyramid, the one\nwhose history must be regarded as most significant of the true purpose\nof these buildings, was not built by an Egyptian holding in great favour\nthe special religious ideas of his people, but by one who had adopted\nother views and those not belonging, so far as can be seen, to a people\namong whom sepulchral rites were held in exceptional regard.\n\nA still stronger objection against the exclusively tombic theory\nresides in the fact that this theory gives no account whatever of the\ncharacteristic features of the pyramids themselves. These buildings are\nall, without exception, built on special astronomical principles. Their\nsquare bases are so placed as to have two sides lying east and west, and\ntwo lying north and south, or, in other words, so that their four faces\nfront the four cardinal points. One can imagine no reason why a tomb\nshould have such a position. It is not, indeed, easy to understand why\nany building at all, except an astronomical observatory, should have\nsuch a position. A temple perhaps devoted to sun-worship, and generally\nto the worship of the heavenly bodies, might be built in that way. For\nit is to be noticed that the peculiar figure and position of the\npyramids would bring about the following relations:--When the sun rose\nand set south of the east and west points, or (speaking generally)\nbetween the autumn and the spring equinoxes, the rays of the rising and\nsetting sun illuminated the southern face of the pyramid; whereas during\nthe rest of the year, that is, during the six months between the spring\nand autumn equinoxes, the rays of the rising and setting sun illuminated\nthe northern face. Again, all the year round the sun's rays passed from\nthe eastern to the western face at solar noon. And lastly, during seven\nmonths and a half of each year, namely, for three months and three\nquarters before and after midsummer, the noon rays of the sun fell on\nall four faces of the pyramid, or, according to a Peruvian expression\n(so Smyth avers), the sun shone on the pyramid 'with all his rays.' Such\nconditions as these might have been regarded as very suitable for a\ntemple devoted to sun-worship. Yet the temple theory is as untenable as\nthe tomb theory. For, in the first place, the pyramid form--as the\npyramids were originally built, with perfectly smooth slant-faces, not\nterraced into steps as now through the loss of the casing-stones--was\nentirely unsuited for all the ordinary requirements of a temple of\nworship. And further, this theory gives no explanation of the fact that\neach king built a pyramid, and each king only one. Similar difficulties\noppose the theory that the pyramids were intended to serve as\nastronomical observatories. For while their original figure, however\nmanifestly astronomical in its relations, was quite unsuited for\nobservatory work, it is manifest that if such had been the purpose of\npyramid-building, so soon as the Great Pyramid had once been built, no\nother would be needed. Certainly none of the pyramids built afterwards\ncould have subserved any astronomical purpose which the first did not\nsubserve, or have subserved nearly so well as the Great Pyramid those\npurposes (and they are but few) which that building may be supposed to\nhave fulfilled as an astronomical observatory.\n\nOf the other theories mentioned at the beginning of this paper none seem\nto merit special notice, except perhaps the theory that the pyramids\nwere made to receive the royal treasures, and this theory rather because\nof the attention it received from Arabian literati, during the ninth and\ntenth centuries, than because of any strong reasons which can be\nsuggested in its favour. 'Emulating,' says Professor Smyth, 'the\nenchanted tales of Bagdad,' the court poets of Al Mamoun (son of the\nfar-famed Haroun al Raschid) 'drew gorgeous pictures of the contents of\nthe pyramid's interior.... All the treasures of Sheddad Ben Ad the great\nAntediluvian king of the earth, with all his medicines and all his\nsciences, they declared were there, told over and over again. Others,\nthough, were positive that the founder-king was no other than Saurid Ibn\nSalhouk, a far greater one than the other; and these last gave many more\nminute particulars, some of which are at least interesting to us in the\npresent day, as proving that, amongst the Egypto-Arabians of more than\na thousand years ago, the Jeezeh pyramids, headed by the grand one,\nenjoyed a pre-eminence of fame vastly before all the other pyramids of\nEgypt put together; and that if any other is alluded to after the Great\nPyramid (which has always been the notable and favourite one, and\nchiefly was known then as the East pyramid), it is either the second one\nat Jeezeh, under the name of the West pyramid; or the third one,\ndistinguished as the Coloured pyramid, in allusion to its red granite,\ncompared with the white limestone casings of the other two (which,\nmoreover, from their more near, but by no means exact, equality of size,\nwent frequently under the affectionate designation of \"the pair\").'\n\nThe report of Ibn Abd Alkohm, as to what was to be found in each of\nthese three pyramids, or rather of what, according to him, was put into\nthem originally by King Saurid, runs as follows: 'In the Western\npyramid, thirty treasuries filled with store of riches and utensils, and\nwith signatures made of precious stones, and with instruments of iron\nand vessels of earth, and with arms which rust not, and with glass which\nmight be bended and yet not broken, and with strange spells, and with\nseveral kinds of _alakakirs_ (magical precious stones) single and\ndouble, and with deadly poisons, and with other things besides. He made\nalso in the East' (the Great Pyramid) 'divers celestial spheres and\nstars, and what they severally operate in their aspects, and the\nperfumes which are to be used to them, and the books which treat of\nthese matters. He put also into the coloured pyramid the commentaries of\nthe priests in chests of black marble, and with every priest a book, in\nwhich the wonders of his profession and of his actions and of his nature\nwere written, and what was done in his time, and what is and what shall\nbe from the beginning of time to the end of it.' The rest of this\nworthy's report relates to certain treasurers placed within these three\npyramids to guard their contents, and (like all or most of what I have\nalready quoted) was a work of imagination. Ibn Abd Alkohm, in fact, was\na romancist of the first water.\n\nPerhaps the strongest argument against the theory that the pyramids were\nintended as strongholds for the concealment of treasure, resides in the\nfact that, search being made, no treasure has been discovered. When the\nworkmen employed by Caliph Al Mamoun, after encountering manifold\ndifficulties, at length broke their way into the great ascending passage\nleading to the so-called King's Chamber, they found 'a right noble\napartment, thirty-four feet long, seventeen broad, and nineteen high, of\npolished red granite throughout, walls, floor, and ceiling, in blocks\nsquared and true, and put together with such exquisite skill that the\njoints are barely discernible to the closest inspection. But where is\nthe treasure--the silver and the gold, the jewels, medicines, and\narms?--These fanatics look wildly around them, but can see nothing, not\na single _dirhem_ anywhere. They trim their torches, and carry them\nagain and again to every part of that red-walled, flinty hall, but\nwithout any better success. Nought but pure polished red granite, in\nmighty slabs, looks upon them from every side. The room is clean,\ngarnished too, as it were, and, according to the ideas of its founders,\ncomplete and perfectly ready for its visitors so long expected, so long\ndelayed. But the gross minds who occupy it now, find it all barren, and\ndeclare that there is nothing whatever for them in the whole extent of\nthe apartment from one end to another; nothing except an empty stone\nchest without a lid.'\n\nIt is, however, to be noted that we have no means of learning what had\nhappened between the time when the pyramid was built and when Caliph Al\nMamoun's workmen broke their way into the King's Chamber. The place\nmay, after all, have contained treasures of some kind; nor, indeed, is\nit incompatible with other theories of the pyramid to suppose that it\nwas used as a safe receptacle for treasures. It is certain, however,\nthat this cannot have been the special purpose for which the pyramids\nwere designed. We should find in such a purpose no explanation whatever\nof any of the most stringent difficulties encountered in dealing with\nother theories. There could be no reason why strangers from the East\nshould be at special pains to instruct an Egyptian monarch how to hide\nand guard his treasures. Nor, if the Great Pyramid had been intended to\nreceive the treasures of Cheops, would Chephren have built another for\nhis own treasures, which must have included those gathered by Cheops.\nBut, apart from this, how inconceivably vast must a treasure-hoard be\nsupposed to be, the safe guarding of which would have repaid the\nenormous cost of the great Pyramid in labour and material! And then, why\nshould a mere treasure-house have the characteristics of an astronomical\nobservatory? Manifestly, if the pyramids were used at all to receive\ntreasures, it can only have been as an entirely subordinate though\nperhaps convenient means of utilising these gigantic structures.\n\nHaving thus gone through all the suggested purposes of the pyramids save\ntwo or three which clearly do not possess any claim to serious\nconsideration, and having found none which appear to give any sufficient\naccount of the history and principal features of these buildings, we\nmust either abandon the inquiry or seek for some explanation quite\ndifferent from any yet suggested. Let us consider what are the principal\npoints of which the true theory of the pyramids should give an account.\n\nIn the first place, the history of the pyramids shows that the erection\nof the first great pyramid was in all probability either suggested to\nCheops by wise men who visited Egypt from the East, or else some\nimportant information conveyed to him by such visitors caused him to\nconceive the idea of building the pyramid. In either case we may\nsuppose, as the history indeed suggests, that these learned men, whoever\nthey may have been, remained in Egypt to superintend the erection of the\nstructure. It may be that the architectural work was not under their\nsupervision; in fact, it seems altogether unlikely that shepherd-rulers\nwould have much to teach the Egyptians in the matter of architecture.\nBut the astronomical peculiarities which form so significant a feature\nof the Great Pyramid were probably provided for entirely under the\ninstructions of the shepherd chiefs who had exerted so strange an\ninfluence upon the mind of King Cheops.\n\nNext, it seems clear that self-interest must have been the predominant\nreason in the mind of the Egyptian king for undertaking this stupendous\nwork. It is true that his change of religion implies that some higher\ncause influenced him. But a ruler who could inflict such grievous\nburdens on his people in carrying out his purpose that for ages\nafterwards his name was held in utter detestation, cannot have been\nsolely or even chiefly influenced by religious motives. It affords an\nample explanation of the behaviour of Cheops, in closing the temples and\nforsaking the religion of his country, to suppose that the advantages\nwhich he hoped to secure by building the pyramid depended in some way on\nhis adopting this course. The visitors from the East may have refused to\ngive their assistance on any other terms, or may have assured him that\nthe expected benefit could not be obtained if the pyramid were erected\nby idolaters. It is certain, in any case, that they were opposed to\nidolatry; and we have thus some means of inferring who they were and\nwhence they came. We know that one particular branch of one particular\nrace in the East was characterised by a most marked hatred of idolatry\nin all its forms. Terah and his family, or, probably, a sect or division\nof the Chaldaean people, went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into\nthe land of Canaan--and the reason why they went forth we learn from a\nbook of considerable historical interest (the book of Judith) to have\nbeen because 'they would not worship the gods of their fathers who were\nin the land of the Chaldaeans.' The Bible record shows that members of\nthis branch of the Chaldaean people visited Egypt from time to time. They\nwere shepherds, too, which accords well with the account of Herodotus\nabove quoted. We can well understand that persons of this family would\nhave resisted all endeavours to secure their acquiescence in any scheme\nassociated with idolatrous rites. Neither promises nor threats would\nhave had much influence on them. It was a distinguished member of the\nfamily, the patriarch Abraham, who said: 'I have lift up mine hand unto\nthe Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I\nwill not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not\ntake anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram\nrich.' Vain would all the promises and all the threats of Cheops have\nbeen to men of this spirit. Such men might help him in his plans,\nsuggested, as the history shows, by teachings of their own, but it must\nbe on their own conditions, and those conditions would most certainly\ninclude the utter rejection of idolatrous worship by the king in whose\nbehalf they worked, as well as by all who shared in their labours. It\nseems probable that they convinced both Cheops and Chephren, that unless\nthese kings gave up idolatry, the purpose, whatever it was, which the\npyramid was erected to promote, would not be fulfilled. The mere fact\nthat the Great Pyramid was built either directly at the suggestion of\nthese visitors, or because they had persuaded Cheops of the truth of\nsome important doctrine, shows that they must have gained great\ninfluence over his mind. Rather we may say that he must have been so\nconvinced of their knowledge and power as to have accepted with\nunquestioning confidence all that they told him respecting the\nparticular subject over which they seemed to possess so perfect a\nmastery.\n\nBut having formed the opinion, on grounds sufficiently assured, that the\nstrangers who visited Egypt and superintended the building of the Great\nPyramid were kinsmen of the patriarch Abraham, it is not very difficult\nto decide what was the subject respecting which they had such exact\ninformation. They or their parents had come from the land of the\nChaldaeans, and they were doubtless learned in all the wisdom of their\nChaldaean kinsmen. They were masters, in fact, of the astronomy of their\nday, a science for which the Chaldaeans had shown from the earliest ages\nthe most remarkable aptitude. What the actual extent of their\nastronomical knowledge may have been it would be difficult to say. But\nit is certain, from the exact knowledge which later Chaldaeans possessed\nrespecting long astronomical cycles, that astronomical observations must\nhave been carried on continuously by that people for many hundreds of\nyears. It is highly probable that the astronomical knowledge of the\nChaldaeans in the days of Terah and Abraham was much more accurate than\nthat possessed by the Greeks even after the time of Hipparchus.[24] We\nsee indeed, in the accurate astronomical adjustment of the Great\nPyramid, that the architects must have been skilful astronomers and\nmathematicians; and I may note here, in passing, how strongly this\ncircumstance confirms the opinion that the visitors were kinsmen of\nTerah and Abraham. All we know from Herodotus and Manetho, all the\nevidence from the circumstances connected with the religion of the\npyramid-kings, and the astronomical evidence given by the pyramids\nthemselves, tends to assure us that members of that particular branch of\nthe Chaldaean family which went out from Ur of the Chaldees because they\nwould not worship the gods of the Chaldaeans, extended their wanderings\nto Egypt, and eventually superintended the erection of the Great Pyramid\nso far as astronomical and mathematical relations were concerned.\n\nBut not only have we already decided that the pyramids were not intended\nsolely or chiefly to sub serve the purpose of astronomical\nobservatories, but it is certain that Cheops would not have been\npersonally much interested in any astronomical information which these\nvisitors might be able to communicate. Unless he saw clearly that\nsomething was to be gained from the lore of his visitors, he would not\nhave undertaken to erect any astronomical buildings at their suggestion,\neven if he had cared enough for their knowledge to pay any attention to\nthem whatever. Most probably the reply Cheops would have made to any\ncommunications respecting mere astronomy, would have run much in the\nstyle of the reply made by the Turkish Cadi, Imaum Ali Zade to a friend\nof Layard's who had apparently bored him about double stars and comets:\n'Oh my soul! oh my lamb!' said Ali Zade, 'seek not after the things\nwhich concern thee not. Thou camest unto us, and we welcomed thee: go in\npeace. Of a truth thou hast spoken many words; and there is no harm\ndone, for the speaker is one and the listener is another. After the\nfashion of thy people thou hast wandered from one place to another until\nthou art happy and content in none. Listen, oh my son! There is no\nwisdom equal unto the belief in God! He created the world, and shall we\nliken ourselves unto Him in seeking to penetrate into the mysteries of\nHis creation? Shall we say, Behold this star spinneth round that star,\nand this other star with a tail goeth and cometh in so many years! Let\nit go! He from whose hand it came will guide and direct it. But thou\nwilt say unto me, Stand aside, oh man, for I am more learned than thou\nart, and have seen more things. If thou thinkest that thou art in this\nrespect better than I am, thou art welcome. I praise God that I seek not\nthat which I require not. Thou art learned in the things I care not for;\nand as for that which thou hast seen, I defile it. Will much knowledge\ncreate thee a double belly, or wilt thou seek paradise with thine eyes?'\nSuch, omitting the references to the Creator, would probably have been\nthe reply of Cheops to his visitors, had they only had astronomical\nfacts to present him with. Or, in the plenitude of his kingly power, he\nmight have more decisively rejected their teaching by removing their\nheads.\n\nBut the shepherd-astronomers had knowledge more attractive to offer than\na mere series of astronomical discoveries. Their ancestors had\n\n  Watched from the centres of their sleeping flocks\n  Those radiant Mercuries, that seemed to move\n  Carrying through aether in perpetual round\n  Decrees and resolutions of the gods;\n\nand though the visitors of King Cheops had themselves rejected the\nSabaistic polytheism of their kinsmen, they had not rejected the\ndoctrine that the stars in their courses affect the fortunes of men. We\nknow that among the Jews, probably the direct descendants of the\nshepherd-chiefs who visited Cheops, and certainly close kinsmen of\ntheirs, and akin to them also in their monotheism, the belief in\nastrology was never regarded as a superstition. In fact, we can trace\nvery clearly in the books relating to this people that they believed\nconfidently in the influences of the heavenly bodies. Doubtless the\nvisitors of King Cheops shared the belief of their Chaldaean kinsmen that\nastrology is a true science, 'founded' indeed (as Bacon expresses their\nviews) 'not in reason and physical contemplations, but in the direct\nexperience and observation of past ages.' Josephus records the Jewish\ntradition (though not as a tradition but as a fact) that 'our first\nfather, Adam, was instructed in astrology by divine inspiration,' and\nthat Seth so excelled in the science, that, 'foreseeing the Flood and\nthe destruction of the world thereby, he engraved the fundamental\nprinciples of his art (astrology) in hieroglyphical emblems, for the\nbenefit of after ages, on two pillars of brick and stone.' He says\nfarther on that the Patriarch Abraham, 'having learned the art in\nChaldaea, when he journeyed into Egypt taught the Egyptians the sciences\nof arithmetic and astrology.' Indeed, the stranger called Philitis by\nHerodotus may, for aught that appears, have been Abraham himself; for it\nis generally agreed that the word Philitis indicated the race and\ncountry of the visitors, regarded by the Egyptians as of Philistine\ndescent and arriving from Palestine. However, I am in no way concerned\nto show that the shepherd-astronomers who induced Cheops to build the\nGreat Pyramid were even contemporaries of Abraham and Melchizedek. What\nseems sufficiently obvious is all that I care to maintain, namely, that\nthese shepherd-astronomers were of Chaldaean birth and training, and\ntherefore astrologers, though, unlike their Chaldaean kinsmen, they\nrejected Sabaism or star-worship, and taught the belief in one only\nDeity.\n\nNow, if these visitors were astrologers, who persuaded Cheops, and were\nhonestly convinced themselves, that they could predict the events of any\nman's life by the Chaldaean method of casting nativities, we can readily\nunderstand many circumstances connected with the pyramids which have\nhitherto seemed inexplicable. The pyramid built by a king would no\nlonger be regarded as having reference to his death and burial, but to\nhis birth and life, though after his death it might receive his body.\nEach king would require to have his own nativity-pyramid, built with due\nsymbolical reference to the special celestial influences affecting his\nfortunes. Every portion of the work would have to be carried out under\nspecial conditions, determined according to the mysterious influences\nascribed to the different planets and their varying positions--\n\n        now high, now low, then hid.\n  Progressive, retrograde, or standing still.\n\nIf the work had been intended only to afford the means of predicting the\nking's future, the labour would have been regarded by the monarch as\nwell bestowed. But astrology involved much more than the mere prediction\nof future events. Astrologers claimed the power of ruling the\nplanets--that is, of course, not of ruling the motions of those bodies,\nbut of providing against evil influences or strengthening good\ninfluences which they supposed the celestial orbs to exert in particular\naspects. Thus we can understand that while the mere basement layers of\nthe pyramid would have served for the process of casting the royal\nnativity, with due mystic observances, the further progress of building\nthe pyramid would supply the necessary means and indications for ruling\nthe planets most potent in their influence upon the royal career.\n\nRemembering the mysterious influence which astrologers ascribed to\nspecial numbers, figures, positions, and so forth, the care with which\nthe Great Pyramid was so proportioned as to indicate particular\nastronomical and mathematical relations is at once explained. The four\nsides of the square base were carefully placed with reference to the\ncardinal points, precisely like the four sides of the ordinary square\nscheme of nativity.[25] The eastern side faced the Ascendant, the\nsouthern faced the Mid-heaven, the western faced the Descendant, and the\nnorthern faced the Imum Coeli. Again, we can understand that the\narchitects would have made a circuit of the base correspond in length\nwith the number of days in the year--a relation which, according to\nProf. P. Smyth, is fulfilled in this manner, that the four sides contain\none hundred times as many pyramid inches as there are days in the year.\nThe pyramid inch, again, is itself mystically connected with\nastronomical relations, for its length is equal to the five hundred\nmillionth part of the earth's diameter, to a degree of exactness\ncorresponding well with what we might expect Chaldaean astronomers to\nattain. Prof. Smyth, indeed, believes that it was exactly equal to that\nproportion of the earth's polar diameter--a view which would correspond\nwith his theory that the architects of the Great Pyramid were assisted\nby divine inspiration; but what is certainly known about the sacred\ncubit, which contained twenty-five of these inches, corresponds better\nwith the diameter which the Chaldaean astronomers, if they worked very\ncarefully, would have deduced from observations made in their own\ncountry, on the supposition which they would naturally have made that\nthe earth is a perfect globe, not compressed at the poles. It is not\nindeed at all certain that the sacred cubit bore any reference to the\nearth's dimensions; but this seems tolerably well made out--that the\nsacred cubit was about 25 inches in length, and that the circuit of the\npyramid's base contained a hundred inches for every day of the year.\nRelations such as these are precisely what we might expect to find in\nbuildings having an astrological significance. Similarly, it would\ncorrespond well with the mysticism of astrology that the pyramid should\nbe so proportioned as to make the height be the radius of a circle whose\ncircumference would equal the circuit of the pyramid's base. Again, that\nlong slant tunnel, leading downwards from the pyramid's northern face,\nwould at once find a meaning in this astrological theory. The slant\ntunnel pointed to the pole-star of Cheops' time, when due north below\nthe true pole of the heavens. This circumstance had no observational\nutility. It could afford no indication of time, because a pole-star\nmoves very slowly, and the pole-star of Cheops' day must have been in\nview through that tunnel for more than an hour at a time. But, apart\nfrom the mystical significance which an astrologer would attribute to\nsuch a relation, it may be shown that this slant tunnel is precisely\nwhat the astrologer would require in order to get the horoscope\ncorrectly.\n\nAnother consideration remains to be mentioned which, while strengthening\nthe astrological theory of the pyramids, may bring us even nearer to the\ntrue aim of those who planned and built these structures.\n\nIt is known also that the Chaldaeans from the earliest times pursued the\nstudy of alchemy in connection with astrology, not hoping to discover\nthe philosopher's stone by chemical investigations alone, but by\ncarrying out such investigations under special celestial influence. The\nhope of achieving this discovery, by which he would at once have had the\nmeans of acquiring illimitable wealth, would of itself account for the\nfact that Cheops expended so much labour and material in the erection of\nthe Great Pyramid, seeing that, of necessity, success in the search for\nthe philosopher's stone would be a main feature of his fortunes, and\nwould therefore be astrologically indicated in his nativity-pyramid, or\nperhaps even be secured by following mystical observances proper for\nruling his planets.\n\nThe elixir of life may also have been among the objects which the\nbuilders of the pyramids hoped to discover.\n\nIt may be noticed, as a somewhat significant circumstance, that, in the\naccount given by Ibn Abd Alkohm of the contents of the various pyramids,\nthose assigned to the Great Pyramid relate entirely to astrology and\nassociated mysteries. It is, of course, clear that Abd Alkohm drew\nlargely on his imagination. Yet it seems probable that there was also\nsome basis of tradition for his ideas. And certainly one would suppose\nthat, as he assigned a treasurer to the East pyramid ('a statue of black\nagate, his eyes open and shining, sitting on a throne with a lance'), he\nwould have credited the building with treasure also, had not some\ntradition taught otherwise. But he says that King Saurid placed in the\nEast pyramid, not treasures, but 'divers celestial spheres and stars,\nand what they severally operate in their aspects, and the perfumes which\nare to be used to them, and the books which treat of these matters.'[26]\n\nBut, after all, it must be admitted that the strongest evidence in\nfavour of the astrological (and alchemical) theory of the pyramids is to\nbe found in the circumstance that all other theories seem untenable. The\npyramids were undoubtedly erected for some purpose which was regarded by\ntheir builders as most important. This purpose certainly related to the\npersonal fortunes of the kingly builders. It was worth an enormous\noutlay of money, labour, and material. This purpose was such,\nfurthermore, that each king required to have his own pyramid. It was in\nsome way associated with astronomy, for the pyramids are built with most\naccurate reference to celestial aspects. It also had its mathematical\nand mystical bearings, seeing that the pyramids exhibit mathematical and\nsymbolical peculiarities not belonging to their essentially structural\nrequirements. And lastly, the erection of the pyramids was in some way\nconnected with the arrival of certain learned persons from Palestine,\nand presumably of Chaldaean origin. All these circumstances accord well\nwith the theory I have advanced; while only some of them, and these not\nthe most characteristic, accord with any of the other theories.\nMoreover, no fact known respecting the pyramids or their builders is\ninconsistent with the astrological (and alchemical) theory. On the\nwhole, then, if it cannot be regarded as demonstrated (in its general\nbearing, of course, for we cannot expect any theory about the pyramids\nto be established in minute details), the astrological theory may fairly\nbe described as having a greater degree of probability in its favour\nthan any hitherto advanced.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n_SWEDENBORG'S VISIONS OF OTHER WORLDS._\n\n\nIf it were permitted to men to select a sign whereby they should know\nthat a message came from the Supreme Being, probably the man of science\nwould select for the sign the communication of some scientific fact\nbeyond the knowledge of the day, but admitting of being readily put to\nthe test. The evidence thus obtained in favour of a revelation would\ncorrespond in some sense to that depending on prophecies; but it would\nbe more satisfactory to men having that particular mental bent which is\ncalled the scientific. Whether this turn of mind is inherent or the\nresult of training, it certainly leads men of science to be more\nexacting in considering the value of evidence than any men, except\nperhaps lawyers. In the case of the student of science, St. Paul's\nstatement that 'prophecies' 'shall fail' has been fulfilled, whereas it\nmay be doubted whether evidence from 'knowledge' would in like manner\n'vanish away.' On the contrary, it would grow stronger and stronger, as\nknowledge from observation, from experiment, and from calculation\ncontinually increased. It can scarcely be said that this has happened\nwith such quasi-scientific statements as have actually been associated\nwith revelation. If we regard St. Paul's reference to knowledge as\nrelating to such statements as these, then nothing could be more\ncomplete than the fulfilment of his own prediction, 'Whether there be\nprophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease;\nwhether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.' The evidence from\nprophecies fails for the exact inquirer, who perceives the doubts which\nexist (among the most earnest believers) as to the exact meaning of the\nprophetic words, and even in some cases as to whether prophecies have\nbeen long since fulfilled or relate to events still to come. The\nevidence from 'tongues' has ceased, and those are dust who are said to\nhave spoken in strange tongues. The knowledge which was once thought\nsupernatural has utterly vanished away. But if, in the ages of faith,\nsome of the results of modern scientific research had been revealed, as\nthe laws of the solar system, the great principle of the conservation of\nenergy, or the wave theory of light, or if some of the questions which\nstill remain for men of science to solve had been answered in those\ntimes, the evidence for the student of science would have been\nirresistible. Of course he will be told that even then he would have\nhardened his heart; that the inquiry after truth tending naturally to\ndepravity of mind, he would reject even evidence based on his beloved\nlaws of probability; that his 'wicked and adulterous generation seeketh\n\"in vain\" after a sign,' and that if he will not accept Moses and the\nprophets, neither would he believe though one rose from the dead. Still\nthe desire of the student of science to base his faith on convincing\nevidence (in a matter as important to him as to those who abuse him)\ndoes seem to have something reasonable in it after all. The mental\nqualities which cause him to be less easily satisfied than others, came\nto him in the same way as his bodily qualities; and even if the result\nto which his mental training leads him is as unfortunate as some\nsuppose, that training is not strictly speaking so heinously sinful that\nnothing short of the eternal reprobation meted out to him by earthly\njudges can satisfy divine justice. So that it may be thought not a\nwholly unpardonable sin to speak of a sign which, had it been accorded,\nwould have satisfied even the most exacting student of science. Apart,\ntoo, from all question of faith, the mere scientific interest of\ndivinely inspired communications respecting natural laws and processes\nwould justify a student of science in regarding them as most desirable\nmessages from a being of superior wisdom and benevolence. If prophecies\nand tongues, why not knowledge, as evidence of a divine mission?\n\nSuch thoughts are suggested by the claim of some religious teachers to\nthe possession of knowledge other than that which they could have gained\nby natural means. The claim has usually been quite honest. The teacher\nof religion tests the reality of his mission in simple _a priori_\nconfidence that he has such a mission, and that therefore some one or\nother of the tests he applies will afford the required evidence. To one,\nsays St. Paul, is given the word of wisdom; to another, the word of\nknowledge; to another, faith; to another, the gift of healing; to\nanother, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the\ndiscerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues: and so\nforth. If a man like Mahomet, who believes in his mission to teach,\nfinds that he cannot satisfactorily work miracles--that mountains will\nnot be removed at his bidding--then some other evidence satisfies him of\nthe reality of his mission. Swedenborg, than whom, perhaps, no more\nhonest man ever lived, said and believed that to him had been granted\nthe discerning of spirits. 'It is to be observed,' he said, 'that a man\nmay be instructed by spirits and angels if his interiors be so open as\nto enable him to speak and be in company with them, for man in his\nessence is a spirit, and is with spirits as to his interiors; so that\nhe whose interiors are opened by the Lord may converse with them, as\nman with man. _This privilege I have enjoyed daily now for twelve\nyears._'\n\nIt indicates the fulness of Swedenborg's belief in this privilege that\nhe did not hesitate to describe what the spirits taught him respecting\nmatters which belong rather to science than to faith; though it must be\nadmitted that probably he supposed there was small reason for believing\nthat his statements could ever be tested by the results of scientific\nresearch. The objects to which his spiritual communications related were\nconveniently remote. I do not say this as desiring for one moment to\nsuggest that he purposely selected those objects, and not others which\nmight be more readily examined. He certainly believed in the reality of\nthe communications he described. But possibly there is some law in\nthings visionary, corresponding to the law of mental operation with\nregard to scientific theories; and as the mind theorises freely about a\nsubject little understood, but cautiously where many facts have been\nascertained, so probably exact knowledge of a subject prevents the\noperation of those illusions which are regarded as supernatural\ncommunications. It is in a dim light only that the active imagination\npictures objects which do not really exist; in the clear light of day\nthey can no longer be imagined. So it is with mental processes.\n\nProbably there is no subject more suitable in this sense for the\nvisionary than that of life in other worlds. It has always had an\nattraction for imaginative minds, simply because it is enwrapped in so\nprofound a mystery; and there has been little to restrain the fancy,\nbecause so little is certainly known of the physical condition of other\nworlds. Recently, indeed, a somewhat sudden and severe check has been\nplaced on the liveliness of imagination which had enabled men formerly\nto picture to themselves the inhabitants of other orbs in space.\nSpectroscopic analysis and exact telescopic scrutiny will not permit\nsome speculations to be entertained which formerly met with favour. Yet\neven now there has been but a slight change of scene and time. If men\ncan no longer imagine inhabitants of one planet because it is too hot,\nor of another because it is too cold, of one body because it is too\ndeeply immersed in vaporous masses, or of another because it has neither\natmosphere nor water, we have only to speculate about the unseen worlds\nwhich circle round those other suns, the stars; or, instead of changing\nthe region of space where we imagine worlds, we can look backward to the\ntime when planets now cold and dead were warm with life, or forward to\nthe distant future when planets now glowing with fiery heat shall have\ncooled down to a habitable condition.\n\nSwedenborg's imaginative mind seems to have fully felt the charm of this\ninteresting subject. It was, indeed, because of the charm which he found\nin it, that he was readily persuaded into the belief that knowledge had\nbeen supernaturally communicated to him respecting it. 'Because I had a\ndesire,' he says, 'to know if there are other earths, and to learn their\nnature and the character of their inhabitants, it was granted me by the\nLord to converse and have intercourse with spirits and angels who had\ncome from other earths, with some for a day, with some for a week, and\nwith some for months. From them I have received information respecting\nthe earths from and near which they are, the modes of life, customs and\nworship of their inhabitants, besides various other particulars of\ninterest, all which, having come to my knowledge in this way, I can\ndescribe as things which I have seen and heard.'\n\nIt is interesting (psychologically) to notice how the reasoning which\nhad convinced Swedenborg of the existence of other inhabited worlds is\nattributed by him to the spirits. 'It is well known in the other life,'\nhe says, 'that there are many earths with men upon them; for there (that\nis, in the spiritual life) every one who, from a love of truth and\nconsequent use, desires it, is allowed to converse with the spirits of\nother earths, so as to be assured that there is a plurality of worlds,\nand be informed that the human race is not confined to one earth only,\nbut extends to numberless earths.... I have occasionally conversed on\nthis subject with the spirits of our earth, and the result of our\nconversation was that a man of enlarged understanding may conclude from\nvarious considerations that there are many earths with human inhabitants\nupon them. For it is an inference of reason that masses so great as the\nplanets are, some of which exceed this earth in magnitude, are not empty\nbodies, created only to be carried in their motion round the sun, and to\nshine with their scanty light for the benefit of one earth only; but\nthat they must have a nobler use. He who believes, as every one ought to\nbelieve, that the Deity created the universe for no other end than the\nexistence of the human race, and of heaven from it (for the human race\nis the seminary of heaven), must also believe that wherever there is an\nearth there are human inhabitants. That the planets which are visible to\nus, being within the boundary of our solar system, are earths, may\nappear from various considerations. They are bodies of earthy matter,\nbecause they reflect the sun's light, and when seen through the\ntelescope appear, not as stars shining with a flaming lustre, but as\nearths, variegated with obscure spots. Like our earth, they are carried\nround the sun by a progressive motion, through the path of the Zodiac,\nwhence they have years and seasons of the year, which are spring,\nsummer, autumn, and winter; and they rotate upon their axes, which makes\ndays, and times of the day, as morning, midday, evening, and night. Some\nof them also have satellites, which perform their revolutions about\ntheir globes, as the moon does about ours. The planet Saturn, as being\nfarthest from the sun, has besides an immense luminous ring, which\nsupplies that earth with much, though reflected, light. How is it\npossible for anyone acquainted with these facts, and who thinks from\nreason, to assert that such bodies are uninhabited?'\n\nRemembering that this reasoning was urged by the spirits, and that\nduring twelve years Swedenborg's interiors had been opened in such sort\nthat he could converse with spirits from other worlds, it is surprising\nthat he should have heard nothing about Uranus or Neptune, to say\nnothing of the zone of asteroids, or again, of planets as yet unknown\nwhich may exist outside the path of Neptune. He definitely commits\nhimself, it will be observed, to the statement that Saturn is the planet\nfarthest from the sun. And elsewhere, in stating where in these\nspiritual communications the 'idea' of each planet was conceived to be\nsituated, he leaves no room whatever for Uranus and Neptune, and makes\nno mention of other bodies in the solar system than those known in his\nday. This cannot have been because the spirits from then unknown planets\ndid not feel themselves called upon to communicate with the spirit of\none who knew nothing of their home, for he received visitors from worlds\nin the starry heavens far beyond human ken. It would almost seem, though\nto the faithful Swedenborgian the thought will doubtless appear very\nwicked, that the system of Swedenborg gave no place to Uranus and\nNeptune, simply because he knew nothing about those planets. Otherwise,\nwhat a noble opportunity there would have been for establishing the\ntruth of Swedenborgian doctrines by revealing to the world the existence\nof planets hitherto unknown. Before the reader pronounces this a task\nbeneath the dignity of the spirits and angels who taught Swedenborg it\nwill be well for him to examine the news which they actually imparted.\n\nI may as well premise, however, that it does not seem to me worth while\nto enter here at any length into Swedenborg's descriptions of the\ninhabitants of other worlds, because what he has to say on this subject\nis entirely imaginative. There is a real interest for us in his ideas\nrespecting the condition of the planets, because those ideas were based\n(though unconsciously) upon the science of his day, in which he was no\nmean proficient. And even where his mysticism went beyond what his\nscientific attainments suggested, a psychological interest attaches to\nthe workings of his imagination. It is as curious a problem to trace his\nideas to their origin as it sometimes is to account for the various\nphases of a fantastic dream, such a dream, for instance, as that which\nArmadale, the doctor, and Midwinter, in 'Armadale,' endeavour to connect\nwith preceding events. But Swedenborg's visions of the behaviour and\nappearance of the inhabitants of other earths have little interest,\nbecause it is hopeless to attempt to account for even their leading\nfeatures. For instance, what can we make of such a passage as the\nfollowing, relating to the spirits who came from Mercury?--'Some of them\nare desirous to appear, not like the spirits of other earths as men, but\nas crystalline globes. Their desire to appear so, although they do not,\narises from the circumstance that the knowledges of things immaterial\nare in the other life represented by crystals.'\n\nYet some even of these more fanciful visions significantly indicate the\nnature of Swedenborg's philosophy. One can recognise his disciples and\nhis opponents among the inhabitants of various favoured and unhappy\nworlds, and one perceives how the wiser and more dignified of his\nspiritual visitors are made to advocate his own views, and to deride\nthose of his adversaries. Some of the teachings thus circuitously\nadvanced are excellent.\n\nFor instance, Swedenborg's description of the inhabitants of Mercury and\ntheir love of abstract knowledge contains an instructive lesson. 'The\nspirits of Mercury imagine,' he says, 'that they know so much, that it\nis almost impossible to know more. But it has been told them by the\nspirits of our earth, that they do not know many things, but few, and\nthat the things which they know not are comparatively infinite, and in\nrelation to those they do know are as the waters of the largest ocean to\nthose of the smallest fountain; and further, that the first advance to\nwisdom is to know, acknowledge, and perceive that what we do know,\ncompared with what we do not know, is so little as hardly to amount to\nanything.'[27] So far we may suppose that Swedenborg presents his own\nideas, seeing that he is describing what has been told the Mercurial\nspirits by the spirits of our earth, of whom (during these spiritual\nconversations) he was one. But he proceeds to describe how angels were\nallowed to converse with the Mercurial spirits in order to convince them\nof their error. 'I saw another angel,' says he, after describing one\nsuch conversation, 'conversing with them; he appeared at some altitude\nto the right; he was from our earth, and he enumerated very many things\nof which they were ignorant.... As they had been proud on account of\ntheir knowledges, on hearing this they began to humble themselves. Their\nhumiliation was represented by the sinking of the company which they\nformed, for that company then appeared as a volume or roll, ... as if\nhollowed in the middle and raised at the sides.... They were told what\nthat signified, that is, what they thought in their humiliation, and\nthat those who appeared elevated at the sides were not as yet in any\nhumiliation. Then I saw that the volume was separated, and that those\nwho were not in humiliation were remanded back towards their earth, the\nrest remaining.'\n\nLittle being known to Swedenborg, as indeed little is known to the\nastronomers of our own time, about Mercury, we find little in the\nvisions relating to that planet which possesses any scientific interest.\nHe asked the inhabitants who were brought to him in visions about the\nsun of the system, and they replied that it looks larger from Mercury\nthan as seen from other worlds. This of course was no news to\nSwedenborg. They explained further, that the inhabitants enjoy a\nmoderate temperature, without extremes of heat or cold. 'It was given to\nme,' proceeds Swedenborg, 'to tell them that it was so provided by the\nLord, that they might not be exposed to excessive heat from their\ngreater proximity to the sun, since heat does not arise from the sun's\nnearness, but from the height and density of the atmosphere, as appears\nfrom the cold on high mountains even in hot climates; also that heat is\nvaried according to the direct or oblique incidence of the sun's rays,\nas is plain from the seasons of winter and summer in every region.' It\nis curious to find thus advanced, in a sort of lecture addressed to\nvisionary Mercurials, a theory which crops up repeatedly in the present\nday, because the difficulty which suggests it is dealt with so\nunsatisfactorily for the most part in our text-books of science.\nContinually we hear of some new paradoxist who propounds as a novel\ndoctrine the teaching that the atmosphere, and not the sun, is the cause\nof heat. The mistake was excusable in Swedenborg's time. In fact it so\nchanced that, apart from the obvious fact on which the mistake is\nusually based--the continued presence, namely, of snow on the summits of\nhigh mountains even in the torrid zone--it had been shown shortly before\nby Newton, that the light fleecy clouds seen sometimes even in the\nhottest weather above the wool-pack or cumulus clouds are composed of\nminute crystals of ice. Seeing that these tiny crystals can exist under\nthe direct rays of the sun in hot summer weather, many find it difficult\nto understand how those rays can of themselves have any heating power.\nYet in reality the reasoning addressed by Swedenborg to his Mercurial\nfriends was entirely erroneous. If he could have adventured as far forth\ninto time as he did into space, and could have attended in the spirit\nthe lectures of one John Tyndall, a spirit of our earth, he would have\nhad this matter rightly explained to him. In reality the sun's heat is\nas effective directly at the summit of the highest mountain as at the\nsea-level. A thermometer exposed to the sun in the former position\nindicates indeed a slightly higher temperature than one similarly\nexposed to the sun (when at the same altitude) at the sea-level. But the\nair does not get warmed to the same degree, simply because, owing to\nits rarity and relative dryness, it fails to retain any portion of the\nheat which passes through it.\n\nIt is interesting to notice how Swedenborg's scientific conceptions of\nthe result of the (relatively) airless condition of our moon suggested\npeculiar fancies respecting the lunar inhabitants. Interesting, I mean,\npsychologically: for it is curious to see scientific and fanciful\nconceptions thus unconsciously intermingled. Of the conscious\nintermingling of such conceptions instances are common enough. The\neffects of the moon's airless condition have been often made the subject\nof fanciful speculations. The reader will remember how Scheherazade, in\n'The Poet at the Breakfast Table,' runs on about the moon. 'Her delight\nwas unbounded, and her curiosity insatiable. If there were any living\ncreatures there, what odd things they must be. They couldn't have any\nlungs nor any hearts. What a pity! Did they ever die? How could they\nexpire if they didn't breathe? Burn up? No air to burn in. Tumble into\nsome of those horrid pits, perhaps, and break all to bits. She wondered\nhow the young people there liked it, or whether there were any young\npeople there. Perhaps nobody was young and nobody was old, but they were\nlike mummies all of them--what an idea!--two mummies making love to each\nother! So she went on in a rattling, giddy kind of way, for she was\nexcited by the strange scene in which she found herself, and quite\nastonished the young astronomer with her vivacity.' But Swedenborg's\nfirm belief that the fancies engendered in his mind were scientific\nrealities is very different from the conscious play of fancy in the\npassage just quoted. It must be remembered that Swedenborg regarded his\nvisions with as much confidence as though they were revelations made by\nmeans of scientific instruments; nay, with even more confidence, for he\nknew that scientific observations may be misunderstood, whereas he was\nfully persuaded that his visions were miraculously provided for his\nenlightenment, and that therefore he would not be allowed to\nmisunderstand aught that was thus revealed to him.\n\n'It is well known to spirits and angels,' he says, 'that there are\ninhabitants in the moon, and in the moons or satellites which revolve\nabout Jupiter and Saturn. Even those who have not seen and conversed\nwith spirits who are from them entertain no doubt of their being\ninhabited, for they, too, are earths, and where there is an earth there\nis man; man being the end for which every earth exists, and without an\nend nothing was made by the Great Creator. Every one who thinks from\nreason in any degree enlightened, must see that the human race is the\nfinal cause of creation.'\n\nThe moon being inhabited then by human beings, but being very\ninsufficiently supplied with air, it necessarily follows that these\nhuman beings must be provided in some way with the means of existing in\nthat rare and tenuous atmosphere. Tremendous powers of inspiration and\nexpiration would be required to make that air support the life of the\nhuman body. Although Swedenborg could have had no knowledge of the exact\nway in which breathing supports life (for Priestley was his junior by\nnearly half a century), yet he must clearly have perceived that the\nquantity of air inspired has much to do with the vitalising power of the\nindraught. No ordinary human lungs could draw in an adequate supply of\nair from such an atmosphere as the moon's; but by some great increase of\nbreathing power it might be possible to live there: at least, in\nSwedenborg's time there was no reason for supposing otherwise. Reason,\nthen, having convinced him that the lunar inhabitants must possess\nextraordinary breathing apparatus, and presumably most powerful voices,\nimagination presented them to him accordingly. 'Some spirits appeared\noverhead,' he says, 'and thence were heard voices like thunder; for\ntheir voices sounded precisely like thunder from the clouds after\nlightning. I supposed it was a great multitude of spirits who had the\nart of giving voices with such a sound. The more simple spirits who were\nwith me derided them, which greatly surprised me. But the cause of their\nderision was soon discovered, which was, that the spirits who thundered\nwere not many, but few, and were as little as children, and that on\nformer occasions they (the thunderers) had terrified them by such\nsounds, and yet were unable to do them the least harm. That I might know\ntheir character, some of them descended from on high, where they\nthundered; and, what surprised me, one carried another on his back, and\nthe two thus approached me. Their faces appeared not unhandsome, but\nlonger than those of other spirits. In stature they were like children\nof seven years old, but the frame was more robust, so that they were\nlike men. It was told me by the angels that they were from the moon. He\nwho was carried by the other came to me, applying himself to my left\nside under the elbow, and thence spoke. He said, that when they utter\ntheir voices they thunder in this way,'--and it seems likely enough that\nif there are any living speaking beings in the moon, their voice, could\nthey visit the earth, would be found to differ very markedly from the\nordinary human voice. 'In the spiritual world their thunderous voices\nhave their use. For by their thundering the spirits from the moon\nterrify spirits who are inclined to injure them, so that the lunar\nspirits go in safety where they will. To convince me the sound they make\nwas of this kind, he (the spirit who was carried by the other) retired,\nbut not out of sight, and thundered in like manner. They showed,\nmoreover, that the voice was thundered by being uttered from the abdomen\nlike an eructation. It was perceived that this arose from the\ncircumstance that the inhabitants of the moon do not, like the\ninhabitants of other earths, speak from the lungs, but from the abdomen,\nand thus from air collected there, the reason of which is that the\natmosphere with which the moon is surrounded is not like that of other\nearths.'\n\nIn his intercourse with spirits from Jupiter, Swedenborg heard of\nanimals larger than those that live on the earth. It has been a\nfavourite idea of many believers in other worlds than ours, that though\nin each world the same races of animals exist, they would be differently\nproportioned; and there has been much speculation as to the probable\nsize of men and other animals in worlds much larger or much smaller than\nthe earth. When as yet ideas about other worlds were crude, the idea\nprevailed that giants exist in the larger orbs, and pygmies in the\nsmaller. Whether this idea had its origin in conceptions as to the\neternal fitness of things or not, does not clearly appear. It seems\ncertainly at first view natural enough to suppose that the larger beings\nwould want more room and so inhabit the larger dwelling-places. It was a\npleasing thought that, if we could visit Jupiter or Saturn, we should\nfind the human inhabitants there\n\n  In bigness to surpass earth's giant sons;\n\nbut that if we could visit our moon or Mercury, or whatever smaller\nworlds there are, we should find men\n\n  Now less than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room\n  Throng numberless, like that pygmaean race\n  Beyond the Indian mount; or fairy elves,\n  Whose midnight revels, by a forest side\n  Or fountain, some belated peasant sees,\n  Or dreams he sees.\n\nLater the theory was started that the size of beings in various worlds\ndepends on the amount of light received from the central sun. Thus\nWolfius asserted that the inhabitants of Jupiter are nearly fourteen\nfeet high, which he proved by comparing the quantity of sunlight which\nreaches the Jovians with that which we Terrenes receive. Recently,\nhowever, it has been noted that the larger the planet, the smaller in\nall probability must be the inhabitants, if any. For if there are two\nplanets of the same density but unequal size, gravity must be greater at\nthe surface of the larger planet, and where gravity is great large\nanimals are cumbered by their weight. It is easy to see this by\ncomparing the muscular strength of two men similarly proportioned, but\nunequal in height. Suppose one man five feet in height, the other six;\nthen the cross section of any given muscle will be less for the former\nthan for the latter in the proportion of twenty-five (five times five)\nto thirty-six (six times six). Roughly, the muscular strength of the\nbigger man will be half as great again as that of the smaller. But the\nweights of the men will be proportioned as 125 (five times five times\nfive) to 216 (six times six times six), so that the weight of the bigger\nman exceeds that of the smaller nearly as seven exceeds four, or by\nthree-fourths. The taller man exceeds the smaller, then, much more in\nweight than he does in strength; he is accordingly less active in\nproportion to his size. Within certain limits, of course, size increases\na man's effective as well as his real strength. For instance, our tall\nman in the preceding illustration cannot lift his own weight as readily\nas the small man can lift his; but he can lift a weight of three hundred\npounds as easily as the small man can lift a weight of two hundred\npounds. When we get beyond certain limits of height, however, we get\nabsolute weakness as the result of the increase of weight. Swift's\nBrobdingnags, for instance, would have been unable to stand upright; for\nthey were six times as tall as men, and therefore each Brobdingnag\nwould have weighed 216 times as much as a man, but would have possessed\nonly thirty-six times the muscular power. Their weight would have been\ngreater, then, in a sixfold greater degree than their strength, and, so\nfar as their mere weight was concerned, their condition would have\nresembled that of an ordinary man under a load five times exceeding his\nown weight. As no man could walk or stand upright under such a load, so\nthe Brobdingnags would have been powerless to move, despite, or rather\nbecause of, their enormous stature. Applying the general considerations\nhere enunciated to the question of the probable size of creatures like\nourselves in other planets, we see that men in Jupiter should be much\nsmaller, men in Mercury much larger, than men on the earth. So also with\nother animals.\n\nBut Swedenborg's spirit visitors from these planets taught differently.\n'The horses of our earth,' he says, 'when seen by the spirits of\nJupiter, appeared to me smaller than usual, though rather robust; which\narose from the idea those spirits had respecting them. They informed me\nthat among them there are animals similar, though much larger; but that\nthey are wild, and in the woods, and that when they come in sight they\ncause terror though they are harmless; they added that their terror of\nthem is natural or innate.'[28] On the other hand the inhabitants of\nMercury, who might be thirteen feet high yet as active as our men,\nappeared slenderer than Terrene men. 'I was desirous to know,' says\nSwedenborg, 'what kind of face and person the people in Mercury have,\ncompared with those of the people on our earth. There therefore stood\nbefore me a female exactly resembling the women on that earth. Her face\nwas beautiful, but it was smaller than that of a woman of our earth; she\nwas more slender, but of equal height; she wore a linen head-dress, not\nartfully yet gracefully disposed. A man also was presented. He, too, was\nmore slender than the men of our earth; he wore a garment of deep blue,\nclosely fitted to his body without folds or flowing skirts. Such, I\nlearn, were the personal form and costume of the humans of that earth.\nAfterwards there was shown me a species of the oxen and cows, which did\nnot indeed differ much from those on our earth, except that they were\nsmaller, and made some approach to the stag and hind species.' We have\nseen, too, that the lunar spirits were no larger than children seven\nyears old.\n\nOne passage of Swedenborg's description of Jupiter is curious. 'Although\non that earth,' he says, 'spirits speak with men' (_i.e._ with Jovian\nmen) 'man in his turn does not speak with spirits, except to say, when\ninstructed, _that he will do so no more_,'--which we should regard as a\nbull if it were not news from the Jovian spirit world. 'Nor is man\nallowed to tell anyone that a spirit has spoken to him; if he does so,\nhe is punished. Those spirits of Jupiter when they were with me, at\nfirst supposed they were with a man of their own earth; but when in my\nturn I spoke with them, and thought of publishing what passed between us\nand so relating it to others, then, because they were not allowed to\nchastise me, they discovered they were with a stranger.'\n\nIt has been a favourite idea with those who delight in the argument from\ndesign, that the moons of the remoter planets have been provided for the\nexpress purpose of making up for the small amount of sunlight which\nreaches those planets. Jupiter receives only about one twenty-seventh\npart of the light which we receive from the sun; but then, has he not\nfour moons to make his nights glorious? Saturn is yet farther away from\nthe sun, and receives only the ninetieth part of the light we get from\nthe sun; but then he has eight moons and his rings, and the nocturnal\nglory of his skies must go far to compensate the Saturnians for the\nsmall quantity of sunlight they receive. The Saturnian spirits who\nvisited Swedenborg were manifestly indoctrinated with these ideas. For\nthey informed him that the nocturnal light of Saturn is so great that\nsome Saturnians worship it, calling it the Lord. These wicked spirits\nare separated from the rest, and are not tolerated by them. 'The\nnocturnal light,' say the spirits, 'comes from the immense ring which at\na distance encircles that earth, and from the moons which are called the\nsatellites of Saturn.' And again, being questioned further 'concerning\nthe great ring which appears from our earth to rise above the horizon of\nthat planet, and to vary its situations, they said that it does not\nappear to them as a ring, but only as a snow-white substance in heaven\nin various directions.' Unfortunately for our faith in the veracity of\nthese spirits, it is certain that the moons of Saturn cannot give nearly\nso much light as ours, while the rings are much more effective as\ndarkeners than as illuminators. One can readily calculate the apparent\nsize of each of the moons as seen from Saturn, and thence show that the\neight discs of the moons together are larger than our moon's disc in\nabout the proportion of forty-five to eight. So that if they were all\nshining as brightly as our full moon and all full at the same time,\ntheir combined light would exceed hers in that degree. But they are not\nilluminated as our moon is. They are illuminated by the same remote sun\nwhich illuminates Saturn, while our moon is illuminated by a sun giving\nher as much light as we ourselves receive. Our moon then is illuminated\nninety times more brightly than the moons of Saturn, and as her disc is\nless than all theirs together, not as one to ninety, but as sixteen to\nninety, it follows that all the Saturnian moons, if full at the same\ntime, would reflect to Saturn one-sixteenth part of the light which we\nreceive from the full moon.[29] As regards the rings of Saturn, nothing\ncan be more certain than that they tend much more to deprive Saturn of\nlight then to make up by reflection for the small amount of light which\nSaturn receives directly from the sun. The part of the ring which lies\nbetween the planet and the sun casts a black shadow upon Saturn, this\nshadow sometimes covering an extent of surface many times exceeding the\nentire surface of our earth. The shadow thus thrown upon the planet\ncreeps slowly, first one way, then another, northwards and southwards\nover the illuminated hemisphere of the planet (as pictured in the 13th\nplate of my treatise on Saturn), requiring for its passage from the\narctic to the antarctic regions and back again to the arctic regions of\nthe planet, a period nearly equal to that of a generation of terrestrial\nmen. Nearly thirty of our years the process lasts, during half of which\ntime the northern hemisphere suffers, and during the other half the\nsouthern. The shadow band, which be it remembered stretches right\nathwart the planet from the extreme eastern to the extreme western side\nof the illuminated hemisphere, is so broad during the greater part of\nthe time that in some regions (those corresponding to our temperate\nzones) the shadow takes two years in passing, during which time the sun\ncannot be seen at all, unless for a few moments through some chinks in\nthe rings, which are known to be not solid bodies, but made up of\nclosely crowded small moons. And the slow passage of this fearful\nshadow, which advances at the average rate of some twenty miles a day,\nbut yet hangs for years over the regions athwart which it sweeps, occurs\nin the very season when the sun's small direct supply of heat would\nrequire to be most freely compensated by nocturnal light--in the winter\nseason, namely, of the planet. Moreover, not only during the time of the\nshadow's passage, but during the entire winter half of the Saturnian\nyear, the ring reflects no light during the night time, the sun being on\nthe other or summer side of the ring's plane.[30] The only nocturnal\neffect which would be observable would be the obliteration of the stars\ncovered by the ring system. It is strange that, this being so, the\nspirits from Saturn should have made no mention of the circumstance;\nand even more strange that these spirits and others should have asserted\nthat the moons and rings of Saturn compensate for the small amount of\nlight directly received from the sun. Most certainly a Swedenborg of our\nown time would find the spirits from Saturn more veracious and more\ncommunicative about these matters, though even what _he_ would hear from\nthe spirits would doubtless appear to sceptics of the twenty-first\ncentury to be no more than he could have inferred from the known facts\nof the science of his day.\n\nBut Swedenborg was not content merely to receive visits from the\ninhabitants of other planets in the solar system. He was visited also by\nthe spirits of earths in the starry heaven; nay, he was enabled to visit\nthose earths himself. For man, even while living in the world, 'is a\nspirit as to his interiors, the body which he carries about in the world\nonly serving him for performing functions in this natural or terrestrial\nsphere, which is the lowest.' And to certain men it is granted not only\nto converse as a spirit with angels and spirits, but to traverse in a\nspiritual way the vast distances which separate world from world and\nsystem from system, all the while remaining in the body. Swedenborg was\none of these. 'The interiors of my spirit,' he says, 'are opened by the\nLord, so that while I am in the body I can at the same time be with\nangels in heaven, and not only converse with them, but behold the\nwonderful things which are there and describe them, that henceforth it\nmay no more be said, \"Who ever came from heaven to assure us it exists\nand tell us what is there?\" He who is unacquainted with the arcana of\nheaven cannot believe that man can see earths so remote, and give any\naccount of them from sensible experience. But let him know that spaces\nand distances, and consequently progressions, existing in the natural\nworld, in their origin and first causes are changes of the state of the\ninteriors; that with angels and spirits progressions appear according to\nchanges of state; and that by changes of state they may be apparently\ntranslated from one place to another, and from one earth to another,\neven to earths at the boundaries of the universe; so likewise may man as\nto his spirit, his body still remaining in its place. This has been the\ncase with me.'\n\nBefore describing his visits to earths in the starry heavens, Swedenborg\nis careful to indicate the probability that such earths exist. 'It is\nwell known to the learned world,' he says, 'that every star is a sun in\nits place, remaining fixed like the sun of our earth.' The proper\nmotions of the stars had, alas! not been discovered in Swedenborg's day,\nnor does he seem to have been aware what a wild chase he was really\nentering upon in his spiritual progressions. Conceive the pursuit of\nSirius or Vega as either sun rushed through space with a velocity of\nthirty or forty miles in every second of time! To resume, however, the\naccount which Swedenborg gives of the ideas of the learned world of his\nday. 'It is the distance which makes a star appear in a small form;\nconsequently' (the logical necessity is not manifest, however) 'each\nstar, like the sun of our system, has around it planets which are\nearths; and the reason these are not visible to us is because of their\nimmense distance and their having no light but from their own star,\nwhich light cannot be reflected so far as to reach us.' 'To what other\nend,' proceeds this most convincing reasoning, 'can be so immense a\nheaven with such a multitude of stars? For man is the end for which the\nuniverse was created. It has been ascertained by calculation that\nsupposing there were in the universe a million earths, and on every\nearth three hundred millions of men and two hundred generations within\nsix thousand years, and that to every man or spirit was allotted a space\nof three cubic ells, the collective number of men or spirits could not\noccupy a space equal to a thousandth part of this earth, thus not more\nthan that occupied by one of the satellites of Jupiter or Saturn; a\nspace on the universe almost undiscernible, for a satellite is hardly\nvisible to the naked eye. What would this be for the Creator of the\nuniverse, to whom the whole universe filled with earths could not be\nenough' (for what?), 'seeing that he is infinite.' However, it is not on\nthis reasoning alone that Swedenborg relies. He tells us, honestly\nbeyond all doubt, that he knows the truth of what he relates. 'The\ninformation I am about to give,' he says, 'respecting the earths in the\nstarry heaven is from experimental testimony; from which it will\nlikewise appear how I was translated thither as to my spirit, the body\nremaining in its place.'\n\nHis progress in his first star-hunt was to the right, and continued for\nabout two hours. He found the boundary of our solar system marked first\nby a white but thick cloud, next by a fiery smoke ascending from a great\nchasm. Here some guards appeared, who stopped some of the company,\nbecause these had not, like Swedenborg and the rest, received permission\nto pass. They not only stopped those unfortunates, but tortured them,\nconduct for which terrestrial analogues might possibly be discovered.\n\nHaving reached another system, he asked the spirits of one of the earths\nthere how large their sun was and how it appeared. They said it was less\nthan the sun of our earth, and has a flaming appearance. Our sun, in\nfact, is larger than other suns in space, for from that earth starry\nheavens are seen, and a star larger than the rest appears, which, say\nthose spirits, 'was declared from heaven' to be the sun of Swedenborg's\nearthly home.\n\nWhat Swedenborg saw upon that earth has no special interest. The men\nthere, though haughty, are loved by their respective wives because they,\nthe men, are good. But their goodness does not appear very manifest from\nanything in the narrative. The only man seen by Swedenborg took from his\nwife 'the garment which she wore, and threw it over his own shoulders;\nloosening the lower part, which flowed down to his feet like a robe\n(much as a man of our earth might be expected to loosen the tie-back of\nthe period, if he borrowed it in like manner) he thus walked about\nclad.'\n\nHe next visited an earth circling round a star, which he learned was one\nof the smaller sort, not far from the equator. Its greater distance was\nplain from the circumstance that Swedenborg was two days in reaching it.\nIn this earth he very nearly fell into a quarrel with the spirits. For\nhearing that they possess remarkable keenness of vision, he 'compared\nthem with eagles which fly aloft, and enjoy a clear and extensive view\nof objects beneath.' At this they were indignant, supposing, poor\nspirits, 'that he compared them to eagles as to their rapacity, and\nconsequently thought them wicked.' He hastened to explain, however, that\nhe 'did not liken them to eagles as to their rapacity, but as to\nsharpsightedness.'\n\nSwedenborg's account of a third earth in the star-depths contains a very\npretty idea for temples and churches. The temples in that earth 'are\nconstructed,' he says, of trees, not cut down, but growing in the place\nwhere they were first planted. On that earth, it seems, there are trees\nof an extraordinary size and height; these they set in rows when young,\nand arrange in such an order that they may serve when they grow up to\nform porticoes and colonnades. In the meanwhile, by cutting and pruning,\nthey fit and prepare the tender shoots to entwine one with another, and\njoin together so as to form the groundwork and floor of the temple to be\nconstructed, and to rise at the sides as walls, and above to bend into\narches to form the roof. In this manner they construct the temple with\nadmirable art, elevating it high above the ground. They prepare also an\nascent into it, by continuous branches of the trees, extended from the\ntrunk and firmly connected together. Moreover, they adorn the temple\nwithout and within in various ways, by disposing the foliage into\nparticular forms; thus they build entire groves. But it was not\npermitted me to see the nature of these temples, only I was informed\nthat the light of their sun is let in by apertures amongst the branches,\nand is everywhere transmitted through crystals; whereby the light\nfalling on the walls is refracted in colours like those of the rainbow,\nparticularly blue and orange, of which they are fondest. Such is their\narchitecture, which they prefer to the most magnificent palaces of our\nearth.'\n\nOther earths in the starry heavens were visited by Swedenborg, but the\nabove will serve sufficiently to illustrate the nature of his\nobservations. One statement, by the way, was made to him which must have\nseemed unlikely ever to be contravened, but which has been shown in our\ntime to be altogether erroneous. In the fourth star-world he visited, he\nwas told that that earth, which travels round its sun in 200 days of\nfifteen hours each, is one of the least in the universe, being scarcely\n500 German miles, say 2000 English miles, in circumference. This would\nmake its diameter about 640 English miles. But there is not one of the\nwhole family of planetoids which has a diameter so great as this, and\nmany of these earths must be less than fifty miles in diameter. Now\nSwedenborg remarks that he had his information from the angels, 'who\nmade a comparison in all these particulars with things of a like nature\non our earth, according to what they saw in me or in my memory. Their\nconclusions were formed by angelic ideas, whereby are instantly known\nthe measure of space and time in a just proportion with respect to space\nand time elsewhere. Angelic ideas, which are spiritual, in such\ncalculations infinitely excel human ideas, which are natural.' He must\ntherefore have met, unfortunately, with untruthful angels.\n\nThe real source of Swedenborg's inspirations will be tolerably\nobvious--to all, at least, who are not Swedenborgians. But our account\nof his visions would not be complete in a psychological sense without a\nbrief reference to the personal allusions which the spirits and angels\nmade during their visits or his wanderings. His distinguished rival,\nChristian Wolf, was encountered as a spirit by spirits from Mercury, who\n'perceived that what he said did not rise above the sensual things of\nthe natural man, because in speaking he thought of honour, and was\ndesirous, as in the world (for in the other world every one is like his\nformer self), to connect various things into series, and from these\nagain continually to deduce others, and so form several chains of such,\nwhich they did not see or acknowledge to be true, and which, therefore,\nthey declared to be chains which neither cohered in themselves nor with\nthe conclusions, calling them the obscurity of authority;' so they\nceased to question him further, and presently left him. Similarly, a\nspirit who in this world had been a 'prelate and a preacher,' and 'very\npathetic, so that he could deeply move his hearers,' got no hearing\namong the spirits of a certain earth in the starry heavens; for they\nsaid they could tell 'from the tone of the voice whether a discourse\ncame from the heart or not;' and as his discourse came not from the\nheart, 'he was unable to teach them, whereupon he was silent.'\nConvenient thus to have spirits and angels to confirm our impressions of\nother men, living or dead.\n\nApart from the psychological interest attaching to Swedenborg's strange\nvision, one cannot but be strongly impressed by the idea pervading them,\nthat to beings suitably constituted all that takes place in other worlds\nmight be known. Modern science recognises a truth here; for in that\nmysterious ether which occupies all space, messages are at all times\ntravelling by which the history of every orb is constantly recorded. No\nworld, however remote or insignificant; no period, however distant--but\nhas its history thus continually proclaimed in ever widening waves. Nay,\nby these waves also (to beings who could read their teachings aright)\nthe future is constantly indicated. For, as the waves which permeate the\nether could only be situated as they actually are, at any moment,\nthrough past processes, each one of which is consequently indicated by\nthose ethereal waves, so also there can be but one series of events in\nthe future, as the sequel of the relations actually indicated by the\nethereal undulations. These, therefore, speak as definitely and\ndistinctly of the future as of the past. Could we but rid us of the\ngross habiliments of flesh, and by some new senses be enabled to feel\neach order of ethereal undulations, even of those only which reach our\nearth, all knowledge of the past and future would be within our power.\nThe consciousness of this underlies the fancies of Swedenborg, just as\nit underlies the thought of him who sang--\n\n  There's not an orb which thou behold'st\n  But in his motion like an angel sings,\n  Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubim.\n  But while this muddy vesture of decay\n  Doth grossly close us in, we cannot hear it.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n_OTHER WORLDS AND OTHER UNIVERSES._\n\n     If any one shall gravely tell me that I have spent my time idly in\n     a vain and fruitless inquiry after what I can never become sure of,\n     the answer is that at this rate he would put down all natural\n     philosophy, as far as it concerns itself in searching into the\n     nature of such things. In such noble and sublime studies as these,\n     'tis a glory to arrive at probability, and the search itself\n     rewards the pains. But there are many degrees of probable, some\n     nearer to the truth than others, in the determining of which lies\n     the chief exercise of our judgment. And besides the nobleness and\n     pleasure of the studies, may we not be so bold as to say that they\n     are no small help to the advancement of wisdom and\n     morality?--HUYGHENS, _Conjectures concerning the Planetary Worlds_.\n\n\nThe interest with which astronomy is studied by many who care little or\nnothing for other sciences is due chiefly to the thoughts which the\ncelestial bodies suggest respecting life in other worlds than ours.\nThere is no feeling more deeply seated in the human heart--not the\nbelief in higher than human powers, not the hope of immortality, not\neven the fear of death--than the faith in realms of life where other\nconditions are experienced than those we are acquainted with here. It is\nnot vulgar curiosity or idle fancy that suggests the possibilities of\nlife in other worlds. It has been the conviction of the profoundest\nthinkers, of men of highest imagination. The mystery of the star-depths\nhas had its charm for the mathematician as well as for the poet; for\nthe exact observer as for the most fruitful theoriser; nay, for the man\nof business as for him whose life is passed in communing with nature. If\nwe analyse the interest with which the generality of men inquire into\nastronomical matters apparently not connected with the question of life\nin other worlds, we find in every case that it has been out of this\nquestion alone or chiefly that that interest has sprung. The great\ndiscoveries made during the last few years respecting the sun for\nexample, might seem remote from the subject of life in other worlds. It\nis true that Sir William Herschel thought the sun might be the abode of\nliving creatures; and Sir John Herschel even suggested the possibility\nthat the vast streaks of light called the solar willow-leaves, objects\nvarying from two hundred to a thousand miles in length, might be living\ncreatures whose intense lustre was the measure of their intense\nvitality. But modern discoveries had rendered all such theories\nuntenable. The sun is presented to us as a mighty furnace, in whose\nfires the most stubborn elements are not merely melted but vaporised.\nThe material of the sun has been analysed, the motions and changes\ntaking place on his surface examined, the laws of his being determined.\nHow, it might be asked, is the question of life in other worlds involved\nin these researches? The faith of Sir David Brewster in the sun as the\nabode of life being dispelled, how could discoveries respecting the sun\ninterest those who care about the subject of the plurality of worlds?\nThe answer to these questions is easily found. The real interest which\nsolar researches have possessed for those who are not astronomers has\nresided in the evidence afforded respecting the sun's position as the\nfire, light, and life of the system of worlds whereof our world is one.\nThe mere facts discovered respecting the sun would be regarded as so\nmuch dry detail were they not brought directly into relation with our\nearth and its wants, and therefore with the wants of the other earths\nwhich circle round the sun; but when thus dealt with they immediately\nexcite attention and interest. I do not speak at random in asserting\nthis, but describe the result of widely ranging observation. I have\naddressed hundreds of audiences in Great Britain and America on the\nsubject of recent solar discoveries, and I have conversed with many\nhundreds of persons of various capacity and education, from men almost\nuncultured to men of the highest intellectual power; and my invariable\nexperience has been that solar research derives its chief interest when\nviewed in relation to the sun's position as the mighty ruler, the\nsteadfast sustainer, the beneficent almoner of the system of worlds to\nwhich our earth belongs. It is the same with other astronomical\nsubjects. Few care for the record of lunar observations, save in\nrelation to the question whether the moon is or has been the abode of\nliving creatures. The movements of comets and meteors, and the\ndiscoveries recently made respecting their condition, have no interest\nexcept in relation to the position of these bodies in the economy of\nsolar systems, or to the possible part which they may at one time have\nperformed in building up worlds and suns. None save astronomers, and few\nonly of these, care for researches into the star-depths, except in\nconnection with the thought that every star is a sun and therefore\nprobably the light and fire of a system of worlds like those which\ncircle around our own sun.\n\nIt is singular how variously this question of life in other worlds has\nbeen viewed at various stages of astronomical progress. From the time of\nPythagoras, who first, so far as is known, propounded the general theory\nof the plurality of worlds, down to our own time, when Brewster and\nChalmers on the one hand, and Whewell on the other, have advocated\nrival theories probably to be both set aside for a theory at once\nintermediate to and more widely ranging in time and space than either,\nthe aspect of the subject has constantly varied, as new lights have been\nthrown upon it from different directions. It may be interesting briefly\nto consider what has been thought in the past on this strangely\nattractive question, and then to indicate the view towards which modern\ndiscoveries seem manifestly to point--a view not likely to undergo other\nchange than that resulting from clearer vision and closer approach. In\nother words, I shall endeavour to show that the theory to which we are\nnow led by all the known facts is correct in general, though, as fresh\nknowledge is obtained, it may undergo modification in details. We now\nsee the subject from the right point of view, though as science\nprogresses we may come to see it more clearly and definedly.\n\nWhen men believed the earth to be a flat surface above which the heavens\nwere arched as a tent or canopy, they were not likely to entertain the\nbelief in other worlds than ours. During the earlier ages of mankind\nideas such as these prevailed. The earth had been fashioned into its\npresent form and condition, the heavens had been spread over it, the\nsun, and moon, and stars had been set in the heavens for its use and\nadornment, and there was no thought of any other world.\n\nBut while this was the general belief, there was already a school of\nphilosophy where another doctrine had been taught. Pythagoras had\nadopted the belief of Apollonius Pergaeus that the sun is the centre of\nthe planetary paths, the earth one among the planets--a belief\ninseparable from the doctrine of the plurality of worlds. Much argument\nhas been advanced to show that this belief never was adopted before the\ntime of Copernicus, and unquestionably it must be admitted that the\ntheory was not presented in the clear and simple form to which we have\nbecome accustomed. But it is not necessary to weigh the conflicting\narguments for and against the opinion that Pythagoras and others\nregarded the earth as not the fixed centre of the universe. The certain\nfact that the doctrine of the plurality of worlds was entertained (I do\nnot say adopted) by them, proves sufficiently that they cannot have\nbelieved the earth to be fixed and central. The idea of other worlds\nlike our earth is manifestly inconsistent with the belief that the earth\nis the central body around which the whole universe revolves.\n\nThat this is so is well illustrated by the fate of the unfortunate\nGiordano Bruno. He was one of the first disciples of Copernicus, and,\nhaving accepted the doctrine that the earth travels round the sun as one\namong his family of planets, was led very naturally to the belief that\nthe other planets are inhabited. He went farther, and maintained that as\nthe earth is not the only inhabited world in the solar system, so the\nsun is not the only centre of a system of inhabited worlds, but each\nstar a sun like him, about which many planets revolve. This was one of\nthe many heresies for which Bruno was burned at the stake. It is easy,\nalso, to recognise in the doctrine of many worlds as the natural sequel\nof the Copernican theory, rather than in the features of this theory\nitself, the cause of the hostility with which theologians regarded it,\nuntil, finding it proved, they discovered that it is directly taught in\nthe books which they interpret for us so variously. The Copernican\ntheory was not rejected--nay, it was even countenanced--until this\nparticular consequence of the theory was recognised. But within a few\nyears from the persecution of Bruno, Galileo was imprisoned, and the\nlast years of his life made miserable, because it had become clear that\nin setting the earth adrift from its position as centre of the\nuniverse, he and his brother Copernicans were sanctioning the belief in\nother worlds than ours. Again and again, in the attacks made by\nclericals and theologians upon the Copernican theory, this lamentable\nconsequence was insisted upon. Unconscious that they were advancing the\nmost damaging argument which could be conceived for the cause they had\nat heart, they maintained, honestly but unfortunately, that with the new\ntheory came the manifest inference that our earth is not the only and by\nno means the most important world in the universe--a doctrine manifestly\ninconsistent (so they said) with the teachings of the Scriptures.\n\nIt was naturally only by a slow progression that men were able to\nadvance into the domain spread before them by the Copernican theory, and\nto recognise the real minuteness of the earth both in space and time.\nThey more quickly recognised the earth's insignificance in space,\nbecause the new theory absolutely forced this fact upon them. If the\nearth, whose globe they knew to be minute compared with her distance\nfrom the sun, is really circling around the sun in a mighty orbit many\nmillions of miles in diameter, it follows of necessity that the fixed\nstars must lie so far away that even the span of the earth's orbit is\nreduced to nothing by comparison with the vast depths beyond which lie\neven the nearest of those suns. This was Tycho Brahe's famous and\nperfectly sound argument against the Copernican theory. 'The stars\nremain fixed in apparent position all the time, yet the Copernicans tell\nus that the earth from which we view the stars is circling once a year\nin an orbit many millions of miles in diameter; how is it that from so\nwidely ranging a point of view we do not see widely different celestial\nscenery? Who can believe that the stars are so remote that by comparison\nthe span of the earth's path is a mere point?' Tycho's argument was of\ncourse valid.[31] Of two things one. Either the earth does not travel\nround the sun, or the stars are much farther away than men had conceived\npossible in Tycho's time. His mistake lay in rejecting the correct\nconclusion because simply it made the visible universe seem many\nmillions of times vaster than he had supposed. Yet the universe, even as\nthus enlarged, was but a point to the universe visible in our day, which\nin turn will dwindle to a point compared with the universe as men will\nsee it a few centuries hence; while that or the utmost range of space\nover which men can ever extend their survey is doubtless as nothing to\nthe real universe of occupied space.\n\nSuch has been the progression of our ideas as to the position of the\nearth in space. Forced by the discoveries of Copernicus to regard our\nearth as a mere point compared with the distances of the nearest fixed\nstars, men gradually learned to recognise those distances which at first\nhad seemed infinite as in their turn evanescent even by comparison with\nthat mere point of space over which man is able by instrumental means to\nextend his survey.\n\nThough there has been a similar progression in men's ideas as to the\nearth's position in time, that progression has not been carried to a\ncorresponding extent. Men have not been so bold in widening their\nconceptions of time as in widening their conceptions of space. It is\nhere and thus that, in my judgment, the subject of life in other worlds\nhas been hitherto incorrectly dealt with. Men have given up as utterly\nidle the idea that the existence of worlds is to be limited to the\nspecial domain of space to which our earth belongs; but they are content\nto retain the conception that the domain of time to which our earth's\nhistory belongs, 'this bank and shoal of time' on which the life of the\nearth is cast, is the period to which the existence of other worlds than\nours should be referred.\n\nThis, which is to be noticed in nearly all our ordinary treatises on\nastronomy, appears as a characteristic peculiarity of works advocating\nthe theory of the plurality of worlds. Brewster and Dick and Chalmers,\nall in fact who have taken that doctrine under their special protection,\nreason respecting other worlds as though, if they failed to prove that\nother orbs are inhabited _now_, or are at least _now_ supporting life in\nsome way or other, they failed of their purpose altogether. The idea\ndoes not seem to have occurred to them that there is room and verge\nenough in eternity of time not only for activity but for rest. They must\nhave all the orbs of space busy at once in the one work which they seem\nable to conceive as the possible purpose of those bodies--the support of\nlife. The argument from analogy, which they had found effective in\nestablishing the general theory of the plurality of worlds, is forgotten\nwhen its application to details would suggest that not _all_ orbs are\n_at all times_ either the abode of life or in some way subserving the\npurposes of life.\n\nWe find, in all the forms of life with which we are acquainted, three\ncharacteristic periods--first the time of preparation for the purposes\nof life; next, the time of fitness for those purposes; and thirdly, the\ntime of decadence tending gradually to death. We see among all objects\nwhich exist in numbers, examples of all these stages existing at the\nsame time. In every race of living creatures there are the young as yet\nunfit for work, the workers, and those past work; in every forest there\nare saplings, seed-bearing trees, and trees long past the seed-bearing\nperiod. We know that planets, or rather, speaking more generally, the\norbs which people space, pass through various stages of development,\nduring some only of which they can reasonably be regarded as the abode\nof life or supporting life; yet the eager champion of the theory of many\nworlds will have them all in these life-bearing or life-supporting\nstages, none in any of the stages of preparation, none in any of the\nstages of decrepitude or death.\n\nThis has probably had its origin in no small degree from the disfavour\nwith which in former years the theory of the growth and development of\nplanets and systems of planets was regarded. Until the evidence became\ntoo strong to be resisted, the doctrine that our earth was once a baby\nworld, with many millions of years to pass through before it could be\nthe abode of life, was one which only the professed atheist (so said too\nmany divines) could for a moment entertain; while the doctrine that not\nthe earth alone, but the whole of the solar system, had developed from a\ncondition utterly unlike that through which it is now passing, could\nhave had its origin only in the suggestions of the Evil One. Both\ndoctrines were pronounced to be so manifestly opposed to the teachings\nof Moses, and not only so, but so manifestly inconsistent with the\nbelief in a Supreme Being, that--that further argument was unnecessary,\nand denunciation only was required. So confident were divines on these\npoints, that it would not have been very wonderful if some few students\nof science had mistaken assertion for proof, and so concluded that the\ndoctrines towards which science was unmistakably leading them really\nwere inconsistent with what they had been taught to regard as the Word\nof God. Whether multiplied experiences taught men of science to wait\nbefore thus deciding, or however matters fell out, it certainly befell\nbefore very long that the terrible doctrine of cosmical development was\nsupported by such powerful evidence, astronomical and terrestrial, as to\nappear wholly irresistible. Then, not only was the doctrine accepted by\ndivines, but shown to be manifestly implied in the sacred narrative of\nthe formation of the earth and heavens, sun, and moon, and stars; while\nupon those unfortunate students of science who had not changed front in\ngood time, and were found still arguing on the mistaken assumption that\nthe development of our system was not accordant with that ancient\nnarrative, freshly forged bolts were flung from the Olympus of\northodoxy.\n\nSo far as the other argument--from the inconsistency of the development\ntheory with belief in a Supreme Being--was concerned, the student of\nscience was independent of the interpretations which divines claim the\nsole right of assigning to the ancient books. Science has done so much\nmore than divinity (which in fact has done nothing) to widen our\nconceptions of space and time, that she may justly claim full right to\ndeal with any difficulties arising from such enlargement of our ideas.\nWith the theological difficulty science would not care to deal at all,\nwere she not urged to do so by the denunciations of divines; and when,\nso urged, she touches that difficulty, she is quickly told that the\ndifficulty is insuperable, and not long after that it has no existence,\nand (on both accounts) that it should have been left alone. But with the\ndifficulty arising from the widening of our ideas respecting space and\ntime, science may claim good, almost sole, right to deal. The path to a\nsolution of the problem is not difficult to find. At a first view, it\ndoes seem to those whose vision had been limited to a contracted field,\nthat the wide domain of time and space in which processes of development\nare found to take place is the universe itself, that to deny the\nformation of our earth by a special creative act is to deny the\nexistence of a Creator, that to regard the beginning of our earth as a\nprocess of development is to assert that development has been in\noperation from the beginning of all things. But when we recognise\nclearly that vastness and minuteness, prolonged and brief duration, are\nmerely relative, we perceive that in considering our earth's history we\nhave to deal only with small parts of space and brief periods of time,\nby comparison with all space and all time. Our earth is very large\ncompared with a tree or an animal, but very small compared with the\nsolar system, a mere point compared with the system of stars to which\nthe sun belongs, and absolutely as nothing compared with the universe of\nspace; and in like manner, while the periods of her growth and\ndevelopment occupy periods very long-lasting compared with those\nrequired for the growth and development of a tree or an animal, they are\ndoubtless but brief compared with the eras of the development of our\nsolar system, a mere instant compared with the eras of the development\nof star-systems, and absolutely evanescent compared with eternity. We\nhave no more reason for rejecting the belief in a Creator because our\nearth or the solar system is found to have developed to its present\ncondition from an embryonic primordial state, than we have had ever\nsince men first found that animals and trees are developed from the\ngerm. The region of development is larger, the period of development\nlasts longer, but neither the one nor the other is infinite; and being\nfinite, both one and the other are simply nothing by comparison with\ninfinity. It is a startling thought, doubtless, that periods of time\ncompared with which the life of a man, the existence of a nation, nay,\nthe duration of the human race itself, sink into insignificance, should\nthemselves in turn be dwarfed into nothingness by comparison with\nperiods of a still higher order. But the thought is not more startling\nthan that other thought which we have been compelled to admit--the\nthought that the earth on which we live, and the solar system to which\nit belongs, though each so vast that all known material objects are as\nnothing by comparison, are in turn as nothing compared with the depths\nof space separating us from even the nearest among the fixed stars. One\nthought, as I have said, we have been compelled to admit, the other has\nnot as yet been absolutely forced upon us. Though men have long since\ngiven up the idea that the earth and heavens have endured but a few\nthousand years, it is still possible to believe that the birth of our\nsolar system, whether by creative act or by the beginning of processes\nof development, belongs to the beginning of all time. But this view\ncannot be regarded as even probable. Although it has never been proved\nthat any definite relation must subsist between time (occupied by\nevents) and space (occupied by matter), the mind naturally accepts the\nbelief that such a relation exists. As we find the universe enlarging\nunder the survey of science, our conceptions of the duration of the\nuniverse enlarge also. When the earth was supposed to be the most\nimportant object in creation, men might reasonably assign to time itself\n(regarded as the interval between the beginning of the earth and the\nconsummation of all things when the earth should perish) a moderate\nduration; but it is equally reasonable that, as the insignificance of\nthe earth's domain in space is recognised, men should recognise also the\npresumable insignificance of the earth's existence in time.\n\nIn this respect, although we have nothing like the direct evidence\nafforded by the measurement of space, we yet have evidence which can\nscarcely be called in question. We find in the structure of our earth\nthe signs of its former condition. We see clearly that it was once\nintensely hot! and we know from experimental researches on the cooling\nof various earths that many millions of years must have been required by\nthe earth in cooling down from its former igneous condition. We may\ndoubt whether Bischoff's researches can be relied upon in details, and\nso be unwilling to assign with him a period of 350 millions of years to\na single stage of the process of cooling. But that the entire process\nlasted tens of millions and probably hundreds of millions of years\ncannot be doubted. Recognising such enormous periods as these in the\ndevelopment of one of the smallest fruits of the great solar tree of\nlife, we cannot but admit at least the reasonableness of believing that\nthe larger fruits (Jupiter, for instance, with 340 times as much matter,\nand Saturn with 100 times) must require periods still vaster, probably\nmany times larger. Indeed, science shows not only that this view is\nreasonable, but that no other view is possible. For the mighty root of\nthe tree of life, the great orb of the sun, containing 340 _thousand_\ntimes as much matter as the earth, yet mightier periods would be needed.\nThe growth and development of these, the parts of the great system, must\nof necessity require much shorter time-intervals than the growth and\ndevelopment of the system regarded as a whole. The enormous period when\nthe germs only of the sun and planets existed as yet, when the chaotic\nsubstance of the system had not yet blossomed into worlds, the mighty\nperiod which is to follow the death of the last surviving member of the\nsystem, when the whole scheme will remain as the dead trunk of a tree\nremains after the last leaf has fallen, after the last movement of sap\nwithin the trunk--these periods must be infinite compared with those\nwhich measure the duration of even the mightiest separate members of the\nsystem.\n\nBut all this has been left unnoticed by those who have argued in support\nof the Brewsterian doctrine of a plurality of worlds. They argue as if\nit had never been shown that every member of the solar system, as of\nall other such systems in space, has to pass through an enormously long\nperiod of preparation before becoming fit to be the abode of life, and\nthat after being fit for life (for a period very long to our\nconceptions, but by comparison with the other exceedingly short) it must\nfor countless ages remain as an extinct world. Or else they reason as\nthough it had been proved that the relatively short life-bearing periods\nin the existence of the several planets must of necessity synchronise,\ninstead of all the probabilities lying overwhelmingly the other way.\n\nWhile this has been (in my judgment) a defect in what may be called the\nBrewsterian theory of other worlds, a defect not altogether dissimilar\nhas characterised the opposite or Whewellite theory. Very useful service\nwas rendered to astronomy by Whewell's treatise upon, or rather against,\nthe plurality of worlds, calling attention as it did to the utter\nfeebleness of the arguments on which men had been content to accept the\nbelief that other planets and other systems are inhabited. But some\namong the most powerfully urged arguments against that belief tacitly\nrelied on the assumption of a similarity of general condition among the\nmembers of the solar system. For instance, the small mean density of\nJupiter and Saturn had, on the Brewsterian theory, been explained as\nprobably due to vast hollow spaces in those planets' interiors--an\nexplanation which (if it could be admitted) would leave us free to\nbelieve that Jupiter and Saturn may be made of the same materials as our\nown earth. With this was pleasantly intermixed the conception that the\ninhabitant of these planets may have his 'home in subterranean cities\nwarmed by central fires, or in crystal caves cooled by ocean tides, or\nmay float with the Nereids upon the deep, or mount upon wings as eagles,\nor rise upon the pinions of the dove, that he may flee away and be at\nrest,' with much more in the same fanciful vein. We now know that there\ncan be no cavities more than a few miles below the crust of a planet,\nsimply because, under the enormous pressures which would exist, the most\nsolid matter would be perfectly plastic. But while Whewell's general\nobjection to the theory that Jupiter or Saturn is in the same condition\nas our earth thus acquires new force, the particular explanation which\nhe gave of the planet's small density is open to precisely the same\ngeneral objection. For he assumes that, because the planet's mean\ndensity is little greater than that of water, the planet is probably a\nworld of water and ice with a cindery nucleus, or in fact just such a\nworld as would be formed if a sufficient quantity of water in the same\ncondition as the water of our seas were placed at Jupiter's greater\ndistance from the sun, around a nucleus of earthy or cindery matter\nlarge enough to make the density of the entire planet thus formed equal\nto that of Jupiter, or about one-third greater than the density of\nwater. In this argument there are in reality two assumptions, of\nprecisely the same nature as those which Whewell set himself to combat.\nIt is first assumed that some material existing on a large scale in our\nearth, and nearly of the same density as Jupiter, must constitute the\nchief bulk of that planet, and secondly that the temperature of\nJupiter's globe must be that which a globe of such material would have\nif placed where Jupiter is. The possibility that Jupiter may be in an\nentirely different stage of planetary life--or, in other words, that the\nyouth, middle life, and old age of that planet may belong to quite\ndifferent eras from the corresponding periods of our earth's life--is\nentirely overlooked. Rather, indeed, it may be said that the extreme\nprobability of this, on any hypothesis respecting the origin of the\nsolar system, and its absolute certainty on the hypothesis of the\ndevelopment of that system, are entirely overlooked.\n\nA fair illustration of the erroneous nature of the arguments which have\nbeen used, not only in advocating rival theories respecting the\nplurality of worlds, but also in dealing with subordinate points, may be\npresented as follows:\n\nImagine a wide extent of country covered with scattered trees of various\nsize, and with plants and shrubs, flowers and herbs, down to the\nminutest known. Let us suppose a race of tiny creatures to subsist on\none of the fruits of a tree of moderate size, their existence as a race\ndepending entirely on the existence of the fruit on which they subsist,\nwhile the existence of the individuals of their race lasts but for a few\nminutes. Furthermore, let there be no regular fruit season either on\ntheir tree or in their region of vegetable life, but fruits forming,\ngrowing, and decaying all the time.\n\nLet us next conceive these creatures to be possessed of a power of\nreasoning respecting themselves, their fruit world, the tree on which it\nhangs, and to some degree even respecting such other trees, plants,\nflowers, and so forth, as the limited range of their vision might be\nsupposed to include. It would be a natural thought with them, when first\nthey began to exercise this power of reasoning, that their fruit home\nwas the most important object in existence, and themselves the chief and\nnoblest of living beings. It would also be very natural that they should\nsuppose the formation of their world to correspond with the beginning of\ntime, and the formation of their race to have followed the formation of\ntheir world by but a few seconds. They would conclude that a Supreme\nBeing had fashioned their world and themselves by special creative acts,\nand that what they saw outside their fruit world had been also specially\ncreated, doubtless to subserve their wants.\n\nLet us now imagine that gradually, by becoming more closely observant\nthan they had been, by combining together to make more complete\nobservations, and above all by preserving the records of observations\nmade by successive generations, these creatures began to obtain clearer\nideas respecting their world and the surrounding regions of space. They\nwould find evidence that the fruit on which they lived had not been\nformed precisely as they knew it, but had undergone processes of\ndevelopment. The distressing discovery would be made that this\ndevelopment could not possibly have taken place in a few seconds, but\nmust have required many hours, nay, even several of those enormous\nperiods called by us days.\n\nThis, however, would only be the beginning of their troubles. Gradually\nthe more advanced thinkers and the closest observers would perceive that\nnot only had their world undergone processes of development, but that\nits entire mass had been formed by such processes--that in fact it had\nnot been created at all, in the sense in which they had understood the\nword, but had _grown_. This would be very dreadful to these creatures,\nbecause they would not readily be able to dispossess their minds of the\nnotion that they were the most important beings in the universe, their\ndomain of space coextensive with the universe, the duration of their\nworld coextensive with time.\n\nBut passing over the difficulties thus arising, and the persecution and\nabuse to which those would be subjected who maintained the dangerous\ndoctrine that their fruit home had been developed, not created, let us\nconsider how these creatures would regard the question of other worlds\nthan their own. At first they would naturally be unwilling to admit the\npossibility that other worlds as important as their own could exist. But\nif after a time they found reason to believe that their world was only\none of several belonging to a certain tree system, the idea would occur\nto them, and would gradually come to be regarded as something more than\nprobable, that those other fruit worlds, like their own, might be the\nabode of living creatures. And probably at first, while as yet the\ndevelopment of their own world was little understood, they would\nconceive the notion that all the fruits, large or small, upon their tree\nsystem were in the same condition as their own, and either inhabited by\nsimilar races or at least in the same full vigour of life-bearing\nexistence. But so soon as they recognised the law of development of\ntheir own world, and the relation between such development and their own\nrequirements, they would form a different opinion, if they found that\nonly during certain stages of their world's existence life could exist\nupon it. If, for instance, they perceived that their fruit world must\nonce have been so bitter and harsh in texture that no creatures in the\nleast degree like themselves could have lived upon it, and that it was\npassing slowly but surely through processes by which it would become one\nday dry and shrivelled and unable to support living creatures, they\nwould be apt, if their reasoning powers were fairly developed, to\ninquire whether other fruits which they saw around them on their tree\nsystem were either in the former or in the latter condition. If they\nfound reason to believe certain fruits were in one or other of these\nstages, they would regard such fruits as not yet the abode of life or as\npast the life-supporting era. It seems probable even that another idea\nwould suggest itself to some among their bolder thinkers. Recognising in\ntheir own world in several instances what to their ideas resembled\nabsolute waste of material or of force, it might appear to them quite\npossible that some, perhaps even a large proportion, of the fruits upon\ntheir tree were not only not supporting life at the particular epoch of\nobservation, but never had supported life and never would--that, through\nsome cause or other, life would never appear upon such fruits even when\nthey were excellently fitted for the support of life. They might even\nconceive that some among the fruits of their tree had failed or would\nfail to come to the full perfection of fruit life.\n\nLooking beyond their own tree--that is, the tree to which their own\nfruit world belonged--they would perceive other trees, though their\nvisual powers might not enable them to know whether such trees bore\nfruit, whether they were in other respects like their own, whether those\nwhich seemed larger or smaller were really so, or owed their apparent\nlargeness to nearness, or their apparent smallness to great distance.\nThey would be apt perhaps to generalise a little too daringly respecting\nthese remote tree systems, concluding too confidently that a shrub or a\nflower was a tree system like their own, or that a great tree, every\nbranch of which was far larger than their entire tree system, belonged\nto the same order and bore similar fruit. They might mistake, also, in\nforgetting the probable fact that as every fruit in their own tree\nsystem had its own period of life, very brief compared with the entire\nexistence of the fruit, so every tree might have its own fruit-bearing\nseason. Thus, contemplating a tree which they supposed to be like their\nown in its nature, they might say, 'Yonder is a tree system crowded with\nfruits, each the abode of many myriads of creatures like ourselves:'\nwhereas in reality the tree might be utterly unlike their own, might not\nyet have reached or might long since have passed the fruit-bearing\nstage, might when in that stage bear fruit utterly unlike any they could\neven imagine, and each such fruit during its brief life-bearing\ncondition might be inhabited by living beings utterly unlike any\ncreatures they could conceive.\n\nYet again, we can very well imagine that the inhabitants of our fruit\nworld, though they might daringly overleap the narrow limits of space\nand time within which their actual life or the life of their race was\ncast, though they might learn to recognise the development of their own\nworld and of others like it, even from the very blossom, would be\nutterly unable to conceive the possibility that the tree itself to which\ntheir world belonged had developed by slow processes of growth from a\ntime when it was less even than their own relatively minute home.\n\nStill less would it seem credible to them, or even conceivable, that the\nwhole forest region to which they belonged, containing many orders of\ntrees differing altogether from their own tree system, besides plants\nand shrubs, and flowers and herbs (forms of vegetation of whose use they\ncould form no just conception whatever), had itself grown; that once the\nentire forest domain had been under vast masses of water--the substance\nwhich occasionally visited their world in the form of small drops; that\nsuch changes were but minute local phenomena of a world infinitely\nhigher in order than their own; that that world in turn was but one of\nthe least of the worlds forming a yet higher system; and so on _ad\ninfinitum_. Such ideas would seem to them not merely inconceivable, but\nmany degrees beyond the widest conceptions of space and time which they\ncould regard as admissible.\n\nOur position differs only in degree, not in kind, from that of these\nimagined creatures, and the reasoning which we perceive (though they\ncould not) to be just for such creatures is just for us also. It was\nperfectly natural that before men recognised the evidences of\ndevelopment in the structure of our earth they should regard the earth\nand all things upon the earth and visible from the earth as formed by\nspecial creative acts precisely as we see them now. But so soon as they\nperceived that the earth is undergoing processes of development and has\nundergone such processes in the past, it was reasonable, though at\nfirst painful, to conclude that on this point they had been mistaken.\nYet as we recognise the absurdity of the supposition that, because\nfruits and trees grow, and were not made in a single instant as we know\nthem, therefore there is no Supreme Being, so may we justly reject as\nabsurd the same argument, enlarged in scale, employed to induce the\nconclusion that because planets and solar systems have been developed to\ntheir present condition, and were not created in their present form,\ntherefore there is no Creator, no God. I do not know that the argument\never has been used in this form; but it has been used to show that those\nwho believe in the development of worlds and systems must of necessity\nbe atheists, an even more mischievous conclusion than the other; for\nnone who had not examined the subject would be likely to adopt the\nformer conclusion, but many might be willing to believe that a number of\ntheir fellow-men hold obnoxious tenets, without inquiring closely or at\nall into the reasoning on which the assertion had been based.\n\nBut it is more important to notice how our views respecting other worlds\nshould be affected by those circumstances in the evidence _we_ have,\nwhich correspond with the features of the evidence on which the imagined\ninhabitants of the fruit world would form their opinion. It was natural\nthat when men first began to reason about themselves and their home they\nshould reject the idea of other worlds like ours, and perhaps it was\nequally natural that when first the idea was entertained that the\nplanets may be worlds like ours, men should conceive that all those\nworlds are in the same condition as ours. But it would be, or rather it\n_is_, as unreasonable for men to maintain such an opinion now, when the\nlaws of planetary development are understood, when the various\ndimensions of the planets are known, and when the shortness of the\nlife-supporting period of a planet's existence compared with the entire\nduration of the planet has been clearly recognised, as it would be for\nthe imagined inhabitants of a small fruit on a tree to suppose that all\nthe other fruits on the tree, though some manifestly far less advanced\nin development and others far more advanced than their own, were the\nabode of the same forms of life, though these forms were seen to require\nthose conditions, and no other, corresponding to the stage of\ndevelopment through which their own world was passing.\n\nViewing the universe of suns and worlds in the manner here suggested, we\nshould adopt a theory of other worlds which would hold a position\nintermediate between the Brewsterian and the Whewellite theories. (It is\nnot on this account that I advocate it, let me remark in passing, but\nsimply because it accords with the evidence, which is not the case with\nthe others.) Rejecting on the one hand the theory of the plurality of\nworlds in the sense implying that all existing worlds are inhabited, and\non the other hand the theory of but one world, we should accept a theory\nwhich might be entitled the Paucity of Worlds, only that relative not\nabsolute paucity must be understood. It is absolutely certain that this\ntheory is the correct one, if we admit two postulates, neither of which\ncan be reasonably questioned--viz., first, that the life-bearing era of\nany world is short compared with the entire duration of that world; and\nsecondly, that there can have been no cause which set all the worlds in\nexistence, not simultaneously, which would be amazing enough, but (which\nwould be infinitely more surprising) in such a way that after passing\neach through its time of preparation, longer for the large worlds and\nshorter for the small worlds, they all reached at the same time the\nlife-bearing era. But quite apart from this antecedent probability,\namounting as it does to absolute certainty if these two highly probably\npostulates are admitted, we have the actual evidence of the planets we\ncan examine--that evidence proving incontestably, as I have shown\nelsewhere, that such planets as Jupiter and Saturn are still in the\nstate of preparation, still so intensely hot that no form of life could\npossibly exist upon them, and that such bodies as our moon have long\nsince passed the life-bearing stage, and are to all intents and purposes\ndefunct.\n\nBut may we not go farther? Recognising in our own world, in many\ninstances, what to our ideas resembles waste--waste seeds, waste lives,\nwaste races, waste regions, waste forces--recognising superfluity and\nsuperabundance in all the processes and in all the works of nature,\nshould it not appear at least possible that some, perhaps even a large\nproportion, of the worlds in the multitudinous systems peopling space,\nare not only not now supporting life, but never have supported life and\nnever will? Does this idea differ in kind, however largely to our feeble\nconceptions it may seem to differ in degree, from the idea of the\nimagined creatures on a fruit, that some or even many fruits excellently\nfitted for the support of life might not subserve that purpose? And as\nthose creatures might conceive (as we _know_) that some fruits, even\nmany, fail to come to the full perfection of fruit life, may not we\nwithout irreverence conceive (as higher beings than ourselves may\n_know_) that a planet or a sun may fail in the making? We cannot say\nthat in such a case there would be a waste or loss of material, though\nwe may be unable to conceive how the lost sun or planet could be\nutilised. Our imagined insect reasoners would be unable to imagine that\nfruits plucked from their tree system were otherwise than wasted, for\nthey would conceive that their idea of the purpose of fruits was the\nonly true one; yet they would be altogether mistaken, as we may be in\nsupposing the main purpose of planetary existence is the support of\nlife.\n\nIn like manner, when we pass in imagination beyond the limits of our\nown system, we may learn a useful lesson from the imagined creatures'\nreasoning about other tree systems than that to which their world\nbelonged. Astronomers have been apt to generalise too daringly\nrespecting remote stars and star systems, as though our solar system\nwere a true picture of all solar systems, the system of stars to which\nour sun belongs a true picture of all star systems. They have been apt\nto forget that, as every world in our own system has its period of life,\nshort by comparison with the entire duration of the world, so each solar\nsystem, each system of such systems, may have its own life-bearing\nseason, infinitely long according to our conceptions, but very short\nindeed compared with the entire duration of which the life-bearing\nseason would be only a single era.\n\nLastly, though men may daringly overleap the limits of time and space\nwithin which their lives are cast, though they may learn to recognise\nthe development of their own world and of others like it even from the\nblossom of nebulosity, they seem unable to rise to the conception that\nthe mighty tree which during remote aeons bore those nebulous blossoms\nsprang itself from cosmical germs. We are unable to conceive the nature\nof such germs; the processes of development affecting them belong to\nother orders than any processes we know of, and required periods\ncompared with which the inconceivable, nay, the inexpressible periods\nrequired for the development of the parts of our universe, are as mere\ninstants. Yet have we every reason which analogy can afford to believe\nthat even the development of a whole universe such as ours should be\nregarded as but a minute local phenomenon of a universe infinitely\nhigher in order, that universe in turn but a single member of a system\nof such universes, and so on, even _ad infinitum_. To reject the belief\nthat this is possible is to share the folly of beings such as we have\nconceived regarding their tiny world as a fit centre whence to measure\nthe universe, while yet, from such a stand-point, this little earth on\nwhich we live would be many degrees beyond the limits where for them the\ninconceivable would begin. To reject the belief that this is not only\npossible, but real, is to regard the few short steps by which man has\nadvanced towards the unknown as a measurable approach towards limits of\nspace, towards the beginning and the end of all things. Until it can be\nshown that space is bounded by limits beyond which neither matter nor\nvoid exists, that time had a beginning before which it was not and tends\nto an end after which it will exist no more, we may confidently accept\nthe belief that the history of our earth is as evanescent in time as the\nearth itself is evanescent in space, and that nothing we can possibly\nlearn about our earth, or about the system it belongs to, or about\nsystems of such systems, can either prove or disprove aught respecting\nthe scheme and mode of government of the universe itself. It is true now\nas it was in days of yore, and it will remain true as long as the earth\nand those who dwell on it endure, that what men know is nothing, the\nunknown infinite.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n_SUNS IN FLAMES._\n\n\nIn November 1876 news arrived of a catastrophe the effects of which must\nin all probability have been disastrous, not to a district, or a\ncountry, or a continent, or even a world, but to a whole system of\nworlds. The catastrophe happened many years ago--probably at least a\nhundred--yet the messenger who brought the news has not been idle on his\nway, but has sped along at a rate which would suffice to circle this\nearth eight times in the course of a second. That messenger has had,\nhowever, to traverse millions of millions of miles, and only reached our\nearth November 1876. The news he brought was that a sun like our own was\nin conflagration; and on a closer study of his message something was\nlearned as to the nature of the conflagration, and a few facts tending\nto throw light on the question (somewhat interesting to ourselves)\nwhether our own sun is likely to undergo a similar mishap at any time.\nWhat would happen if he did, we know already. The sun which has just met\nwith this disaster--that is, which so suffered a few generations\nago--blazed out for a time with several hundred times its former lustre.\nIf our sun were to increase as greatly in light and heat, the creatures\non the side of our earth turned towards him at the time would be\ndestroyed in an instant. Those on the dark or night hemisphere would not\nhave to wait for their turn till the earth, by rotating, carried them\ninto view of the destroying sun. In much briefer space the effect of his\nnew fires would be felt all over the earth's surface. The heavens would\nbe dissolved and the elements would melt with fervent heat. In fact no\ndescription of such a catastrophe, as affecting the night half of the\nearth, could possibly be more effective and poetical than St. Peter's\naccount of the day of the Lord, coming 'as a thief in the night; in the\nwhich the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements\nshall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are\ntherein being burned up;' though I imagine the apostle would have been\nscarce prepared to admit that the earth was in danger from a solar\nconflagration. Indeed, according to another account, the sun was to be\nturned into darkness and the moon into blood, before that great and\nnotable day of the Lord came--a description corresponding well with\nsolar and lunar eclipses, the most noteworthy 'signs in the heavens,'\nbut agreeing very ill with the outburst of a great solar conflagration.\n\nBefore proceeding to inquire into the singular and significant\ncircumstances of the recent outburst, it may be found interesting to\nexamine briefly the records which astronomy has preserved of similar\ncatastrophes in former years. These may be compared to the records of\naccidents on the various railway lines in a country or continent. Those\nother suns which we can stars are engines working the mighty mechanism\nof planetary systems, as our sun maintains the energies of our own\nsystem; and it is a matter of some interest to us to inquire in how many\ncases, among the many suns within the range of vision, destructive\nexplosions occur. We may take the opportunity, later, to inquire into\nthe number of cases in which the machinery of solar systems appears to\nhave broken down.\n\nThe first case of a solar conflagration on record is that of the new\nstar observed by Hipparchus some 2000 years ago. In his time, and indeed\nuntil quite recently, an object of this kind was called a new star, or a\ntemporary star. But we now know that when a star makes its appearance\nwhere none had before been visible, what has really happened has been\nthat a star too remote to be seen has become visible through some rapid\nincrease of splendour. When the new splendour dies out again, it is not\nthat a star has ceased to exist; but simply that a faint star which had\nincreased greatly in lustre has resumed its original condition.\nHipparchus's star must have been a remarkable object, for it was visible\nin full daylight, whence we may infer that it was many times brighter\nthan the blazing Dog-star. It is interesting in the history of science,\nas having led Hipparchus to draw up a catalogue of stars, the first on\nrecord. Some moderns, being sceptical, rejected this story as a fiction;\nbut Biot examining Chinese Chronicles[32] relating to the times of\nHipparchus, finds that in 134 B.C. (about nine years before the date of\nHipparchus's catalogue) a new star was recorded as having appeared in\nthe constellation Scorpio.\n\nThe next new star (that is, stellar conflagration) on record is still\nmore interesting, as there appears some reason for believing that before\nlong we may see another outburst of the same star. In the years 945,\n1264, and 1572, brilliant stars appeared in the region of the heavens\nbetween Cepheus and Cassiopeia. Sir J. Herschel remarks, that, 'from the\nimperfect account we have of the places of the two earlier, as compared\nwith that of the last, which was well determined, as well as from the\ntolerably near coincidence of the intervals of their appearance, we may\nsuspect them, with Goodricke, to be one and the same star, with a period\nof 312 or perhaps of 156 years.' The latter period may very reasonably\nbe rejected, as one can perceive no reason why the intermediate returns\nof the star to visibility should have been overlooked, the star having\nappeared in a region which never sets. It is to be noted that, the\nperiod from 945 to 1264 being 319 years, and that from 1264 to 1572 only\n308 years, the period of this star (if Goodricke is correct in supposing\nthe three outbursts to have occurred in the same star) would seem to be\ndiminishing. At any time, then, this star might now blaze out in the\nregion between Cassiopeia and Cepheus, for more than 304 years have\nalready passed since its last outburst.\n\nAs the appearance of a new star led Hipparchus to undertake the\nformation of his famous catalogue, so did the appearance of the star in\nCassiopeia, in 1572, lead the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe to construct\na new and enlarged catalogue. (This, be it remembered, was before the\ninvention of the telescope.) Returning one evening (November 11, 1572,\nold style) from his laboratory to his dwelling-house, he found, says Sir\nJ. Herschel, 'a group of country people gazing at a star, which he was\nsure did not exist an hour before. This was the star in question.'\n\nThe description of the star and its various changes is more interesting\nat the present time, when the true nature of these phenomena is\nunderstood, than it was even in the time when the star was blazing in\nthe firmament. It will be gathered from that description and from what I\nshall have to say farther on about the results of recent observations on\nless splendid new stars, that, if this star should reappear in the next\nfew years, our observers will probably be able to obtain very important\ninformation from it. The message from it will be much fuller and more\ndistinct than any we have yet received from such stars, though we have\nlearned quite enough to remain in no sort of doubt as to their general\nnature.\n\nThe star remained visible, we learn, about sixteen months, during which\ntime it kept its place in the heavens without the least variation. 'It\nhad all the radiance of the fixed stars, and twinkled like them; and was\nin all respects like Sirius, except that it surpassed Sirius in\nbrightness and magnitude.' It appeared larger than Jupiter, which was at\nthat time at his brightest, and was scarcely inferior to Venus. _It did\nnot acquire this lustre gradually_, but shone forth at once of its full\nsize and brightness, 'as if,' said the chroniclers of the time, 'it had\nbeen of instantaneous creation.' For three weeks it shone with full\nsplendour, during which time it could be seen at noonday 'by those who\nhad good eyes, and knew where to look for it.' But before it had been\nseen a month, it became visibly smaller, and from the middle of December\n1572 till March 1574, when it entirely disappeared, it continually\ndiminished in magnitude. 'As it decreased in size, it varied in colour:\nat first its light was white and extremely bright; it then became\nyellowish; afterwards of a ruddy colour like Mars; and finished with a\npale livid white resembling the colour of Saturn.' All the details of\nthis account should be very carefully noted. It will presently be seen\nthat they are highly characteristic.\n\nThose who care to look occasionally at the heavens to know whether this\nstar has returned to view may be interested to learn whereabouts it\nshould be looked for. The place may be described as close to the back of\nthe star-gemmed chair in which Cassiopeia is supposed to sit--a little\nto the left of the seat of the chair, supposing the chair to be looked\nat in its normal position. But as Cassiopeia's chair is always inverted\nwhen the constellation is most conveniently placed for observation, and\nindeed as nine-tenths of those who know the constellation suppose the\nchair's legs to be the back, and _vice versa_, it may be useful to\nmention that the star was placed somewhat thus with respect to the\nstraggling W formed by the five chief stars of Cassiopeia. There is a\nstar not very far from the place here indicated, but rather nearer to\nthe middle angle of the W. This, however, is not a bright star; and\ncannot possibly be mistaken for the expected visitant. (The place of\nTycho's star is indicated in my School Star-Atlas and also in my larger\nLibrary Atlas. The same remark applies to both the new stars in the\nSerpent-Bearer, presently to be described.)\n\n[Illustration]\n\nIn August 1596 the astronomer Fabricius observed a new star in the neck\nof the Whale, which also after a time disappeared. It was not noticed\nagain till the year 1637, when an observer rejoicing in the name of\nPhocyllides Holwarda observed it, and, keeping a watch, after it had\nvanished, upon the place where it had appeared, saw it again come into\nview nine months after its disappearance. Since then it has been known\nas a variable star with a period of about 331 days 8 hours. When\nbrightest this star is of the second magnitude. It indicates a somewhat\nsingular remissness on the part of the astronomers of former days, that\na star shining so conspicuously for a fortnight, once in each period of\n331-1/3 days, should for so many years have remained undetected. It\nmay, perhaps, be thought that, noting this, I should withdraw the\nobjection raised above against Sir J. Herschel's idea that the star in\nCassiopeia may return to view once in 156 years, instead of once in 312\nyears. But there is a great difference between a star which at its\nbrightest shines only as a second-magnitude star, so that it has twenty\nor thirty companions of equal or greater lustre above the horizon along\nwith it, and a star which surpasses three-fold the splendid Sirius. We\nhave seen that even in Tycho Brahe's day, when probably the stars were\nnot nearly so well known by the community at large, the new star in\nCassiopeia had not shone an hour before the country people were gazing\nat it with wonder. Besides, Cassiopeia and the Whale are constellations\nvery different in position. The familiar stars of Cassiopeia are visible\non every clear night, for they never set. The stars of the Whale, at\nleast of the part to which the wonderful variable star belongs, are\nbelow the horizon during rather more than half the twenty-four hours;\nand a new star there would only be noticed, probably (unless of\nexceeding splendour), if it chanced to appear during that part of the\nyear when the Whale is high above the horizon between eventide and\nmidnight, or in the autumn and early winter.\n\nIt is a noteworthy circumstance about the variable star in the Whale,\ndeservedly called Mira, or The Wonderful, that it does not always return\nto the same degree of brightness. Sometimes it has been a very bright\nsecond-magnitude star when at its brightest, at others it has barely\nexceeded the third magnitude. Hevelius relates that during the four\nyears between October 1672 and December 1676, Mira did not show herself\nat all! As this star fades out, it changes in colour from white to red.\n\nTowards the end of September 1604, a new star made its appearance in\nthe constellation Ophiuchus, or the Serpent-Bearer. Its place was near\nthe heel of the right foot of 'Ophiuchus huge.' Kepler tells us that it\nhad no hair or tail, and was certainly not a comet. Moreover, like the\nother fixed stars, it kept its place unchanged, showing unmistakably\nthat it belonged to the star-depths, not to nearer regions. 'It was\nexactly like one of the stars, except that in the vividness of its\nlustre, and the quickness of its sparkling, it exceeded anything that he\nhad ever seen before. It was every moment changing into some of the\ncolours of the rainbow, as yellow, orange, purple, and red; though it\nwas generally white when it was at some distance from the vapours of the\nhorizon.' In fact, these changes of colour must not be regarded as\nindicating aught but the star's superior brightness. Every very bright\nstar, when close to the horizon, shows these colours, and so much the\nmore distinctly as the star is the brighter. Sirius, which surpasses the\nbrightest stars of the northern hemisphere full four times in lustre,\nshows these changes of colour so conspicuously that they were regarded\nas specially characteristic of this star, insomuch that Homer speaks of\nSirius (not by name, but as the 'star of autumn') shining most\nbeautifully 'when laved of ocean's wave'--that is, when close to the\nhorizon. And our own poet, Tennyson, following the older poet, sings how\n\n          the fiery Sirius alters hue,\n  And bickers into red and emerald.\n\nThe new star was brighter than Sirius, and was about five degrees lower\ndown, when at its highest above the horizon, than Sirius when _he_\nculminates. Five degrees being equal to nearly ten times the apparent\ndiameter of the moon, it will be seen how much more favourable the\nconditions were in the case of Kepler's star for those coloured\nscintillations which characterised that orb. Sirius never rises very\nhigh above the horizon. In fact, at his highest (near midnight in\nwinter, and, of course, near midday in summer) he is about as high above\nthe horizon as the sun at midday in the first week in February. Kepler's\nstar's greatest height above the horizon was little more than\nthree-fourths of this, or equal to about the sun's elevation at midday\non January 13 or 14 in any year.\n\nLike Tycho Brahe's star, Kepler's was brighter even than Jupiter, and\nonly fell short of Venus in splendour. It preserved its lustre for about\nthree weeks, after which time it gradually grew fainter and fainter\nuntil some time between October 1605 and February 1606, when it\ndisappeared. The exact day is unknown, as during that interval the\nconstellation of the Serpent-Bearer is above the horizon in the day-time\nonly. But in February 1606, when it again became possible to look for\nthe new star in the night-time, it had vanished. It probably continued\nto glow with sufficient lustre to have remained visible, but for the\nveil of light under which the sun concealed it, for about sixteen months\naltogether. In fact, it seems very closely to have resembled Tycho's\nstar, not only in appearance and in the degree of its greatest\nbrightness, but in the duration of its visibility.\n\nIn the year 1670 a new star appeared in the constellation Cygnus,\nattaining the third magnitude. It remained visible, but not with this\nlustre, for nearly two years. After it had faded almost out of view, it\nflickered up again for awhile, but soon after it died out, so as to be\nentirely invisible. Whether a powerful telescope would still have shown\nit is uncertain, but it seems extremely probable. It may be, indeed,\nthat this new star in the Swan is the same which has made its appearance\nwithin the last few weeks; but on this point the evidence is uncertain.\n\nOn April 20, 1848, Mr. Hind (Superintendent of the Nautical Almanac,\nand discoverer of ten new members of the solar system) noticed a new\nstar of the fifth magnitude in the Serpent-Bearer, but in quite another\npart of that large constellation than had been occupied by Kepler's\nstar. A few weeks later, it rose to the fourth magnitude. But afterwards\nits light diminished until it became invisible to ordinary eyesight. It\ndid not vanish utterly, however. It is still visible with telescopic\npower, shining as a star of the eleventh magnitude, that is five\nmagnitudes below the faintest star discernible with the unaided eye.\n\nThis is the first new star which has been kept in view since its\napparent creation. But we are now approaching the time when it was found\nthat as so-called new stars continue in existence long after they have\ndisappeared from view, so also they are not in reality new, but were in\nexistence long before they became visible to the naked eye.\n\nOn May 12, 1866, shortly before midnight, Mr. Birmingham, of Tuam,\nnoticed a star of the second magnitude in the Northern Crown, where\nhitherto no star visible to the naked eye had been known. Dr. Schmidt,\nof Athens, who had been observing that region of the heavens the same\nnight, was certain that up to 11 P.M., Athens local time, there was no\nstar above the fourth magnitude in the place occupied by the new star.\nSo that, if this negative evidence can be implicitly relied on, the new\nstar must have sprung at least from the fourth, and probably from a much\nlower magnitude, to the second, in less than three hours--eleven o'clock\nat Athens corresponding to about nine o'clock by Irish railway time. A\nMr. Barker, of London, Canada, put forward a claim to having seen the\nnew star as early as May 4--a claim not in the least worth\ninvestigating, so far as the credit of first seeing the new star is\nconcerned, but exceedingly important in its bearing on the nature of the\noutburst affecting the star in Corona. It is unpleasant to have to throw\ndiscredit on any definite assertion of facts; unfortunately, however,\nMr. Barker, when his claim was challenged, laid before Mr. Stone, of the\nGreenwich Observatory, such very definite records of observations made\non May 4, 8, 9, and 10, that we have no choice but either to admit these\nobservations, or to infer that he experienced the delusive effects of a\nvery singular trick of memory. He mentions in his letter to Mr. Stone\nthat he had sent full particulars of his observations on those early\ndates to Professor Watson, of Ann Arbor University, on May 17; but\n(again unfortunately) instead of leaving that letter to tell its own\nstory in Professor Watson's hands, he asked Professor Watson to return\nit to him: so that when Mr. Stone very naturally asked Professor Watson\nto furnish a copy of this important letter, Professor Watson had to\nreply, 'About a month ago, Mr. Barker applied to me for this letter, and\nI returned it to him, as requested, without preserving a copy. I can,\nhowever,' he proceeded, 'state positively that he did not mention any\nactual observation earlier than May 14. He said he thought he had\nnoticed a strange star in the Crown about two weeks before the date of\nhis first observation--May 14--but not particularly, and that he did not\nrecognise it until the 14th. He did not give any date, and did not even\nseem positive as to identity.... When I returned the letter of May 17, I\nmade an endorsement across the first page, in regard to its genuineness,\nand attached my signature. I regret that I did not preserve a copy of\nthe letter in question; but if the original is produced, it will appear\nthat my recollection of its contents is correct.' I think no one can\nblame Mr. Stone, if, on the receipt of this letter, he stated that he\nhad not the 'slightest hesitation' in regarding Mr. Barker's earlier\nobservations as 'not entitled to the slightest credit.'[33]\n\nIt may be fairly taken for granted that the new star leapt very quickly,\nif not quite suddenly, to its full splendour. Birmingham, as we have\nseen, was the first to notice it, on May 12. On the evening of May 13,\nSchmidt of Athens discovered it independently, and a few hours later it\nwas noticed by a French engineer named Courbebaisse. Afterwards,\nBaxendell of Manchester, and others independently saw the star. Schmidt,\nexamining Argelander's charts of 324,000 stars (charts which I have had\nthe pleasure of mapping in a single sheet), found that the star was not\na new one, but had been set down by Argelander as between the ninth and\ntenth magnitudes. Referring to Argelander's list, we find that the star\nhad been twice observed--viz., on May 18, 1855, and on March 31, 1856.\n\nBirmingham wrote at once to Mr. Huggins, who, in conjunction with the\nlate Dr. Miller, had been for some time engaged in observing stars and\nother celestial objects with the spectroscope. These two observers at\nonce directed their telescope armed with spectroscopic adjuncts--the\ntelespectroscope is the pleasing name of the compound instrument--to the\nnew-comer. The result was rather startling. It may be well, however,\nbefore describing it, to indicate in a few words the meaning of various\nkinds of spectroscopic evidence.\n\nThe light of the sun, sifted out by the spectroscope, shows all the\ncolours but not all the tints of the rainbow. It is spread out into a\nlarge rainbow-tinted streak, but at various places (a few thousand)\nalong the streak there are missing tints; so that in fact the streak is\ncrossed by a multitude of dark lines. We know that these lines are due\nto the absorptive action of vapours existing in the atmosphere of the\nsun, and from the position of the lines we can tell what the vapours\nare. Thus, hydrogen by its absorptive action produces four of the bright\nlines. The vapour of iron is there, the vapour of sodium, magnesium, and\nso on. Again, we know that these same vapours, which, by their\nabsorptive action, cut off rays of certain tints, emit light of just\nthose tints. In fact, if the glowing mass of the sun could be suddenly\nextinguished, leaving his atmosphere in its present intensely heated\ncondition, the light of the faint sun which would thus be left us would\ngive (under spectroscopic scrutiny) those very rays which now seem\nwanting. There would be a spectrum of multitudinous bright lines,\ninstead of a rainbow-tinted spectrum crossed by multitudinous dark\nlines. It is, indeed, only by contrast that the dark lines appear dark,\njust as it is only by contrast that the solar spots seem dark. Not only\nthe penumbra but the umbra of a sun-spot, not only the umbra but the\nnucleus, not only the nucleus but the deeper black which seems to lie at\nthe core of the nucleus, shine really with a lustre far exceeding that\nof the electric light, though by contrast with the rest of the sun's\nsurface the penumbra looks dark, the umbra darker still, the nucleus\ndeep black, and the core of the nucleus jet black. So the dark lines\nacross the solar spectrum mark where certain rays are relatively faint,\nthough in reality intensely lustrous. Conceive another change than that\njust imagined. Conceive the sun's globe to remain as at present, but the\natmosphere to be excited to many times its present degree of light and\nsplendour: then would all these dark lines become bright, and the\nrainbow-tinted background would be dull or even quite dark by contrast.\nThis is not a mere fancy. At times, local disturbances take place in the\nsun which produce just such a change in certain constituents of the\nsun's atmosphere, causing the hydrogen, for example, to glow with so\nintense a heat that, instead of its lines appearing dark, they stand out\nas bright lines. Occasionally, too, the magnesium in the solar\natmosphere (over certain limited regions only, be it remembered) has\nbeen known to behave in this manner. It was so during the intensely hot\nsummer of 1872, insomuch that the Italian observer Tacchini, who noticed\nthe phenomenon, attributed to such local overheating of the sun's\nmagnesium vapour the remarkable heat from which we then for a time\nsuffered.\n\nNow, the stars are suns, and the spectrum of a star is simply a\nminiature of the solar spectrum. Of course, there are characteristic\ndifferences. One star has more hydrogen, at least more hydrogen at work\nabsorbing its rays, and thus has the hydrogen lines more strongly\nmarked than they are in the solar spectrum. Another star shows the lines\nof various metals more conspicuously, indicating that the glowing\nvapours of such elements, iron, copper, mercury, tin, and so forth,\neither hang more densely in the star's atmosphere than in our sun's, or,\nbeing cooler, absorb their special tints more effectively. But speaking\ngenerally, a stellar spectrum is like the solar spectrum. There is the\nrainbow-tinted streak, which implies that the source of light is glowing\nsolid, liquid, or highly compressed vaporous matter, and athwart the\nstreak there are the multitudinous dark lines which imply that around\nthe glowing heart of the star there are envelopes of relatively cool\nvapours.\n\nWe can understand, then, the meaning of the evidence obtained from the\nnew star in the Northern Crown.\n\nIn the first place, the new star showed the rainbow-tinted streak\ncrossed by dark lines, which indicated its sun-like nature. _But,\nstanding out on that rainbow-tinted streak as on a dark background, were\nfour exceedingly bright lines--lines so bright, though fine, that\nclearly most of the star's light came from the glowing vapours to which\nthese lines belonged._ Three of the lines belonged to hydrogen, the\nfourth was not identified with any known line.\n\nLet us distinguish between what can certainly be concluded from this\nremarkable observation, and what can only be inferred with a greater or\nless degree of probability.\n\nIt is absolutely certain that when Messrs. Huggins and Miller made their\nobservation (by which time the new star had faded from the second to the\nthird magnitude), enormous masses of hydrogen around the star were\nglowing with a heat far more intense than that of the star itself within\nthe hydrogen envelope. It is certain that the increase in the star's\nlight, rendering the star visible which before had been far beyond the\nrange of ordinary eyesight, was due to the abnormal heat of the\nhydrogen surrounding that remote sun.\n\nBut it is not so clear whether the intense glow of the hydrogen was\ncaused by combustion or by intense heat without combustion. The\ndifference between the two causes of increased light is important;\nbecause on the opinion we form on this point must depend our opinion as\nto the probability that our sun may one day experience a similar\ncatastrophe, and also our opinion as to the state of the sun in the\nNorthern Crown after the outburst. To illustrate the distinction in\nquestion, let us take two familiar cases of the emission of light. A\nburning coal glows with red light, and so does a piece of iron placed in\na coal fire. But the coal and the iron are undergoing very different\nprocesses. The coal is burning, and will presently be consumed; the iron\nis not burning (except in the sense that it is burning hot, which means\nonly that it will make any combustible substance burn which is brought\ninto contact with it), and it will not be consumed though the coal fire\nbe maintained around it for days and weeks and months. So with the\nhydrogen flames which play at all times over the surface of our own sun.\nThey are not burning like the hydrogen flames which are used for the\noxy-hydrogen lantern. Were the solar hydrogen so burning, the sun would\nquickly be extinguished. They are simply aglow with intensity of heat,\nas a mass of red-hot iron is aglow; and, so long as the sun's energies\nare maintained, the hydrogen around him will glow in this way without\nbeing consumed. As the new fires of the star in the Crown died out\nrapidly, it is possible that in their case there was actual combustion.\nOn the other hand, it is also possible, and perhaps on the whole more\nprobable, that the hydrogen surrounding the star was simply set glowing\nwith increased lustre owing to some cause not as yet ascertained.\n\nLet us see how these two theories have been actually worded by the\nstudents of science themselves who have maintained them.\n\n'The sudden blazing forth of this star,' says Mr. Huggins, 'and then the\nrapid fading away of its light, suggest the rather bold speculation that\nin consequence of some great internal convulsion, a large volume of\nhydrogen and other gases was evolved from it, the hydrogen, by its\ncombination with some other element,' in other words, by _burning_,\n'giving out the light represented by the bright lines, and at the same\ntime heating to the point of vivid incandescence the solid matter of the\nstar's surface.' 'As the liberated hydrogen gas became exhausted' (I now\nquote not Huggins's own words, but words describing his theory in a book\nwhich he has edited) 'the flame gradually abated, and, with the\nconsequent cooling, the star's surface became less vivid, and the star\nreturned to its original condition.'\n\nOn the other hand, the German physicists, Meyer and Klein, consider the\nsudden development of hydrogen, in quantities sufficient to explain such\nan outburst, exceedingly unlikely. They have therefore adopted the\nopinion, that the sudden blazing out of the star was occasioned by the\nviolent precipitation of some mighty mass, perhaps a planet, upon the\nglobe of that remote sun, 'by which the momentum of the falling mass\nwould be changed into molecular motion, or in other words into heat and\nlight.' It might even be supposed, they urge, that the star in the\nCrown, by its swift motion, may have come in contact with one of the\nstar clouds which exist in large numbers in the realms of space. 'Such a\ncollision would necessarily set the star in a blaze and occasion the\nmost vehement ignition of its hydrogen.'\n\nFortunately, our sun is safe for many millions of years to come from\ncontact from any one of its planets. The reader must not, however, run\naway with the idea that the danger consists only in the gradual\ncontraction of planetary orbits sometimes spoken of. That contraction,\nif it is taking place at all, of which we have not a particle of\nevidence, would not draw Mercury to the sun's surface for at least ten\nmillion millions of years. The real danger would be in the effects which\nthe perturbing action of the larger planets might produce on the orbit\nof Mercury. That orbit is even now very eccentric, and must at times\nbecome still more so. It might, but for the actual adjustment of the\nplanetary system, become so eccentric that Mercury could not keep clear\nof the sun; and a blow from even small Mercury (only weighing, in fact,\n390 millions of millions of millions of tons), with a velocity of some\n300 miles per second, would warm our sun considerably. But there is no\nrisk of this happening in Mercury's case--though the unseen and much\nmore shifty Vulcan (in which planet I beg to express here my utter\ndisbelief) might, perchance, work mischief if he really existed.\n\nAs for star clouds lying in the sun's course, we may feel equally\nconfident. The telescope assures us that there are none immediately on\nthe track, and we know, also, that, swiftly though the sun is carrying\nus onwards through space,[34] many millions of years must pass before he\nis among the star families towards which he is rushing.\n\nOf the danger from combustion, or from other causes of ignition than\nthose considered by Meyer and Klein, it still remains to speak. But\nfirst, let us consider what new evidence has been thrown upon the\nsubject by the observations made on the star which flamed out last\nNovember.\n\nThe new star was first seen by Professor Schmidt, who has had the good\nfortune of announcing to astronomers more than one remarkable\nphenomenon. It was he who discovered in November 1866 that a lunar\ncrater had disappeared, an announcement quite in accordance with the\nfacts of the case. We have seen that he was one of the independent\ndiscoverers of the outburst in the Northern Crown. On November 24, at\nthe early hour of 5.41 in the evening (showing that Schmidt takes time\nby the forelock at his observatory), he noticed a star of the third\nmagnitude in the constellation of the Swan, not far from the tail of\nthat southward-flying celestial bird. He is quite sure that on November\n20, the last preceding clear evening, the star was not there. At\nmidnight its light was very yellow, and it was somewhat brighter than\nthe neighbouring star Eta Pegasi, on the Flying Horse's southernmost\nknee (if anatomists will excuse my following the ordinary usage which\ncalls the wrist of the horse's fore-arm the knee). He sent news of the\ndiscovery forthwith to Leverrier, the chief of the Paris observatory;\nand the observers there set to work to analyse the light of the\nstranger. Unfortunately the star's suddenly acquired brilliancy rapidly\nfaded. M. Paul Henry estimated the star's brightness on December 2 as\nequal only to that of a fifth-magnitude star. Moreover, the colour,\nwhich had been very yellow on November 24, was by this time 'greenish,\nalmost blue.' On December 2, M. Cornu, observing during a short time\nwhen the star was visible through a break between clouds, found that the\nstar's spectrum consisted almost entirely of bright lines. On December\n5, he was able to determine the position of these lines, though still\nmuch interrupted by clouds. He found three bright lines of hydrogen, the\nstrong (really double) line of sodium, the (really triple) line of\nmagnesium, and two other lines. One of these last seemed to agree\nexactly in position with a bright line belonging to the corona seen\naround the sun during total eclipse.[35]\n\nThe star has since faded gradually in lustre until, at present, it is\nquite invisible to the naked eye.\n\nWe cannot doubt that the catastrophe which befell this star is of the\nsame general nature as is that which befell the star in the Northern\nCrown. It is extremely significant that all the elements which\nmanifested signs of intense heat in the case of the star in the Swan,\nare characteristic of our sun's outer appendages. We know that the\ncoloured flames seen around the sun during total solar eclipse consist\nof glowing hydrogen, and of glowing matter giving a line so near the\nsodium line that in the case of a stellar spectrum it would, probably,\nnot be possible to distinguish one from the other. Into the prominences\nthere are thrown from time to time masses of glowing sodium, magnesium,\nand (in less degree) iron and other metallic vapours. Lastly, in that\nglorious appendage, the solar corona, which extends for hundreds of\nthousands of miles from the sun's surface, there are enormous quantities\nof some element, whose nature is as yet unknown, showing under\nspectroscopic analysis the bright line which seems to have appeared in\nthe spectrum of the flaming sun in the Swan.\n\nThis evidence seems to me to suggest that the intense heat which\nsuddenly affected this star had its origin from without. At the same\ntime, I cannot agree with Meyer and Klein in considering that the cause\nof the heat was either the downfall of a planetary mass on the star, or\nthe collision of the star with a star-cloudlet, or nebula, traversing\nspace in one direction while the star swept onwards in another. A planet\ncould not very well come into final conflict with its sun at one fell\nswoop. It would gradually draw nearer and nearer, not by the narrowing\nof its path, but by the change of the path's shape. The path would, in\nfact, become more and more eccentric; until, at length, at its point of\nnearest approach, the planet would graze its primary, exciting an\nintense heat where it struck, but escaping actual destruction that time.\nThe planet would make another circuit, and again graze its sun, at or\nnear the same part of the planet's path. For several circuits this would\ncontinue, the grazes not becoming more effective each time, but rather\nless. The interval between them, however, would grow continually less\nand less. At last the time would come when the planet's path would be\nreduced to the circular form, its globe touching its sun's all the way\nround, and then the planet would very quickly be reduced to vapour, and\npartly burned up, its substance being absorbed by its sun. But all the\nsuccessive grazes would be indicated to us by accessions in the star's\nlustre, the period between each seeming outburst being only a few months\nat first, and becoming gradually less and less (during a long course of\nyears, perhaps even of centuries), until the planet was finally\ndestroyed. Nothing of this sort has happened in the case of any\nso-called new star.\n\nAs for the rush of a star through a nebulous mass, that is a theory\nwhich would scarcely be entertained by any one acquainted with the\nenormous distances separating the gaseous star-clouds properly called\nnebulae. There may be small clouds of the same sort scattered much more\ndensely through space; but we have not a particle of evidence that this\nactually is the case. All we certainly _know_ about star-cloudlets\nsuggest that the distances separating them from each other are\ncomparable with those which separate star from star, in which case the\nidea of a star coming into collision with a star-cloudlet, and still\nmore the idea of this occurring several times in a century, is wild in\nthe extreme.\n\nOn the whole, the theory seems more probable than any of these, that\nenormous flights of large meteoric masses travel around those stars\nwhich thus occasionally break forth in conflagration, such flights\ntravelling on exceedingly eccentric paths, and requiring enormously long\nperiods to complete each circuit of their vast orbits. In conceiving\nthis, we are not imagining anything new. Such a meteoric flight would\ndiffer only in degree not kind from meteoric flights which are known to\ncircle around our own sun. I am not sure, indeed, that it can be\ndefinitely asserted that our sun has no meteoric appendages of the same\nnature as those which, if this theory be true, excite to intense\nperiodic activity the sun round which they circle. We know that comets\nand meteors are closely connected, every comet being probably (many\ncertainly) attended by flights of meteoric masses. The meteors which\nproduce the celebrated November showers of falling stars follow in the\ntrack of a comet invisible to the naked eye. May we not reasonably\nsuppose, then, that those glorious comets which have not only been\nvisible but conspicuous, shining even in the day-time, and brandishing\nround tails which, like that of the 'wonder in heaven, the great\ndragon,' seemed to 'draw the third part of the stars of heaven,' are\nfollowed by much denser flights of much more massive meteors? Now some\namong these giant comets have paths which carry them very close to our\nsun. Newton's comet, with its tail a hundred millions of miles in\nlength, all but grazed the sun's globe. The comet of 1843, whose tail,\nsays Sir J. Herschel, 'stretched half-way across the sky,' must actually\nhave grazed the sun, though but lightly, for its nucleus was within\n80,000 miles of his surface, and its head was more than 160,000 miles in\ndiameter. And these are only two among the few comets whose paths are\nknown. At any time we might be visited by a comet mightier than either,\ntravelling on an orbit intersecting the sun's surface, followed by\nflights of meteoric masses enormous in size and many in number, which,\nfalling on the sun's globe with the enormous velocity corresponding to\ntheir vast orbital range and their near approach to the sun--a velocity\nof some 360 miles per second--would, beyond all doubt, excite his whole\nframe, and especially his surface regions, to a degree of heat far\nexceeding what he now emits.\n\nWe have had evidence of the tremendous heat to which the sun's surface\nwould be excited by the downfall of a shower of large meteoric masses.\nCarrington and Hodgson, on September 1, 1859, observed (independently)\nthe passage of two intensely bright bodies across a small part of the\nsun's surface--the bodies first increasing in brightness, then\ndiminishing, then fading away. It is generally believed that these were\nmeteoric masses raised to fierce heat by frictional resistance. Now so\nmuch brighter did they appear, or rather did that part of the sun's\nsurface appear through which they had rushed, that Carrington supposed\nthe dark glass screen used to protect the eye had broken, and Hodgson\ndescribed the brightness of this part of the sun as such that the part\nshone like a brilliant star on the background of the glowing solar\nsurface. Mark, also, the consequences of the downfall of those two\nbodies only. A magnetic disturbance affected the whole frame of the\nearth at the very time when the sun had been thus disturbed. Vivid\nauroras were seen not only in both hemispheres, but in latitudes where\nauroras are very seldom witnessed. 'By degrees,' says Sir J. Herschel,\n'accounts began to pour in of great auroras seen not only in these\nlatitudes, but at Rome, in the West Indies, in the tropics within\neighteen degrees of the equator (where they hardly ever appear); nay,\nwhat is still more striking, in South America and in Australia--where,\nat Melbourne, on the night of September 2, the greatest aurora ever seen\nthere made its appearance. These auroras were accompanied with unusually\ngreat electro-magnetic disturbances in every part of the world. In many\nplaces the telegraph wires struck work. They had too many private\nmessages of their own to convey. At Washington and Philadelphia, in\nAmerica, the electric signal-men received severe electric shocks. At a\nstation in Norway the telegraphic apparatus was set fire to; and at\nBoston, in North America, a flame of fire followed the pen of Bain's\nelectric telegraph, which writes down the message upon chemically\nprepared paper.' Seeing that where the two meteors fell the sun's\nsurface glowed thus intensely, and that the effect of this accession of\nenergy upon our earth was thus well marked, can it be doubted that a\ncomet, bearing in its train a flight of many millions of meteoric\nmasses, and falling directly upon the sun, would produce an accession of\nlight and heat whose consequences would be disastrous? When the earth\nhas passed through the richer portions (not the actual nuclei, be it\nremembered) of meteor systems, the meteors visible from even a single\nstation have been counted by tens of thousands, and it has been computed\nthat millions must have fallen upon the whole earth. These were meteors\nfollowing in the train of very small comets. If a very large comet\nfollowed by no denser a flight of meteors, but each meteoric mass much\nlarger, fell directly upon the sun, it would not be the outskirts but\nthe nucleus of the meteoric train which would impinge upon him. They\nwould number thousands of millions. The velocity of downfall of each\nmass would be more than 360 miles per second. And they would continue to\npour in upon him for several days in succession, millions falling every\nhour. It seems not improbable that, under this tremendous and\nlong-continued meteoric hail, his whole surface would be caused to glow\nas intensely as that small part whose brilliancy was so surprising in\nthe observation made by Carrington and Hodgson. In that case, our sun,\nseen from some remote star whence ordinarily he is invisible, would\nshine out as a new sun, for a few days, while all things living on our\nearth, and whatever other members of the solar system are the abode of\nlife, would inevitably be destroyed.\n\nThe reader must not suppose that this idea has been suggested merely in\nthe attempt to explain outbursts of stars. The following passage from a\npaper of considerable scientific interest by Professor Kirkwood, of\nBloomington, Indiana, a well-known American astronomer, shows that the\nidea had occurred to him for a very different reason. He speaks here of\na probable connection between the comet of 1843 and the great sun-spot\nwhich appeared in June 1843. I am not sure, however, but that we may\nregard the very meteors which seem to have fallen on the sun on\nSeptember 1, 1859, as bodies travelling in the track of the comet of\n1843--just as the November meteors seen in 1867-8, 9, etc., until 1872,\nwere bodies certainly following in the track of the telescopic comet of\n1866. 'The opinion has been expressed by more than one astronomer,' he\nsays, speaking of Carrington's observation, 'that this phenomenon was\nproduced by the fall of meteoric matter upon the sun's surface. Now, the\nfact may be worthy of note that the comet of 1843 actually grazed the\nsun's atmosphere about three months before the appearance of the great\nsun-spot of the same year. Had it approached but little nearer, the\nresistance of the atmosphere would probably have brought its entire mass\nto the solar surface. Even at its actual distance it must have produced\nconsiderable atmospheric disturbance. But the recent discovery that a\nnumber of comets are associated with meteoric matter, travelling in\nnearly the same orbits, suggests the inquiry whether an enormous\nmeteorite following in the comet's train, and having a somewhat less\nperihelion distance, may not have been precipitated upon the sun, thus\nproducing the great disturbance observed so shortly after the comet's\nperihelion passage.'\n\nThere are those, myself among the number, who consider the periodicity\nof the solar spots, that tide of spots which flows to its maximum and\nthen ebbs to its minimum in a little more than eleven years, as only\nexplicable on the theory that a small comet having this period, and\nfollowed by a meteor train, has a path intersecting the sun's surface.\nIn an article entitled 'The Sun a Bubble,' which appeared in the\n'Cornhill Magazine' for October 1874, I remarked that from the observed\nphenomena of sun-spots we might be led to suspect the existence of some\nas yet undetected comet with a train of exceptionally large meteoric\nmasses, travelling in a period of about eleven years round the sun, and\nhaving its place of nearest approach to that orb so close to the solar\nsurface that, when the main flight is passing, the stragglers fall upon\nthe sun's surface. In this case, we could readily understand that, as\nthis small comet unquestionably causes our sun to be variable to some\nslight degree in brilliancy, in a period of about eleven years, so some\nmuch larger comet circling around Mira, in a period of about 331 days,\nmay occasion those alternations of brightness which have been described\nabove. It may be noticed in passing, that it is by no means certain that\nthe time when the sun is most spotted is the time when he gives out\nleast light. Though at such times his surface is dark where the spots\nare, yet elsewhere it is probably brighter than usual; at any rate, all\nthe evidence we have tends to show that when the sun is most spotted,\nhis energies are most active. It is then that the coloured flames leap\nto their greatest height and show their greatest brilliancy, then also\nthat they show the most rapid and remarkable changes of shape.\n\nSupposing there really is, I will not say danger, but a possibility,\nthat our sun may one day, through the arrival of some very large comet\ntravelling directly towards him, share the fate of the suns whose\noutbursts I have described above, we might be destroyed unawares, or we\nmight be aware for several weeks of the approach of the destroying\ncomet. Suppose, for example, the comet, which might arrive from any part\nof the heavens, came from out that part of the star-depths which is\noccupied by the constellation Taurus--then, if the arrival were so timed\nthat the comet, which might reach the sun at any time, fell upon him in\nMay or June, we should know nothing of that comet's approach: for it\nwould approach in that part of the heavens which was occupied by the\nsun, and his splendour would hide as with a veil the destroying enemy.\nOn the other hand, if the comet, arriving from the same region of the\nheavens, so approached as to fall upon the sun in November or December,\nwe should see it for several weeks. For it would then approach from the\npart of the heavens high above the southern horizon at midnight.\nAstronomers would be able in a few days after it was discovered to\ndetermine its path and predict its downfall upon the sun, precisely as\nNewton calculated the path of _his_ comet and predicted its near\napproach to the sun. It would be known for weeks then that the event\nwhich Newton contemplated as likely to cause a tremendous outburst of\nsolar heat, competent to destroy all life upon the surface of our earth,\nwas about to take place; and, doubtless, the minds of many students of\nscience would be exercised during that interval in determining whether\nNewton was right or wrong. For my own part, I have very little doubt\nthat, though the change in the sun's condition in consequence of the\ndirect downfall upon his surface of a very large comet would be but\ntemporary, and in that sense slight--for what are a few weeks in the\nhistory of an orb which has already existed during thousands of millions\nof years?--yet the effect upon the inhabitants of the earth would be by\nno means slight. I do not think, however, that any students of science\nwould remain, after the catastrophe, to estimate or to record its\neffects.\n\nFortunately, all that we have learned hitherto from the stars favours\nthe belief that, while a catastrophe of this sort may be possible, it is\nexceedingly unlikely. We may estimate the probabilities precisely in the\nsame way that an insurance company estimates the chance of a railway\naccident. Such a company considers the number of accidents which occur\namong a given number of railway journeys, and from the smallness of the\nnumber of accidents compared with the largeness of the number of\njourneys estimates the safety of railway travelling. Our sun is one\namong many millions of suns, any one of which (though all but a few\nthousands are actually invisible) would become visible to the naked eye,\nif exposed to the same conditions as have affected the suns in flames\ndescribed in the preceding pages. Seeing, then, that during the last\ntwo thousand years or thereabouts, only a few instances of the kind,\ncertainly not so many as twenty, have been recorded, while there is\nreason to believe that some of these relate to the same star which has\nblazed out more than once, we may fairly consider the chance exceedingly\nsmall that during the next two thousand, or even the next twenty\nthousand years, our sun will be exposed to a catastrophe of the kind.\n\nWe might arrive at this conclusion independently of any considerations\ntending to show that our sun belongs to a safe class of system-rulers,\nand that all, or nearly all, the great solar catastrophes have occurred\namong suns of a particular class. There are, however, several\nconsiderations of the kind which are worth noting.\n\nIn the first place, we may dismiss as altogether unlikely the visit of a\ncomet from the star-depths to our sun, on a course carrying the comet\ndirectly upon the sun's surface. But if, among the comets travelling in\nregular attendance upon the sun, there be one whose orbit intersects the\nsun's globe, then that comet must several times ere this have struck the\nsun, raising him temporarily to a destructive degree of heat. Now, such\na comet must have a period of enormous length, for the races of animals\nnow existing upon the earth must all have been formed since that comet's\nlast visit--on the assumption, be it remembered, that the fall of a\nlarge comet upon the sun, or rather the direct passage of the sun\nthrough the meteoric nucleus of a large comet, would excite the sun to\ndestructive heat. If all living creatures on the earth are to be\ndestroyed when some comet belonging to the solar system makes its next\nreturn to the sun, that same comet at its last visit must have raised\nthe sun to an equal, or even greater intensity of heat, so that either\nno such races as at present exist had then come into being, or, if any\nsuch existed, they must at that time have been utterly destroyed. We\nmay fairly believe that all comets of the destructive sort have been\neliminated. Judging from the evidence we have on the subject, the\nprocess of the formation of the solar system was one which involved the\nutilisation of cometic and meteoric matter; and it fortunately so\nchanced that the comets likely otherwise to have been most\nmischievous--those, namely, which crossed the track of planets, and\nstill more those whose paths intersected the globe of the sun--were\nprecisely those which would be earliest and most thoroughly used up in\nthis way.\n\nSecondly, it is noteworthy that all the stars which have blazed out\nsuddenly, except one, have appeared in a particular region of the\nheavens--the zone of the Milky Way (all, too, on one half of that zone).\nThe single exception is the star in the Northern Crown, and that star\nappeared in a region which I have found to be connected with the Milky\nWay by a well-marked stream of stars, not a stream of a few stars\nscattered here and there, but a stream where thousands of stars are\nclosely aggregated together, though not quite so closely as to form a\nvisible extension of the Milky Way. In my map of 324,000 stars this\nstream can be quite clearly recognised; but, indeed, the brighter stars\nscattered along it form a stream recognisable with the naked eye, and\nhave long since been regarded by astronomers as such, forming the stars\nof the Serpent and the Crown, or a serpentine streak followed by a loop\nof stars shaped like a coronet. Now the Milky Way, and the outlying\nstreams of stars connected with it, seem to form a region of the stellar\nuniverse where fashioning processes are still at work. As Sir W.\nHerschel long since pointed out, we can recognise in various parts of\nthe heavens various stages of development, and chief among the regions\nwhere as yet Nature's work seems incomplete, is the Galactic\nzone--especially that half of it where the Milky Way consists of\nirregular streams and clouds of stellar light. As there is no reason for\nbelieving that our sun belongs to this part of the galaxy, but on the\ncontrary good ground for considering that he belongs to the class of\ninsulated stars, few of which have shown signs of irregular variation,\nwhile none have ever blazed suddenly out with many hundred times their\nformer lustre, we may fairly infer a very high degree of probability in\nfavour of the belief that, for many ages still to come, the sun will\ncontinue steadily to discharge his duties as fire, light, and life of\nthe solar system.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n_THE RINGS OF SATURN._\n\n\nThe rings of Saturn, always among the most interesting objects of\nastronomical research, have recently been subjected to close scrutiny\nunder high telescopic powers by Mr. Trouvelot, of the Harvard\nObservatory, Cambridge, U.S. The results which he has obtained afford\nvery significant evidence respecting these strange appendages, and even\nthrow some degree of light on the subject of cosmical evolution. The\npresent time, when Saturn is the ruling planet of the night, seems\nfavourable for giving a brief account of recent speculations respecting\nthe Saturnian ring-system, especially as the observations of Mr.\nTrouvelot appear to remove all doubt as to the true nature of the rings,\nif indeed any doubt could reasonably be entertained after the\ninvestigations made by European and American astronomers when the dark\ninner ring had but recently been recognised.\n\nIt may be well to give a brief account of the progress of observation\nfrom the time when the rings were first discovered.\n\nIn passing, I may remark that the failure of Galileo to ascertain the\nreal shape of these appendages has always seemed to me to afford\nstriking evidence of the importance of careful reasoning upon all\nobservations whose actual significance is not at once apparent. If\nGalileo had been thus careful to analyse his observations of Saturn, he\ncould not have failed to ascertain their real meaning. He had seen the\nplanet apparently attended by two large satellites, one on either side,\n'as though supporting the aged Saturn upon his slow course around the\nsun.' Night after night he had seen these attendants, always similarly\nplaced, one on either side of the planet, and at equal distances from\nit. Then in 1612 he had again examined the planet, and lo, the\nattendants had vanished, 'as though Saturn had been at his old tricks,\nand had devoured his children.' But after a while the attendant orbs had\nreappeared in their former positions, had seemed slowly to grow larger,\nuntil at length they had presented the appearance of two pairs of mighty\narms encompassing the planet. If Galileo had reasoned upon these changes\nof appearance, he could not have failed, as it seems to me, to interpret\ntheir true meaning. The three forms under which the rings had been seen\nby him sufficed to indicate the true shape of the appendage. Because\nSaturn was seen with two attendants of apparently equal size and always\nequi-distant from him, it was certain that there must be some appendage\nsurrounding him, and extending to that distance from his globe. Because\nthis appendage disappeared, it was certain that it must be thin and\nflat. Because it appeared at another time with a dark space between the\narms and the planet, it was certain that the appendage is separated by a\nwide gap from the body of the planet. So that Galileo might have\nconcluded--not doubtfully, but with assured confidence--that the\nappendage is a thin flat ring nowhere attached to the planet, or, as\nHuyghens said some forty years later, Saturn '_annulo cingitur tenui,\nplano, nusquam cohaerente_.' Whether such reasoning would have been\naccepted by the contemporaries of Galileo may be doubtful. The\ngenerality of men are not content with reasoning which is logically\nsound, but require evidence which they can easily understand. Very\nlikely Huyghens' proof from direct observation, though in reality not a\nwhit more complete and far rougher, would have been regarded as the\nfirst true proof of the existence of Saturn's ring, just as Sir W.\nHerschel's observation of one star actually moving round another was\nregarded as the first true proof of the physical association of certain\nstars, a fact which Michell had proved as completely and far more neatly\nhalf a century earlier, by a method, however, which was 'caviare to the\ngeneral.'\n\nHowever, as matters chanced, the scientific world was not called upon to\ndecide between the merits of a discovery made by direct observation and\none effected by means of abstract reasoning. It was not until Saturn had\nbeen examined with much higher telescopic power than Galileo could\nemploy, that the appendage which had so perplexed the Florentine\nastronomer was seen to be a thin flat ring, nowhere touching the planet,\nand considerably inclined to the plane in which Saturn travels. We\ncannot wonder that the discovery was regarded as a most interesting one.\nAstronomers had heretofore had to deal with solid masses, either known\nto be spheroidal, like the earth, the sun, the moon, Jupiter, and Venus,\nor presumed to be so, like the stars. The comets might be judged to be\nvaporous masses of various forms; but even these were supposed to\nsurround or to attend upon globe-shaped nuclear masses. Here, however,\nin the case of Saturn's ring, was a quoit-shaped body travelling around\nthe sun in continual attendance upon Saturn, whose motions, no matter\nhow they varied in velocity or direction, were so closely followed by\nthis strange attendant that the planet remained always centrally poised\nwithin the span of its ring-girdle. To appreciate the interest with\nwhich this strange phenomenon was regarded, we must remember that as yet\nthe law of gravity had not been recognised. Huyghens discovered the\nring (or rather perceived its nature) in 1659, but it was not till 1666\nthat Newton first entertained the idea that the moon is retained in its\norbit about the earth by the attractive energy which causes unsupported\nbodies to fall earthwards; and he was unable to demonstrate the law of\ngravity before 1684. Now, in a general sense, we can readily understand\nin these days how a ring around a planet continues to travel along with\nthe planet despite all changes of velocity or direction of motion. For\nthe law of gravity teaches that the same causes which tend to change the\ndirection and velocity of the planet's motion tend in precisely the same\ndegree to change the direction and velocity of the ring's motion. But\nwhen Huyghens made his discovery it must have appeared a most mysterious\ncircumstance that a ring and planet should be thus constantly\nassociated--that during thousands of years no collision should have\noccurred whereby the relatively delicate structure of the ring had been\ndestroyed.\n\nOnly six years later a discovery was made by two English observers,\nWilliam and Thomas Ball, which enhanced the mystery. Observing the\nnorthern face of the ring, which was at that time turned earthwards,\nthey perceived a black stripe of considerable breadth dividing the ring\ninto two concentric portions. The discovery did not attract so much\nattention as it deserved, insomuch that when Cassini, ten years later,\nannounced the discovery of a corresponding dark division on the southern\nsurface, none recalled the observation made by the brothers Ball.\nCassini expressed the opinion that the ring is really divided into two,\nnot merely marked by a dark stripe on its southern face. This conclusion\nwould, of course, have been an assured one, had the previous observation\nof a dark division on the northern face been remembered. With the\nknowledge which we now possess, indeed, the darkness of the seeming\nstripe would be sufficient evidence that there must be a real division\nthere between the rings; for we know that no mere darkness of the ring's\nsubstance could account for the apparent darkness of the stripe. It has\nbeen well remarked by Professor Tyndall, that if the moon's whole\nsurface could be covered with black velvet, she would yet appear white\nwhen seen on the dark background of the sky. And it may be doubted\nwhether a circular strip of black velvet 2000 miles wide, placed where\nwe see the dark division between the rings, would appear nearly as dark\nas that division. Since we could only admit the possibility of some\nsubstance resembling our darker rocks occupying this position (for we\nknow of nothing to justify the supposition that a substance as dark as\nlampblack or black velvet could be there), we are manifestly precluded\nfrom supposing that the dark space is other than a division between two\ndistinct rings.\n\nYet Sir W. Herschel, in examining the rings of Saturn with his powerful\ntelescopes, for a long time favoured the theory that there is no real\ndivision. He called it the 'broad black mark,' and argued that it can\nneither indicate the existence of a zone of hills upon the ring, nor of\na vast cavernous groove, for in either case it would present changes of\nappearance (according to the ring's changes of position) such as he was\nunable to detect. It was not until the year 1790, eleven years after his\nobservations had commenced, that, perceiving a corresponding broad black\nmark upon the ring's southern face, Herschel expressed a 'suspicion'\nthat the ring is divided into two concentric portions by a circular gap\nnearly 2000 miles in width. He expressed at the same time, very\nstrongly, his belief that this division was the only one in Saturn's\nring-system.\n\nA special interest attached at that time to the question whether the\nring is divided or not, for Laplace had then recently published the\nresults of his mathematical inquiry into the movements of such a ring as\nSaturn's, and, having _proved_ that a single solid ring of such enormous\nwidth could not continue to move around the planet, had expressed the\n_opinion_ that Saturn's ring consists in reality of many concentric\nrings, each turning, with its own proper rotation rate, around the\ncentral planet. It is singular that Herschel, who, though not versed in\nthe methods of the higher mathematics, had considerable native power as\na mathematician, was unable to perceive the force of Laplace's\nreasoning. Indeed, this is one of those cases where clearness of\nperception rather than profundity of mathematical insight was required.\nLaplace's equations of motion did not express all the relations\ninvolved, nor was it possible to judge, from the results he deduced, how\nfar the stability of the Saturnian rings depended on the real structure\nof these appendages. One who was well acquainted with mechanical\nmatters, and sufficiently versed in mathematics to understand how to\nestimate generally the forces acting upon the ring-system, could have\nperceived as readily the general conditions of the problem as the most\nprofound mathematician. One may compare the case to the problem of\ndetermining whether the action of the moon in causing the tidal wave\nmodifies in any manner the earth's motion of rotation. We know that as a\nmathematical question this is a very difficult one. The Astronomer\nRoyal, for example, not long ago dealt with it analytically, and deduced\nthe conclusion that there is no effect on the earth's rotation,\npresently however, discovering by a lucky chance a term in the result\nwhich indicates an effect of that kind. But if we look at the matter in\nits mechanical aspect, we perceive at once, without any profound\nmathematical research, that the retardation so hard to detect\nmathematically must necessarily take place. As Sir E. Beckett says in\nhis masterly work, _Astronomy without Mathematics_, 'the conclusion is\nas evident without mathematics as with them, when once it has been\nsuggested.' So when we consider the case of a wide flat ring surrounding\na mighty planet like Saturn, we perceive that nothing could possibly\nsave such a ring from destruction if it were really one solid structure.\n\nTo recognise this the more clearly, let us first notice the dimensions\nof the planet and rings.\n\nWe have in Saturn a globe about 70,000 miles in mean diameter, an\nequatorial diameter being about 73,000 miles, the polar diameter 66,000\nmiles. The attractive force of this mighty mass upon bodies placed on\nits surface is equal to about one-fifth more than terrestrial gravity if\nthe body is near the pole of Saturn, and is almost exactly the same as\nterrestrial gravity if the body is at the planet's equator. Its action\non the matter of the ring is, of course, very much less, because of the\nincreased distance, but still a force is exerted on every part of the\nring which is comparable with the familiar force of terrestrial gravity.\nThe outer edge of the outer ring lies about 83,500 miles from the\nplanet's centre, the inner edge of the inner ring (I speak throughout of\nthe ring-system as known to Sir W. Herschel and Laplace) about 54,500\nmiles from the centre, the breadth of the system of bright rings being\nabout 29,000 miles. Between the planet's equator and the inner edge of\nthe innermost bright ring there intervenes a space of about 20,000\nmiles. Roughly speaking, it may be said that the attraction of the\nplanet on the substance of the ring's inner edge is less than gravity at\nSaturn's equator (or, which is almost exactly the same thing, is less\nthan terrestrial gravity) in about the proportion of 9 to 20; or, still\nmore roughly, the inner edge of Saturn's inner bright ring is drawn\ninwards by about half the force of gravity at the earth's surface. The\nouter edge is drawn towards Saturn by a force less than terrestrial\ngravity in the proportion of about 3 to 16--say roughly that the force\nthus exerted by Saturn on the matter of the outer edge of the\nring-system is equivalent to about one-fifth of the force of gravity at\nthe earth's surface.\n\nIt is clear, first, that if the ring-system did not rotate, the forces\nthus acting on the material of the rings would immediately break them\ninto fragments, and, dragging these down to the planet's equator, would\nleave them scattered in heaps upon that portion of Saturn's surface. The\nring would in fact be in that case like a mighty arch, each portion of\nwhich would be drawn towards Saturn's centre by its own weight. This\nweight would be enormous if Bessel's estimate of the mass of the\nring-system is correct. He made the mass of the ring rather greater than\nthe mass of the earth--an estimate which I believe to be greatly in\nexcess of the truth. Probably the rings do not amount in mass to more\nthan a fourth part of the earth's mass. But even that is enormous, and\nsubjected as is the material of the rings to forces varying from\none-half to a fifth of terrestrial gravity, the strains and pressures\nupon the various parts of the system would exceed thousands of times\nthose which even the strongest material built up into their shape could\nresist. The system would no more be able to resist such strains and\npressures than an arch of iron spanning the Atlantic would be able to\nsustain its own weight against the earth's attraction.\n\nIt would be necessary then that the ring-system should rotate around the\nplanet. But it is clear that the proper rate of rotation for the outer\nportion would be very different from the rate suited for the inner\nportion. In order that the inner portion should travel around Saturn\nentirely relieved of its weight, it should complete a revolution in\nabout seven hours twenty-three minutes. The outer portion, however,\nshould revolve in about thirteen hours fifty-eight minutes, or nearly\nfourteen hours. Thus the inner part should rotate in little more than\nhalf the time required by the outer part. The result would necessarily\nbe that the ring-system would be affected by tremendous strains, which\nit would be quite unable to resist. The existence of the great division\nwould manifestly go far to diminish the strains. It is easily shown that\nthe rate of turning where the division is, would be once in about eleven\nhours and twenty-five minutes, not differing greatly from the mean\nbetween the rotation-periods for the outside and for the inside edges of\nthe system. Even then, however, the strains would be hundreds of times\ngreater than the material of the ring could resist. A mass comparable in\nweight to our earth, compelled to rotate in (say) nine hours when it\nought to rotate in eleven or in seven, would be subjected to strains\nexceeding many times the resistances which the cohesive power of its\nsubstance could afford. That would be the condition of the inner ring.\nAnd in like manner the outer ring, if it rotated in about twelve hours\nand three-quarters, would have its outer portions rotating too fast and\nits inner portions too slowly, because their proper periods would be\nfourteen hours and eleven hours and a half respectively. Nothing but the\ndivision of the ring into a number of narrow hoops could possibly save\nit from destruction through the internal strains and pressures to which\nits material would be subjected.\n\nEven this complicated arrangement, however, would not save the\nring-system. If we suppose a fine hoop to turn around a central\nattracting body as the rings of Saturn rotate around the planet, it may\nbe shown that unless the hoop is so weighted that its centre of gravity\nis far from the planet, there will be no stability in the resulting\nmotions; the hoop will before long be made to rotate eccentrically, and\neventually be brought into destructive collision with the central\nplanet.\n\nIt was here that Laplace left the problem. Nothing could have been more\nunsatisfactory than his result, though it was accepted for nearly half a\ncentury unquestioned. He had shown that a weighted fine hoop may\npossibly turn around a central attracting mass without destructive\nchanges of position, but he had not proved more than the bare\npossibility of this, while nothing in the appearance of Saturn's rings\nsuggests that any such arrangement exists. Again, manifestly a multitude\nof narrow hoops, so combined as to form a broad flat system of rings,\nwould be constantly in collision _inter se_. Besides, each one of them\nwould be subjected to destructive strains. For though a fine uniform\nhoop set rotating at a proper rate around an attracting mass at its\ncentre would be freed from all strains, the case is very different with\na hoop so weighted as to have its centre of gravity greatly displaced.\nLaplace had saved the theoretical stability of the motions of a fine\nring at the expense of the ring's power of resisting the strains to\nwhich it would be exposed. It seems incredible that such a result\n(expressed, too, very doubtingly by the distinguished mathematician who\nhad obtained it) should have been accepted so long almost without\nquestion. There is nothing in nature in the remotest degree resembling\nthe arrangement imagined by Laplace, which indeed appears on _a priori_\ngrounds impossible. It was not claimed for it that it removed the\noriginal difficulties of the problem; and it introduced others fully as\nserious. So strong, however, is authority in the scientific world that\nnone ventured to express any doubts except Sir W. Herschel, who simply\ndenied that the two rings were divided into many, as Laplace's theory\nrequired. As time went on and the signs of many divisions were at times\nrecognised, it was supposed that Laplace's reasoning had been justified;\nand despite the utter impossibility of the arrangement he had suggested,\nthat arrangement was ordinarily described as probably existing.\n\nAt length, however, a discovery was made which caused the whole question\nto be reopened.\n\nOn November 10, 1850, W. Bond, observing the planet with the telescope\nof the Harvard Observatory, perceived within the inner bright ring a\nfeeble illumination which he was at a loss to understand. On the next\nnight the faint light was better seen. On the 15th, Tuttle, who was\nobserving with Bond, suggested the idea that the light within the inner\nbright ring was due to a dusky ring inside the system of bright rings.\nOn November 25, Mr. Dawes in England perceived this dusky ring, and\nannounced the discovery before the news had reached England that Bond\nhad already seen the dark ring. The credit of the discovery is usually\nshared between Bond and Dawes, though the usual rule in such matters\nwould assign the discovery to Bond alone. It was found that the dark\nring had already been seen at Rome so far back as 1828, and again by\nGalle at Berlin in May 1838. The Roman observations were not\nsatisfactory. Those by Galle, however, were sufficient to have\nestablished the fact of the ring's existence; indeed, in 1839 Galle\nmeasured the dark ring. But very little attention was attracted to this\ninteresting discovery, insomuch that when Bond and Dawes announced their\nobservation of the dark ring in 1850, the news was received by\nastronomers with all the interest attaching to the detection of before\nunnoted phenomena.\n\nIt may be well to notice under what conditions the dark ring was\ndetected in 1850. In September 1848 the ring had been turned edgewise\ntowards the sun, and as rather more than seven years are occupied in\nthe apparent gradual opening out of the ring from that edge view to its\nmost open appearance (when the outline of the ring-system is an eclipse\nwhose lesser axis is nearly equal to half the greater), it will be seen\nthat in November 1850 the rings were but slightly opened. Thus the\nrecognition of the dark ring within the bright system was made under\nunfavourable conditions. For four preceding years--that is, from the\nyear 1846--the rings had been as little or less opened; and again for\nseveral years preceding 1846, though the rings had been more open, the\nplanet had been unfavourably placed for observation in northern\nlatitudes, crossing the meridian at low altitudes. Still, in 1838 and\n1839, when the rings were most open, although the planet was never seen\nunder favourable conditions, the opening of the rings, then nearly at\nits greatest, made the recognition of the dark ring possible; and we\nhave seen that Galle then made the discovery. When Bond rediscovered the\ndark ring, everything promised that before long the appendage would be\nvisible with telescopes far inferior in power to the great Harvard\nrefractor. Year after year the planet was becoming more favourably\nplaced for observation, while all the time the rings were opening out.\nAccordingly it need not surprise us to learn that in 1853 the dark ring\nwas seen with a telescope less than three inches and a half in aperture.\nEven so early as 1851, Mr. Hartnup, observing the planet with a\ntelescope eight inches and a half in aperture, found that 'the dark ring\ncould not be overlooked for an instant.'\n\nBut while this increase in the distinctness of the dark ring was to be\nexpected, from the mere fact that the ring was discovered under\nrelatively unfavourable conditions, yet the fact that Saturn was thus\nfound to have an appendage of a remarkable character, perfectly obvious\neven with moderate telescopic power, was manifestly most surprising.\nThe planet had been studied for nearly two centuries with telescopes\nexceeding in power those with which the dark ring was now perceived.\nSome among these telescopes were not only of great power, but employed\nby observers of the utmost skill. The elder Herschel had for a quarter\nof a century studied Saturn with his great reflectors eighteen inches in\naperture, and had at times turned on the planet his monstrous (though\nnot mighty) four-feet mirror. Schroeter had examined the dark space\nwithin the inner bright ring for the special purpose of determining\nwhether the ring-system is really disconnected from the globe. He had\nused a mirror nineteen inches in aperture, and he had observed that the\ndark space seen on either side of Saturn inside the ring-system not only\nappeared dark, but actually darker than the surrounding sky. This was\npresumably (though not quite certainly) an effect of contrast only, the\ndark space being bounded all round by bright surfaces. If real, the\nphenomenon signified that whereas the space outside the ring, where the\nsatellites of the planet travel, was occupied by some sort of cosmical\ndust, the space within the ring-system was, as it were, swept and\ngarnished, as though all the scattered matter which might otherwise have\noccupied that region had been either attracted to the body of the planet\nor to the rings.[36] But manifestly the observation was entirely\ninconsistent with the supposition that there existed in Schroeter's time\na dark or dusky ring within the bright system. Again, the elder Struve\nmade the most careful measurement of the whole of the ring-system in\n1826, when the system was as well placed for observation as in 1856\n(or, in other words, as well placed as it can possibly be); but though\nhe used a telescope nine inches and a half in aperture, and though his\nattention was specially attracted to the inner edge of the inner bright\nring (_which seemed to him indistinct_), he did not detect the dark\nring. Yet we have seen that in 1851, under much less favourable\nconditions, a less practised observer, using a telescope of less\naperture, found that the dark ring could not be overlooked for an\ninstant. It is manifest that all these considerations point to the\nconclusion that the dark ring is a new formation, or, at the least, that\nit has changed notably in condition during the present century.\n\nI have hitherto only considered the appearance of the dusky ring as seen\non either side of the planet's globe within the bright rings. The most\nremarkable feature of the appendage remains still to be mentioned--the\nfact, namely, that the bright body of the planet can be seen through\nthis dusky ring. Where the dark ring crosses the planet, it appears as a\nrather dark belt, which might readily be mistaken for a belt upon the\nplanet's surface; for the outline of the planet can be seen through the\nring as through a film of smoke or a crape veil.\n\nNow it is worthy of notice that whereas the dark ring was not detected\noutside the planet's body until 1838, nor generally recognised by\nastronomers until 1850, the dark belt across the planet, really caused\nby the dusky ring, was observed more than a century earlier. In 1715 the\nyounger Cassini saw it, and perceived that it was not curved enough for\na belt really belonging to the planet. Hadley again observed that the\nbelt attended the ring as this opened out and closed, or, in other\nwords, that the dark belt belonged to the ring, not to the body of the\nplanet. And in many pictures of Saturn's system a dark band is shown\nalong the inner edge of the inner bright ring where it crosses the body\nof the planet. It seems to me that we have here a most important piece\nof evidence respecting the rings. It is clear that the inner part of the\ninner bright ring has for more than a century and a half (how much more\nwe do not know) been partially transparent, and it is probable that\nwithin its inner edge there has been all the time a ring of matter; but\nthis ring has only within the last half-century gathered consistency\nenough to be discernible. It is manifest that the existence of the dark\nbelt shown in the older pictures would have led directly to the\ndetection of the dark ring, had not this appendage been exceedingly\nfaint. Thus, while the observation of the dark belt across the planet's\nface proves the dusky ring to have existed in some form long before it\nwas perceived, the same fact only helps to render us certain that the\ndark ring has changed notably in condition during the present century.\n\nThe discovery of this singular appendage, an object unique in the solar\nsystem, naturally attracted fresh attention to the question of the\nstability of the rings. The idea was thrown out by the elder Bond that\nthe new ring may be fluid, or even that the whole ring-system may be\nfluid, and the dark ring simply thinner than the rest. It was thought\npossible that the ring-system is of the nature of a vast ocean, whose\nwaves are steadily advancing upon the planet's globe. The mathematical\ninvestigation of the subject was also resumed by Professor Benjamin\nPierce, of Harvard, and it was satisfactorily demonstrated that the\nstability of a system of actual rings of solid matter required so nice\nan adjustment of so many narrow rings as to render the system far more\ncomplex than even Laplace had supposed. 'A stable formation can,' he\nsaid, 'be nothing other than a very great number of separate narrow\nrigid rings, each revolving with its proper relative velocity.' As was\nwell remarked by the late Professor Nichol, 'If this arrangement or\nanything like it were real, how many new conditions of instability do we\nintroduce. Observation tells us that the division between such rings\nmust be extremely narrow, so that the slightest disturbance by external\nor internal causes would cause one ring to impinge upon another; and we\nshould thus have the seed of perpetual catastrophes.' Nor would such a\nconstitution protect the system against dissolution. 'There is no escape\nfrom the difficulties, therefore, but through the final rejection of the\nidea that Saturn's rings are rigid or in any sense a solid formation.'\n\nThe idea that the ring-system may be fluid came naturally next under\nmathematical scrutiny. Strangely enough, the physical objections to the\ntheory of fluidity appear to have been entirely overlooked. Before we\ncould accept such a theory, we must admit the existence of elements\ndiffering entirely from those with which we are familiar. No fluid known\nto us could retain the form of the rings of Saturn under the conditions\nto which they are exposed. But the mathematical examination of the\nsubject disposed so thoroughly of the theory that the rings can consist\nof continuous fluid masses, that we need not now discuss the physical\nobjections to the theory.\n\nThere remains only the theory that the Saturnian ring-system consists of\ndiscrete masses analogous to the streams of meteors known to exist in\ngreat numbers within the solar system. The masses may be solid or fluid,\nmay be strewn in relatively vacant space, or may be surrounded by\nvaporous envelopes; but that they are discrete, each free to travel on\nits own course, seemed as completely demonstrated by Pierce's\ncalculations as anything not actually admitting of direct observation\ncould possibly be. The matter was placed beyond dispute by the\nindependent analysis to which Clerk Maxwell subjected the mathematical\nproblem. It had been selected in 1855 as the subject for the Adams Prize\nEssay at Cambridge, and Clerk Maxwell's essay, which obtained the prize,\nshowed conclusively that only a system of many small bodies, each free\nto travel upon its course under the varying attractions to which it was\nsubjected by Saturn itself, and by the Saturnian satellites, could\npossibly continue to girdle a planet as the rings of Saturn girdle him.\n\nIt is clear that all the peculiarities hitherto observed in the\nSaturnian ring-system are explicable so soon as we regard that system as\nmade up of multitudes of small bodies. Varieties of brightness simply\nindicate various degrees of condensation of these small satellites. Thus\nthe outer ring had long been observed to be less bright than the inner.\nOf course it did not seem impossible that the outer ring might be made\nof different materials; yet there was something bizarre in the\nsupposition that two rings forming the same system were thus different\nin substance. It would not have been at all noteworthy if different\nparts of the same ring differed in luminosity--in fact, it was much more\nremarkable that each zone of the system seemed uniformly bright all\nround. But that one zone should be of one tint, another of an entirely\ndifferent tint, was a strange circumstance so long as the only available\ninterpretation seemed to be that one zone was made (throughout) of one\nsubstance, the other of another. If this was strange when the difference\nbetween the inner and outer bright rings was alone considered, how much\nstranger did it seem when the multitudinous divisions in the rings were\ntaken into account! Why should the ring-system, 30,000 miles in width,\nbe thus divided into zones of different material? An arrangement so\nartificial is quite unlike all that is elsewhere seen among the\nsubjects of the astronomer's researches. But when the rings are regarded\nas made up of multitudes of small bodies, we can quite readily\nunderstand how the nearly circular movements of all of these, at\ndifferent rates, should result in the formation of rings of aggregation\nand rings of segregation, appearing at the earth's distance as bright\nrings and faint rings. The dark ring clearly corresponds in appearance\nwith a ring of thinly scattered satellites. Indeed, it seems impossible\notherwise to account for the appearance of a dusky belt across the globe\nof the planet where the dark ring crosses the disc. If the material of\nthe dark ring were some partly transparent solid or fluid substance, the\nlight of the planet received through the dark ring added to the light\nreflected by the dark ring itself, would be so nearly equivalent to the\nlight received from the rest of the planet's disc, that either no dark\nbelt would be seen, or the darkening would be barely discernible. In\nsome positions a bright belt would be seen, not a dark one. But a ring\nof scattered satellites would cast as its shadow a multitude of black\nspots, which would give to the belt in shadow a dark grey aspect. A\nconsiderable proportion of these spots would be hidden by the satellites\nforming the dark ring, and in every case where a spot was wholly or\npartially hidden by a satellite, the effect (at our distant station\nwhere the separate satellites of the dark ring are not discernible)\nwould simply be to reduce _pro tanto_ the darkness of the grey belt of\nshadow. But certainly more than half the shadows of the satellites would\nremain in sight; for the darkness of the ring at the time of its\ndiscovery showed that the satellites were very sparsely strewn. And\nthese shadows would be sufficient to give to the belt a dusky hue, such\nas it presented when first discovered.[37]\n\nThe observations which have recently been made by Mr. Trouvelot\nindicate changes in the ring-system, and especially in the dark ring,\nwhich place every other theory save that to which we have thus been led\nentirely out of the question. It should be noted that Mr. Trouvelot has\nemployed telescopes of unquestionable excellence and varying in aperture\nfrom six inches to twenty-six inches, the latter aperture being that of\nthe great telescope of the Washington Observatory (the largest refractor\nin the world).\n\nHe has noted in the first place that the interior edge of the outer\nbright ring, which marks the outer limit of the great division, is\nirregular, but whether the irregularity is permanent or not he does not\nknow. The great division itself is found not to be actually black, but,\nas was long since noted by Captain Jacob, of the Madras Observatory, a\nvery dark brown, as though a few scattered satellites travelled along\nthis relatively vacant zone of the system. Mr. Trouvelot has further\nnoticed that the shadow of the planet upon the rings, and especially\nupon the outer ring, changes continually in shape, a circumstance which\nhe attributes to irregularities in the surface of the rings. For my own\npart, I should be disposed to attribute these changes in the shape of\nthe planet's shadow (noted by other observers also) to rapid changes in\nthe deep cloud-laden atmosphere of the planet. Passing on, however, to\nless doubtful observations, we find that the whole system of rings has\npresented a clouded and spotted aspect during the last four years. Mr.\nTrouvelot specially describes this appearance as observed on the parts\nof the ring outside the disc, called by astronomers the _ansae_ (because\nof their resemblance to handles), and it would seem, therefore, that the\nspotted and cloudy portions are seen only where the background on which\nthe rings are projected is black. This circumstance clearly suggests\nthat the darkness of these parts is due to the background, or, in other\nwords, that the sky is in reality seen through those parts of the\nring-system, just as the darkness of the slate-coloured interior ring is\nattributed, on the satellite theory, to the background of sky visible\nthrough the scattered flight of satellites forming the dark ring. The\nmatter composing the dark ring has been observed by Mr. Trouvelot to be\ngathered in places into compact masses, which prevent the light of the\nplanet from being seen through those portions of the dark ring where the\nmatter is thus massed together. It is clear that such peculiarities\ncould not possibly present themselves in the case of a continuous solid\nor fluid ring-system, whereas they would naturally occur in a ring\nformed of multitudes of minute bodies travelling freely around the\nplanet.\n\nThe point next to be mentioned is still more decisive. When the dark\nring was carefully examined with powerful telescopes during the ten\nyears following its discovery by Bond, at which time it was most\nfavourably placed for observation, it was observed that the outline of\nthe planet could be seen across the entire breadth of the dark ring. All\nthe observations agreed in this respect. It was, indeed, noticed by\nDawes that outside the planet's disc the dark ring showed varieties of\ntint, its inner half being darker than its outer portion. Lassell,\nobserving the planet under most favourable conditions with his two-feet\nmirror at Malta, could not perceive these varieties of tint, which\ntherefore we may judge to have been either not permanent or very\nslightly marked. But, as I have said, all observers agreed that the\noutline of the planet could be seen athwart the entire width of the\ndark ring. Mr. Trouvelot, however, has found that during the last four\nyears the planet has not been visible through the whole width of the\ndark ring, but only through the inner half of the ring's breadth. It\nappears, then, that either the inner portion is getting continually\nthinner and thinner--that is, the satellites composing it are becoming\ncontinually more sparsely strewn--or that the outer portion is becoming\nmore compact, doubtless by receiving stray satellites from the interior\nof the inner bright ring.\n\nIt is clear that in Saturn's ring-system, if not in the planet itself,\nmighty changes are still taking place. It may be that the rings are\nbeing so fashioned under the forces to which they are subjected as to be\non their way to becoming changed into separate satellites, inner members\nof that system which at present consists of eight secondary planets.\nBut, whatever may be the end towards which these changes are tending, we\nsee processes of evolution taking place which may be regarded as\ntypifying the more extensive and probably more energetic processes\nwhereby the solar system itself reached its present condition. I\nventured more than ten years ago, in the preface to my treatise upon the\nplanet Saturn, to suggest the possibility 'that in the variations\nperceptibly proceeding in the Saturnian ring-system a key may one day be\nfound to the law of development under which the solar system has reached\nits present condition.' This suggestion seems to me strikingly confirmed\nby the recent discoveries. The planet Saturn and its appendages, always\ninteresting to astronomers, are found more than ever worthy of close\ninvestigation and scrutiny. We may here, as it were, seize nature in the\nact, and trace out the actual progress of developments which at present\nare matters rather of theory than of observation.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n_COMETS AS PORTENTS_\n\n                                The blazing star,\n  Threat'ning the world with famine, plague, and war;\n  To princes death; to kingdoms many curses;\n  To all estates inevitable losses;\n  To herdsmen rot; to ploughmen hapless seasons;\n  To sailors storms; to cities civil treasons.\n\n\nAlthough comets are no longer regarded with superstitious awe as in old\ntimes, mystery still clings to them. Astronomers can tell what path a\ncomet is travelling upon, and say whence it has come and whither it will\ngo, can even in many cases predict the periodic returns of a comet, can\nanalyse the substance of these strange wanderers, and have recently\ndiscovered a singular bond of relationship between comets and those\nother strange visitants from the celestial depths, the shooting stars.\nBut astronomy has hitherto proved unable to determine the origin of\ncomets, the part they perform in the economy of the universe, their real\nstructure, the causes of the marvellous changes of shape which they\nundergo as they approach the sun, rush round him, and then retreat. As\nSir John Herschel has remarked: 'No one, hitherto, has been able to\nassign any single point in which we should be a bit better or worse off,\nmaterially speaking, if there were no such thing as a comet. Persons,\neven thinking persons, have busied themselves with conjectures; such as\nthat they may serve for fuel for the sun (into which, however, they\nnever fall), or that they may cause warm summers, which is a mere fancy,\nor that they may give rise to epidemics, or potato-blights, and so\nforth.' And though, as he justly says, 'this is all wild talking,' yet\nit will probably continue until astronomers have been able to master the\nproblems respecting comets which hitherto have foiled their best\nefforts. The unexplained has ever been and will ever be marvellous to\nthe general mind. Just as unexplored regions of the earth have been\ntenanted in imagination by\n\n    anthropophagi and men whose heads\nDo grow beneath their shoulders,\n\nso do wondrous possibilities exist in the unknown and the ill-understood\nphenomena of nature.\n\nIn old times, when the appearance and movements of comets were supposed\nto be altogether uncontrolled by physical laws, it was natural that\ncomets should be regarded as signs from heaven, tokens of Divine wrath\ntowards some, and of the interposition of Divine providence in favour of\nothers. As Seneca well remarked: 'There is no man so dull, so obtuse, so\nturned to earthly things, who does not direct all the powers of his mind\ntowards things Divine when some novel phenomenon appears in the heavens.\nWhile all follows its usual course up yonder, familiarity robs the\nspectacle of its grandeur. For so is man made. However wonderful may be\nwhat he sees day after day, he looks on it with indifference; while\nmatters of very little importance attract and interest him if they\ndepart from the accustomed order. The host of heavenly constellations\nbeneath the vault of heaven, whose beauty they adorn, attract no\nattention; but if any unusual appearance be noticed among them, at once\nall eyes are turned heavenwards. The sun is only looked on with\ninterest when he is undergoing eclipse. Men observe the moon only under\nlike conditions.... So thoroughly is it a part of our nature to admire\nthe new rather than the great. The same is true of comets. When one of\nthese fiery bodies of unusual form appears, every one is eager to know\nwhat it means; men forget other objects to inquire about the new\narrival; they know not whether to wonder or to tremble; for many spread\nfear on all sides, drawing from the phenomenon most grave prognostics.'\n\nThere is no direct reference to comets in the Bible, either in the Old\nTestament or the New. It is possible that some of the signs from heaven\nrecorded in the Bible pages were either comets or meteors, and that even\nwhere in some places an angel or messenger from God is said to have\nappeared and delivered a message, what really happened was that some\nremarkable phenomenon in the heavens was interpreted in a particular\nmanner by the priests, and the interpretation afterwards described as\nthe message of an angel. The image of the 'flaming sword which turned\nevery way' may have been derived from a comet; but we can form no safe\nconclusion about this, any more than we can upon the question whether\nthe 'horror of great darkness' which fell upon Abraham (Genesis xv. 12)\nwhen the sun was going down, was caused by an eclipse;[38] or whether\nthe going back of the shadow upon the dial of Ahaz was caused by a mock\nsun. The star seen by the wise men from the east may have been a comet,\nsince the word translated 'star' signifies any bright object seen in the\nheavens, and is in fact the same word which Homer, in a passage\nfrequently referred to, uses to signify either a comet or a meteor. The\nway in which it appeared to go before them, when (directed by Herod, be\nit noticed) they went to Bethlehem, almost due south of Jerusalem, would\ncorrespond to a meridian culmination low down--for the star had\nmanifestly not been visible in the earlier evening, since we are told\nthat they rejoiced when they saw the star again. It was probably a comet\ntravelling southwards; and, as the wise men had travelled from the east,\nit had very likely been first seen in the west as an evening star,\nwherefore its course was retrograde--that is, supposing it _was_ a\ncomet.[39] It may possibly have been an apparition of Halley's comet,\nfollowing a course somewhat similar to that which it followed in the\nyear 1835, when the perihelion passage was made on November 15, and the\ncomet running southwards disappeared from northern astronomers, though\nin January it was '_received_' by Sir J. Herschel, to use his own\nexpression, 'in the southern hemisphere.' There was an apparition of\nHalley's comet in the year 66, or seventy years after the Nativity; and\nthe period of the comet varies, according to the perturbing influences\naffecting the comet's motion, from sixty-nine to eighty years.\n\nHomer does not, to the best of my recollection, refer anywhere directly\nto comets. Pope, indeed, who made very free with Homer's references to\nthe heavenly bodies,[40] introduces a comet--and a red one, too!--into\nthe simile of the heavenly portent in Book IV.:--\n\n  As the red comet from Saturnius sent\n  To fright the nations with a dire portent\n  (A fatal sign to armies in the plain,\n  Or trembling sailors on the wintry main),\n  With sweeping glories glides along in air,\n  And shakes the sparkles from its blazing hair:\n  Between two armies thus, in open sight,\n  Shot the bright goddess in a trail of light.\n\nBut Homer says nothing of this comet. If Homer had introduced a comet,\nwe may be sure it would not have shaken sparkles from its blazing tail.\nHomer said simply that 'Pallas rushed from the peaks of heaven, like the\nbright star sent by the son of crafty-counselled Kronus (as a sign\neither to sailors, or the broad array of the nations), from which many\nsparks proceed.' Strangely enough, Pingre and Lalande, the former noted\nfor his researches into ancient comets, the latter a skilful astronomer,\nagree in considering that Homer really referred to a comet, and they\neven regard this comet as an apparition of the comet of 1680. They cite\nin support of this opinion the portent which followed the prayer of\nAnchises, 'AEneid,' Book II. 692, etc.: 'Scarce had the old man ceased\nfrom praying, when a peal of thunder was heard on the left, and a star,\ngliding from the heavens amid the darkness, rushed through space\nfollowed by a long train of light; we saw the star,' says AEneas,\n'suspended for a moment above the roof, brighten our home with its\nfires, then, tracing out a brilliant course, disappear in the forests of\nIda; then a long train of flame illuminated us, and the place around\nreeked with the smell of sulphur. Overcome by these startling portents,\nmy father arose, invoked the gods, and worshipped the holy star.' It is\nimpossible to recognise here the description of a comet. The noise, the\ntrail of light, the visible motion, the smell of sulphur, all correspond\nwith the fall of a meteorite close by; and doubtless Virgil simply\nintroduced into the narrative the circumstances of some such phenomenon\nwhich had been witnessed in his own time. To base on such a point the\ntheory that the comet of 1680 was visible at the time of the fall of\nTroy, the date of which is unknown, is venturesome in the extreme. True,\nthe period calculated for the comet of 1680, when Pingre and Lalande\nagreed in this unhappy guess, was 575 years; and if we multiply this\nperiod by five we obtain 2875 years, taking 1680 from which leaves 1195\nyears B.C., near enough to the supposed date of the capture of Troy.\nUnfortunately, Encke (the eminent astronomer to whom we owe that\ndetermination of the sun's distance which for nearly half a century held\nits place in our books, but has within the last twenty years been\nreplaced by a distance three millions of miles less) went over afresh\nthe calculations of the motions of that famous comet, and found that,\ninstead of 575 years, the most probable period is about 8814 years. The\ndifference amounts only to 8239 years; but even this small difference\nrather impairs the theory of Lalande and Pingre.[41]\n\nThree hundred and seventy-one years before the Christian era, a comet\nappeared which Aristotle (who was a boy at the time) has described.\nDiodorus Siculus writes thus respecting it: 'In the first year of the\n102d Olympiad, Alcisthenes being Archon of Athens, several prodigies\nannounced the approaching humiliation of the Lacedaemonians; a blazing\ntorch of extraordinary size, which was compared to a flaming beam, was\nseen during several nights.' Guillemin, from whose interesting work on\nComets I have translated the above passage, remarks that this same comet\nwas regarded by the ancients as having not merely presaged but produced\nthe earthquakes which caused the towns of Helice and Bura to be\nsubmerged. This was clearly in the thoughts of Seneca when he said of\nthis comet that as soon as it appeared it brought about the submergence\nof Bura and Helice.\n\nIn those times, however, comets were not regarded solely as signs of\ndisaster. As the misfortunes of one nation were commonly held to be of\nadvantage to other nations, so the same comet might be regarded very\ndifferently by different nations or different rulers. Thus the comet of\nthe year 344 B.C. was regarded by Timoleon of Corinth as presaging the\nsuccess of his expedition against Corinth. 'The gods announced,' said\nDiodorus Siculus, 'by a remarkable portent, his success and future\ngreatness; a blazing torch appeared in the heavens at night, and went\nbefore the fleet of Timoleon until he arrived in Sicily.' The comets of\nthe years 134 B.C. and 118 B.C. were not regarded as portents of death,\nbut as signalising, the former the birth, the latter the accession, of\nMithridates. The comet of 43 B.C. was held by some to be the soul of\nJulius Caesar on its way to the abode of the gods. Bodin, a French lawyer\nof the sixteenth century, regarded this as the usual significance of\ncomets. He was, indeed, sufficiently modest to attribute the opinion to\nDemocritus, but the whole credit of the discovery belonged to himself.\nHe maintained that comets only indicate approaching misfortunes because\nthey are the spirits or souls of illustrious men, who for many years\nhave acted the part of guardian angels, and, being at last ready to die,\ncelebrate their last triumph by voyaging to the firmament as flaming\nstars. 'Naturally,' he says, 'the appearance of a comet is followed by\nplague, pestilence, and civil war; for the nations are deprived of the\nguidance of their worthy rulers, who, while they were alive, gave all\ntheir efforts to prevent intestine disorders.' Pingre comments justly on\nthis, saying that 'it must be classed among base and shameful\nflatteries, not among philosophic opinions.'\n\nUsually, however, it must be admitted that the ancients, like the men of\nthe Middle Ages, regarded comets as harbingers of evil. 'A fearful star\nis the comet,' says Pliny, 'and not easily appeased, as appeared in the\nlate civil troubles when Octavius was consul; a second time by the\nintestine war of Pompey and Caesar; and, in our own time, when, Claudius\nCaesar having been poisoned, the empire was left to Domitian, in whose\nreign there appeared a blazing comet.' Lucan tells us of the second\nevent here referred to, that during the war 'the darkest nights were lit\nup by unknown stars' (a rather singular way of saying that there were no\ndark nights); 'the heavens appeared on fire, flaming torches traversed\nin all directions the depths of space; a comet, that fearful star which\noverthrows the powers of the earth, showed its horrid hair.' Seneca also\nexpressed the opinion that some comets portend mischief: 'Some comets,'\nhe said, 'are very cruel and portend the worst misfortunes; they bring\nwith them and leave behind them the seeds of blood and slaughter.'\n\nIt was held, indeed, by many in those times a subject for reproach that\nsome were too hard of heart to believe when these signs were sent. It\nwas a point of religious faith that 'God worketh' these 'signs and\nwonders in heaven.' When troubles were about to befall men, 'nation\nrising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, with great\nearthquakes in divers places, and famines, and pestilences, and fearful\nsights,' then 'great signs shall there be from heaven.' Says Josephus,\ncommenting on the obstinacy of the Jews in such matters, 'when they were\nat any time premonished from the lips of truth itself, by prodigies and\nother premonitory signs of their approaching ruin, they had neither eyes\nnor ears nor understanding to make a right use of them, but passed them\nover without heeding or so much as thinking of them; as, for example,\nwhat shall we say of the comet in the form of a sword that hung over\nJerusalem for a whole year together?' This was probably the comet\ndescribed by Dion Cassius (_Hist. Roman._ lxv. 8) as having been visible\nbetween the months of April and December in the year 69 A.D. This or the\ncomet of 66 A.D. might have been Halley's comet. The account of Josephus\nas to the time during which it was visible would not apply to Halley's,\nor, indeed, to any known comet whatever; doubtless he exaggerated. He\nsays: 'The comet was of the kind called _Xiphias_, because their tail\nresembles the blade of a sword,' and this would apply fairly well to\nHalley's comet as seen in 1682, 1759, and 1835; though it is to be\nremembered that comets vary very much even at successive apparitions,\nand it would be quite unsafe to judge from the appearance of a comet\nseen eighteen centuries ago that it either was or was not the same as\nsome comet now known to be periodic.\n\nThe comet of 79 A.D. is interesting as having given rise to a happy\nretort from Vespasian, whose death the comet was held to portend. Seeing\nsome of his courtiers whispering about the comet, 'That hairy star,' he\nsaid, 'does not portend evil to me. It menaces rather the king of the\nParthians. He is a hairy man, but I am bald.'\n\nAnna Comnena goes even beyond Josephus. He only rebuked other men for\nnot believing so strongly as he did himself in the significance of\ncomets--a rebuke little needed, indeed, if we can judge from what\nhistory tells us of the terrors excited by comets. But the judicious\ndaughter of Alexius was good enough to approve of the wisdom which\nprovided these portents. Speaking of a remarkable comet which appeared\nbefore the irruption of the Gauls into the Roman empire, she says: 'This\nhappened by the usual administration of Providence in such cases; for it\nis not fit that so great and strange an alteration of things as was\nbrought to pass by that irruption of theirs should be without some\nprevious denunciation and admonishment from heaven.'\n\nSocrates, the historian (b. 6, c. 6), says that when Gainas besieged\nConstantinople, 'so great was the danger which hung over the city, that\nit was presignified and portended by a huge blazing comet which reached\nfrom heaven to the earth, the like whereof no man had ever seen before.'\nAnd Cedrenus, in his 'Compendium of History,' states that a comet\nappeared before the death of Johannes Tzimicas, the emperor of the East,\nwhich foreshadowed not alone his death, but the great calamities which\nwere to befall the Roman empire by reason of their civil wars. In like\nmanner, the comet of 451 announced the death of Attila, that of 455 the\ndeath of Valentinian. The death of Merovingius was announced by the\ncomet of 577, of Chilperic by that of 584, of the Emperor Maurice by\nthat of 602, of Mahomet by that of 632, of Louis the Debonair by that of\n837, and of the Emperor Louis II. by that of 875. Nay, so confidently\ndid men believe that comets indicated the approaching death of great\nmen, that they did not believe a very great man _could_ die without a\ncomet. So they inferred that the death of a very great man indicated the\narrival of a comet; and if the comet chanced not to be visible, so much\nthe worse--not for the theory, but--for the comet. 'A comet of this\nkind,' says Pingre, 'was that of the year 814, presaging the death of\nCharlemagne.' So Guillemin quotes Pingre; but he should rather have\nsaid, such was the comet whose arrival was announced by Charlemagne's\ndeath--and in no other way, for it was not seen by mortal man.\n\nThe reader who chances to be strong as to his dates may have observed\nthat some of the dates above mentioned for comets do not accord exactly\nwith the dates of the events associated with those comets. Thus Louis\nthe Debonair did not die in 837, but in 840. This, however, is a matter\nof very little importance. If some men, after their comet has called for\nthem, are 'an unconscionable time in dying,' as Charles II. said of\nhimself, it surely must not be considered the fault of the comet. Louis\nhimself regarded the comet of 837 as his death-warrant; the astrologers\nadmitted as much: what more could be desired? The account of the matter\ngiven in a chronicle of the time, by a writer who called himself 'The\nAstronomer,' is curious enough: 'During the holy season of Easter, a\nphenomenon, ever fatal and of gloomy foreboding, appeared in the\nheavens. As soon as the emperor, who paid attention to such phenomena,\nreceived the first announcement of it, he gave himself no rest until he\nhad called a certain learned man and myself before him. As soon as I\narrived, he anxiously asked me what I thought of such a sign. I asked\ntime of him, in order to consider the aspect of the stars, and to\ndiscover the truth by their means, promising to acquaint him on the\nmorrow; but the emperor, persuaded that I wished to gain time, which was\ntrue, in order not to be obliged to announce anything fatal to him, said\nto me: \"Go on the terrace of the palace, and return at once to tell me\nwhat you have seen, for I did not see this star last evening, and you\ndid not point it out to me; but I know that it is a comet; tell me what\nyou think it announces to me.\" Then, scarcely allowing me time to say a\nword, he added: \"There is still another thing you keep back: it is that\na change of reign and the death of a prince are announced by this sign.\"\nAnd as I advanced the testimony of the prophet, who said: \"Fear not the\nsigns of the heavens as the nations fear them,\" the prince, with his\ngrand nature and the wisdom which never forsook him, said: \"We must only\nfear Him who has created both us and this star. But, as this phenomenon\nmay refer to us, let us acknowledge it as a warning from heaven.\"'\nAccordingly, Louis himself and all his court fasted and prayed, and he\nbuilt churches and monasteries. But all was of no avail. In little more\nthan three years he died; showing, as the historian Raoul Glaber\nremarked, that 'these phenomena of the universe are never presented to\nman without surely announcing some wonderful and terrible event.' With a\nrange of three years in advance, and so many kings and princes as there\nwere about in those days, and are still, it would be rather difficult\nfor a comet to appear without announcing some such wonderful and\nterrible event as a royal death.\n\nThe year 1000 A.D. was by all but common consent regarded as the date\nassigned for the end of the world. For a thousand years Satan had been\nchained, and now he was to be loosened for a while. So that when a comet\nmade its appearance, and, terrible to relate, continued visible for nine\ndays, the phenomenon was regarded as something more than a nine days'\nwonder. Besides the comet, a very wonderful meteor was seen. 'The\nheavens opened, and a kind of flaming torch fell upon the earth, leaving\nbehind a long track of light like the path of a flash of lightning. Its\nbrightness was so great that it frightened not only those who were in\nthe fields, but even those who were in their houses. As this opening in\nthe sky slowly closed men saw with horror the figure of a dragon, whose\nfeet were blue, and whose head' [like that of Dickens's dwarf] 'seemed\nto grow larger and larger.' A picture of this dreadful meteor\naccompanies the account given by the old chronicler. For fear the exact\nlikeness of the dragon might not be recognised (and, indeed, to see it\none must 'make believe a good deal'), there is placed beside it a\npicture of a dragon to correspond, which picture is in turn labelled\n'Serpens cum ceruleis pedibus.' It was considered very wicked in the\nyear 1000 to doubt that the end of all things was at hand. But somehow\nthe world escaped that time.\n\nIn the year 1066 Halley's comet appeared to announce to the Saxons the\napproaching conquest of England by William the Norman. A contemporary\npoet made a singular remark, which may have some profound poetical\nmeaning, but certainly seems a little indistinct on the surface. He said\nthat 'the comet had been more favourable to William than nature had been\nto Caesar; the latter had no hair, but William had received some from the\ncomet.' This is the only instance, so far as I know, in which a comet\nhas been regarded as a perruquier. A monk of Malmesbury spoke more to\nthe purpose, according to then received ideas, in thus apostrophising\nthe comet: 'Here art thou again, cause of tears to many mothers! It is\nlong since I saw thee last, but I see thee now more terrible than ever;\nthou threatenest my country with complete ruin.'\n\nHalley's comet, with its inconveniently short period of about\nseventy-seven years, has repeatedly troubled the nations and been\nregarded as a sign sent from Heaven:\n\n  Ten million cubic miles of head,\n    Ten billion leagues of tail,\n\nall provided for the sole purpose of warning one petty race of\nearth-folks against the evils likely to be brought against them by\nanother. This comet has appeared twenty-four times since the date of its\nfirst recorded appearance, which some consider to have been 12 B.C., and\nothers refer to a few years later. It may be interesting to quote here\nBabinet's description of the effects ascribed in 1455 to this comet,\noften the terror of nations, but the triumph of mathematicians, as the\nfirst whose motions were brought into recognisable obedience to the laws\nof gravity.[42]\n\n'The Mussulmans, with Mahomet II. at their head, were besieging\nBelgrade, which was defended by Huniade, surnamed the Exterminator of\nthe Turks. Halley's comet appeared and the two armies were seized with\nequal fear. Pope Calixtus III., himself seized by the general terror,\nordered public prayers and timidly anathematised the comet and the\nenemies of Christianity. He established the prayer called the noon\n_Angelus_, the use of which is continued in all Catholic churches. The\nFranciscans (_Freres Mineurs_) brought 40,000 defenders to Belgrade,\nbesieged by the conqueror of Constantinople, the destroyer of the\nEastern Empire. At last the battle began; it continued two days without\nceasing. A contest of two days caused 40,000 combatants to bite the\ndust. The Franciscans, unarmed, crucifix in hand, were in the front\nrank, invoking the papal exorcism against the comet, and turning upon\nthe enemy that heavenly wrath of which none in those times dared doubt.'\n\nThe great comet of 1556 has been regarded as the occasion of the Emperor\nCharles V.'s abdication of the imperial throne; a circumstance which\nseems rendered a little doubtful by the fact that he had already\nabdicated when the comet appeared--a mere detail, perhaps, but\nsuggesting the possibility that cause and effect may have been\ninterchanged by mistake, and that it was Charles's abdication which\noccasioned the appearance of the comet. According to Gemma's account the\ncomet was conspicuous rather from its great light than from the length\nof its tail or the strangeness of its appearance. 'Its head equalled\nJupiter in brightness, and was equal in diameter to nearly half the\napparent diameter of the moon.' It appeared about the end of February,\nand in March presented a terrible appearance, according to Ripamonte.\n'Terrific indeed,' says Sir J. Herschel, 'it might well have been to the\nmind of a prince prepared by the most abject superstition to receive\nits appearance as a warning of approaching death, and as specially sent,\nwhether in anger or in mercy, to detach his thoughts from earthly\nthings, and fix them on his eternal interests. Such was its effect on\nthe Emperor Charles V., whose abdication is distinctly ascribed by many\nhistorians to this cause, and whose words on the occasion of his first\nbeholding it have even been recorded--\n\n  \"His ergo indiciis me mea fata vocant\"--\n\nthe language and the metrical form of which exclamation afford no ground\nfor disputing its authenticity, when the habits and education of those\ntimes are fairly considered.' It is quite likely that, having already\nabdicated the throne, Charles regarded the comet as signalling his\nretirement from power--an event which he doubtless considered a great\ndeal too important to be left without some celestial record. But the\nwords attributed to him are in all probability apocryphal.\n\nThe comet of 1577 was remarkable for the strangeness of its aspect,\nwhich in some respects resembled that of the comet of 1858, called\nDonati's. It required only the terror with which such portentous objects\nwere witnessed in the Middle Ages to transform the various streamers,\ncurved and straight, extending from such an object, into swords and\nspears, and other signs of war and trouble. Doubtless, we owe to the\nfears of the Middle Ages the strange pictures claiming to present the\nactual aspect of some of the larger comets. Halley's comet did not\nescape. It was compared to a straight sword at one visit, to a curved\nscimitar in 1456, and even at its last return in 1835 there were some\nwho recognised in the comet a resemblance to a misty head. Other comets\nhave been compared to swords of fire, bloody crosses, flaming daggers,\nspears, serpents, fiery dragons, fish, and so forth. But in this\nrespect no comet would seem to have been comparable with that of 1528,\nof which Andrew Pare writes as follows: 'This comet was so horrible and\ndreadful, and engendered such terror in the minds of men, that they\ndied, some from fear alone, others from illness engendered by fear. It\nwas of immense length and blood-red colour; at its head was seen the\nfigure of a curved arm, holding a large sword in the hand as if\npreparing to strike. At the point of this sword were three stars; and on\neither side a number of axes, knives, and swords covered with blood,\namongst which were many hideous human faces with bristling beards and\nhair.'\n\nSuch peculiarities of shape, and also those affecting the position and\nmovements of comets, were held to be full of meaning. As Bayle pointed\nout in his 'Thoughts about the Comet of 1680,' these fancies are of\ngreat antiquity. Pliny tells us that in his time astrologers claimed to\ninterpret the meaning of a comet's position and appearance, and that\nalso of the direction towards which its rays pointed. They could,\nmoreover, explain the effects produced by the fixed stars whose rays\nwere conjoined with the comet's. If a comet resembles a flute, then\nmusicians are aimed at; when comets are in the less dignified parts of\nthe constellations, they presage evil to immodest persons; if the head\nof a comet forms an equilateral triangle or a square with fixed stars,\nthen it is time for mathematicians and men of science to tremble. When\nthey are in the sign of the Ram, they portend great wars and widespread\nmortality, the abasement of the great and the elevation of the small,\nbesides fearful droughts in regions over which that sign predominates;\nin the Virgin, they imply many grievous ills to the female portion of\nthe population; in the Scorpion, they portend a plague of reptiles,\nespecially locusts; in the Fishes, they indicate great troubles from\nreligious differences, besides war and pestilence. When, like the one\ndescribed by Milton, they 'fire the length of Ophiuchus huge,' they show\nthat there will be much mortality caused by poisoning.\n\nThe comet of 1680, which led Bayle to write the treatise to which\nreference has just been made, was one well calculated to inspire terror.\nIndeed, if the truth were known, that comet probably brought greater\ndanger to the inhabitants of the earth than any other except the comet\nof 1843--the danger not, however, being that derived from possible\ncollision between the earth and a comet, but that arising from the\npossible downfall of a large comet upon the sun, and the consequent\nenormous increase of the sun's heat. That, according to Newton, is the\ngreat danger men have to fear from comets; and the comet of 1680 was one\nwhich in that sense was a very dangerous one. There is no reason why a\ncomet from outer space should not fall straight towards the sun, as at\none time the comet of 1680 was supposed to be doing. All the comfort\nthat science can give the world on that point is that such a course for\na comet is only one out of many millions of possible courses, all fully\nas likely; and that, therefore, the chance of a comet falling upon the\nsun is only as one in many millions. Still, the comet of 1680 made a\nvery fair shot at the sun, and a very slight modification of its course\nby Jupiter or Saturn might have brought about the catastrophe which\nNewton feared. Whether, if a comet actually fell upon the sun, anything\nvery dreadful would happen, is not so clear. Newton's ideas respecting\ncomets were formed in ignorance of many physical facts and laws which in\nour day render reasoning upon the subject comparatively easy. Yet, even\nin our time, it is not possible to assert confidently that such fears\nare idle. During the solar outburst witnessed by Carrington and Hodgson\nin September 1859, it is supposed that the sun swallowed a large\nmeteoric mass; and, as great cornets are probably followed by many such\nmasses, it seems reasonable to infer that if such a comet fell upon the\nsun, his surface being pelted with such exceptionally large masses,\nstoned with these mighty meteoric balls, would glow all over (or nearly\nso) as brightly as a small spot of that surface glowed upon that\noccasion. Now that portion was so bright that Carrington thought 'that\nby some chance a ray of light had penetrated a hole in the screen\nattached to the object-glass by which the general image is thrown in\nshade, for the brilliancy was fully equal to that of direct sunlight.'\nManifestly, if the whole surface of the sun, or any large portion of the\nsurface, were caused to glow with that exceeding brilliancy, surpassing\nordinary sunlight in the same degree that ordinary sunlight surpassed\nthe shaded solar image in Carrington's observations, the result would be\ndisastrous in the extreme for the inhabitants of that half of the earth\nwhich chanced to be in sunlight at the time; and if (as could scarcely\nfail to happen) the duration of that abnormal splendour were more than\nhalf a day, then the whole earth would probably be depopulated by the\nintense heat. The danger, as I have said, is slight--partly because\nthere is small chance of a collision between the sun and a comet, partly\nbecause we have no certain reasons for assuming that a collision would\nbe followed by the heating of the sun for a while to a very high\ntemperature. Looking around at the suns which people space, and\nconsidering their history, so far as it has been made known to us, for\nthe last two thousand years, we find small occasion for fear. Those suns\nseem to have been for the most part safe from any sudden or rapid\naccessions of heat; and if they travel thus safely in their mighty\njourneys through space, we may well believe that our sun also is safe.\nNevertheless, there _have_ been catastrophes here and there. Now one sun\nand now another has blazed out with a hundred times its usual lustre,\ngradually losing its new fires and returning to its customary\nbrightness; but after what destruction among those peopling its system\nof worlds who shall say? Spectroscopic analysis, that powerful help to\nthe modern astronomical inquirer, has shown in one of these cases that\njust such changes had taken place as we might fairly expect would follow\nif a mighty comet fell into the sun. If this interpretation be correct,\nthen we are not wholly safe. Any day might bring us news of a comet\nsailing full upon our sun from out the depths of space. Then astronomers\nwould perhaps have the opportunity of ascertaining the harmlessness of a\ncollision between the ruler of our system and one of the long-tailed\nvisitors from the celestial spaces. Or possibly, astronomers and the\nearth's inhabitants generally might find out the reverse, though the\nknowledge would not avail them much, seeing that the messenger who would\nbring it would be the King of Terrors himself.\n\nIt was well, perhaps, that Newton's discovery of the law of gravitation,\nand the application of this law to the comets of 1680 and 1682 (the\nlatter our old friend Halley's comet, then properly so called as studied\nby him), came in time to aid in removing to some slight degree the old\nsuperstitions respecting comets. For in England many remembered the\ncomets of the Great Plague and of the Great Fire of London. These comets\ncame so closely upon the time of the Plague and the Fire respectively,\nthat it was not wonderful if even the wiser sort were struck by the\ncoincidence and could scarcely regard it as accidental. It is not easy\nfor the student of science in our own times, when the movements of\ncomets are as well understood as those of the most orderly planets, to\nplace himself in the position of men in the times when no one knew on\nwhat paths comets came, or whither they retreated after they had visited\nour sun. Taught as men were, on the one hand, that it was wicked to\nquestion what seemed to be the teaching of the Scriptures, that changes\nor new appearances in the heavens were sent to warn mankind of\napproaching troubles, and perplexed as they were, on the other, by the\nabsence of any real knowledge respecting comets and meteors, it was not\nso easy as we might imagine from our own way of viewing these matters,\nto shake off a superstition which had ruled over men's minds for\nthousands of years.\n\nNo sect had been free from this superstition. Popes and priests had\ntaught their followers to pray against the evil influences of comets and\nother celestial portents; Luther and Melanchthon had condemned in no\nmeasured terms the rashness and impiety of those who had striven to show\nthat the heavenly bodies and the earth move in concordance with\nlaw--those 'fools who wish to reverse the entire science of astronomy.'\nA long interval had elapsed between the time when the Copernican theory\nwas struggling for existence--when, but that more serious heresies\nengaged men's attention and kept religious folk by the ears, that\nastronomical heresy would probably have been quenched in blood--and the\nforging by Newton of the final link of the chain of reasoning on which\nmodern astronomy is based; but in those times the minds of men moved\nmore slowly than in ours. The masses still held to the old beliefs about\nthe heavenly bodies. Defoe, indeed, speaking of the terror of men at the\ntime of the Great Plague, says that they 'were more addicted to\nprophecies and astrological conjurations, dreams, and old wives' tales,\nthan ever they were before or since.' But in reality, it was only\nbecause of the great misery then prevailing that men seemed more\nsuperstitious than usual; for misery brings out the superstitions--the\nfetishisms, if we may so speak--which are inherent in many minds, but\nconcealed from others in prosperous times, out of shame, or perhaps a\nworthier feeling. Even in our own times great national calamities would\nshow that many superstitions exist which had been thought extinct, and\nwe should see excited among the ill-educated that particular form of\npersecution which arises, not from zeal for religion and not from\nintolerance, but from the belief that the troubles have been sent\nbecause of unbelief and the fear that unless some expiation be made the\nevil will not pass away from the midst of the people. It is at such\ntimes of general affliction that minds of the meaner sort have proved\n'zealous even to slaying.'\n\nThe influence of strange appearances in the heavens on even thoughtful\nand reasoning minds, at such times of universal calamity, is well shown\nby Defoe's remarks on the comets of the years 1664 and 1666. 'The old\nwomen,' he says, 'and the phlegmatic, hypochondriacal part of the other\nsex, whom I could almost call old women too, remarked that those two\ncomets passed directly over the city' [though that appearance must have\ndepended on the position whence these old women, male and female,\nobserved the comet], 'and that so very near the houses, that it was\nplain they imported something peculiar to the city alone; and that the\ncomet before the Pestilence was of a faint, dull, languid colour, and\nits motion very heavy, solemn, and slow; but that the comet before the\nFire was bright and sparkling, or, as others said, flaming, and its\nmotion swift and furious: and that accordingly one foretold a heavy\njudgment, slow but severe, terrible and frightful, as was the Plague;\nbut the other foretold a stroke, sudden, swift, and fiery, as was the\nConflagration. Nay, so particular some people were, that, as they looked\nupon that comet preceding the Fire, they fancied that they not only saw\nit pass swiftly and fiercely, and could perceive the motion with their\neye, but even that they heard it; that it made a mighty rushing noise,\nfierce and terrible, though at a distance and but just perceivable. I\nsaw both these stars, and must confess had I had so much the common\nnotion of such things in my head, that I was apt to look upon them as\nthe forerunners and warnings of God's judgments, and especially when,\nthe Plague having followed the first, I yet saw another of the same\nkind, I could not but say, God had not yet sufficiently scourged the\ncity' [London].\n\nThe comets of 1680 and 1682, though they did not bring plagues or\nconflagrations immediately, yet were not supposed to have been\naltogether without influence. The convenient fiction, indeed, that some\ncomets operate quickly and others slowly, made it very difficult for a\ncomet to appear to which some evil effects could not be ascribed. If any\none can find a single date, since the records of history have been\ncarefully kept, which was so fortunately placed that, during no time\nfollowing it within five years, no prince, king, emperor, or pope died,\nno war was begun, or ended disastrously for one side or the other\nengaged in it, no revolution was effected, neither plague nor pestilence\noccurred, neither droughts nor floods afflicted any nation, no great\nhurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic outbursts, or other trouble was\nrecorded, he will then have shown the bare possibility that a comet\nmight have appeared which seemed to presage neither abrupt nor\nslow-moving calamities. But it is not possible to name such a date, nor\neven a date which was not followed within two years at the utmost by a\ncalamity such as superstition might assign to a comet. And so closely\nhave such calamities usually followed, that scarce a comet could appear\nwhich might not be regarded as the precursor of very quickly approaching\ncalamity. Even if a comet had come which seemed to bring no trouble,\nnay, if many such comets had come, men would still have overlooked the\nabsence of any apparent fulfilment of the predicted troubles. Henry IV.\nwell remarked, when he was told that astrologers predicted his death\nbecause a certain comet had been observed: 'One of these days they will\npredict it truly, and people will remember better the single occasion\nwhen the prediction will be fulfilled than the many other occasions when\nit has been falsified by the event.'\n\nThe troubles connected with the comets of 1680 and 1682 were removed\nfarther from the dates of the events themselves than usual, at least so\nfar as the English interpretation of the comets was concerned. 'The\ngreat comet in 1680,' says one, 'followed by a lesser comet in 1682, was\nevidently the forerunner of all those remarkable and disastrous events\nthat ended in the revolution of 1688. It also evidently presaged the\nrevocation of the edict of Nantes, and the cruel persecution of the\nProtestants, by the French king Louis XIV., afterwards followed by those\nterrible wars which, with little intermission, continued to ravage the\nfinest parts of Europe for nearly twenty-four years.'\n\nIf in some respects the fears inspired by comets have been reduced by\nmodern scientific discoveries respecting these bodies, yet in other\nrespects the very confidence engendered by the exactness of modern\nastronomical computations has proved a source of terror. There is\nnothing more remarkable, for instance, in the whole history of cometary\nsuperstition, than the panic which spread over France in the year 1773,\nin consequence of a rumour that the mathematician Lalande had predicted\nthe occurrence of a collision between a comet and the earth, and that\ndisastrous effects would inevitably follow. The foundation of the rumour\nwas slight enough in all conscience. It had simply been announced that\nLalande would read before the Academy of Sciences a paper entitled\n'Reflections on those Comets which can approach the Earth.' That was\nabsolutely all; yet, from that one fact, not only were vague rumours of\napproaching cometic troubles spread abroad, but the statement was\ndefinitely made that on May 20 or 21, 1773, 'a comet would encounter the\nearth.'[43] So great was the fear thus excited, that, in order to calm\nit, Lalande inserted in the 'Gazette de France' of May 7, 1773, the\nfollowing advertisement:--'M. Lalande had not time to read his memoir\nupon comets which may approach the earth and cause changes in her\nmotions; but he would observe that it is impossible to assign the epochs\nof such events. The next comet whose return is expected is the one which\nshould return in eighteen years; but it is not one of those which can\nhurt the earth.'\n\nThis note had not the slightest effect in restoring peace to the minds\nof unscientific Frenchmen. M. Lalande's study was crowded with anxious\npersons who came to inquire about his memoir. Certain devout folk, 'as\nignorant as they were imbecile,' says a contemporary journal, begged the\nArchbishop of Paris to appoint forty hours' prayer to avert the danger\nand prevent the terrible deluge. For this was the particular form most\nmen agreed that the danger would take. That prelate was on the point,\nindeed, of complying with their request, and would have done so, but\nthat some members of the Academy explained to him that by so doing he\nwould excite ridicule.\n\nFar more effective, and, to say truth, far better judged, was the irony\nof Voltaire, in his deservedly celebrated 'Letter on the Pretended\nComet.' It ran as follows:--\n\n  'Grenoble, May 17, 1773.\n\n'Certain Parisians who are not philosophers, and who, if we are to\nbelieve them, will not have time to become such, have informed me that\nthe end of the world approaches, and will occur without fail on the 20th\nof this present month of May. They expect, that day, a comet, which is\nto take our little globe from behind and reduce it to impalpable powder,\naccording to a certain prediction of the Academy of Sciences which has\nnot yet been made.\n\n'Nothing is more likely than this event; for James Bernouilli, in his\n\"Treatise upon the Comet\" of 1680, predicted expressly that the famous\ncomet of 1680 would return with terrible uproar (_fracas_) on May 19,\n1719; he assured us that in truth its perruque would signify nothing\nmischievous, but that its tail would be an infallible sign of the wrath\nof heaven. If James Bernouilli mistook, it is, after all, but a matter\nof fifty-four years and three days.\n\n'Now, so small an error as this being regarded by all geometricians as\nof little moment in the immensity of ages, it is manifest that nothing\ncan be more reasonable than to hope (_sic, esperer_) for the end of the\nworld on the 20th of this present month of May 1773, or in some other\nyear. If the thing should not come to pass, \"omittance is no quittance\"\n(_ce qui est differe, n'est pas perdu_).\n\n'There is certainly no reason for laughing at M. Trissotin, triple\nidiot though he is (_tout Trissotin qu'il est_), when he says to Madame\nPhilaminte (Moliere's \"Femmes Savantes,\" acte iv. scene 3),\n\n'Nous l'avons en dormant, madame, echappe belle;\nUn monde pres de nous a passe tout du long,\nEst chu tout au travers de notre tourbillon;\nEt, s'il eut en chemin rencontre notre terre,\nElle eut ete brisee en morceaux comme verre.\n\n'A comet coursing along its parabolic orbit may come full tilt against\nour earth. But then, what will happen? Either that comet will have a\nforce equal to that of our earth, or greater, or less. If equal, we\nshall do the comet as much harm as it will do us, action and reaction\nbeing equal; if greater, the comet will bear us away with it; if less,\nwe shall bear away the comet.\n\n'This great event may occur in a thousand ways, and no one can affirm\nthat our earth and the other planets have not experienced more than one\nrevolution, through the mischance of encountering a comet on their path.\n\n'The Parisians will not desert their city on the 20th inst.; they will\nsing songs, and the play of \"The Comet and the World's End\" will be\nperformed at the Opera Comique.'\n\nThe last touch is as fine in its way as Sydney Smith's remark that, if\nLondon were destroyed by an earthquake, the surviving citizens would\ncelebrate the event by a public dinner among the ruins. Voltaire's\nprediction was not fulfilled exactly to the letter, but what actually\nhappened was even funnier than what his lively imagination had\nsuggested. It was stated by a Parisian Professor in 1832 (as a reason\nwhy the Academy of Sciences should refute an assertion then rife to the\neffect that Biela's comet would encounter the earth that year) that\nduring the cometic panic of 1773 'there were not wanting people who\nknew too well the art of turning to their advantage the alarm inspired\nby the approaching comet, and _places in Paradise were sold at a very\nhigh rate_.[44] The announcement of the comet of 1832 may produce\nsimilar effects,' he said, 'unless the authority of the Academy apply a\nprompt remedy; and this salutary intervention is at this moment implored\nby many benevolent persons.'\n\nIn recent years the effects produced on the minds of men by comets have\nbeen less marked than of yore, and appear to have depended a good deal\non circumstances. The comet of the year 1858 (called Donati's), for\nexample, occasioned no special fears, at least until Napoleon III. made\nhis famous New-Year's day speech, after which many began to think the\ncomet had meant mischief. But the comet of 1861, though less\nconspicuous, occasioned more serious fears. It was held by many in Italy\nto presage a very great misfortune indeed, viz. the restoration of\nFrancis II. to the throne of the Two Sicilies. Others thought that the\ndownfall of the temporal power of the Papacy and the death of Pope Pius\nIX. were signified. I have not heard that any very serious consequences\nwere expected to follow the appearance of Coggia's comet in 1874. The\ngreat heat which prevailed during parts of the summer of 1876 was held\nby many to be connected in some way with a comet which some very\nunskilful telescopist constructed in his imagination out of the glare of\nJupiter in the object-glass of his telescope. Another benighted person,\nseeing the Pleiades low down through a fog, turned them into a comet,\nabout the same time. Possibly the idea was, that since comets are\nsupposed to cause great heats, great heats may be supposed to indicate a\ncomet somewhere; and with minds thus prepared, it was not wonderful,\nperhaps, that telescopic glare, or an imperfect view of our old friends\nthe Pleiades, should have been mistaken for a vision of the\nheat-producing comet.\n\nIt should be a noteworthy circumstance to those who still continue to\nlook on comets as signs of great catastrophes, that a war more\nremarkable in many respects than any which has ever yet been waged\nbetween two great nations--a war swift in its operations and decisive in\nits effects--a war in which three armies, each larger than all the\nforces commanded by Napoleon I. during the campaign of 1813, were\ncaptured bodily--should have been begun and carried on to its\ntermination without the appearance of any great comet. The civil war in\nAmerica, a still more terrible calamity to that great nation than the\nsuccess of Moltke's operations to the French, may be regarded by\nbelievers as presignified by the great comet of 1861. But it so chances\nthat the war between France and Germany occurred near the middle of one\nof the longest intervals recorded in astronomical annals as unmarked by\na single conspicuous comet--the interval between the years 1862 and\n1874.\n\nIf the progress of just ideas respecting comets has been slow, it must\nnevertheless be regarded as on the whole satisfactory. When we remember\nthat it was not a mere idle fancy which had to be opposed, not mere\nterrors which had to be calmed, but that the idea of the significance of\nchanges in the heavens had come to be regarded by mankind as a part of\ntheir religion, it cannot but be thought a hopeful sign that all\nreasoning men in our time have abandoned the idea that comets are sent\nto warn the inhabitants of this small earth. Obeying in their movements\nthe same law of gravitation which guides the planets in their courses,\nthe comets are tracked by the skilful mathematician along those remote\nparts of their course where even the telescope fails to keep them in\nview. Not only are they no longer regarded as presaging the fortunes of\nmen on this earth, but men on this earth are able to predict the\nfortunes of comets. Not only is it seen that they cannot influence the\nfates of the earth or other planets, but we perceive that the earth and\nplanets by their attractive energies influence, and in no unimportant\ndegree, the fates of these visitants from outer space. Encouraging,\ntruly, is the lesson taught us by the success of earnest study and\ncareful inquiry in determining some at least among the laws which govern\nbodies once thought the wildest and most erratic creatures in the whole\nof God's universe.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\n_THE LUNAR HOAX._\n\n     Then he gave them an account of the famous moon hoax, which came\n     out in 1835. It was full of the most barefaced absurdities, yet\n     people swallowed it all; and even Arago is said to have treated it\n     seriously as a thing that could not well be true, for Mr. Herschel\n     would have certainly notified him of these marvellous discoveries.\n     The writer of it had not troubled himself to invent probabilities,\n     but had borrowed his scenery from the 'Arabian Nights' and his\n     lunar inhabitants from 'Peter Wilkins.'--OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (in\n     _The Poet at the Breakfast-Table_).\n\n\nIn one of the earliest numbers of 'Macmillan's Magazine, the late\nProfessor De Morgan, in an article on Scientific Hoaxing, gave a brief\naccount of the so-called 'lunar hoax'--an instance of scientific\ntrickery frequently mentioned, though probably few are familiar with the\nreal facts. De Morgan himself possessed a copy of the second English\nedition of the pamphlet, published in London in 1836. But the original\npamphlet edition, published in America in September 1835, is not easily\nto be obtained. The proprietors of the New York 'Sun,' in which the\nfictitious narrative first appeared, published an edition of 60,000\ncopies, and every copy was sold in less than a month. Lately a single\ncopy of that edition was sold for three dollars seventy-five cents.[45]\n\nThe pamphlet is interesting in many respects, and I propose to give\nhere a brief account of it. But first it may be well to describe briefly\nthe origin of the hoax.\n\nIt is said that after the French revolution of 1830 Nicollet, a French\nastronomer of some repute, especially for certain lunar observations of\na very delicate and difficult kind, left France in debt and also in bad\nodour with the republican party. According to this story, Arago the\nastronomer was especially obnoxious to Nicollet, and it was as much with\nthe view of revenging himself on his foe as from a wish to raise a\nlittle money that Nicollet wrote the moon-fable. It is said further that\nArago was entrapped, as Nicollet desired, and circulated all over Paris\nthe wonders related in the pamphlet, until Nicollet wrote to his friend\nBouvard explaining the trick. So runs the story, but the story cannot be\naltogether true. Nicollet may have prepared the narrative and partly\nwritten it, but there are passages in the pamphlet as published in\nAmerica which no astronomer could have written. Possibly there is some\ntruth in De Morgan's supposition that the original work was French. This\nmay have been Nicollet's: and the American edition was probably enlarged\nby the translator, who, according to this account, was Richard Alton\nLocke,[46] to whom in America the whole credit, or discredit, of the\nhoax is commonly attributed. There can be no doubt that either the\nFrench version was much more carefully designed than the American, or\nthere was no truth in the story that Arago was deceived by the\nnarrative; for in its present form the story, though clever, could not\nfor an instant have deceived any one acquainted with the most elementary\nlaws of optics. The whole story turns on optical rather than on\nastronomical considerations; but every astronomer of the least skill is\nacquainted with the principles on which the construction of optical\ninstruments depends. Though the success of the deception recently\npractised on M. Chasles by the forger of the Pascal papers has been\nregarded as showing how easily mathematicians may be entrapped, yet even\nM. Chasles would not have been deceived by bad mathematics; and Arago, a\nmaster of the science of optics, could not but have detected optical\nblunders which would be glaring to the average Cambridge undergraduate.\n\nBut let us turn to the story itself.\n\nThe account opens with a passage unmistakably from an American hand,\nthough purporting, be it remembered, to be quoted from the 'Supplement\nto the Edinburgh Journal of Science.' 'In this unusual addition to our\njournal, we have the happiness of making known to the British public,\nand thence to the whole civilised world, recent discoveries in astronomy\nwhich will build an imperishable monument to the age in which we live,\nand confer upon the present generation of the human race a proud\ndistinction through all future time. It has been poetically said' [where\nand by whom?] 'that the stars of heaven are the hereditary regalia of\nman, as the intellectual sovereign of the animal creation. He may now\nfold the zodiac around him with a loftier consciousness of his mental\nsupremacy.' To the American mind enwrapment in the star-jewelled zodiac\nmay appear as natural as their ordinary oratorical references to the\nstar-spangled banner; but the idea is essentially transatlantic, and not\neven the most poetical European astronomer could have risen to such a\nheight of imagery.\n\nPassing over several pages of introductory matter, we come to the\ndescription of the method by which a telescope of sufficient magnifying\npower to show living creatures in the moon was constructed by Sir John\nHerschel. It had occurred, it would seem, to the elder Herschel to\nconstruct an improved series of parabolic and spherical reflectors\n'uniting all the meritorious points in the Gregorian and Newtonian\ninstruments, with the highly interesting achromatic discovery of\nDolland'(_sic_). [This is much as though one should say that a clever\nengineer had conceived the idea of constructing an improved series of\nrailway engines, combining all the meritorious points in stationary and\nlocomotive engines, with _Isaac_ Watts' highly ingenious discovery of\nscrew propulsion. For the Gregorian and Newtonian instruments simply\ndiffer in sending the rays received from the great mirror in different\ndirections, and Dolland's discovery relates to the ordinary forms of\ntelescopes with large lens, not with large mirror.] However,\naccumulating infirmities and eventually death prevented Sir William\nHerschel from applying his plan, which 'evinced the most profound\nresearch in optical science, and the most dexterous ingenuity in\nmechanical contrivance. But his son, Sir John Herschel, nursed and\ncradled in the observatory, and a practical astronomer from his boyhood,\ndetermined upon testing it at whatever cost. Within two years of his\nfather's death he completed his new apparatus, and adapted it to the old\ntelescope with nearly perfect success.' A short account of the\nobservations made with this instrument, now magnifying six thousand\ntimes, follows, in which most of the astronomical statements are very\ncorrectly and justly worded, being, in fact, borrowed from a paper by\nSir W. Herschel on observation of the moon with precisely that power.\n\nBut this great improvement upon all former telescopes still left the\nobserver at a distance of forty miles from the moon; and at that\ndistance no object less than about twenty yards in diameter could be\ndistinguished, and even objects of that size 'would appear only as\nfeeble, shapeless points.' Sir John 'had the satisfaction to know that\nif he could leap astride a cannon-ball, and travel upon its wings of\nfury for the respectable period of several millions of years, he would\nnot obtain a more enlarged view of the more distant stars than he could\nnow possess in a few minutes of time; and that it would require an\nultra-railroad speed of fifty miles an hour for nearly the livelong\nyear, to secure him a more favourable inspection of the gentle luminary\nof the night;' but 'the exciting question whether this \"observed\" of all\nthe sons of men, from the days of Eden to those of Edinburgh, be\ninhabited by beings, like ourselves, of consciousness and curiosity, was\nleft to the benevolent index of natural analogy, or to the severe\ntradition that the moon is tenanted only by the hoary _solitaire_, whom\nthe criminal code of the nursery had banished thither for collecting\nfuel on the Sabbath-day.'[47] But the time had arrived when the great\ndiscovery was to be made, by which at length the moon could be brought\nnear enough, by telescopic power, for living creatures on her surface to\nbe seen if any exist.\n\nThe account of the sudden discovery of the new method, during a\nconversation between Sir John Herschel and Sir David Brewster, is one of\nthe most cleverly conceived (though also one of the absurdest) passages\nin the pamphlet. 'About three years ago, in the course of a\nconversational discussion with Sir David Brewster upon the merits of\nsome ingenious suggestions by the latter, in his article on Optics in\nthe \"Edinburgh Encyclopaedia,\" p. 644, for improvements in Newtonian\nreflectors, Sir John Herschel adverted to the convenient simplicity of\nthe old astronomical telescopes that were without tubes, and the\nobject-glass of which, placed upon a high pole, threw the focal image to\na distance of 150 and even 200 feet. Dr. Brewster readily admitted that\na tube was not necessary, provided the focal image were conveyed into a\ndark apartment and there properly received by reflectors.... The\nconversation then became directed to that all-invincible enemy, the\npaucity of light in powerful magnifiers. After a few moments' silent\nthought, Sir John diffidently enquired whether it would not be possible\nto effect _a transfusion of artificial light through the focal object of\nvision_! Sir David, somewhat startled at the originality of the idea,\npaused awhile, and then hesitatingly referred to the refrangibility of\nrays, and the angle of incidence. Sir John, grown more confident,\nadduced the example of the Newtonian reflector, in which the\nrefrangibility was corrected by the second speculum, and the angle of\nincidence restored by the third.'\n\nAll this part of the narrative is simply splendid in absurdity.\nHesitating references to refrangibility and the angle of incidence would\nhave been sheerly idiotic under the supposed circumstances; and in the\nNewtonian reflector (which has only two specula or mirrors) there is no\nrefrangibility to be corrected; apart from which, 'correcting\nrefrangibility' has no more meaning than 'restoring the angle of\nincidence.'\n\n'\"And,\" continued Sir John, \"why cannot the illuminating microscope, say\nthe hydro-oxygen, be applied to render distinct, and, if necessary, even\nto magnify, the focal object?\" Sir David sprung from his chair' [and\nwell he might, though not] 'in an ecstasy of conviction, and, leaping\nhalf-way to the ceiling, exclaimed, \"Thou art the man!\" Each philosopher\nanticipated the other in presenting the prompt illustration that if the\nrays of the hydro-oxygen microscope, passed through a drop of water\ncontaining the larvae of a gnat and other objects invisible to the naked\neye, rendered them not only keenly but firmly magnified to dimensions of\nmany feet; so could the same artificial light, passed through the\nfaintest focal object of a telescope, both distinctify (to coin a new\nword for an extraordinary occasion) and magnify its feeblest component\nmembers. The only apparent desideratum was a recipient for the focal\nimage which should transfer it, without refranging it, to the surface on\nwhich it was to be viewed under the revivifying light of the microscopic\nreflectors.'\n\nSingularly enough, the idea here mentioned does not appear to many so\nabsurd as it is in reality. It is known that the image formed by the\nlarge lens of an ordinary telescope or the large mirror of a reflecting\ntelescope is a real image; not a merely virtual image like that which is\nseen in a looking-glass. It can be received on a sheet of paper or other\nwhite surface just as the image of surrounding objects can be thrown\nupon the white table of the camera obscura. It is this real image, in\nfact, which we look at in using a telescope of any sort, the portion of\nsuch a telescope nearest to the eye being in reality a microscope for\nviewing the image formed by the great lens or mirror, as the case may\nbe. And it does not seem to some altogether absurd to speak of\nilluminating this image by transfused light, or of casting by means of\nan illuminating microscope a vastly enlarged picture of this image upon\na screen. But of course the image being simply formed by the passage of\nrays (which originally came from the object whose image they form)\nthrough a certain small space, to send _other_ rays (coming from some\nother luminous object) through the same small space, is not to improve,\nbut, so far as any effect is produced at all, to impair, the\ndistinctness of the image. In fact, if these illuminating rays reached\nthe eye, they would seriously impair the distinctness of the image.\nTheir effect may be compared exactly with the effect of rays of light\ncast upon the image in a camera obscura; and, to see what the effect of\nsuch rays would be, we need only consider why it is that the camera _is_\nmade 'obscura,' or dark. The effect of the transfusion of light through\na telescopic image may be easily tried by any one who cares to make the\nexperiment. He has only to do away with the tube of his telescope\n(substituting two or three straight rods to hold the glass in its\nplace), and then in the blaze of a strong sun to direct the telescope on\nsome object lying nearly towards the sun. Or if he prefer artificial\nlight for the experiment, then at night let him direct the telescope so\nprepared upon the moon, while a strong electric light is directed upon\nthe place where the focal image is formed (close in front of the eye).\nThe experiment will not suggest very sanguine hopes of good result from\nthe transfusion of artificial light. Yet, to my own knowledge, not a few\nwho were perfectly well aware that the lunar hoax was not based on\nfacts, have gravely reasoned that the principle suggested might be\nsound, and, in fact, that they could see no reason why astronomers\nshould not try it, even though it had been first suggested as a joke.\n\nTo return, however, to the narrative. 'The co-operative philosophers,\nhaving hit upon their method, determined to test it practically. They\ndecided that a medium of the purest plate-glass (which it is said they\nobtained, by consent, be it observed, from the shop-window of M.\nDesanges, the jeweller to his ex-majesty Charles X., in High Street) was\nthe most eligible they could discover. It answered perfectly with a\ntelescope which magnified a hundred times, and a microscope of about\nthrice that power.' Thus fortified by experiment, and 'fully sanctioned\nby the high optical authority of Sir David Brewster, Sir John laid his\nplan before the Royal Society, and particularly directed to it the\nattention of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, the ever munificent\npatron of science and the arts. It was immediately and enthusiastically\napproved by the committee chosen to investigate it, and the chairman,\nwho was the Royal President' (this continual reference to royalty is\nmanifestly intended to give a British tone to the narrative),\n'subscribed his name for a contribution of L10,000, with a promise that\nhe would zealously submit the proposed instrument as a fit object for\nthe patronage of the privy purse. He did so without delay; and his\nMajesty, on being informed that the estimated expense was L70,000,\nnaively enquired if the costly instrument would conduce to any\nimprovement in _navigation_. On being informed that it undoubtly would,\nthe sailor king promised a _carte blanche_ for any amount which might be\nrequired.'\n\nAll this is very clever. The 'sailor king' comes in as effectively to\ngive _vraisemblance_ to the narrative as 'Crabtree's little bronze\nShakspeare that stood over the fireplace,' and the 'postman just come to\nthe door with a double letter from Northamptonshire.'\n\nThen comes a description of the construction of the object-glass,\ntwenty-four feet in diameter, 'just six times the size of the elder\nHerschel's;' who, by the way, never made a telescope with an\nobject-glass. The account of Sir John Herschel's journey from England,\nand even some details of the construction of the observatory, were based\non facts, indeed, so many persons in America as well as in England were\nacquainted with some of these circumstances, that it was essential to\nfollow the facts as closely as possible. Of course, also, some\nexplanation had to be given of the circumstance that nothing had before\nbeen heard respecting the gigantic instrument taken out by Sir John\nHerschel. 'Whether,' says the story, 'the British Government were\nsceptical concerning the promised splendour of the discoveries, or\nwished them to be scrupulously veiled until they had accumulated a\nfull-orbed glory for the nation and reign in which they originated, is a\nquestion which we can only conjecturally solve. But certain it is that\nthe astronomer's royal patrons enjoined a masonic taciturnity upon him\nand his friends until he should have officially communicated the results\nof his great experiment.'\n\nIt was not till the night of January 10, 1835, that the mighty telescope\nwas at length directed towards our satellite. The part of the moon\nselected was on the eastern part of her disc. 'The whole immense power\nof the telescope was applied, and to its focal image about one half of\nthe power of the microscope. On removing the screen of the latter, the\nfield of view was covered throughout its entire area with a beautifully\ndistinct and even vivid representation of _basaltic rock_. Its colour\nwas a greenish brown; and the width of the columns, as defined by their\ninterstices on the canvas, was invariably twenty-eight inches. No\nfracture whatever appeared in the mass first presented; but in a few\nseconds a shelving pile appeared, of five or six columns' width, which\nshowed their figure to be hexagonal, and their articulations similar to\nthose of the basaltic formation at Staffa. This precipitous cliff was\nprofusely covered with a dark red flower, precisely similar, says Dr.\nGrant, to the Papaver Rhoeus, or Rose Poppy, of our sublunary\ncornfields; and this was the first organic production of nature in a\nforeign world ever revealed to the eyes of men.'\n\nIt would be wearisome to go through the whole series of observations\nthus fabled, and only a few of the more striking features need be\nindicated. The discoveries are carefully graduated in interest. Thus we\nhave seen how, after recognising basaltic formations, the observers\ndiscovered flowers: they next see a lunar forest, whose 'trees were of\none unvaried kind, and unlike any on earth except the largest kind of\nyews in the English churchyards.' (There is an American ring in this\nsentence, by the way, as there is in one, a few lines farther on, where\nthe narrator having stated that by mistake the observers had the Sea of\nClouds instead of a more easterly spot in the field of view, proceeds to\nsay: 'However, the moon was a free country, and we not as yet attached\nto any particular province.') Next a lunar ocean is described, 'the\nwater nearly as blue as that of the deep sea, and breaking in large\nwhite billows upon the strand, while the action of very high tides was\nquite manifest upon the face of the cliffs for more than a hundred\nmiles.' After a description of several valleys, hills, mountains and\nforests, we come to the discovery of animal life. An oval valley\nsurrounded by hills, red as the purest vermilion, is selected as the\nscene. 'Small collections of trees, of every imaginable kind, were\nscattered about the whole of this luxuriant area; and here our\nmagnifiers blessed our panting hopes with specimens of conscious\nexistence. In the shade of the woods we beheld brown quadrupeds having\nall the external characteristics of the bison, but more diminutive than\nany species of the bos genus in our natural history.' Then herds of\nagile creatures like antelopes are described, 'abounding on the\nacclivitous glades of the woods.' In the contemplation of these\nsprightly animals the narrator becomes quite lively. 'This beautiful\ncreature,' says he, 'afforded us the most exquisite amusement. The\nmimicry of its movements upon our white painted canvas was as faithful\nand luminous as that of animals within a few yards of the camera\nobscura. Frequently, when attempting to put our fingers upon its beard,\nit would suddenly bound away as if conscious of our earthly\nimpertinence; but then others would appear, whom we could not prevent\nnibbling the herbage, say or do to them what we would.'\n\nA strange amphibious creature, of a spherical form, rolling with great\nvelocity along a pebbly beach, is the next object of interest, but is\npresently lost sight of in a strong current setting off from the angle\nof an island. After this there are three or four pages descriptive of\nvarious lunar scenes and animals, the latter showing a tendency,\nsingular considering the circumstances, though very convenient for the\nnarrator, to become higher and higher in type as the discoveries\nproceed, until an animal somewhat of the nature of the missing link is\ndiscovered. It is found in the Endymion (a circular walled plain) in\ncompany with a small kind of reindeer, the elk, the moose, and the\nhorned bear, and is described as the biped beaver. It 'resembles the\nbeaver of the earth in every other respect than in its destitution of a\ntail, and its invariable habit of walking upon only two feet. It carries\nits young in its arms like a human being, and moves with an easy gliding\nmotion. Its huts are constructed better and higher than those of many\ntribes of human savages, and, from the appearance of smoke in nearly all\nof them, there is no doubt of its being acquainted with the use of fire.\nStill, its head and body differ only in the points stated from that of\nthe beaver; and it was never seen except on the borders of lakes and\nrivers, in which it has been observed to immerse for a period of several\nseconds.'\n\nThe next step towards the climax brings us to domestic animals, 'good\nlarge sheep, which would not have disgraced the farms of Leicestershire\nor the shambles of Leadenhall Market; we fairly laughed at the\nrecognition of so familiar an acquaintance in so distant a land.\nPresently they appeared in great numbers, and, on reducing the lenses,\nwe found them in flocks over a great part of the valley. I need not say\nhow desirous we were of finding shepherds to these flocks, and even a\nman with blue apron and rolled-up sleeves would have been a welcome\nsight to us, if not to the sheep; but they fed in peace, lords of their\nown pastures, without either protector or destroyer in human shape.'\n\nIn the meantime, discussion had arisen as to the lunar locality where\nmen, or creatures resembling them, would most likely be found. Herschel\nhad a theory on the subject--viz., that just where the balancing or\nlibratory swing of the moon brings into view the greatest extent beyond\nthe eastern or western parts of that hemisphere which is turned\nearthwards in the moon's mean or average position, lunar inhabitants\nwould probably be found, and nowhere else. This, by the way (speaking\nseriously), is a rather curious anticipation of a view long subsequently\nadvanced by Hansen, and for a time adopted by Sir J. Herschel, that\npossibly the remote hemisphere of the moon may be a fit abode for living\ncreatures, the oceans and atmosphere which are wanting on the nearer\nhemisphere having been (on this hypothesis) drawn over to the remoter\nbecause of a displacement of the moon's centre of gravity. I ventured in\none of my first books on astronomy to indicate objections to this\ntheory, the force of which Sir J. Herschel admitted in a letter\naddressed to me on the subject.\n\nTaking, then, an opportunity when the moon had just swung to the extreme\nlimit of her balancing, or, to use technical terms, when she had\nattained her maximum libration in longitude, the observers approached\nthe level opening to Lake Langrenus, as the narrator calls this fine\nwalled plain, which, by the way, is fully thirty degrees of lunar\nlongitude within the average western limit of the moon's visible\nhemisphere. 'Here the valley narrows to a mile in width, and displays\nscenery on both sides picturesque and romantic beyond the powers of a\nprose description. Imagination, borne on the wings of poetry, could\nalone gather similes to portray the wild sublimity of this landscape,\nwhere dark behemoth crags stood over the brows of lofty precipices, as\nif a rampart in the sky; and forests seemed suspended in mid-air. On the\neastern side there was one soaring crag, crested with trees, which hung\nover in a curve like three-fourths of a Gothic arch, and being of a rich\ncrimson colour, its effect was most strange upon minds unaccustomed to\nthe association of such grandeur with such beauty. But, whilst gazing\nupon them in a perspective of about half a mile, we were thrilled with\nastonishment to perceive four successive flocks of large winged\ncreatures, wholly unlike any kind of birds, descend with a slow even\nmotion from the cliffs on the western side and alight upon the plain.\nThey were first noticed by Dr. Herschel, who exclaimed: \"Now, gentlemen,\nmy theories against your proofs, which you have often found a pretty\neven bet, we have here something worth looking at. I was confident that\nif ever we found beings in human shape it would be in this longitude,\nand that they would be provided by their Creator with some extraordinary\npowers of locomotion.\" ... We counted three parties of these creatures,\nof twelve, nine, and fifteen in each, walking erect towards a small wood\nnear the base of the eastern precipices. Certainly they _were_ like\nhuman beings, for their wings had now disappeared, and their attitude in\nwalking was both erect and dignified.... They averaged four feet in\nheight, were covered, except on the face, with short and glossy\ncopper-coloured hair, lying snugly upon their backs, from the top of the\nshoulders to the calves of the legs. The face, which was of a yellowish\nflesh colour, was a slight improvement upon that of the large orang\noutang, being more open and intelligent in its expression, and having a\nmuch greater expansion of forehead. The mouth, however, was very\nprominent, though somewhat relieved by a thick beard upon the lower jaw,\nand by lips far more human than those of any species of the simia genus.\nIn general symmetry of body and limbs they were infinitely superior to\nthe orang outang; so much so, that, but for their long wings, Lieutenant\nDrummond said they would look as well on a parade ground as some of the\nold Cockney militia.... These creatures were evidently engaged in\nconversation; their gesticulation, more particularly the varied action\nof their hands and arms, appeared impassioned and emphatic. We hence\ninferred that they were rational beings, and, although not perhaps of so\nhigh an order as others which we discovered the next month on the shores\nof the Bay of Rainbows, that they were capable of producing works of art\nand contrivance.... They possessed wings of great expansion, similar in\nconstruction to those of the bat, being a semi-transparent membrane\nunited in curvilinear divisions by means of straight radii, united at\nthe back by the dorsal integuments. But what astonished us very much\nwas the circumstance of this membrane being continued from the shoulders\nto the legs, united all the way down, though gradually decreasing in\nwidth' (very much as Fuseli depicted the wings of his Satanic Majesty,\nthough H.S.M. would seem to have the advantage of the lunar Bat-men in\nnot being influenced by gravity[48]). 'The wings seemed completely under\nthe command of volition, for those of the creatures whom we saw bathing\nin the water spread them instantly to their full width, waved them as\nducks do theirs to shake off the water, and then as instantly closed\nthem again in a compact form. Our further observation of the habits of\nthese creatures, who were of both sexes, led to results so very\nremarkable, that I prefer they should be first laid before the public in\nDr. Herschel's own work, where I have reason to know they are fully and\nfaithfully stated, however incredulously they may be received.... We\nscientifically denominated them the Vespertilio-homo or Bat-man; and\nthey are doubtless innocent and happy creatures, notwithstanding that\nsome of their amusements would but ill comport with our terrestrial\nnotions of decorum.' The omitted passages were suppressed in obedience\nto Dr. Grant's private injunction. 'These, however, and other prohibited\npassages,' were to be presently 'published by Dr. Herschel, with the\ncertificates of the civil and military authorities of the colony, and of\nseveral Episcopal, Wesleyan, and other ministers, who in the month of\nMarch last were permitted, under stipulation of temporary secrecy, to\nvisit the observatory, and become eye-witnesses of the wonders which\nthey were requested to attest. We are confident that his forthcoming\nvolumes will be at once the most sublime in science, and the most\nintense in general interest, that ever issued from the press.'\n\nThe actual climax of the narrative, however, is not yet reached. The\ninhabitants of Langrenus, though rational, do not belong to the highest\norders of intelligent Lunarians. Herschel, ever ready with theories, had\npointed out that probably the most cultivated races would be found\nresiding on the slopes of some active volcano, and, in particular, that\nthe proximity of the flaming mountain Bullialdus (about twenty degrees\nsouth and ten east of the vast crater Tycho, the centre whence extend\nthose great radiations which give to the moon something of the\nappearance of a peeled orange) 'must be so great a local convenience to\ndwellers in this valley during the long periodical absence of solar\nlight, as to render it a place of popular resort for the inhabitants of\nall the adjacent regions, more especially as its bulwark of hills\nafforded an infallible security against any volcanic eruption that could\noccur.' Our observers therefore applied their full power to explore it.\n'Rich, indeed, was our reward. The very first object in this valley that\nappeared upon our canvas was a magnificent work of art. It was a\ntemple--a fane of devotion or of science, which, when consecrated to the\nCreator, is devotion of the loftiest order, for it exhibits His\nattributes purely, free from the masquerade attire and blasphemous\ncaricature of controversial creeds, and has the seal and signature of\nHis own hand to sanction its aspirations. It was an equi-angular temple,\nbuilt of polished sapphire, or of some resplendent blue stone, which,\nlike it, displayed a myriad point of golden light twinkling and\nscintillating in the sunbeams.... The roof was composed of yellow metal,\nand divided into three compartments, which were not triangular planes\ninclining to the centre, but subdivided, curved, and separated so as to\npresent a mass of violently agitated flames rising from a common source\nof conflagration, and terminating in wildly waving points. This design\nwas too manifest and too skilfully executed to be mistaken for a single\nmoment. Through a few openings in these metallic flames we perceived a\nlarge sphere of a darker kind of metal nearly of a clouded copper\ncolour, which they enclosed and seemingly raged around, as if\nhieroglyphically consuming it.... What did the ingenious builders mean\nby the globe surrounded by flames? Did they, by this, record any past\ncalamity of _their_ world, or predict any future one of _ours_?' (Why,\nby the way, should the past theory be assigned to the moon and the\nfuture one to our earth?) 'I by no means despair of ultimately solving\nnot only these but a thousand other questions which present themselves\nrespecting the objects in this planet; for not the millionth part of her\nsurface has yet been explored, and we have been more desirous of\ncollecting the greatest possible number of new facts than of indulging\nin speculative theories, however seductive to the imagination.'\n\nAfter this we have an account of the behaviour of the Vespertilio-homo\nat meals. 'They seemed eminently happy, and even polite; for individuals\nwould select large and bright specimens of fruit, and throw them\narchwise across to some friend who had extracted the nutriment from\nthose scattered around him.' However, the lunar men are not on the whole\nparticularly interesting beings according to this account. 'So far as we\ncould judge, they spent their happy hours in collecting various fruits\nin the woods, in eating, flying, bathing, and loitering about the\nsummits of precipices.' One may say of them what Huxley is reported to\nhave said of the spirits as described by spiritualists, that no student\nof science would care to waste his time inquiring about such a stupid\nset of people.\n\nSuch are the more interesting and characteristic portions of a\nnarrative, running in the original to forty or fifty large octavo pages.\nIn its day the story attracted a good deal of notice, and, even when\nevery one had learned the trick, many were still interested in a\n_brochure_ which was so cleverly conceived and had deceived so many. To\nthis day the lunar hoax is talked of in America, where originally it had\nits chief--or, one may rather say, its only real--success as a hoax. It\nreached England too late to deceive any but those who were unacquainted\nwith Herschel's real doings, and no editors of public journals, I\nbelieve, gave countenance to it at all. In America, on the contrary,\nmany editors gave the narrative a distinguished place in their columns.\nSome indeed expressed doubts, and others followed the safe course of the\n'Philadelphia Inquirer,' which informed its readers that 'after an\nattentive perusal of the whole story they could decide for themselves;'\nadding that, 'whether true or false, the narrative is written with\nconsummate ability and possesses intense interest.' But others were more\ncredulous. According to the 'Mercantile Advertiser' the story carried\n'intrinsic evidence of being an authentic document.' The 'Albany Daily\nAdvertiser' had read the article 'with unspeakable emotions of pleasure\nand astonishment.' The 'New York Times' announced that 'the writer (Dr.\nAndrew Grant) displays the most extensive and accurate knowledge of\nastronomy; and the description of Sir John's recently improved\ninstruments, the principle on which the inestimable improvements were\nfounded, the account of the wonderful discoveries in the moon, etc., all\nare probable and plausible, and have an air of intense verisimilitude.'\nThe 'New Yorker' considered the discoveries 'of astounding interest,\ncreating a new era in astronomy and science generally.'[49]\n\nIn our time a trick of the kind could hardly be expected to succeed so\nwell, even if as cleverly devised and as well executed. The facts of\npopular astronomy and of general popular science have been more widely\ndisseminated. America, too, more than any other great nation, has\nadvanced in the interval. It was about two years after this pamphlet had\nappeared, that J. Quincy Adams used the following significant language\nin advocating the erection of an astronomical observatory at Washington:\n'It is with no feeling of pride as an American that the remark may be\nmade, that on the comparatively small territorial surface of Europe\nthere are existing more than 130 of these lighthouses of the skies;\nwhile throughout the whole American hemisphere there is but one.' At\npresent, some of the finest observatories in the world belong to\nAmerican cities, or are attached to American colleges; and much of the\nmost interesting astronomical work of this country has been achieved by\nAmerican observers.\n\nYet we still hear from time to time of the attempted publication of\nhoaxes of greater or less ingenuity. It is singular (and I think\nsignificant) how often these relate to the moon. There would seem to be\nsome charm about our satellite for the minds of paradoxists and hoaxers\ngenerally. Nor are these tricks invariably detected at once by the\ngeneral public, or even by persons of some culture. I remember being\ngravely asked (in January 1874) whether an account given in the 'New\nYork World,' purporting to describe how the moon's frame was gradually\ncracking, threatening eventually to fall into several separate\nfragments, was in reality based on fact. In the far West, at Lincoln,\nNebraska, a lawyer asked me, not long since, why I had not described the\ngreat discoveries recently made by means of a powerful reflector erected\nnear Paris. According to the 'Chicago Times,' this powerful instrument\nhad shown buildings in the moon, and bands of workers could be seen with\nit who manifestly were undergoing some kind of penal servitude, for they\nwere chained together. It was clear, from the presence of these and the\nabsence of other inhabitants, that the side of the moon turned\nearthwards is a dreary and unpleasant place of abode, the real 'happy\nhunting grounds' of the moon lying on her remote and unseen hemisphere.\n\nAs gauges of general knowledge, scientific hoaxes have their uses, just\nas paradoxical works have. No one, certainly no student of science, can\nthoroughly understand how little some persons know about science, until\nhe has observed how much will be believed, if only published with the\napparent authority of a few known names, and announced with a sufficient\nparade of technical verbiage; nor is it so easy as might be thought,\neven for those who are acquainted with the facts, to disprove either a\nhoax or a paradox. Nothing, indeed, can much more thoroughly perplex and\nconfound a student of science than to be asked to prove, for example,\nthat the earth is not flat, or the moon not inhabited by creatures like\nourselves; for the circumstance that such a question is asked implies\nignorance so thorough of the very facts on which the proof must be\nbased, as to render argument all but hopeless from the outset. I have\nhad a somewhat wide experience of paradoxists, and have noted the\nexperience of De Morgan and others who, like him, have tried to convince\nthem of their folly. The conclusion at which I have arrived is, that to\nmake a rope of sand were an easy task compared with the attempt to\ninstil the simpler facts of science into paradoxical heads.\n\nI would make some remarks, in conclusion, upon scientific or\nquasi-scientific papers not intended to deceive, but yet presenting\nimaginary scenes, events, and so forth, described more or less in\naccordance with scientific facts. Imaginary journeys to the sun, moon,\nplanets, and stars; travels over regions on the earth as yet unexplored;\nvoyages under the sea, through the bowels of the earth, and other such\nnarratives, may, perhaps, be sometimes usefully written and read, so\nlong as certain conditions are fulfilled by the narrator. In the first\nplace, while adopting, to preserve the unities, the tone of one relating\nfacts which actually occurred, he should not suffer even the simplest\namong his readers to lie under the least misapprehension as to the true\nnature of the narrative. Again, since of necessity established facts\nmust in such a narrative appear in company with the results of more or\nless probable surmise, the reader should have some means of\ndistinguishing where fact ends and surmise begins. For example, in a\npaper I once wrote, entitled 'A Journey to Saturn,' I was not\nsufficiently careful to note that while the appearances described in the\napproach towards the planet were in reality based on the observed\nappearances as higher and higher telescopic powers are applied to the\nplanet, others supposed to have been seen by the visitors to Saturn when\nactually within his system, were only such as might possibly or probably\nbe seen, but for which we have no real evidence. In consequence of this\nomission, I received several inquiries about these matters. 'Is it\ntrue,' some wrote, 'that the small satellite Hyperion' (scarce\ndiscernible in powerful telescopes, while Titan and Japetus on either\nside are large) 'is only one of a ring of small satellites travelling\nbetween the orbits of the larger moons?'--as the same planets travel\nbetween the paths of Mars and Jupiter. Others asked on what grounds it\nwas said that the voyagers found small moons circling about Titan, the\ngiant moon of the Saturnian system, as the moons of Jupiter and Saturn\ncircle around those giant members of the solar system. In each case, I\nwas reduced to the abject necessity of explaining that there was no\nevidence for the alleged state of things, which, however, might\nnevertheless exist. Scientific fiction which has to be interpreted in\nthat way is as bad as a joke that has to be explained. In my 'Journey to\nthe Sun' I was more successful (it was the earlier essay, however);\ninsomuch that Professor Young, of Dartmouth College (Hanover, N.H.), one\nof the most skilful solar observers living, assured me that, with\nscarcely a single exception, the various phenomena described\ncorresponded exactly with the ideas he had formed respecting the\nprobable condition of our luminary.[50]\n\nBut I must confess that my own experience has not been, on the whole,\nfavourable to that kind of popular science writing. It appears to me\nthat the more thoroughly the writer of such an essay has studied any\nparticular scientific subject, the less able must he be to write a\nfictitious narrative respecting it. Just as those ignorant of any\nsubject are often the readiest to theorise about it, because least\nhampered by exact knowledge, so I think that the careful avoidance of\nany exact study of the details of a scientific subject must greatly\nfacilitate the writing of a fictitious narrative respecting it. But\nunfortunately a narrative written under such conditions, however\ninteresting to the general reader, can scarcely forward the propagation\nof scientific knowledge, one of the qualities claimed for fables of the\nkind. As an instance in point, I may cite Jules Verne's 'Voyage to the\nMoon,' where (apart, of course, from the inherent and intentional\nabsurdity of the scheme itself), the circumstances which are described\nare calculated to give entirely erroneous ideas about the laws of\nmotion. Nothing could be more amusing, but at the same time nothing more\nscientifically absurd, than the story of the dead dog Satellite, which,\nflung out of the travelling projectile, becomes a veritable satellite,\nmoving always beside the voyagers; for, with whatever velocity the dog\nhad been expelled by them, with that same velocity would he have\nretreated continually from their projectile abode, whose own attraction\non the dog would have had no appreciable effect in checking his\ndeparture. Again, the scene when the projectile reaches the neutral\npoint between the earth and moon, so that there is no longer any gravity\nto keep the travellers on the floor of their travelling car, is well\nconceived (though, in part, somewhat profane); but in reality the state\nof things described as occurring there would have prevailed throughout\nthe journey. The travellers would no more be drawn earthwards (as\ncompared with the projectile itself) than we travellers on the earth are\ndrawn sunwards with reference to the earth. The earth's attracting force\non the projectile and on the travellers would be equal all through the\njourney, not solely when the projectile reached the neutral point; and\nbeing equal on both, would not draw them together. It may be argued that\nthe attractions were equal before the projectile set out on its journey,\nand therefore, if the reasoning just given were correct, the travellers\nought not to have had any weight keeping them on the floor of the\nprojectile before it started, 'which is absurd.' But the pressure upon\nthe floor of the projectile at rest is caused by the floor being kept\nfrom moving; let it be free to obey gravity, and there will no longer be\nany pressure: and throughout the journey to the moon, the projectile,\nlike the travellers it contains, is obeying the action of gravity.\nUnfortunately, those who are able to follow the correct reasoning in\nsuch matters are not those to whom Jules Verne's account would suggest\nwrong ideas about matters dynamical; the young learner who _is_ misled\nby such narratives is neither able to reason out the matter for himself,\nnor to understand the true reasoning respecting it. He is, therefore,\napt to be set quite at sea by stories of the kind, and especially by the\nspecious reasoning introduced to explain the events described. In fine,\nit would seem that such narratives must be valued for their intrinsic\ninterest, just like other novels or romances, not for the quality\nsometimes claimed for them of combining instruction with amusement.\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\n_ON SOME ASTRONOMICAL PARADOXES._\n\n\nFor many years the late Professor De Morgan contributed to the columns\nof the 'Athenaeum' a series of papers in which he dealt with the strange\ntreatises in which the earth is flattened, the circle squared, the angle\ndivided into three, the cube doubled (the famous problem which the\nDelphic oracle set astronomers), and the whole of modern astronomy shown\nto be a delusion and a snare. He treated these works in a quaint\nfashion: not unkindly, for his was a kindly nature; not even earnestly,\nthough he was thoroughly in earnest; yet in such sort as to rouse the\nindignation of the unfortunate paradoxists. He was abused roundly for\nwhat he said, but much more roundly when he declined further\ncontroversy. Paradoxists of the ignorant sort (for it must be remembered\nthat not all are ignorant) are, indeed, well practised in abuse, and\nhave long learned to call mathematicians and astronomers cheats and\ncharlatans. They freely used their vocabulary for the benefit of De\nMorgan, whom they denounced as a scurrilous scribbler, a defamatory,\ndishonest, abusive, ungentlemanly, and libellous trickster.\n\nHe bore this shower of abuse with exceeding patience and good nature. He\nhad not been wholly unprepared for it, in fact; and, as he had a purpose\nin dealing with the paradoxists, he was satisfied to continue that quiet\nanalysis of their work which so roused their indignation. He found in\nthem a curious subject of study; and he found an equally curious subject\nof study in their disciples. The simpler--not to say more\nfoolish--paradoxists, whose wonderful discoveries are merely amazing\nmisapprehensions, were even more interesting to De Morgan than the\ncraftier sort who make a living, or try to make a living, out of their\npretended theories. Indeed, these last he treated, as they deserved,\nwith a scathing satire quite different from his humorous and not\nungenial comments on the wonderful theories of the honest paradoxists.\n\nThere is one special use to which the study of paradox-literature may be\napplied, which--so far as I know--has not hitherto been much attended\nto. It may be questioned whether half the strange notions into which\nparadoxists fall must not be ascribed to the vagueness of too many of\nour scientific treatises. A half-understood explanation, or a carelessly\nworded account of some natural phenomenon, leads the paradoxist, whose\nnature is compounded of conceit and simplicity, to originate a theory of\nhis own on the subject. Once such a theory has been devised, it takes\ncomplete possession of the paradoxist's mind. All the facts of which he\nthenceforward hears, which bear in the least on his favourite craze,\nappear to give evidence in its favour, even though in reality they are\nmost obviously opposed to it. He learns to look upon himself as an\nunappreciated Newton, and to see the bitterest malevolence in those who\nventure to question his preposterous notions. He is fortunate if he do\nnot suffer his theories to withdraw him from his means of earning a\nlivelihood, or if he do not waste his substance in propounding and\ndefending them.\n\nOne of the favourite subjects for paradox-forming is the accepted theory\nof the solar system. Our books on astronomy too often present this\ntheory in such sort that it seems only a _successor_ of Ptolemy's; and\nthe impression is conveyed that, like Ptolemy's, it may be one day\nsuperseded by some other theory. This is quite enough for the\nparadoxist. If a new theory is to replace the one now accepted, why\nshould not _he_ be the new Copernicus? He starts upon the road without a\ntithe of the knowledge that old Ptolemy possessed, unaware of the\ndifficulties which Ptolemy met and dealt with--free, therefore, because\nof his perfect ignorance, to form theories at which Ptolemy would have\nsmiled. He has probably heard of the\n\n      centrics and eccentrics scribbled o'er\n  Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb,\n\nwhich disfigured the theories of the ancients; but he is quite\nunconscious that every one of those scribblings had a real meaning, each\nbeing intended to account for some observed peculiarity of planetary\nmotion, which _must_ be accounted for by any theory which is to claim\nacceptance. In this happy unconsciousness that there are any\npeculiarities requiring explanation, knowing nothing of the strange\npaths which the planets are seen to follow on the heavenly vault,\n\n  Their wand'ring course now high, now low, then hid,\n  Progressive, retrograde, or standing still,\n\nhe placidly puts forward--and presently very vehemently urges--a theory\nwhich accounts for none of these things.\n\nIt has often seemed to me that a large part of the mischief--for let it\nbe remembered that the published errors of the paradoxist are indicative\nof much unpublished misapprehension--arises from the undeserved contempt\nwith which our books of astronomy too often treat the labours of\nPtolemy, Tycho Brahe, and others who advocated erroneous theories. If\nthe simple truth were told, that the theory of Ptolemy was a masterpiece\nof ingenuity and that it was worked out by his followers in a way which\nmerits the highest possible praise, while the theory of Tycho Brahe was\nplaced in reality on a sounder basis than that of Copernicus, and\naccounted as well and as simply for observed appearances, the student\nwould begin to realise the noble nature of the problem which those great\nastronomers dealt with. And again, if stress were laid upon the fact\nthat Tycho Brahe devoted years upon years of his life to secure such\nobservations of the planets as might settle the questions at issue, the\nstudent would learn something of the spirit in which the true lover of\nscience proceeds.\n\nIt seems to me, also, that far too little is said about the kind of work\nby which Kepler and Newton finally established the accepted theories.\nThere is a strange charm in the history of those twenty years of\nKepler's life during which he was analysing the observations made by\nTycho Brahe. Surrounded with domestic trials and anxieties, which might\nwell have claimed his whole attention, tried grievously by ill-health\nand bodily anguish, he laboured all those years upon erroneous theories.\nThe very worst of these had infinitely more evidence in its favour than\nthe best which the paradoxists have brought forth. There was not one of\nthose theories which nine out of ten of his scientific contemporaries\nwould not have accepted ungrudgingly. Yet he wrought these theories one\nafter another to their own disproof. _Nineteen_ of them he tried and\nrejected--the twentieth was the true theory of the solar system. Perhaps\nnothing in the whole history of astronomy affords a nobler lesson to the\nstudent of science--unless, indeed, it be the calm philosophy with which\nNewton for eighteen years suffered the theory of the universe to remain\nin abeyance, because faulty measurements of the earth prevented his\ncalculations from agreeing with observed facts. But, as Professor\nTyndall has well remarked--and the paradoxist should lay the lesson\nwell to heart--'Newton's action in this matter was the normal action of\nthe scientific mind. If it were otherwise--if scientific men were not\naccustomed to demand verification, if they were satisfied with the\nimperfect while the perfect is attainable--their science, instead of\nbeing, as it is, a fortress of adamant, would be a house of clay, ill\nfitted to bear the buffetings of the theologic storms to which it has\nbeen from time to time, and is at present, exposed.'\n\nThe fame of Newton has proved to many paradoxists an irresistible\nattraction; it has been to these unfortunates as the candle to the\nfluttering moth. Circle-squaring, as we shall presently see, has had its\nattractions, nor have earth-fixing and earth-flattening been neglected;\nbut attacking the law of gravitation has been the favourite work of\nparadoxists. Newton has been praised as surpassing the whole human race\nin genius; mathematicians and astronomers have agreed to laud him as\nunequalled; why should not Paradoxus displace him and be praised in like\nmanner? It would be unfair, perhaps, to say that the paradoxist\nconsciously argues thus. He doubtless in most instances convinces\nhimself that he has really detected some flaw in the theory of\ngravitation. Yet it is impossible not to recognise, as the real motive\nof every paradox-monger, the desire to have that said of him which has\nbeen said of Newton: '_Genus humanum ingenio superavit._'\n\nI remember a curious instance of this which occurred soon after the\nappearance of the comet of 1858. It chanced that, while that object was\nunder discussion, reference was made to the action of a repulsive force\nexerted by the sun upon the matter of the comet's tail. On this, some\none addressed a long letter to a Glasgow newspaper, announcing that he\nhad long ago proved that the sun's attraction alone is insufficient to\naccount for the planetary motions. His reasoning was amazingly simple.\nIf the sun's attraction is powerful enough to keep the outer planets in\ntheir course, it must be too powerful for Venus and Mercury close by the\nsun; if it only just suffices to keep these in their course, it cannot\npossibly be powerful enough to restrain the outer planets. The writer of\nthis letter said that he had been very badly treated by scientific\nbodies. He had announced his discovery to the Royal Astronomical\nSociety, the Royal Society, the Imperial Academy at Paris, and other\nscientific bodies; but they had one and all refused to listen to him. He\nhad forsaken or neglected his trade for several years in order to give\nattention to the new and (as he thought) the true theory of the\nuniverse. He complained in a specially bitter manner of the unfavourable\ncomments which men of science had made upon his views in private letters\naddressed to him in reply to his communications.\n\nThere is something melancholy even in what is most ridiculous in cases\nof this sort. The simplicity which supposes that considerations so\nobvious as those adduced could escape the scrutiny, not of Newton only,\nbut of all who have followed in the same track during two centuries, is\ncertainly stupendous; nor can one fail to smile at seeing a difficulty,\nsuch as might naturally suggest itself to a beginner, and such as\nhalf-a-dozen words from an expert would clear up, regarded gravely as a\ndiscovery calculated to make its author famous for all time. Yet, when\none considers the probable consequences of the blunder to the unhappy\nenthusiast, and perchance to his family, it is difficult not to feel a\nsense of pity, quite apart from that pity allied to contempt which is\nexcited by his mistake. A few words added to the account of Newton's\ntheory, which the paradoxist had probably read in some astronomical\ntreatise, would have prevented all this mischief. Indeed, this\ndifficulty, which, as we have said, is a natural one, should be dealt\nwith and removed in any account of the planetary system intended for\nbeginners. The simple statement that the outer planets move more slowly\nthan the inner, and so _require_ a smaller force to keep them in their\ncourse, would have sufficed, not, perhaps, altogether to remove the\ndifficulty, but to show the beginner where the explanation was to be\nlooked for.\n\nIt was in connection with this subject of gravitation that one of the\nmost well-meaning of the paradoxists--the late Mr. James Reddie--came\nunder Professor De Morgan's criticism. Mr. Reddie was something more\nthan well-meaning. He was earnestly desirous of advancing the interests\nof science, as well as of defending religion from what he mistakenly\nsupposed to be the dangerous teachings of the Newtonians. He founded for\nthese purposes the Victoria Institute, of which society he was the\nsecretary from the time of its institution until his decease, some years\nsince; and, probably, many who declined to join that society because of\nthe Anti-Newtonian proclivities of its secretary, were unaware that to\nthat secretary the institute owed its existence.\n\nIt so chanced that I had myself a good deal of correspondence with Mr.\nReddie (who was, however, personally unknown to me). This correspondence\nserved to throw quite a new light on the mental habitudes and ways of\nthinking of the honest paradoxist. I believe that Professor De Morgan\nhardly gave Mr. Reddie credit for the perfect honesty which he really\npossessed. It may have been that a clear reasoner like De Morgan could\nhardly (despite his wide experience) appreciate the confusion of mind\nwhich is the normal characteristic of the paradoxist. But certainly the\nvery candid way in which Mr. Reddie admitted, in the correspondence\nabove named, that he had not known some facts and had misunderstood\nothers, afforded to my mind the most satisfactory proofs of his\nstraightforwardness.\n\nIt may be instructive to consider a few of those paradoxes of Mr.\nReddie's which Professor De Morgan found chief occasion to pulverise.\n\nIn a letter to the Astronomer-Royal Mr. Reddie announced that he was\nabout to write 'a paper intended to be hereafter published, elaborating\nmore minutely and discussing more rigidly than before the glaring\nfallacies, dating from the time of Newton, relating to the motion of the\nmoon.' He proceeded to 'indicate the nature of the issues he intended to\nraise.' He had discovered that the moon does not, as a matter of fact,\ngo round the earth at the rate of 2288 miles an hour, as astronomers\nsay, but follows an undulatory path round the sun at a rate varying\nbetween 65,000 and 70,000 miles an hour; because, while the moon seems\nto go round the earth, the latter is travelling onwards at the rate of\n67,500 miles an hour round the sun. Of course he was quite right in his\nfacts, and quite wrong in his inferences; as the Astronomer-Royal\npointed out in a brief letter, closing with the remark that, 'as a very\nclosely occupied man,' Mr. Airy could 'not enter further into the\nmatter.' But further Mr. Reddie persisted in going, though he received\nno more letters from Greenwich. His reply to Sir G. Airy contained, in\nfact, matter enough for a small pamphlet.\n\nNow here was certainly an amazing fact. A well-known astronomical\nrelation, which astronomers have over and over again described and\nexplained, is treated as though it were something which had throughout\nall ages escaped attention. It is not here the failure to comprehend the\n_rationale_ of a simple explanation which is startling, but the notion\nthat an obvious fact had been wholly overlooked.\n\nOf like nature was the mistake which brought Mr. Reddie more especially\nunder Professor De Morgan's notice. It is known that the sun, carrying\nwith him his family of planets, is speeding swiftly through space--his\nvelocity being estimated as probably not falling short of 20,000 miles\nper hour. It follows, of course, that the real paths of the planets in\nspace are not closed curves, but spirals of different orders. How, then,\ncan the theory of Copernicus be right, according to which the planets\ncircle in closed orbits round the sun? Here was Mr. Reddie's difficulty;\nand like the other, it appeared to his mind as a great discovery. He was\nno whit concerned by the thought that astronomers ought surely to have\nnoticed the difficulty before. It did not seem in the least wonderful\nthat he, lightly reading a book or two of popular astronomy, should\ndiscover that which Laplace, the Herschels, Leverrier, Airy, Adams, and\na host of others, who have given their whole lives to astronomy, had\nfailed to notice. Accordingly, Mr. Reddie forwarded to the British\nAssociation (in session at Newcastle) a paper controverting the theory\nof the sun's motion. The paper was declined with thanks by that bigoted\nbody 'as opposed to Newtonian astronomy.' 'That paper I published,' says\nMr. Reddie, 'in September 1863, with an appendix, in both thoroughly\nexhibiting the illogical reasoning and absurdities involved in the\ntheory; and with what result? The members of Section A of the British\nAssociation, and Fellows of the Royal Society and of the Royal\nAstronomical Society, to whom I sent copies of my paper, were, without\nexception, _dumb_.' Professor De Morgan, however, having occasion to\nexamine Mr. Reddie's publications some time after, was in no sort dumb,\nbut in very plain and definite terms exhibited their absurdity. After\nall, however, the real absurdity consisted, not in the statements which\nMr. Reddie made, nor even in the conclusions which he drew from them,\nbut in the astounding simplicity which could suppose that astronomers\nwere unaware of the facts which their own labours had revealed.\n\nIn my correspondence with Mr. Reddie I recognised the real source of the\namazing self-complacency displayed by the true paradoxist. The very\ninsufficiency of the knowledge which a paradoxist possesses of his\nsubject, affords the measure of his estimate of the care with which\nother men have studied that subject. Because the paradoxist is ready to\npronounce an opinion about matters he has not studied, it does not seem\nstrange to him that Newton and his followers should be equally ready to\ndiscuss subjects they had not inquired into.\n\nAnother very remarkable instance was afforded by Mr. Reddie's treatment\nof the subject of comets. And here, by the way, I shall quote a remark\nmade by Sir John Herschel soon after the appearance of the comet of\n1861. 'I have received letters,' he said, 'about the comets of the last\nfew years, enough to make one's hair stand on end at the absurdity of\nthe theories they propose, and at the ignorance of the commonest laws of\noptics, of motion, of heat, and of general physics, they betray in their\nwriters.' In the present instance, the correspondence showed that the\nparadoxist supposed the parabolic paths of some comets to be regarded by\nastronomers as analogous to the parabolic paths traversed by\nprojectiles. He expressed considerable astonishment when I informed him\nthat, in the first place, projectiles do not travel on truly parabolic\npaths; and secondly, that in all respects their motion differs\nessentially from that which astronomers ascribe to comets. These last\nmove more and more quickly until they reach what is called the vertex of\nthe parabola (the point of such a path which lies nearest to the sun):\nprojectiles, on the contrary, move more and more slowly as they approach\nthe corresponding point of their path; and further, the comet first\napproaches and then recedes from the centre of attraction--the\nprojectile first recedes from and then approaches the attracting centre.\n\nThe earth-flatteners form a considerable section of the paradoxical\nfamily. They experienced a practical rebuff, a few years since, which\nshould to some degree have shaken their faith in the present chief of\ntheir order. To do this chief justice, he is probably far less confident\nabout the flatness of the earth than any of his disciples. Under the\nassumed name of Parallax he visited most of the chief towns of England,\npropounding what he calls his system of zetetic astronomy. Why he should\ncall himself Parallax it would be hard to say; unless it be that the\nverb from which the word is derived signifies primarily to shift about\nor dodge, and secondarily to alter a little, especially for the worse.\nHis employment of the word zetetic is less doubtful, as he claims for\nhis system that it alone is founded on the true seeking out of Nature's\nsecrets.\n\nThe experimental basis of the theory of Parallax is mainly this: Having\nbetaken himself to a part of the Bedford Canal, where there is an\nuninterrupted water-line of about six miles, he tested the water surface\nfor signs of curvature, and (as he said) found none.\n\nIt chanced, unfortunately, that a disciple--Mr. John Hampden, of\nSwindon--accepted the narrative of this observation in an unquestioning\nspirit; and was so confident that the Bedford Canal has a truly plane\nsurface, that he wagered five hundred pounds on his opinion, challenging\nthe believers in the earth's rotundity to repeat the experiment. The\nchallenge was accepted by Mr. Wallace, the eminent naturalist; and the\nresult may be anticipated. Three boats were to be moored in a line,\nthree miles or so between each. Each carried a mast of given length. If,\nwhen the summits of the first and last masts were seen in a line\nthrough a telescope, the summit of the middle mast was not found to be\nabove the line, then Mr. Hampden was to receive five hundred pounds from\nMr. Wallace. If, on the contrary, the top of the middle mast was found,\nas the accepted theory said it should be, to be several feet above the\nline joining the tops of the two outer masts, then Mr. Hampden was to\nlose the five hundred pounds he had so rashly ventured. Everything was\nconducted in accordance with the arrangements agreed upon. The editor of\na well-known sporting paper acted as stakeholder, and unprejudiced\numpires were to decide as to what actually was seen through the\ntelescope. It need scarcely be said that the accepted theory held its\nown, and that Mr. Hampden lost his money. He scarcely bore the loss with\nso good a grace as was to have been expected from a philosopher merely\ndesirous of ascertaining the truth. His wrath was not expended on\nParallax, whom he might have suspected of having led him astray; nor\ndoes he seem to have been angry with himself, as would have seemed\nnatural. All his anger was reserved for those who still continued to\nbelieve in the earth's rotundity. Whether he believed that the Bedford\nwater had risen under the middle boat to oblige Mr. Wallace, or how it\ncame to pass that his own chosen experiment had failed him, does not\nappear.\n\nThe subsequent history of this matter has been unpleasant. It\nillustrates, unfortunately but too well, the mischief which may ensue\nfrom the tricks of those who make a trade of paradox--tricks which would\nbe scarce possible, however, if text-books of science were more\ncarefully written, and by those only who are really acquainted with the\nsubject of which they treat.\n\nThe book which originally led to Mr. Hampden's misfortunes, and has\nmisled not a few, ought to have deceived none. I have already mentioned\nthe statement on which Parallax (whose true name is Rowbotham) rested\nhis theory. Of course, if that statement had been true--if he had, with\nhis eye a few inches from the surface of the water of the Bedford Canal,\nseen an object close to the surface six miles from him--there manifestly\nwould have been something wrong in the accepted theory about the earth's\nrotundity. So, also, if a writer were to announce a new theory of\ngravity, stating as the basis of his theory that a heavy missile which\nhe had thrown into the air had gone upwards on a serpentine course to\nthe moon, any one who accepted the statement would be logically bound to\nadmit at least that the fact described was inconsistent with the\naccepted theory. But no one would accept such a statement; and no one\nshould have accepted Mr. Rowbotham's statement.\n\nHis statement was believed, however, and perhaps is still believed by\nmany. Twenty years ago De Morgan wrote that 'the founder of the zetetic\nastronomy gained great praise from provincial newspapers for his\ningenuity in proving that the earth is a flat, surrounded by ice,' with\nthe north polar ice in the middle. 'Some of the journals rather incline\nto this view; but the \"Leicester Advertiser\" thinks that the statement\n\"would seem to invalidate some of the most important conclusions of\nmodern astronomy;\" while the \"Norfolk Herald\" is clear that \"there must\nbe great error on one side or the other.\" ... The fact is worth noting\nthat from 1849-1857 arguments on the roundness or flatness of the earth\ndid itinerate. I have no doubt they did much good, for very few persons\nhave any distinct idea of the evidence for the rotundity of the earth.\nThe \"Blackburn Standard\" and \"Preston Guardian\" (December 12 and 16,\n1849) unite in stating that the lecturer ran away from his second\nlecture at Burnley, having been rather too hard pressed, at the end of\nhis first lecture, to explain why the large hull of a ship disappeared\nbefore the masts. The persons present and waiting for the second\nlecture assuaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer\nhad slipped off the ice edge of his flat disc, and that he would not be\nseen again till he peeped up on the opposite side.' ... 'The zetetic\nsystem,' proceeds De Morgan, 'still lives in lectures and books; as it\nought to do, for there is no way of teaching a truth comparable to\nopposition. The last I heard of it was in lectures at Plymouth, in\nOctober 1864. Since this time a prospectus has been issued of a work\nentitled \"The Earth not a Globe;\" but whether it has been published I do\nnot know.'\n\nThe book was published soon after the above was written, and De Morgan\ngives the following quaint account of it: 'August 28, 1865. The zetetic\nastronomy has come into my hands. When in 1851 I went to see the Great\nExhibition I heard an organ played by a performer who seemed very\ndesirous of exhibiting one particular stop. \"What do you think of that\nstop?\" I was asked. \"That depends on the name of it,\" said I \"Oh! what\ncan the name of it have to do with the sound? 'that which we call a\nrose,' etc.\" \"The name has everything to do with it: if it be a flute\nstop I think it very harsh; but if it be a railway-whistle stop, I think\nit very sweet.\" So as to this book: if it be childish, it is clever; if\nit be mannish, it is unusually foolish. The flat earth floating\ntremulously on the sea; the sun moving always over the flat, giving day\nwhen near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon,\nwith a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse\nnow and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the\nhull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular,\nreally proves it flat;--all these and other things are well fitted to\nform exercises for a person who is learning the elements of astronomy.\nThe manner in which the sun dips into the sea, especially in tropical\nclimates, upsets the whole. Mungo Park, I think, gives an African\nhypothesis which explains phenomena better than this. The sun dips into\nthe Western ocean, and the people there cut him in pieces, fry him in a\npan, and then join him together again; take him round the under way, and\nset him up in the East. I hope this book will be read, and that many\nwill be puzzled by it; for there are many whose notions of astronomy\ndeserve no better fate. There is no subject on which there is so little\naccurate conception as on that of the motions of the heavenly\nbodies.[51] The author, though confident in the extreme, neither\nimpeaches the honesty of those whose opinion he assails, nor allots them\nany future inconvenience: in these points he is worthy to live on a\nglobe and to rotate in twenty-four hours.'\n\nI chanced to reside near Plymouth when Mr. Rowbotham lectured there in\nOctober 1864. It will readily be understood that, in a town where there\nare so many naval men, his lectures were not altogether so successful as\nthey have sometimes been in small inland towns. Numbers of naval\nofficers, however, who were thoroughly well assured of the fact that the\nearth is a globe, were not able to demolish the crafty arguments of\nParallax publicly, during the discussions which he challenged at the\nclose of each lecture. He was too skilled in that sort of evasion which\nhis assumed name (as interpreted by Liddell and Scott) suggests, to be\nreadily cornered. When an argument was used which he could not easily\nmeet, or seem to meet, he would say simply: 'Well, sir, you have now had\nyour fair share of the discussion; let some one else have his turn.' It\nwas stated in the newspapers that one of his audience was so wrathful\nwith the lecturer on account of these evasions, that he endeavoured to\nstrike Parallax with a knobbed stick at the close of the second lecture;\nbut probably there was no real foundation for the story.\n\nMr. Rowbotham did a very bold thing, however, at Plymouth. He undertook\nto prove, by observations made with a telescope upon the Eddystone\nLighthouse from the Hoe and from the beach, that the surface of the\nwater is flat. From the beach usually only the lantern can be seen. From\nthe Hoe the whole of the lighthouse is visible under favourable\nconditions. Duly on the morning appointed, Mr. Rowbotham appeared. From\nthe Hoe a telescope was directed towards the lighthouse, which was well\nseen, the morning being calm and still, and tolerably clear. On\ndescending to the beach it was found that, instead of the whole lantern\nbeing visible as usual, only half could be seen--a circumstance\ndoubtless due to the fact that the air's refractive power, which usually\ndiminishes the dip due to the earth's curvature by about one-sixth part,\nwas less efficient that morning than usual. The effect of the\npeculiarity was manifestly unfavourable to Mr. Rowbotham's theory. The\ncurvature of the earth produced a greater difference than usual between\nthe appearance of a distant object as seen from a certain high station\nand from a certain low station (though still the difference fell short\nof that which would be shown if there were no air). But Parallax claimed\nthe peculiarity observable that morning as an argument in favour of his\nflat earth. It is manifest, he said, that there is something wrong about\nthe accepted theory; for it tells us that so much less of the lighthouse\nshould be seen from the beach than from the Hoe, whereas less still was\nseen. And many of the Plymouth folk went away from the Hoe that morning,\nand from the second lecture, in which Parallax triumphantly quoted the\nresults of the observation, with the feeling which had been expressed\nseven years before in the 'Leicester Advertiser,' that 'some of the most\nimportant conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously\ninvalidated.' If our books of astronomy, in referring to the effects of\nthe earth's curvature, had only been careful to point out how surveyors\nand sailors and those who build lighthouses take into account the\nmodifying effects of atmospheric refraction, and how these effects have\nlong been known to vary with the temperature and pressure of the air,\nthis mischief would have been avoided. It would not be fair to say of\nthe persons misled on that occasion by Parallax that they deserved no\nbetter; since the fault is not theirs as readers, but that of careless\nor ill-informed writers.\n\nAnother experiment conducted by Parallax the same morning was creditable\nto his ingenuity. Nothing better, perhaps, was ever devised to deceive\npeople, apparently by ocular evidence, into the belief that the earth is\nflat--nor is there any clearer evidence of the largeness of the earth's\nglobe compared with our ordinary measures. On the Hoe, some ninety or a\nhundred feet above the sea-level, he had a mirror suspended in a\nvertical position facing the sea, and invited the bystanders to look in\nthat mirror at the sea-horizon. To all appearance the line of the\nhorizon corresponded exactly with the level of the eye-pupils of the\nobserver. Now, of course, when we look into a mirror whose surface is\nexactly vertical, the line of sight to the eye-pupils of our image in\nthe mirror is exactly horizontal; whereas the line of sight from the\neyes to the image of the sea-horizon is depressed exactly as much as the\nline from the eyes to the real sea-horizon. Here, then, seemed to be\nproof positive that there is no depression of the sea-horizon; for the\nhorizontal line to the image of the eye-pupil seemed to coincide exactly\nwith the line to the image of the sea-horizon. It is not necessary to\nsuppose here that the mirror was wrongly adjusted, though the slightest\nerror of adjustment would affect the result either favourably or\nunfavourably for Parallax's flat-earth theory. It is a matter of fact\nthat, if the mirror were perfectly vertical, only very acute vision\ncould detect the depression of the image of the sea-horizon below the\nimage of the eye-pupil. The depression can easily be calculated for any\ngiven circumstances. Parallax encouraged observers to note very closely\nthe position of the eye-pupil in the image, so that most of them\napproached the image within about ten inches, or the glass within about\nfive. Now, in such a case, for a height of one hundred feet above the\nsea-level the image of the sea-horizon would be depressed below the\nimage of the eye-pupil by less than three hundredths of an inch--an\namount which could not be detected by one eye in a hundred. The average\ndiameter of the pupil itself is one-fifth of an inch, or about seven\ntimes as great as the depression of the sea-horizon in the case\nsupposed. It would require very close observation and a good eye to\ndetermine whether a horizontal line seen on either side of the head were\non the level of the centres of the eye-pupils, or lower by about\none-seventh of the breadth of either pupil.\n\nThe experiment is a pretty one, however, and well worth trying by any\none who lives near to the sea-shore and sea-cliffs. But there is a much\nmore effective experiment which can be much more easily tried--only it\nis open to the disadvantage that it at once demolishes the argument of\nour friend Parallax. It occurred to me while I was writing the above\nparagraph. Let a very small mirror (it need not be larger than a\nsixpence) be so suspended to a small support and so weighted that when\nleft to itself it hangs with its face perfectly vertical--an arrangement\nwhich any competent optician will easily secure--and let a fine\nhorizontal line or several horizontal lines be marked on the mirror;\nwhich, by the way, should be a metallic one, as its indications will\nthen be altogether more trustworthy. This mirror can be put into the\nwaistcoat pocket and conveniently carried to much greater height than\nthe mirror used by Parallax. Now, at some considerable height--say five\nor six hundred feet above the sea-level, but a hundred or even fifty\nwill suffice--look into this small mirror while _facing_ the sea. The\ntrue horizon will then be seen to be visibly below the centre of the\neye-pupil--visibly in this case because the horizontal line traced on\nthe mirror can be made to coincide with the sea-horizon exactly, and\nwill then be found _not_ to coincide with the centre of the eye-pupil.\nSuch an instrument could be readily made to show the distance of the\nsea-horizon, which at once determines the height of the observer above\nthe sea-level. For this purpose all that would be necessary would be a\nmeans of placing the eye at some definite distance from the small\nmirror, and a fine vertical scale on the mirror to show the exact\ndepression of the sea-horizon. For balloonists such an instrument would\nsometimes be useful, as showing the elevation independently of the\nbarometer, whenever any portion of the sea-horizon was in view.\n\nThe mention of balloon experiences leads me to another delusive argument\nof the earth-flatteners.[52] It has been the experience of all\naeronauts that, as the balloon rises, the appearance of the earth is by\nno means what would be expected from the familiar teachings in our books\nof astronomy. There is a picture in most of these books representing the\neffect of ascent above the sea-level in depressing the line of sight to\nthe horizon, and bringing more and more into view the convexity of the\nearth's globe. One would suppose, from the picture, that when an\nobserver is at a great height the earth would appear to rise under him,\nlike some great round and well-curved shield whose convexity was towards\nhim. Instead of this, the aeronaut finds the earth presenting the\nappearance of a great hollow basin, or of the concave side of a\nwell-curved shield. The horizon seems to rise as he rises, while the\nearth beneath him sinks lower and lower. A somewhat similar phenomenon\nmay be noted when, after ascending the landward side of a high cliff, we\ncome suddenly upon a view of the sea--invariably the sea-horizon is\nhigher than we expected to find it. _Only_, in this case, the surface of\nthe sea seems to rise from the beach below towards the distant horizon\nconvexly not concavely; the reason of which I take to be this, that the\nwaves, and especially long rollers or uniform large ripples, teach the\neye to form true conceptions of the shape of the sea-surface even when\nthe eye is deceived as to the position of the sea-horizon. Indeed, I\nshould much like to know what would be the appearance of the sea from a\nballoon when no land was in sight (though I do not particularly wish to\nmake the observation myself): the convexity discernible, for the reason\njust named, would contend strangely with the concavity imagined, for the\nreason now to be indicated.\n\nThe deception arises from the circumstance that the scene displayed\nbelow and around the balloon is judged by the eye from the experience of\nmore familiar scenes. The horizon is depressed, but so little that the\neye cannot detect the depression, especially where the boundary of the\nhorizon is irregular. It is here that the text-book pictures mislead;\nfor they show the depression as far too great to be overlooked, setting\nthe observer sometimes about two thousand miles above the sea-level. The\neye, then, judges the horizon to be where it usually is--on the same\nlevel as the observer; but looking downwards, the eye perceives, and at\nonce appreciates if it does not even exaggerate, the great depth at\nwhich the earth lies below the balloon. The appearance, then, as judged\nby the eye, is that of a mighty basin whose edge rises up all round to\nthe level of the balloon, while its bottom lies two or three miles or\nmore below the balloon.\n\nThe zetetic faithful reason about this matter as though the impressions\nof the senses were trustworthy under all conditions, familiar or\notherwise; whereas, in point of fact, we know that the senses often\ndeceive, even under familiar conditions, and almost always deceive under\nconditions, which are not familiar. A person, for example, accustomed to\nthe mist and haze of our British air, is told by the sense of sight,\nwhen he is travelling where a clearer atmosphere prevails, that a\nmountain forty miles from him is a hill a few miles away. On the other\nhand, an Italian travelling through the Highlands is impressed with the\nbelief that all the features of the scenery are much larger (because he\nsupposes them much more remote) than they really are. A hundred such\ninstances of deception might easily be cited. The conditions under which\nthe aeronaut observes the earth are certainly less familiar than those\nunder which the Briton views the Alps and Apennines, or the Italian\nviews Ben Lomond or Ben Lawers. It would be rash, therefore, even if no\nother evidence were available, to reject the faith that the earth is a\nglobe because, as seen from a balloon, it looks like a basin. Indeed, to\nbe strictly logical, the followers of Parallax ought on this account to\nadopt the faith that the earth is not flat, but basin-shaped, which\nhitherto they have not been ready to do.\n\nWe have seen that Parallax describes a certain experiment on the Bedford\nLevel, which, if made as he states, would have shown certainly that\nsomething was wrong in the accepted system--for a six-mile straight-edge\nalong water would be as severe a blow to the belief in a round earth, as\na straight line on the sea-surface from Queenstown to New York. Another\ncurious experiment adorns his little book, which, if it could be\nrepeated successfully before a dozen trustworthy witnesses, would rather\nastonish men of science. Having, he says, by certain\nreasoning--altogether erroneous, but that is a detail--convinced himself\nthat, on the accepted theory, a bullet fired vertically upwards ought to\nfall far to the west of the place whence it was fired, he carefully\nfixed an air-gun in a vertical position, and fired forty bullets\nvertically upwards. All these fell close to the gun--which is not\nsurprising, though it must have made such an experiment rather\ndangerous; but two fell back into the barrel itself--which certainly was\nvery surprising indeed. One might fairly challenge the most experienced\ngunner in the world to achieve one such vertical shot in a thousand\ntrials; two in forty bordered on the miraculous.\n\nThe earth-flatteners I have been speaking of claim, as one of their\nobjects, the defence of Scripture. But some of the earth-flatteners of\nthe last generation (or a little farther back) took quite another view\nof the matter. For instance, Sir Richard Phillips, a more vehement\nearth-flattener than Parallax, was so little interested in defending\nthe Scriptures, that in 1793 he was sentenced to a year's imprisonment\nfor selling a book regarded as atheistic. In 1836 he attempted the\nconversion of Professor De Morgan, opening the correspondence with the\nremark that he had 'an inveterate abhorrence of all the pretended wisdom\nof philosophy derived from the monks and doctors of the Middle Ages, and\nnot less those of higher name who merely sought to make the monkish\nphilosophy more plausible, or so to disguise it as to mystify the mob of\nsmall thinkers.' He seems himself to have succeeded in mystifying many\nof those whom he intended to convert. Admiral Smyth gives the following\naccount of an interview he had with Phillips: 'This pseudo-mathematical\nknight once called upon me at Bedford, without any previous\nacquaintance, to discuss \"those errors of Newton, which he almost\nblushed to name,\" and which were inserted in the \"Principia\" to \"puzzle\nthe vulgar.\" He sneered with sovereign contempt at the \"Trinity of\nGravitating Force, Projectile Force, and Void Space,\" and proved that\nall change of place is accounted for by motion.' [Startling hypothesis!]\n'He then exemplified the conditions by placing some pieces of paper on a\ntable, and slapping his hand down close to them, thus making them fly\noff, which he termed applying the momentum. All motion, he said, is in\nthe direction of the forces; and atoms seek the centre by \"terrestrial\ncentripetation\"--a property which causes universal pressure; but in what\nthese attributes of pushing and pulling differ from gravitation and\nattraction was not expounded. Many of his \"truths\" were as mystified as\nthe conundrums of Rabelais; so nothing was made of the motion.'\n\nA favourite subject of paradoxical ideas has been the moon's motion of\nrotation. Strangely enough, De Morgan, who knew more about past\nparadoxists than any man of his time, seems not to have heard of the\ndispute between Keill and Bentley over this matter in 1690. He says,\n'there was a dispute on the subject, in 1748, between James Ferguson and\nan anonymous opponent; and I think there have been others;' but the\nolder and more interesting dispute he does not mention. Bentley, who was\nno mathematician, pointed out in a lecture certain reasons for believing\nthat the moon does not turn on her axis, or has no axis on which she\nturns. Keill, then only nineteen years old, pointed out that the\narguments used by Bentley proved that the moon does rotate instead of\nshowing that she does not. (Twenty years later Keill was appointed\nSavilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford. He was the first holder of\nthat office to teach the Newtonian astronomy.)\n\nIn recent times, as most of my readers know, the paradox that the moon\ndoes not rotate has been revived more than once. In 1855 it was\nsustained by Mr. Jellinger Symons, one of whose staunchest supporters,\nMr. H. Perigal, had commenced the attack a few years earlier. Of course,\nthe gist of the argument against the moon's rotation lies in the fact\nthat the moon always keeps the same face turned towards the earth, or\nvery nearly so. If she did so exactly, and if her distance from the\nearth were constantly the same, then her motion would be exactly the\nsame as though she were rigidly connected with the earth, and turned\nround an axis at the earth. The case may be thus illustrated: Through\nthe middle of a large orange thrust one short rod vertically, and\nanother long rod horizontally; thrust the further end of the latter\nthrough a small apple, and now turn the whole affair round the short\nvertical rod as an axis. Then the apple will move with respect to the\norange as the moon would move with respect to the earth on the\nsuppositions just made. No one in this case would say that the apple was\nturning round on its axis, since its motion would be one of rotation\nround the upright axis through the orange. Therefore, say the opponents\nof the moon's rotation, no one should say that the moon turns round on\nher axis.\n\nOf course, the answer would be obvious even if the moon's motions were\nas supposed. The moon is not connected with the earth as the apple is\nwith the orange in the illustrative case. If the apple, without rigid\nconnection with the orange, were carried round the orange so as to move\nprecisely as if it were so connected, it would unquestionably have to\nrotate on its axis, as any one will find who may try the experiment.\nThus for the straight rod thrust through the apple substitute a straight\nhorizontal bar carrying a small basin of water in which the apple\nfloats. Sway the bar steadily and slowly round, and it will be found (if\na mark is placed on the apple) that the apple no longer keeps the same\nface towards the centre of motion; but that, to cause it to do so, a\nslow motion of rotation must be communicated to the apple in the same\ndirection and at the same rate (neglecting the effects of the friction\nof the water against the sides of the basin) as the bar is rotating. In\nmy 'Treatise on the Moon' I have described and pictured a simple\napparatus by which this experiment may easily be made.\n\nBut, of course, such experiments are not essential to the argument by\nwhich the paradox is overthrown. This argument simply is, that the moon\nas she travels on her orbit round the sun--the real centre of her\nmotion--turns every part of her equator in succession towards him once\nin a lunar month. At the time of new moon the sun illuminates the face\nof the moon turned from us; at the time of full moon he illuminates the\nface which has been gradually brought round to him as the moon has\npassed through her first two quarters. As she passes onwards to new\nmoon again, the face we see is gradually turned from him until he\nshines full upon the other face. And so on during successive lunations.\nThis could not happen unless the moon rotated. Again, if we lived on the\nmoon we should find the heaven of the fixed stars turning round from\neast to west once in rather more than twenty-seven days; and unless we\nsupposed, as we should probably do for a long time, that our small world\nwas the centre of the universe, and that the stars turned round it, we\nshould be compelled to admit that it was turning on its own axis from\nwest to east once in the time just named. There would be no escape. The\nmere fact that all the time the stars thus seemed to be turning round\nthe moon, the earth would not so seem to move, but would lie always in\nthe same direction, would in no sort help to remove the difficulty.\nLunarian paradoxists would probably argue that she was in some way\nrigidly connected with the moon; but even they would never think of\narguing that their world did not turn on its axis, _unless_ they\nmaintained that it was the centre of the universe. This, I think, they\nwould very probably do; but as yet terrestrial paradoxists have not, I\nbelieve, maintained this hypothesis. I once asked Mr. Perigal whether\nthat was the true theory of the universe--the moon central, the earth,\nsun, and heavens carried round her. He admitted that his objections to\naccepted views were by no means limited to the moon's rotation; and, if\nI remember rightly, he said that the idea I had thrown out in jest was\nnearer the truth than I thought, or used words to that effect. But as\nyet the theory has not been definitely enunciated that the moon is the\nboss of the universe.\n\nComets, as already mentioned, have been the subjects of paradoxes\ninnumerable; but as yet comets have been so little understood, even by\nastronomers, that paradoxes respecting them cannot be so readily dealt\nwith as those relating to well-established facts. Among thoroughly\nparadoxical ideas respecting comets, however, may be mentioned one whose\nauthor is a mathematician of well-deserved repute--Professor Tait's\n'Sea-Bird Theory' of Comets' Tails. According to this theory, the rapid\nformation of long tails and the rapid changes of their position may be\nexplained on the same principle that we explain the rapid change of\nappearance of a flight of sea-birds, when, from having been in a\nposition where the eye looks athwart it, the flight assumes a position\nwhere the eye looks at it edgewise. In the former position it is\nscarcely visible (when at a distance), in the latter it is seen as a\nwell-defined streak; and as a very slight change of position of each\nbird may often suffice to render an extensive flight thus visible\nthroughout its entire length, which but a few moments before had been\ninvisible, so the entire length of a comet's tail may be brought into\nview, and apparently be formed in a few hours, through some\ncomparatively slight displacement of the individual meteorites composing\nit.\n\nThis paradox--for paradox it unquestionably is--affords a curious\nillustration of the influence which mathematical power has on the minds\nof men. Every one knows that Professor Tait has potential mathematical\nenergy competent to dispose, in a very short time, of all the\ndifficulties involved in his theory; therefore few seem to inquire\nwhether this potential energy has ever been called into action. It is\nsingular, too, that other mathematicians of great eminence have been\ncontent to take the theory on trust. Thus Sir W. Thomson, at the meeting\nof the British Association at Edinburgh, described the theory as\ndisposing easily of the difficulties presented by Newton's comet in\n1680. Glashier, in his translation of Guillemin's 'Les Cometes,' speaks\nof the theory as one not improbably correct, though only to be\nestablished by rigid investigation of the mathematical problems\ninvolved.\n\nIn reality, not five minutes' inquiry is needed to show any one\nacquainted with the history of long-tailed comets that Tait's theory is\nquite untenable. Take Newton's comet. It had a tail ninety millions of\nmiles long, extending directly from the sun as the comet approached him,\nand seen, four days later, extending to the same distance, and still\ndirectly from the sun, as the comet receded from him in an entirely\ndifferent direction. According to Tait's sea-bird theory, the earth was\nat both these epochs in the plane of a sheet of meteorites forming the\ntail; but on each occasion the sun also was in the same plane, for the\nedge of the sheet of meteorites was seen to be directly in a line with\nthe sun. The comet's head, of course, was in the same plane; but three\npoints, not in a straight line, determine a plane. Hence we have, as the\ndefinite result of the sea-bird theory, that the layer or stratum of\nmeteorites, forming the tail of Newton's comet, lay in the same plane\nwhich contained the sun, the earth, and the comet. But the comet crossed\nthe ecliptic (the plane in which the earth travels round the sun)\nbetween the epochs named, crossing it at a great angle. When crossing\nit, then, the great layer of meteorites was in the plane of the\necliptic; before crossing it the layer was greatly inclined to that\nplane one way, and after crossing it the layer was greatly inclined to\nthat plane another way. So that we have in no way escaped the difficulty\nwhich the sea-bird theory was intended to remove. If it was a startling\nand, indeed, incredible thing that the particles along a comet's tail\nshould have got round in four days from the first to the second position\nof the tail considered above, it is as startling and incredible that a\nmighty layer of meteorites should have shifted bodily in the way\nrequired by the sea-bird theory. Nay, there is an element in our result\nwhich is still more startling than any of the difficulties yet\nmentioned; and that is, the singular care which the great layer of\nmeteorites would seem to have shown to keep its plane always passing\nthrough the earth, with which it was in no way connected. Why should\nthis preference have been shown by the meteor flock for our earth above\nall the other members of the solar system?--seeing that the sea-bird\ntheory _requires_ that this comet, and not Newton's comet alone but all\nothers having tails, should not only be thus complaisant with respect to\nour little earth, but should behave in a totally different way with\nrespect to every other member of the sun's family.\n\nWe can understand that, while several have been found who have applauded\nthe sea-bird paradox for what it _might_ do in explaining comets' tails,\nits advocates have as yet not done much to reconcile it with cometic\nobservation.\n\nThe latest astronomical paradox published is perhaps still more\nstartling. It relates to the planet Venus, and is intended to explain\nthe appearance presented by this planet when crossing the sun's face,\nor, technically, when in transit. At this time she is surrounded by a\nring of light, which appears somewhat brighter than the disc of the sun\nitself. Before fully entering on the sun's face, also, the part of\nVenus's globe as yet outside the sun's disc is seen to be girt round by\na ring of exceedingly bright light--so bright, indeed, that it has left\nits record in photographs where the exposure was only for the small\nfraction of a second allowable in the case of so intensely brilliant a\nbody as the sun. Astronomers have not found it difficult to explain\neither peculiarity. It has been proved clearly in other ways that Venus\nhas an atmosphere like our own, but probably denser. As the sun is\nraised into view above the horizon (after he has really passed below\nthe horizon plane) by the bending power of our air upon his rays, so the\nbending power of Venus's air brings the sun into our view round the dark\nbody of the planet. But the new paradox advances a much bolder theory.\nInstead of an atmosphere such as ours, Venus has a glass envelope; and\ninstead of a surface of earth and water, in some cases covered with\nclouds, Venus has a surface shining with metallic lustre.[53]\n\nThe author of this theory, Mr. Jos. Brett, startled astronomers by\nannouncing, a few years ago, that with an ordinary telescope he could\nsee the light of the sun's corona without the aid of an eclipse, though\nastronomers had observed that the delicate light of the corona fades out\nof view with the first returning rays of the sun after total eclipse.\n\nThe latest paradoxist, misled by the incorrect term 'centrifugal force,'\nproposes to 'modify, if not banish,' the old-fashioned astronomy. What\nis called centrifugal force is in truth only inertia. In the familiar\ninstance of a body whirled round by a string, the breaking of the string\nno more implies that an active force has pulled away the body, than the\nbreaking of a rope by which a weight is pulled implies that the weight\nhas exerted an active resistance. Of course, here again the text-books\nare chiefly in fault.\n\nSuch are a few among the paradoxes of various orders by which\nastronomers, like the students of other sciences, have been from time to\ntime amused. It is not altogether, as it may seem at first sight, 'a sin\nagainst the twenty-four hours' to consider such matters; for much may be\nlearned not only from the study of the right road in science, but from\nobserving where and how men may go astray. I know, indeed, few more\nuseful exercises for the learner than to examine a few paradoxes, when\nleisure serves, and to consider how, if left to his own guidance, he\nwould confute them.\n\n\n\n\nXI.\n\n_ON SOME ASTRONOMICAL MYTHS._\n\n\nThe expression 'astronomical myth' has recently been used, on the\ntitle-page of a translation from the French, as synonymous with false\nsystems of astronomy. It is not, however, in that sense that I here use\nit. The history of astronomy presents the records of some rather\nperplexing observations, not confirmed by later researches, but yet not\neasily to be explained away or accounted for. Such observations Humboldt\ndescribed as belonging to the myths of an uncritical period; and it is\nin that sense that I employ the term 'astronomical myth' in this essay.\nI propose briefly to describe and comment on some of the more\ninteresting of these observations, which, in whatever sense they are to\nbe interpreted, will be found to afford a useful lesson.\n\nIt is hardly necessary, perhaps, to point out that the cases which I\ninclude here I regard as really cases in which astronomers have been\ndeceived by illusory observations. Other students of astronomy may\ndiffer from me as respects some of these instances. I do not wish to\ndogmatise, but simply to describe the facts as I see them, and the\nimpressions which I draw from them. Those who view the facts differently\nwill not, I think, have to complain that I have incorrectly described\nthem.\n\nAt the outset, let me point out that some observations which were for a\nlong time regarded as mythical have proved to be exact. For instance,\nwhen as yet very few telescopes existed, and those very feeble,\nGalileo's discovery of moons travelling round Jupiter was rejected as an\nillusion for which Satan received the chief share of credit. There is an\namusing and yet in one aspect almost pathetic reference to this in his\naccount of his earlier observations of Saturn. He had seen the planet\napparently attended on either side by two smaller planets, as if helping\nold Saturn along. But on December 4, 1612,[54] turning his telescope on\nthe planet, he found to his infinite amazement not a trace of the\ncompanion planets could be seen; there in the field of view of his\ntelescope was the golden-tinted disc of the planet as smoothly rounded\nas the disc of Mars or Jupiter. 'What,' he wrote, 'is to be said\nconcerning so strange a metamorphosis? Are the two lesser stars consumed\nafter the manner of the solar spots? Have they vanished or suddenly\nfled? Has Saturn, perhaps, devoured his children? Or were the\nappearances, indeed, illusion or fraud with which the glasses have so\nlong deceived me as well as many others to whom I have shown them? Now,\nperhaps, is the time come to revive the well-nigh withered hopes of\nthose who, guided by more profound contemplations, have discovered the\nfallacy of the new observations, and demonstrated the utter\nimpossibility of the existence of those things which the telescope\nappears to show. I do not know what to say in a case so surprising, so\nunlooked for, and so novel. The shortness of the time, the unexpected\nnature of the event, the weakness of my understanding, and the fear of\nbeing mistaken, have greatly confounded me.' We now know that these\nobservations, as well as those made soon after by Hevelius, though\nwrongly interpreted, were correct enough. Nay, we know that if either\nGalileo or Hevelius had been at the pains to reason out the meaning of\nthe alternate visibility and disappearance of objects looking like\nattendant planets, they must have anticipated the discovery made in 1656\nby Huyghens, that Saturn's globe is girdled about by a thin flat ring so\nvast that, if a score of globes like our earth were set side by side,\nthe range of that row of worlds would be less than the span of the\nSaturnian ring system.\n\nThere is a reference in Galileo's letter to the solar spots; 'Are the\ntwo lesser stars,' he says, 'consumed after the manner of the solar\nspots?' When he thus wrote the spots were among the myths or fables of\nastronomy, and an explanation was offered, by those who did not reject\nthem utterly, which has taken its place among forsaken doctrines, those\nbroken toys of astronomers. It is said that when Scheiner, himself a\nJesuit, communicated to the Provincial of the Jesuits his discovery of\nthe spots on the sun, the latter, a staunch Aristotelian, cautioned him\nnot to see these things. 'I have read Aristotle's writings from\nbeginning to end many times,' he said, 'and I can assure you I have\nnowhere found in them anything similar to what you mention' [amazing\ncircumstances!] 'Go, therefore, my son, tranquillise yourself; be\nassured that what you take for spots on the sun are the faults of your\nglasses or your eyes.' As the idea was obviously inadmissible that a\ncelestial body could be marked by spots, the theory was started that the\ndark objects apparently seen on the sun's body were in reality small\nplanets revolving round the sun, and a contest arose for the possession\nof these mythical planets. Tarde maintained that they should be called\n_Astra Borbonia_, in honour of the royal family of France; but C.\nMalapert insisted that they should be called _Sidera Austriaca_.\nMeantime the outside world laughed at the spots, and their names, and\nthe astronomers who were thought to have invented both. 'Fabritius puts\nonly three spots,' wrote Burton in his 'Anatomy of Melancholy,' 'and\nthose in the sun; Apelles 15, and those without the sun, floating like\nthe Cyanean Isles in the Euxine Sea. Tarde the Frenchman hath observed\n33, and those neither spots nor clouds as Galileus supposed, but planets\nconcentric with the sun, and not far from him, with regular motions.\nChristopher Schemer' [a significant way of spelling Scheiner's name], 'a\nGerman Suisser Jesuit, divides them _in maculas et faculas_, and will\nhave them to be fixed _in solis superficie_ and to absolve their\nperiodical and regular motions in 27 or 28 dayes; holding withall the\nrotation of the sun upon his centre, and are all so confident that they\nhave made schemes and tables of their motions. The Hollander censures\nall; and thus they disagree among themselves, old and new,\nirreconcilable in their opinions; thus Aristarchus, thus Hipparchus,\nthus Ptolomaeus, thus Albategnius, etc., with their followers, vary and\ndetermine of these celestial orbs and bodies; and so whilst these men\ncontend about the sun and moon, like the philosophers in Lucian, it is\nto be feared the sun and moon will hide themselves, and be as much\noffended as she was with those, and send another message to Jupiter, by\nsome new-fangled Icaromenippus, to make an end of all these curious\ncontroversies, and scatter them abroad.'\n\nIt is well to notice how in this, as in many other instances, the very\ncircumstance which makes scientific research trustworthy caused the\nunscientific to entertain doubt. If men of science were to arrange\nbeforehand with each other what observations they should publish, how\ntheir accounts should be ended, what theories they would endeavour to\nestablish, their results would seem far more trustworthy, their theories\nfar more probable, than according to the method actually adopted.\nScience, which should be exact, seems altogether inexact, because one\nobserver seems to obtain one result, another a different result.\nScientific theories seem unworthy of reliance because scientific men\nentertain for a long time rival doctrines. But in another and a worthier\nsense than as the words are used in the 'Critic,' when men of science do\nagree their agreement is wonderful. It _is_ wonderful, worthy of all\nadmiration, because before it has been attained errors long entertained\nhave had to be honestly admitted; because the taunt of inconsistency is\nnot more pleasant to the student of science than to others, and the man\nwho having a long time held one doctrine adopts and enforces another\n(one perhaps which he had long resisted), is sure to be accused by the\nmany of inconsistency, the truly scientific nature of his procedure\nbeing only recognised by the few. The agreement of men of science ought\nto be regarded also as most significant in another sense. So long as\nthere is room for refusing to admit an important theory advanced by a\nstudent of science, it is natural that other students of science should\nrefuse to do so; for in admitting the new theory they are awarding the\npalm to a rival. In strict principle, of course, this consideration\nought to have no influence whatever; as a matter of fact, however, men\nof science, being always men and not necessarily strengthened by\nscientific labours against the faults of humanity, the consideration has\nand must always have influence. Therefore, when the fellow-writers and\nrivals of Newton or of his followers gave in their adhesion to the\nNewtonian theory; when in our own time--but let us leave our own time\nalone, in this respect--when, speaking generally, a novel doctrine, or\nsome new generalisation, or some great and startling discovery, is\nadmitted by rival students of the branch of astronomy to which it\nbelongs, the probability is great that the weight of evidence has been\nfound altogether overwhelming.\n\nLet us now, however, turn to cases in which, while many observations\nseem to point to some result, it has appeared that, after all, those\nobservations must have been illusory.\n\nA striking instance in point is found in the perplexing history of the\nsupposed satellite of Venus.\n\nOn January 25, 1672, the celebrated astronomer, J.D. Cassini saw a\ncrescent shaped and posited like Venus, but smaller, on the western side\nof the planet. More than fourteen years later, he saw a crescent east of\nthe planet. The object continued visible in the latter case for half an\nhour, when the approach of daylight obliterated the planet and this\nphantom moon from view. The apparent distance of the moon from Venus was\nin both cases small, viz., only one diameter of the planet in the former\ncase, and only three-fifths of that diameter in the latter.\n\nNext, on October 23, 1740, old style, the optician Short, who had had\nconsiderable experience in observation, saw a small star perfectly\ndefined but less luminous than Venus, at a distance from the planet\nequal to about one-third of the apparent diameter of our moon. This is a\nlong distance, and would correspond to a distance from Venus certainly\nnot less than the moon's distance from the earth. Short was aware of the\nrisk of optical illusion in such matters, and therefore observed Venus\nwith a second telescope; he also used four eye-pieces of different\nmagnifying power. He says that Venus was very distinct, the air very\npure, insomuch that he was able to use a power of 240. The seeming moon\nhad a diameter less than a third of Venus's, and showed the same phase\nas the planet. Its disc was exceedingly well defined. He observed it\nseveral times during a period of about one hour.\n\nStill more convincing, to all appearance, is the account of the\nobservations made by M. Montaigne, as presented to the Academy of\nSciences at Paris by M. Baudouin in 1761. The transit of Venus which was\nto take place on June 6 in that year led to some inquiry as to the\nsatellite supposed to have been seen by Cassini and Short, for of course\na transit would be a favourable occasion for observing the satellite. M.\nMontaigne, who had no faith in the existence of such an attendant, was\npersuaded to look for it early in 1761. On May 3 he saw a little\ncrescent moon about twenty minutes of arc (nearly two-thirds the\napparent diameter of our moon) from the planet. He repeated his\nobservation several times that night, always seeing the small body, but\nnot quite certain, despite its crescent shape, whether it might not be a\nsmall star. On the next evening, and again on May 7 and 10, he saw the\nsmall companion apparently somewhat farther from Venus and in a\ndifferent position. He found that it could be seen when Venus was not in\nthe field of view. The following remarks were made respecting these\nobservations in a French work, 'Dictionnaire de Physique,' published in\n1789:--'The year 1761 will be celebrated in astronomy in consequence of\nthe discovery that was made on May 3 of a satellite circulating round\nVenus. We owe it to M. Montaigne, member of the Society of Limoges. M.\nBaudouin read before the Academy of Sciences at Paris a very interesting\nmemoir, in which he gave a determination of the revolution and distance\nof the satellite. From the calculations of this expert astronomer we\nlearn that the new star has a diameter about one-fourth that of Venus,\nis distant from Venus almost as far as the moon from our earth, has a\nperiod of nine days seven hours' [much too short, by the way, to be\ntrue, expert though M. Baudouin is said to have been], 'and its\nascending node'--but we need not trouble ourselves about its ascending\nnode.\n\nThree years later Roedkier, at Copenhagen, March 3 and 4, 1764, saw the\nsatellite of Venus with a refracting telescope 38 feet long, which\nshould have been effective if longitude has any virtue. He could not see\nthe satellite with another telescope which he tried. But several of his\nfriends saw it with the long telescope. Amongst others, Horrebow,\nProfessor of Astronomy, saw the satellite on March 10 and 11, after\ntaking several precautions to prevent optical illusion. A few days later\nMontbaron, at Auxerre, who had heard nothing of these observations, saw\na satellite, and again on March 28 and 29 it appeared, always in a\ndifferent position.\n\nIt should be added that Scheuten asserted that during the transit of\n1761 Venus was accompanied by a small satellite in her motion across the\nsun's face.\n\nSo confidently did many believe in this satellite of Venus that\nFrederick the Great, who for some reason imagined that he was entitled\nto dispose as he pleased of the newly discovered body, proposed to\nassign it away to the mathematician D'Alembert, who excused himself from\naccepting the questionable honour in the following terms:--\n\n'Your Majesty does me too much honour in wishing to baptize this new\nplanet with my name. I am neither great enough to become the satellite\nof Venus in the heavens, nor well enough (_assez bien portant_) to be so\non the earth, and I am too well content with the small place I occupy in\nthis lower world to be ambitious of a place in the firmament.'\n\nIt is not at all easy to explain how this phantom satellite came to be\nseen. Father Hell, of Vienna--the same astronomer whom Sir G. Airy\nsuspects of falling asleep during the progress of the transit of Venus\nin 1769--made some experiments showing how a false image of the planet\nmight be seen beside the true one, the false image being smaller and\nfainter, like the moons seen by Schort (as Hell called Short), Cassini,\nand the rest. And more recently Sir David Brewster stated that Wargentin\n'had in his possession a good achromatic telescope, which always showed\nVenus with such a satellite.' But Hell admitted that the falsehood of\nthe unreal Venus was easily detected, and Brewster adds to his account\nof Wargentin's phantom moon, that 'the deception was discovered by\nturning the telescope about its axis.' As Admiral Smyth well remarks, to\nendeavour to explain away in this manner the observations made by\nCassini and Short 'must be a mere pleasantry, for it is impossible such\naccurate observers could have been deceived by so gross a neglect.'\nSmyth, by the way, was a believer in the moon of Venus. 'The contested\nsatellite is perhaps extremely minute,' he says, 'while some parts of\nits body may be less capable of reflecting light than others; and when\nthe splendour of its primary and our inconvenient station for watching\nit are considered, it must be conceded that, however slight the hope may\nbe, search ought not to be relinquished.'\n\nSetting aside Scheuten's asserted recognition of a dark body near Venus\nduring the transit of 1761, Venus has always appeared without any\nattendant when in transit. As no one else claimed to have seen what\nScheuten saw in 1761, though the transit was observed by hundreds, of\nwhom many used far finer telescopes than he, we must consider that he\nallowed his imagination to deceive him. During the transit of 1769, and\nagain on December 8-9, 1874, Venus certainly had no companion during her\ntransit.\n\nWhat, then, was it that Cassini, Short, Montaigne, and the rest supposed\nthey saw? The idea has been thrown out by Mr. Webb that mirage caused\nthe illusion. But he appears to have overlooked the fact that though an\nimage of Venus formed by mirage would be fainter than the planet, it\nwould not be smaller. It might, according to the circumstances, be above\nVenus or below, or even somewhat towards either side, and it might be\neither a direct or an inverted image, but it could not possibly be a\ndiminished image.\n\nSingle observations like Cassini's or Short's might be explained as\nsubjective phenomena, but this explanation will not avail in the case of\nthe Copenhagen observations.\n\nI reject, as every student of astronomy will reject, the idea of wilful\ndeception. Occasionally an observer may pretend to see what he has not\nseen, though I believe this very seldom happens. But even if Cassini and\nthe rest had been notoriously untrustworthy persons instead of being\nsome of them distinguished for the care and accuracy with which their\nobservations were made and recorded, these occasional views of a phantom\nsatellite are by no means such observations as they would have invented.\nNo distinction was to be gained by observations which could not be\nconfirmed by astronomers possessing more powerful telescopes. Cassini,\nfor example, knew well that nothing but his well-earned reputation could\nhave saved him from suspicion or ridicule when he announced that he had\nseen Venus attended by a satellite.\n\nIt seems to me probable that the false satellite was an optical illusion\nbrought about in a different way from those referred to by Hell and\nBrewster, though among the various circumstances which in an imperfect\ninstrument might cause such a result I do not undertake to make a\nselection. It is certain that Venus's satellite has vanished with the\nimprovement of telescopes, while it is equally certain that even with\nthe best modern instruments illusions occasionally appear which deceive\neven the scientific elect. Three years have passed since I heard the\neminent observer Otto Struve, of Pulkowa, give an elaborate account of a\ncompanion to the star Procyon, describing the apparent brightness,\ndistance, and motions of this companion body, for the edification of the\nAstronomer-Royal and many other observers. I had visited but a few\nmonths before the Observatory at Washington, where, with a much more\npowerful telescope, that companion to Procyon had been systematically\nbut fruitlessly sought for, and I entertained a very strong opinion,\nnotwithstanding the circumstantial nature of Struve's account and his\nconfidence (shared in unquestioningly by the observers present), that he\nhad been in some way deceived. But I could not then see, nor has any one\nyet explained, how this could be. The fact, however, that he had been\ndeceived is now undoubted. Subsequent research has shown that the\nPulkowa telescope, though a very fine instrument, possesses the\nundesirable quality of making a companion orb for all first-class stars\nin the position where O. Struve and his assistant Lindenau saw the\nsupposed companion of Procyon.\n\nI may as well point out, however, that theories so wild have recently\nbeen broached respecting Venus, that far more interesting explanations\nof the enigma than this optical one may be looked for presently. It has\nbeen gravely suggested by Mr. Jos. Brett, the artist, that Venus has a\nsurface of metallic brilliancy, with a vitreous atmosphere,--which can\nonly be understood to signify a glass case. This stupendous theory has\nhad its origin in an observation of considerable interest which\nastronomers (it is perhaps hardly necessary to say) explain somewhat\ndifferently. When Venus has made her entry in part upon the sun's face\nat the beginning of transit, there is seen all round the portion of her\ndisc which still remains outside the sun an arc of light so brilliant\nthat it records its photographic trace during the instantaneous exposure\nrequired in solar photography. It is mathematically demonstrable that\nthis arc of light is precisely what _should_ be seen if Venus has an\natmosphere like our earth's. But mathematical demonstration is not\nsufficient (or perhaps we may say it is too much) for some minds.\nTherefore, to simplify matters, Venus has been provided with a mirror\nsurface and a glass case. (See preceding essay, on Astronomical\nParadoxes, for further details.)\n\nThe enigma next to be considered is of a more doubtful character than\nthe myth relating to the satellite of Venus. Astronomers are pretty well\nagreed that Venus has no moon, but many, including some deservedly\neminent, retain full belief in the story of the planet Vulcan.\n\nMore than seventeen years ago the astronomical world was startled by the\nannouncement that a new planet had been discovered, under circumstances\nunlike any which had heretofore attended the discovery of fresh members\nof the solar system. At that time astronomers had already become\naccustomed to the discovery, year after year, of several asteroids,\nwhich are in reality planets, though small ones. In fact, no less than\nfifty-six of these bodies were then known, whereof fifty-one had been\ndiscovered during the years 1847-1858 inclusive, not one of these years\nhaving passed without the detection of an asteroid. But all these\nplanets belonged to one family, and as there was every reason to believe\nthat thousands more travel in the same region of the solar system, the\ndetection of a few more among the number had no longer any special\ninterest for astronomers. The discovery of the first known member of the\nfamily had indeed been full of interest, and had worthily inaugurated\nthe present century, on the first day of which it was made. For it had\nbeen effected in pursuance of a set scheme, and astronomers had almost\ngiven up all hopes of success in that scheme when Piazzi announced his\ndetection of little Ceres. Again the discovery of the next few members\nof the family had been interesting as revealing the existence of a new\norder of bodies in the solar system. No one had suspected the\npossibility that besides the large bodies which travel round the sun,\neither singly or attended by subordinate families of moons, there might\nbe a ring of many planets. This was what the discovery of Ceres, Pallas,\nJuno, and Vesta seemed to suggest, unless--still stranger thought--these\nwere but fragments of a mighty planet which had been shattered in\nlong-past ages by some tremendous explosion. Since then, however, this\nstartling theory has been (itself) exploded. Year after year new members\nof the ring of multitudinous planets are discovered, and that, not as\nwas recently predicted, in numbers gradually decreasing, but so rapidly\nthat more have been discovered during the last ten years than during the\npreceding twenty.\n\nThe discovery of the giant planet Uranus, an orb exceeding our earth\ntwelve and a half times in mass and seventy-four times in volume, was a\nmatter of much greater importance, so far as the dignity of the\nplanetary system was concerned, for it is known that the whole ring of\nasteroids together does not equal one-tenth part of the earth in mass,\nwhile Uranus exceeds many times in volume the entire family of\nterrestrial planets--Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars. The detection\nof Uranus, unlike that of Ceres, was effected by accident. Sir W.\nHerschel was looking for double stars of a particular kind in the\nconstellation Gemini when by good fortune the stranger was observed.\n\nThe interest with which astronomers received the announcement of the\ndiscovery of Uranus, though great, was not to be compared with that with\nwhich they deservedly welcomed the discovery of Neptune, a larger and\nmore massive planet, revolving at a distance one-half greater even than\nthe mighty space which separates Uranus from the sun, a space so great\nthat by comparison with it the range of 184,000,000 of miles, which\nforms the diameter of our earth's orbit, seems quite insignificant. It\nwas not, however, the vastness of Neptune's mass or volume, or the awful\nremoteness of the path along which he pursues his gloomy course, which\nattracted the interest of astronomers, but the strangeness of the\ncircumstances under which the planet had been detected. His influence\nhad been felt for many years before astronomers thought of looking for\nhim, and even when the idea had occurred to one or two, it was\nconsidered, and that, too, by an astronomer as deservedly eminent as Sir\nG. Airy, too chimerical to be reasonably entertained. All the world now\nknows how Leverrier, the greatest living master of physical astronomy,\nand Adams, then scarce known outside Cambridge, both conceived the idea\nof finding the planet, not by the simple method of looking for it with a\ntelescope, but by the mathematical analysis of the planet's disturbing\ninfluence upon known members of the solar system. All know, too, that\nthese mathematicians succeeded in their calculations, and that the\nplanet was found in the very region and close to the very point\nindicated first by Adams, and later, but independently, and (fortunately\nfor him more publicly) by Leverrier.\n\nNone of these instances of the discovery of members of the solar system\nresembled in method or details the discovery announced early in the year\n1859. It was not amid the star-depths and in the darkness of night that\nthe new planet was looked for, but in broad day, and on the face of the\nsun himself. It was not on the outskirts of the solar system that the\nplanet was supposed to be travelling, but within the orbit of Mercury,\nhitherto regarded as of all planets the nearest to the sun. It was not\nhoped that any calculation of the perturbations of other planets would\nshow the place of the stranger, though certain changes in the orbit of\nMercury seemed clearly enough to indicate the stranger's existence.\n\nEarly in 1860 Leverrier had announced that the position of Mercury's\npath was not precisely in agreement with calculations based on the\nadopted estimates of the masses of those planets which chiefly disturb\nthe motions of Mercury. The part of the path where Mercury is nearest to\nthe sun, and where, therefore, he travels fastest, had slightly shifted\nfrom its calculated place. This part of the path was expected to move,\nbut it had moved more than was expected; and of course Mercury having\nhis region of swiftest motion somewhat differently placed than was\nanticipated, himself moved somewhat differently.\n\nLeverrier found that to explain this feature of Mercury's motion either\nthe mass of Venus must be regarded as one-tenth greater than had been\nsupposed, or some unknown cause must be regarded as affecting the motion\nof Mercury. A planet as large as Mercury, about midway between Mercury\nand the sun, would account for the observed disturbance; but Leverrier\nrejected the belief that such a planet exists, simply because he could\nnot 'believe that it would be invisible during total eclipses of the\nsun.' 'All difficulties disappear,' he added, 'if we admit, in place of\na single planet, small bodies circulating between Mercury and the sun.'\nConsidering their existence as not at all improbable, he advised\nastronomers to watch for them.\n\nIt was on January 2, 1860, that Leverrier thus wrote. On December 22,\n1859, a letter had been addressed by a M. Lescarbault of Orgeres to\nLeverrier, through M. Vallee, hon. inspector-general of roads and\nbridges, announcing that on March 26, 1859, about four in the afternoon,\nLescarbault had seen a round black spot on the face of the sun, and had\nwatched it as it passed across like a planet in transit--not with the\nslow motion of an ordinary sun-spot. The actual time during which the\nround spot was visible was one hour, seventeen minutes, nine seconds,\nthe rate of motion being such that, had the spot crossed the middle of\nthe sun's disc, at the same rate, the transit would have lasted more\nthan four hours. The spot thus merely skirted the sun's disc, being at\nno time more than about one forty-sixth part of the sun's apparent\ndiameter from the edge of the sun. Lescarbault expressed his conviction\nthat on a future day, a black spot, perfectly round and very small, will\nbe seen passing over the sun, and 'this point will very probably be the\nplanet whose path I observed on March 26, 1859.' 'I am persuaded,' he\nadded, 'that this body is the planet, or one of the planets, whose\nexistence in the vicinity of the sun M. Leverrier had made known a few\nmonths ago' (referring to the preliminary announcement of results which\nLeverrier published afterwards more definitely).\n\nLeverrier, when the news of Lescarbault's observation first reached him,\nwas surprised that the observation should not have been announced\nearlier. He did not consider the delay sufficiently justified by\nLescarbault's statement that he wished to see the spot again. He\ntherefore set out for Orgeres, accompanied by M. Vallee. 'The\npredominant feeling in Leverrier's mind,' says Abbe Moigno, 'was the\nwish to unmask an attempt to impose upon him, as the person more likely\nthan any other astronomer to listen to the allegation that his prophecy\nhad been fulfilled.'\n\n'One should have seen M. Lescarbault,' says Moigno, 'so small, so\nsimple, so modest, and so timid, in order to understand the emotion with\nwhich he was seized, when Leverrier, from his great height, and with\nthat blunt intonation which he can command, thus addressed him: \"It is\nthen you, sir, who pretend to have observed the intra-mercurial planet,\nand who have committed the grave offence of keeping your observation\nsecret for nine months. I warn you that I have come here with the\nintention of doing justice to your pretensions, and of demonstrating\neither that you have been dishonest or deceived. Tell me, then,\nunequivocally, what you have seen.\"' This singular address did not bring\nthe interview, as one might have expected, to an abrupt end. The lamb,\nas the Abbe calls the doctor, trembling, stammered out an account of\nwhat he had seen. He explained how he had timed the passage of the black\nspot. 'Where is your chronometer?' asked Leverrier. 'It is this watch,\nthe faithful companion of my professional journeys.' 'What! with that\nold watch, showing only minutes, dare you talk of estimating seconds. My\nsuspicions are already too well confirmed.' 'Pardon me, I have a\npendulum which beats seconds.' 'Show it me.' The doctor brings down a\nsilk thread to which an ivory ball is attached. Fixing the upper end to\na nail, he draws the ball a little from the vertical, counts the number\nof oscillations, and shows that his pendulum beats seconds; he explains\nalso how his profession, requiring him to feel pulses and count\npulsations, he has no difficulty in mentally keeping record of\nsuccessive seconds.\n\nHaving been shown the telescope with which the observation was made, the\nrecord of the observation (on a piece of paper covered with grease and\nlaudanum, and doing service as a marker in the 'Connaissance des Temps,'\nor French Nautical Almanac), Leverrier presently inquired if Lescarbault\nhad attempted to deduce the planet's distance from the sun from the\nperiod of its transit. The doctor admitted that he had attempted this,\nbut, being no mathematician, had failed to achieve success with the\nproblem. He showed the rough draughts of his futile attempts at\ncalculation on a board in his workshop, 'for,' said he naively, 'I am a\njoiner as well as an astronomer.'\n\nThe interview satisfied Leverrier that a new planet, travelling within\nthe orbit of Mercury, had really been discovered. 'With a grace and\ndignity full of kindness,' says a contemporary narrative of these\nevents,[55] 'he congratulated Lescarbault on the important discovery\nwhich he had made.' Anxious to obtain some mark of respect for the\ndiscoverer of Vulcan, Leverrier made inquiry concerning his private\ncharacter, and learned from the village cure, the juge de paix, and\nother functionaries, that he was a skilful physician and a worthy man.\nWith such high recommendations, M. Leverrier requested from M. Rouland,\nthe Minister of Public Instruction, the decoration of the Legion of\nHonour for M. Lescarbault. The Minister, in a brief but interesting\nstatement of his claim, communicated this request to the Emperor, who,\nby a decree dated January 25, conferred upon the village astronomer the\nhonours so justly due to him. His professional brethren in Paris were\nequally solicitous to testify their regard; and MM. Felix Roubaud,\nLegrande, and Caffe, as delegates of the scientific press, proposed to\nthe medical body, and to the scientific world in Paris, to invite\nLescarbault to a banquet in the Hotel du Louvre on January 18.\n\nThe announcement of the supposed discovery caused astronomers to\nre-examine records of former observations of black spots moving across\nthe sun. Several such records existed, but they had gradually come to be\nregarded as of no real importance. Wolff of Zurich published a list of\nno fewer than twenty such observations made since 1762. Carrington added\nmany other cases. Comparing together three of these observations, Wolff\nfound that they would be satisfied by a planet having a period of\nrevolution of 19 days, agreeing fairly with the period of rather more\nthan 19-1/3 days inferred by Leverrier for Lescarbault's planet. But\nthe entire set of observations of black spots require that there should\nbe at least three new planets travelling between Mercury and the sun.\nMany observers also set themselves the task of searching for Vulcan, as\nthe supposed new planet was called. They have continued fruitlessly to\nobserve the sun for this purpose until the present time.\n\nWhile the excitement over Lescarbault's discovery was at its height,\nanother observer impugned not only the discovery but the honesty of the\ndiscoverer.\n\nM. Liais, a French astronomer of considerable skill, formerly of the\nParis Observatory, but at the time of Lescarbault's achievement in the\nservice of the Brazilian Government, published a paper, 'Sur la Nouvelle\nPlanete annoncee par M. Lescarbault,' in which he endeavoured to\nestablish the four following points:--\n\nFirst, the observation of Lescarbault was never made.\n\nSecondly, Leverrier was mistaken in considering that a planet such as\nVulcan might have escaped detection when off the sun's face.\n\nThirdly, that Vulcan would certainly have been seen during total solar\neclipses, if the planet had a real objective existence.\n\nFourthly, M. Leverrier's reasons for believing that the planet exists\nare based on the supposition that astronomical observations are more\nprecise than they really are.\n\nProbably, Liais's objections would have had more weight with Leverrier\nhad the fourth point been omitted. It was rash in a former subordinate\nto impugn the verdict of the chief of the Paris Observatory on a matter\nbelonging to that special department of astronomy which an observatory\nchief might be expected to understand thoroughly. It is thought daring\nin the extreme for one outside the circles of official astronomy (as\nNewton in Flamstead's time, Sir W. Herschel in Maskelyne's, and Sir J.\nHerschel in the present century), to advance or maintain an opinion\nadverse to that of some official chief, but for a subordinate (even\nthough no longer so), to be guilty of such rash procedure 'is most\ntolerable and not to be endured,' as a typical official has said.\nAccordingly, very little attention was paid by Leverrier to Liais's\nobjections.\n\nYet, in some respects, what M. Liais had to say was very much to the\npoint.\n\nAt the very time when Lescarbault was watching the black spot on the\nsun's face, Liais was examining the sun with a telescope of much greater\nmagnifying power, and saw no such spot. His attention was specially\ndirected to the edge of the sun (where Lescarbault saw the spot) because\nhe was engaged in determining the decrease of the sun's brightness near\nthe edge. Moreover, he was examining the very part of the sun's edge\nwhere Lescarbault saw the planet enter, at a time when it must have been\ntwelve minutes in time upon the face of the sun, and well within the\nmargin of the solar disc. The negative evidence here is strong; though\nit must always be remembered that negative evidence requires to be\noverwhelmingly strong before it can be admitted as effective against\npositive evidence. It seems at a first view utterly impossible that\nLiais, examining with a more powerful telescope the region where\nLescarbault saw the spot, could have failed to see it had it been there;\nbut experience shows that it is not impossible for an observer engaged\nin examining phenomena of one class to overlook a phenomenon of another\nclass, even when glaringly obvious. All we can say is that Liais was not\nlikely to have overlooked Lescarbault's planet had it been there; and we\nmust combine this probability against Vulcan's existence with arguments\nderived from other considerations. There is also the possibility of an\nerror in time. As the writer in the 'North British Review' remarks,\n'twelve minutes is so short a time that it is just possible that the\nplanet may not have entered upon the sun during the time that Liais\nobserved it.'\n\nThe second and third arguments are stronger. In fact, I do not see how\nthey can be resisted.\n\nIt is, in the first place, clear from Lescarbault's account that Vulcan\nmust have a considerable diameter--certainly if Vulcan's diameter in\nmiles were only half the diameter of Mercury, it would have been all but\nimpossible for Lescarbault with his small telescope to see Vulcan at\nall, whereas he saw the black spot very distinctly. Say Vulcan has half\nthe diameter of Mercury, and let us compare the brightness of these two\nplanets when at their greatest apparent distances from the sun, that is,\nwhen each looks like a half-moon. The distance of Mercury exceeds the\nestimated distance of Vulcan from the sun as 27 exceeds 10, so that\nVulcan is more strongly illuminated in the proportion of 27 times 27 to\n10 times 10, or 729 to 100--say at least 7 to 1. But having a diameter\nbut half as large the disc of Vulcan could be but about a fourth of\nMercury's at the same distance from us (and they would be at about the\nsame distance from us when seen as half-moons). Hence Vulcan would be\nbrighter than Mercury in the proportion of 7 to 4. Of course being so\nnear the sun he would not be so easily seen; and we could never expect\nto see him at all, perhaps, with the naked eye--though even this is not\ncertain. But Mercury, when at the same apparent distance from the sun,\nand giving less light than at his greatest seeming distance, is quite\neasily seen in the telescope. Much more easily, then, should Vulcan be\nseen, if a telescope were rightly directed at such a time, or when\nVulcan was anywhere near his greatest seeming distance from the sun. Now\nit is true astronomers do not know precisely when or where to look for\nhim. But he passes from his greatest distance on one side of the sun to\nhis greatest distance on the other in less than ten days, according to\nthe computed period, and certainly (that is, if the planet exists) in a\nvery short time. The astronomer has then only to examine day after day a\nregion of small extent on either side of the sun, for ten or twelve days\nin succession (an hour's observation each day would suffice), to be sure\nof seeing Vulcan. Yet many astronomers have made such search many times\nover, without seeing any trace of the planet. During total solar\neclipses, again, the planet has been repeatedly looked for\nunsuccessfully--though it should at such a time be a very conspicuous\nobject, when favourably placed, and could scarcely fail of being very\ndistinctly seen wherever placed.\n\nThe fourth argument of Lescarbault's is not so effective, and in fact he\ngets beyond his depth in dealing with it. But it is to be noticed that a\nconsiderable portion of the discrepancy between Mercury's observed and\ncalculated motions has long since been accounted for by the changed\nestimate of the earth's mass as compared with the sun's, resulting from\nthe new determination of the sun's distance. However, the arguments\ndepending on this consideration would not be suited to these pages.\n\nThere was one feature in Liais's paper which was a little unfortunate.\nHe questioned Lescarbault's honesty. He said 'Lescarbault contradicts\nhimself in having first asserted that he saw the planet enter upon the\nsun's disc, and having afterwards admitted to Leverrier that it had been\non the disc some seconds before he saw it, and that he had merely\ninferred the time of its entry from the rate of its motion afterwards.\nIf this one assertion be fabricated, the whole may be so.' 'He considers\nthese arguments to be strengthened,' says the 'North British Review,'\n'by the assertion which, as we have seen, perplexed Leverrier himself,\nthat if M. Lescarbault had actually seen a planet on the sun, he could\nnot have kept it secret for nine months.'\n\nThis charge of dishonesty, unfortunate in itself, had the unfortunate\neffect of preventing Lescarbault or the Abbe Moigno from replying. The\nlatter simply remarked that the accusation was of such a nature as to\ndispense him from any obligation to refute it. This was an error of\njudgment, I cannot but think, if an effective reply was really\navailable.\n\nThe Remarks with which the North British Reviewer closes his account may\nbe repeated now, so far as they relate to the force of the negative\nevidence, with tenfold effect. 'Since the first notice of the discovery\nin the beginning of January 1860 the sun has been anxiously observed by\nastronomers; and the limited area around him in which the planet _must\nbe_, if he is not upon the sun, has doubtless been explored with equal\ncare by telescopes of high power, and processes by which the sun's\ndirect light has been excluded from the tube of the telescope as well as\nthe eye of the observer, and yet no planet has been found. This fact\nwould entitle us to conclude that no such planet exists if its existence\nhad been merely conjectured, or if it had been deduced from any of the\nlaws of planetary distance, or even if Leverrier or Adams had announced\nit as the probable result of planetary perturbations. If the finest\ntelescopes cannot rediscover a planet which with the small power used by\nLescarbault has a visible disc, within so limited an area of which the\nsun is the centre, or rather within a narrow belt of that circle, we\nshould unhesitatingly declare that no such planet exists. But the\nquestion assumes a very different aspect when it involves moral\nconsiderations. If,' proceeds the Reviewer, writing in August 1860,\n'after the severe scrutiny which the sun and its vicinity will undergo\nbefore and after and during his total eclipse in July, no planet shall\nbe seen; and if no round black spot distinctly separable from the usual\nsolar spots shall be seen on the solar spots' (_sic_, presumably solar\ndisc was intended), 'we will not dare to say that it does not exist. We\ncannot doubt the honesty of M. Lescarbault, and we can hardly believe\nthat he was mistaken. No solar spot, no floating scoria, could maintain\nin its passage over the sun a circular and uniform shape, and we are\nconfident that no other hypothesis but that of an intra-mercurial planet\ncan explain the phenomena seen and measured by M. Lescarbault, a man of\nhigh character, possessing excellent instruments, and in every way\ncompetent to use them well, and to describe clearly and correctly the\nresults of his observations. Time, however, tries facts as well as\nspeculations. The phenomena observed by the French astronomer may never\nbe again seen, and the disturbance of Mercury which rendered it probable\nmay be otherwise explained. Should this be the case, we must refer the\nround spot on the sun to some of those illusions of the eye or of the\nbrain which have sometimes disturbed the tranquillity of science.'\n\nThe evidence which has accumulated against Vulcan in the interval since\nthis was written is not negative only, but partly positive, as the\nfollowing instance, which I take from my own narrative at the time in a\nweekly journal, serves to show:--After more than sixteen years of\nfruitless watching, astronomers learned last August (1876) that in the\nmonth of April Vulcan had been seen on the sun's disc in China. On April\n4, it appeared, Herr Weber, an observer of considerable skill, stationed\nat Pecheli, had seen a small round spot on the sun, looking very much as\na small planet might be expected to look. A few hours later he turned\nhis telescope upon the sun, and lo! the spot had vanished, precisely as\nthough the planet had passed away after the manner of planets in\ntransit. He forwarded the news of his observation to Europe. The\nastronomer Wolff, well known for his sun-spot studies, carefully\ncalculated the interval which had passed since Lescarbault saw Vulcan on\nMarch 26, 1859, and to his intense satisfaction was enabled to announce\nthat this interval contained the calculated period of the planet an\nexact number of times. Leverrier at Paris received the announcement\nstill more joyfully; while the Abbe Moigno, who gave Vulcan its name,\nand has always staunchly believed in the planet's existence,\ncongratulated Lescarbault warmly upon this new view of the shamefaced\nVulcan. Not one of those who already believed in the planet had the\nleast doubt as to the reality of Weber's observations, and of these only\nLescarbault himself received the news without pleasure. He, it seems,\nhas never forgiven the Germans for destroying his observatory and\nlibrary during the invasion of France in 1870, and apparently would\nprefer that his planet should never be seen again rather than that a\nGerman astronomer should have seen it. But the joy of the rest and\nLescarbault's sorrow were alike premature. It was found that the spot\nseen by Weber had not only been observed at the Madrid observatory,\nwhere careful watch is kept upon the sun, but had been photographed at\nGreenwich; and when the description of its appearance, as seen in a\npowerful telescope at one station, and its picture as photographed by a\nfine telescope at the other, came to be examined, it was proved\nunmistakably that the spot was an ordinary sun-spot (not even quite\nround), which had after a few hours disappeared, as even larger\nsun-spots have been known to do in even a shorter time.\n\nIt is clear that had not Weber's spot been fortunately seen at Madrid\nand photographed at Greenwich, his observation would have been added to\nthe list of recorded apparitions of Vulcan in transit, for it fitted in\nperfectly with the theory of Vulcan's real existence. I think, indeed,\nfor my own part, that the good fortune was Weber's. Had it so chanced\nthat thick weather in Madrid and at Greenwich had destroyed the evidence\nactually obtained to show that what Weber described he really saw,\nalthough it was not what he thought, some of the more suspicious would\nhave questioned whether, in the euphonious language of the North British\nReviewer, 'the round spot on the sun' was not due 'to one of those\nillusions of the eye or of the brain which have sometimes disturbed the\ntranquillity of science.' Of course no one acquainted with M. Weber's\nantecedents would imagine for a moment that he had invented the\nobservation, even though the objective reality of his spot had not been\nestablished. But if a person who is entirely unknown, states that he has\nseen Vulcan, there is antecedently some degree of probability in favour\nof the belief that the observation is as much a myth as the planet\nitself. Some observations of Vulcan have certainly been invented. I have\nreceived several letters purporting to describe observations of bodies\nin transit over the sun's face, either the rate of transit, the size of\nthe body, or the path along which it was said to move, being utterly\ninconsistent with the theory that it was an intra-mercurial planet,\nwhile yet (herein is the suspicious circumstance of such narratives) the\nepoch of transit accorded in the most remarkable manner with the period\nassigned to Vulcan. A paradoxist in America (of Louisville, Kentucky)\nwho had invented a theory of the weather, in which the planets, by their\ninfluence on the sun, were supposed to produce all weather-changes, the\nnearer planets being the most effective, found his theory wanted Vulcan\nvery much. Accordingly, he saw Vulcan crossing the sun's face in\nSeptember, which, being half a year from March, is a month wherein,\naccording to Lescarbault's observation, Vulcan may be seen in transit,\nand by a strange coincidence the interval between our paradoxist's\nobservation and Lescarbault's exactly contained a certain number of\ntimes the period calculated by Leverrier for Vulcan. This was a noble\nachievement on the part of our paradoxist. At one stroke it established\nhis theory of the weather, and promised to ensure him text-book\nimmortality as one of the observers of Vulcan. But, unfortunately, a\nstudent of science residing in St. Louis, after leaving the Louisville\nparadoxist full time to parade his discovery, heartlessly pointed out\nthat an exact number of revolutions of Vulcan after Lescarbault's March\nobservation, must of necessity have brought the planet on that side of\nthe sun on which the earth lies in March, so that to see Vulcan so\nplaced on the sun's face in September was to see Vulcan through the sun,\na very remarkable achievement indeed. The paradoxist was abashed, the\nreader perhaps imagines. Not in the least. The planet's period must have\nbeen wrongly calculated by Leverrier--that was all: the real period was\nless than half as long as Leverrier had supposed; and instead of having\ngone a certain number of times round since Lescarbault had seen it,\nVulcan had gone twice as many times round and half once round again. The\ncircumstance that if Vulcan's period had been thus short, the time of\ncrossing the sun's face would have been much less than, according to\nLescarbault's account, it actually was, had not occurred to the\nLouisville weather-prophet.[56]\n\nLeverrier's faith in Vulcan, however, has remained unshaken. He has used\nall the observations of spots which, like Weber's, have been seen only\nfor a short time. At least he has used all which have not, like\nWeber's, been proved to be only transient sun-spots. Selecting those\nwhich fit in well with Lescarbault's observation, he has pointed out how\nremarkable it is that they show this accord. The possibility that some\nof them might be explicable as Weber's proved to be, and that some even\nmay have been explicable as completely, but less satisfactorily, in\nanother way, seems to have been thought scarcely worth considering.\nUsing the imperfect materials available, but with exquisite skill--as a\nPhidias might model an exquisite figure of materials that would\npresently crumble into dust--Leverrier came to the conclusion that\nVulcan would cross the sun's disc on or about March 22, 1876. 'He,\ntherefore,' said Sir G. Airy, addressing the Astronomical Society,\n'circulated a despatch among his friends, asking them carefully to\nobserve the sun on March 22.' Sir G. Airy, humouring his honoured\nfriend, sent telegrams to India, Australia, and New Zealand, requesting\nthat observations might be made every two hours or oftener. Leverrier\nhimself wrote to Santiago de Chili and other places, so that, including\nAmerican and European observations, the sun could be watched all through\nthe twenty-four hours on March 21, 22, and 23. 'Without saying\npositively that he believed or disbelieved in the existence of the\nplanet,' proceeds the report, 'Sir G. Airy thought, since M. Leverrier\nwas so confident, that the opportunity ought not to be neglected by\nanybody who professed to take an interest in the progress of planetary\nastronomy.'\n\nIt is perhaps unnecessary to add that observations were made as\nrequested. Many photographs of the sun also were taken during the hours\nwhen Vulcan, if he exists at all, might be expected to cross the sun's\nface. But the 'planet of romance,' as Abbe Moigno has called Vulcan,\nfailed to appear, and the opinion I had expressed last October\n('English Mechanic and World of Science,' for October 27, 1876, p. 160),\nthat Vulcan might perhaps better be called the 'planet of fiction' was\n_pro tanto_ confirmed. Nevertheless, I would not be understood to mean\nby the word 'fiction' aught savouring of fraud so far as Lescarbault is\nconcerned--I prefer the North Briton's view of Lescarbault's spot, that\nso to speak, it was\n\n  ... the blot upon his brain,\n  That _would_ show itself without.\n\nI have left small space to treat of other fancied discoveries among the\norbs of heaven. Yet there are some which are not only interesting but\ninstructive, as showing how even the most careful observers may be led\nastray. In this respect the mistakes into which observers of great and\nwell deserved eminence have fallen are specially worthy of attention.\nWith the description of three such mistakes, made by no less an\nastronomer than Sir W. Herschel, I shall bring this paper to a close.\n\nWhen Sir W. Herschel examined the planet Uranus with his most powerful\ntelescope he saw the planet to all appearance girt about by two rings at\nright angles to one another. The illusion was so complete that Herschel\nfor several years remained in the belief that the rings were real. They\nwere, however, mere optical illusions, due to the imperfect defining\nqualities of the telescope with which he observed the planet. Later he\nwrote that 'the observations which tend to ascertain' (indicate?) 'the\nexistence of rings not being satisfactorily supported, it will be proper\nthat surmises of them should either be given up, as ill-founded, or at\nleast reserved till superior instruments can be provided.'\n\nSir W. Herschel was more completely misled by the false Uranian\nsatellites. He had seen, as he supposed, no less than six of these\nbodies. As only two of these had been seen again, while two more were\ndiscovered by Lassell, the inference was that Uranus has eight\nsatellites in all. These for a long time flourished in our text-books of\nastronomy; and many writers, confident in the care and skill of Sir W.\nHerschel, were unable for a long time to believe that he had been\ndeceived. Thus Admiral Smyth, in his 'Celestial Cycle,' wrote of those\nwho doubted the extra satellites:--'They must have but a meagre notion\nof Sir W. Herschel's powerful means, his skill in their application, and\nhis method of deliberate procedure. So far from doubting there being six\nsatellites' (this was before Lassell had discovered the other two) 'it\nis highly probable that there are still more.' Whewell, also, in his\n'Bridgewater Treatise,' says, 'that though it no longer appears probable\nthat Uranus has a ring like Saturn, he has at least five satellites\nwhich are visible to us, and we believe that the astronomer will hardly\ndeny that he' (Uranus, not the astronomer), 'may possibly have thousands\nof smaller ones circulating about him.' But in this case Sir W.\nHerschel, anxiously though he endeavoured to guard against the\npossibility of error, was certainly mistaken. Uranus may, for anything\nthat is known to the contrary, have many small satellites circulating\nabout him, but he certainly has not four satellites (besides those\nknown) which could have been seen by Sir W. Herschel with the telescope\nhe employed. For the neighbourhood of the planet has been carefully\nexamined with telescopes of much greater power by observers who with\nthose telescopes have seen objects far fainter than the satellites\nsupposed to have been seen by the elder Herschel.\n\nThe third of the Herschelian myths was the lunar volcano in eruption,\nwhich he supposed he had seen in progress in that part of the moon which\nwas not at the time illuminated by the sun's rays. He saw a bright\nstar-like point of light, which corresponded in position with the crater\nof the lunar mountain Aristarchus. He inferred that a volcano was in\nactive eruption because the brightness of the point of light varied from\ntime to time, and also because he did not remember to have seen it\nbefore under the same conditions. There is no doubt something very\nremarkable in the way in which this part of the moon's surface shines\nwhen not illumined by the sun. If it were always bright we should\nconclude at once that the earth-light shining upon it rendered it\nvisible. For it must be remembered that the part of the moon which looks\ndark (or seems wanting to the full disc) is illuminated by our earth,\nshining in the sky of the moon as a disc thirteen times as large as that\nof the moon we see, and with the same proportion of its disc sunlit as\nis dark in the moon's disc. Thus when the moon is nearly new our earth\nis shining in the lunar skies as a nearly full moon thirteen times as\nlarge as ours. The light of this noble moon must illumine the moon's\nsurface much more brightly than a terrestrial landscape is illumined by\nthe full moon, and if any parts of her surface are very white they will\nshine out from the surface around, just as the snow-covered peak of a\nmountain shines out upon a moonlit night from among the darker hills and\ndales and rocks and forests of the landscape. But Herschel considered\nthat the occasional brightness of the crater Aristarchus could not be\nthus explained. The spot had been seen before the time of Herschel's\nobservations by Cassini and others. It has been seen since by Captain\nKater, Francis Baily, and many others. Dr. Maskelyne tells us that in\nMarch 1794 it was seen by the naked eye by two persons.\n\nBaily thus describes the appearance presented by this lunar crater on\nDecember 22, 1835: 'Directed telescope to the moon, and pointing it to\nthe dark part in the vicinity of Aristarchus, soon saw the outline of\nthat mountain very distinctly, formed like an irregular nebula. Nearly\nin the centre was a light resembling that of a star of the ninth or\ntenth magnitude. It appeared by glimpses, but at times was brilliant,\nand visible for several seconds together.'\n\nThere can be little doubt, however, that the apparent brightness of this\nlunar crater, or rather of its summit, is due to some peculiar quality\nin the surface, which may perhaps be covered by some crystalline or\nvitreous matter poured out in the far distant time when the crater was\nan active one. Prof. Shaler, who examined the crater when it was\nilluminated only by earthshine, with the fine 15-inch telescope of the\nHarvard Observatory (Cambridge U.S.), says that he has been able to\nrecognise nearly all the craters over 15 miles in diameter in the dark\npart. 'There are several degrees of brightness,' he says, 'observable in\nthe different objects which shine out by the earth-light. This fact\nprobably explains the greater part of the perplexing statements\nconcerning the illumination of certain craters. It certainly accounts\nfor the volcanic activity which has so often been supposed to be\nmanifested by Aristarchus. Under the illumination by the earth-light\nthis is by far the brightest object on the dark part of the moon's face,\nand is visible much longer and with poorer glasses than any other object\nthere.'\n\nHere my record of astronomical myths must be brought to a close. It will\nbe noticed that in every instance either the illusion has affected the\nactual observations of eminent and skilful astronomers, or has caused\nsuch astronomers to put faith for a while in illusory observations. Had\nI cared to include the mistakes which have been made by or have misled\nobservers of less experience, I could have filled many sheets for each\npage of the present article. But it has seemed to me more instructive\nto show how error may affect the observations even of the most careful\nand deservedly eminent astronomers, how even the most cautious may be\nfor a time misled by the mistakes of inferior observers, especially when\nthe fact supposed to have been observed accords with preconceived\nopinions.\n\n\n\n\nXII.\n\n_THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTELLATION-FIGURES._\n\n\nAlthough the strange figures which astronomers still allow to straggle\nover their star maps no longer have any real scientific interest, they\nstill possess a certain charm, not only for the student of astronomy,\nbut for many who care little or nothing about astronomy as a science.\nWhen I was giving a course of twelve lectures in Boston, America, a\nperson of considerable culture said to me, 'I wish you would lecture\nabout the constellations; I care little about the sun and moon and the\nplanets, and not much more about comets; but I have always felt great\ninterest in the Bears and Lions, the Chained and Chaired Ladies, King\nCepheus and the Rescuer Perseus, Orion, Ophiuchus, Hercules, and the\nrest of the mythical and fanciful beings with which the old astronomers\npeopled the heavens. I say with Carlyle, \"Why does not some one teach me\nthe constellations, and make me at home in the starry heavens, which are\nalways overhead, and which I don't half know to this day.\"' We may\nnotice, too, that the poets by almost unanimous consent have recognised\nthe poetical aspect of the constellations, while they have found little\nto say about subjects which belong especially to astronomy as a science.\nMilton has indeed made an Archangel reason (not unskilfully for Milton's\nday) about the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, while Tennyson makes\nfrequent reference to astronomical theories. 'There sinks the nebulous\nstar we call the Sun, if that hypothesis of theirs be sound,' said Ida;\nbut she said no more, save 'let us down and rest,' as though the subject\nwere wearisome to her. Again, in the Palace of Art the soul of the poet\nhaving built herself that 'great house so royal, rich, and wide,'\nthither--\n\n  ... when all the deep unsounded skies\n    Shuddered with silent stars, she clomb,\n  And as with optic glasses her keen eyes\n    Pierced through the mystic dome,\n  Regions of lucid matter taking forms,\n    Brushes of fire, hazy gleams,\n  Clusters and beds of worlds and beelike swarms\n    Of suns, and starry streams:\n  She saw the snowy poles of moonless Mars,\n    That marvellous round of milky light\n  Below Orion, and those double stars\n    Whereof the one more bright\n    Is circled by the other.\n\nBut the poet's soul so wearied of these astronomical researches that the\nbeautiful lines I have quoted disappeared (more's the pity) from the\nsecond and all later editions. Such exceptions, indeed, prove the rule.\nPoets have been chary in referring to astronomical researches and\nresults, full though these have been of unspeakable poetry; while from\nthe days of Homer to those of Tennyson, the constellations which\n'garland the heavens' have always been favourite subjects of poetic\nimagery.\n\nIt is not my present purpose, however, to discuss the poetic aspect of\nthe constellations. I propose to inquire how these singular figures\nfirst found their way to the heavens, and, so far as facts are available\nfor the purpose, to determine the history and antiquity of some of the\nmore celebrated constellations.\n\nLong before astronomy had any existence as a science men watched the\nstars with wonder and reverence. Those orbs, seemingly countless--which\nbespangle the dark robe of night--have a charm and beauty of their own\napart from the significance with which the science of astronomy has\ninvested them. The least fanciful mind is led to recognise on the\ncelestial concave the emblems of terrestrial objects, pictured with more\nor less distinctness among the mysterious star-groupings. We can imagine\nthat long before the importance of the study of the stars was\nrecognised, men had begun to associate with certain star-groups the\nnames of familiar objects animate or inanimate. The flocks and herds\nwhich the earliest observers of the heavens tended would suggest names\nfor certain sets of stars, and thus the Bull, the Ram, the Kids, would\nappear in the heavens. Other groups would remind those early observers\nof the animals from whom they had to guard their flocks, or of the\nanimals to whose vigilance they trusted for protection, and thus the\nBear, the Lion, and the Dogs would find their place among the stars. The\nfigures of men and horses, and of birds and fishes, would naturally\nenough be recognised, nor would either the implements of husbandry, or\nthe weapons by which the huntsman secured his prey, remain unrepresented\namong the star-groupings. And lastly, the altar on which the\nfirst-fruits of harvest and vintage were presented, or the flesh of\nlambs and goats consumed, would be figured among the innumerable\ncombinations which a fanciful eye can recognise among the orbs of\nheaven.\n\nIn thus suggesting that the first observers of the heavens were\nshepherds, huntsmen, and husbandmen, I am not advancing a theory on the\ndifficult questions connected with the origin of exact astronomy. The\nfirst observations of the heavens were of necessity made by men who\ndepended for their subsistence on a familiarity with the progress and\nvicissitudes of the seasons, and doubtless preceded by many ages the\nstudy of astronomy as a science. And yet the observations made by those\nearly shepherds and hunters, unscientific though they must have been in\nthemselves, are full of interest to the student of modern exact\nastronomy. The assertion may seem strange at first sight, but is\nnevertheless strictly true, that if we could but learn with certainty\nthe names assigned to certain star-groups, before astronomy had any real\nexistence, we could deduce lessons of extreme importance from the rough\nobservations which suggested those old names. In these days, when\nobservations of such marvellous exactness are daily and nightly made,\nwhen instruments capable of revealing the actual constitution of the\nstars are employed, and observers are so numerous, it may seem strange\nto attach any interest to the question whether half-savage races\nrecognised in such and such a star-group the likeness of a bear, or in\nanother group the semblance of a ship. But though we could learn more,\nof course, from exacter observations, yet even such rough and imperfect\nrecords would have their value. If we could be certain that in long-past\nages a star-group really resembled some known object, we should have in\nthe present resemblance of that group to the same object evidence of the\ngeneral constancy of stellar lustre, or if no resemblance could be\nrecognised we should have reason to doubt whether other suns (and\ntherefore our own sun) may not be liable to great changes.\n\nThe subject of the constellation-figures as first known is interesting\nin other ways. For instance, it is full of interest to the antiquarian\n(and most of us are to some degree antiquarians) as relating to the\nmost ancient of all human sciences. The same mental quality which causes\nus to look with interest on the buildings raised in long-past ages, or\non the implements and weapons of antiquity, renders the thought\nimpressive that the stars which we see were gazed on perhaps not less\nwonderingly in the very infancy of the human race. It is, again, a\nsubject full of interest to the chronologist to inquire in what era of\nthe world's history exact astronomy began, the moon was assigned her\ntwenty-eight zodiacal mansions, the sun his twelve zodiacal signs. It is\nwell known, indeed, that Newton himself did not disdain to study the\nquestions thus suggested; and the speculations of the ingenious Dupuis\nfound favour with the great mathematician Laplace.\n\nUnfortunately, the evidence is not sufficiently exact to be very\ntrustworthy. In considering, for instance, the chronological inquiries\nof Newton, one cannot but feel that the reliance placed by him on the\nstatements made by different writers is not justified by the nature of\nthose statements, which were for the most part vague in the extreme. We\nowe many of them to poets who, knowing little of astronomy, mixed up the\nphenomena of their own time with those which they found recorded in the\nwritings of astronomers. Some of the statements left by ancient writers\nare indeed ludicrously incongruous; insomuch that Grotius not unjustly\nsaid of the account of the constellations given by the poet Aratus, that\nit could be assigned to no fixed epoch and to no fixed place. However,\nthis would not be the place to discuss details such as are involved in\nexact inquiries. I have indicated some of these in an appendix to my\ntreatise on 'Saturn,' and others in the preface to my 'Gnomonic Star\nAtlas'; but for the most part they do not admit very readily of familiar\ndescription. Let us turn to less technical considerations, which\nfortunately are in this case fully as much to the point as exact\ninquiries, seeing that there is no real foundation for such inquiries in\nany of the available evidence.\n\nThe first obvious feature of the old constellations is one which somehow\nhas not received the attention it deserves. It is as instructive as any\nof those which have been made the subject of profound research.\n\nThere is a great space in the heavens over which none of the old\nconstellations extend, except the River Eridanus as now pictured, but we\ndo not know where this winding stream of stars was supposed by the old\nobservers to come to an end. This great space surrounds the southern\npole of the heavens, and thus shows that the first observers of the\nstars were not acquainted with the constellations which can be seen only\nfrom places far south of Chaldaea, Persia, Egypt, India, China, and\nindeed of all the regions to which the invention of astronomy has been\nassigned. Whatever the first astronomers were, however profound their\nknowledge of astronomy may have been (as some imagine), they had\ncertainly not travelled far enough towards the south to know the\nconstellations around the southern pole. If they had been as well\nacquainted with geography as some assert, if even any astronomer had\ntravelled as far south as the equator, we should certainly have had\npictured in the old star charts some constellations in that region of\nthe heavens wherein modern astronomers have placed the Octant, the Bird\nof Paradise, the Sword-fish, the Flying-fish, Toucan, the Net, and other\nuncelestial objects.\n\nIn passing I may note that this fact disposes most completely of a\ntheory lately advanced that the constellations were invented in the\nsouthern hemisphere, and that thus is to be explained the ancient\ntradition that the sun and stars have changed their courses. For though\nall the northern constellations would have been more or less visible\nfrom parts of the southern hemisphere near the equator, it is absurd to\nsuppose that a southern observer would leave untenanted a full fourth of\nthe heavens round the southern or visible pole, while carefully filling\nup the space around the northern or unseen pole with incomplete\nconstellations whose northern unknown portions would include that pole.\nSupposing it for a moment to be true, as a modern advocate of the\nsouthern theory remarks, that 'one of the race migrating from one side\nto the other of the equator would take his position from the sun, and\nfancy he was facing the same way when he looked at it at noon, and so\nwould think the motion of the stars to have altered instead of his\nhaving turned round,' the theory that astronomy was brought to us from\nsouth of the equator cannot possibly be admitted in presence of that\nenormous vacant region around the southern pole. I think, however, that,\napart from this, a race so profoundly ignorant as to suppose any such\nthing, to imagine they were looking north when in reality they were\nlooking south, can hardly be regarded as the first founders of the\nscience of astronomy.\n\nThe great gap I have spoken of has long been recognised. But one\nremarkable feature in its position has not, to the best of my\nremembrance, been considered--the vacant space is eccentric with regard\nto the southern pole of the heavens. The old constellations, the Altar,\nthe Centaur, and the ship Argo, extend within twenty degrees of the\npole, while the Southern Fish and the great sea-monster Cetus, which are\nthe southernmost constellations on the other side, do not reach within\nsome sixty degrees of the pole.\n\nOf course, in saying that this peculiarity has not been considered, I am\nnot suggesting that it has not been noticed, or that its cause is in any\nway doubtful or unknown. We know that the earth, besides whirling once a\nday on its axis, and rushing on its mighty orbit around the sun\n(spanning some 184,000,000 of miles) reels like a gigantic top, with a\nmotion so slow that 25,868 years are required for a single circuit of\nthe swaying axis around an imaginary line upright to the plane in which\nthe earth travels. And we know that in consequence of this reeling\nmotion the points of the heavens opposite the earth's poles necessarily\nchange. So that the southern pole, now eccentrically placed amid the\nregion where there were no constellations in old times, was once\ndifferently situated. But the circumstance which seems to have been\noverlooked is this, that by calculating backwards to the time when the\nsouthern pole was in the centre of that vacant region, we have a much\nbetter chance of finding the date (let us rather say the century) when\nthe older constellations were formed, than by any other process. We may\nbe sure not to be led very far astray; for we are not guided by one\nconstellation but by several, whereas all the other indications which\nhave been followed depend on the supposed ancient position of single\nconstellations. And then most of the other indications are such as might\nvery well have belonged to periods following long after the invention of\nthe constellations themselves. An astronomer might have ascertained, for\ninstance, that the sun in spring was in some particular part of the Ram\nor of the Fishes, and later a poet like Aratus might describe that\nrelation (erroneously for his own epoch) as characteristic of one or\nother constellation; but who is to assure us that the astronomer who\nnoted the relation correctly may not have made his observation many\nhundreds of years after those constellations were invented? Whereas,\nthere was one period, and only one period, when the most southernmost of\nthe old constellations could have marked the limits of the region of sky\nvisible from some northern region. Thus, too, may we form some idea of\nthe latitude in which the first observers lived. For in high latitudes\nthe southernmost of the old constellations would not have been visible\nat all, and in latitudes much lower than a certain latitude, presently\nto be noted, these constellations would have ridden high above the\nsouthern horizon, other star-groups showing below them which were not\nincluded among the old constellations.\n\nI have before me as I write a picture of the southern heavens, drawn by\nmyself, in which this vacant space--eccentric in position but circular\nin shape--is shown. The centre lies close by the Lesser Magellanic\ncloud--between the stars Kappa Toucani and Eta Hydri of our modern maps,\nbut much nearer to the last named. Near this spot, then, we may be sure,\nlay the southern pole of the star-sphere when the old constellations, or\nat least the southern ones, were invented. (If there had been\nastronomers in the southern hemisphere Eta Hydri would certainly have\nbeen their pole-star.)\n\nNow it is a matter of no difficulty whatever to determine the epoch when\nthe southern pole of the heavens was thus placed.[57] Between 2100 and\n2200 years before the Christian era the southern constellations had the\nposition described, the invisible southern pole lying at the centre of\nthe vacant space of the star-sphere--or rather of the space free from\nconstellations. It is noteworthy that for other reasons this period, or\nrather a definite epoch within it, is indicated as that to which must be\nreferred the beginning of exact astronomy. Amongst others must be\nmentioned this--that in the year 2170 B.C. _quam proxime_, the Pleiades\nrose to their highest above the horizon at noon (or technically made\ntheir noon culmination), at the spring equinox. We can readily\nunderstand that to minds possessed with full faith in the influence of\nthe stars on the earth, this fact would have great significance. The\nchanges which are brought about at that season of the year, in reality,\nof course, because of the gradual increase in the effect of the sun's\nrays as he rises higher and higher above the celestial equator, would be\nattributed, in part at least, to the remarkable star-cluster coming then\nclose by the sun on the heavens, though unseen. Thus we can readily\nunderstand the reference in Job to the 'sweet influences of the\nPleiades.' Again at that same time, 2170 B.C. when the sun and the\nPleiades opened the year (with commencing spring) together, the star\nAlpha of the Dragon, which was the pole-star of the period, had that\nprecise position with respect to the true pole of the heavens which is\nindicated by the slope of the long passage extending downwards aslant\nfrom the northern face of the Great Pyramid; that is to say, when due\nnorth below the pole (or at what is technically called its sub-polar\nmeridional passage) the pole-star of the period shone directly down that\nlong passage, and I doubt not could be seen not only when it came to\nthat position during the night, but also when it came there during the\nday-time.\n\nBut some other singular relations are to be noted in connection with the\nparticular epoch I have indicated.\n\nIt is tolerably clear that in imagining figures of certain objects in\nthe heavens, the early observers would not be apt to picture these\nobjects in unusual positions. A group of stars may form a figure so\nclosely resembling that of a familiar object that even a wrong position\nwould not prevent the resemblance from being noticed, as for instance\nthe 'Chair,' the 'Plough,' and so forth. But such cases are not\nnumerous; indeed, to say the truth, one must 'make believe a good deal'\nto see resemblance between the star-groups and _most_ of the\nconstellation-figures, even under the most favourable conditions. When\nthere is no very close resemblance, as is the case with all the large\nconstellations, position must have counted for something in determining\nthe association between a star-group and a known object.\n\nNow the constellations north of the equator assume so many and such\nvarious positions that this special consideration does not apply very\nforcibly to them. But those south of the equator are only seen above the\nsouthern horizon, and change little in position during their progress\nfrom east to west of the south point. The lower down they are the less\nthey change in position. And the very lowest--such as those were, for\ninstance, which I have been considering in determining the position of\nthe southern pole--are only fully visible when due south. They must,\nthen, in all probability, have stood upright or in their natural\nposition when so placed, for if they were not rightly placed then they\nonly were so when below the horizon and consequently invisible.\n\nLet us, then, inquire what was the position of the southernmost\nconstellations when fully seen above the southern horizon at midnight.\n\nThe Centaur stood then as he does now, upright; only--whereas now in\nEgypt, Chaldaea, India, Persia, and China, only the upper portions of his\nfigure rise above the horizon, he then stood, the noblest save Orion of\nall the constellations, with his feet (marked by the bright Alpha and\nBeta still belonging to the constellation, and by the stars of the\nSouthern Cross which have been taken from it) upon the horizon itself.\nIn latitude twenty degrees or so north he may still be seen thus placed\nwhen due south.\n\nThe Centaur was represented in old times as placing an offering upon the\naltar, which was pictured, says Manilius, as bearing a fire of incense\nrepresented by stars. This to a student of our modern charts seems\naltogether perplexing. The Centaur carries the wolf on the end of his\nspear; but instead of placing the wolf (not a very acceptable meat\noffering, one would suppose) upon the altar, he is directing this animal\ntowards the base of the altar, whose top is downwards, the flames\nrepresented there tending (naturally) downwards also. It is quite\ncertain the ancient observers did not imagine anything of this sort. As\nI have said, Aratus tells us the celestial Centaur was placing an\noffering _upon_ the altar, which was therefore upright, and Manilius\ndescribes the altar as\n\n  Ferens thuris, stellis imitantibus, ignem,\n\nso that the fire was where it should be, on the top of an upright altar,\nwhere also on the sky itself were stars looking like the smoke from\nincense fires. Now that was precisely the appearance presented by the\nstars forming the constellation at the time I have indicated, some 2170\nyears B.C. Setting the altar upright above the southern horizon (that\nis, inverting the absurd picture at present given of it) we see it just\nwhere it should be placed to receive the Centaur's offering. A most\nremarkable portion of the Milky Way is then seen to be directly above\nthe altar in such a way as to form a very good imitation of smoke\nascending from it. This part of the Milky Way is described by Sir J.\nHerschel, who studied it carefully during his stay at the Cape of Good\nHope, as forming a complicated system of interlaced streaks and masses\nwhich covers the tail of Scorpio (extending from the altar which lies\nimmediately south of the Scorpion's Tail). The Milky Way divides, in\nfact, just above the altar as the constellation was seen 4000 years ago\nabove the southern horizon, one branch being that just described, the\nother (like another stream of smoke) 'passing,' says Herschel, 'over\nthe stars Iota of the Altar, Theta and Iota of the Scorpion, etc., to\nGamma of the Archer, where it suddenly collects into a vivid oval mass,\nso very rich in stars that a very moderate calculation makes their\nnumber exceed 100,000.' Nothing could accord better with the\ndescriptions of Aratus and Manilius.\n\nBut there is another constellation which shows in a more marked way than\neither the Centaur or the Altar that the date when the constellations\nwere invented must have been near that which I have named. Both Ara and\nCentaurus look now in suitable latitudes (about twenty degrees north) as\nthey looked in higher latitudes (about forty degrees north) 4000 years\nago. For, the reeling motion of our earth has changed the place of the\ncelestial pole in such a way as only to depress these constellations\nsouthwards without much changing their _position_; they are nearly\nupright when due south now as they were 4000 years ago, only lower down.\nBut the great ship Argo has suffered a much more serious displacement.\nOne cannot now see this ship _like_ a ship at any time or from any place\non the earth's surface. If we travel south till the whole constellation\ncomes into visibility above the southern horizon at the proper season\n(January and February for the midnight hours) the keel of the ship is\naslant, the stern being high above the waist (the fore part is wanting).\nIf we travel still further south, we can indeed reach places where the\ncourse of the ship is so widened, and the changes of position so\nincreased, that she appears along part of her journey on an even keel,\nbut then she is high above the horizon. Now 4000 years ago she stood on\nthe horizon itself at her southern culmination, with level keel and\nupright mast.\n\nIn passing I may note that for my own part I imagine that this great\nship represented the Ark, its fore part being originally the portion of\nthe Centaur now forming the horse, so that the Centaur was represented\nas a man (not as a man-horse) offering a gift on the Altar. Thus in this\ngroup of constellations I recognise the Ark, and Noah going up from the\nArk towards the altar 'which he builded unto the Lord; and took of every\nclean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the\naltar.' I consider further that the constellation-figures of the Ship,\nthe Man with an offering, and the Altar, painted or sculptured in some\nancient astrological temple, came at a later time to be understood as\npicturing a certain series of events, interpreted and expanded by a\npoetical writer into a complete narrative. Without venturing to insist\non so heterodox a notion, I may remark as an odd coincidence that\nprobably such a picture or sculpture would have shown the smoke\nascending from the Altar which I have already described, and in this\nsmoke there would be shown the bow of Sagittarius; which, interpreted\nand expanded in the way I have mentioned, might have accounted for the\n'bow set in the clouds, for a token of a covenant.' It is noteworthy\nthat all the remaining constellations forming the southern limit of the\nold star-domes or charts, were watery ones--the Southern Fish, over\nwhich Aquarius is pouring a quite unnecessary stream of water, the Great\nSea Monster towards which in turn flow the streams of the River\nEridanus. The equator, too, was then occupied along a great part of its\nlength by the great sea serpent Hydra, which reared its head above the\nequator, very probably indicated then by a water horizon, for nearly all\nthe signs below it were then watery. At any rate, as the length of Hydra\nthen lay horizontally above the Ship, whose masts reached it, we may\nwell believe that this part of the picture of the heavens showed a\nsea-horizon and a ship, the great sea serpent lying along the horizon.\nOn the back of Hydra is the Raven, which again may be supposed by those\nwho accept the theory mentioned above to have suggested the raven which\nwent forth to and fro from the ark. He is close enough to the rigging of\nArgo to make an easy journey of it. The dove, however, must not be\nconfounded with the modern constellation Columba, though this is placed\n(suitably enough) near the Ark. We must suppose the idea of the dove was\nsuggested by a bird pictured in the rigging of the celestial ship. The\nsequence in which the constellations came above the horizon as the year\nwent round corresponded very satisfactorily with the theory, fanciful\nthough this seem to some. First Aquarius pouring streams of water, the\nthree fishes (Pisces and Piscis australis), and the great sea monster\nCetus, showing how the waters prevailed over the highest hills, then the\nArk sailing on the waters, a little later the Raven (Corvus), the man\ndescending from the ark and offering a gift on the Altar, and last the\nBow set amid the clouds.\n\nThe theory just described may not meet with much favour. But wilder\ntheories of the story of the deluge have been adopted and advocated with\nconsiderable confidence. One of the wildest, I fear, is the\nAstronomer-Royal's, that the deluge was simply a great rising of the\nNile; and Sir G. Airy is so confident respecting this that he says, 'I\ncannot entertain the smallest doubt that the flood of Noah was a flood\nof the Nile;' precisely as he might say, 'I cannot entertain the\nsmallest doubt that the earth moves round the sun.' On one point we can\nentertain very little doubt indeed. If it ever rained before the flood,\nwhich seems probable, and if the sun ever shone on falling rain, which\nagain seems likely, nothing short of a miracle could have prevented the\nrainbow from making its appearance before the flood. The wildest theory\nthat can be invented to explain the story of the deluge cannot be\nwilder than the supposition that the rays of sunlight shining on falling\nraindrops could have ever failed to show the prismatic colours. The\ntheory I have suggested above, without going so far as strongly to\nadvocate it, far less insist upon it, is free at any rate from objection\non this particular score, which cannot be said of the ordinary theory. I\nam not yet able, however, to say that 'I cannot entertain the smallest\ndoubt' about my theory.\n\nWe may feel tolerably sure that the period when the old southern\nconstellations were formed must have been between 2400 and 2000 years\nbefore the present era, a period, by the way, including the date usually\nassigned to the deluge,--which, however, must really occupy our\nattention no further. In fact, let us leave the watery constellations\nlying below the equator of those remote times and seek at once the\nhighest heavens above them.\n\nHere, at the northern pole of these days, we find the great Dragon,\nwhich in any astrological temple of the time must have formed the\nhighest or crowning constellation, surrounding the very key-stone of the\ndome. He has fallen away from that proud position since. In fact, even\n4000 years ago he only held to the pole, so to speak, by his tail, and\nwe have to travel back 2000 years or so to find the pole situate in a\nportion of the length of the Dragon which can be regarded as central.\nOne might almost, if fancifully disposed, recognise the gradual\ndisplacement of the Dragon from his old place of honour, in certain\ntraditions of the downfall of the great Dragon whose 'tail drew the\nthird part of the stars of heaven.'\n\nThe central position of the Dragon, for even when the pole-star had\ndrawn near to the Dragon's tail the constellation was still central,\nwill remind the classical reader of Homer's description of the Shield of\nHercules--\n\n  The scaly horror of a dragon, coil'd\n  Full in the central field, unspeakable,\n  With eyes oblique retorted, that ascant\n  Shot gleaming fire. (_Elton's translation._)\n\nI say Homer's description, for I cannot understand how any one who\ncompares together the description of the Shield of Achilles in the Iliad\nand that of the Shield of Hercules in the fragmentary form in which we\nhave it, can doubt for a moment that both descriptions came from the\nsame hand. (The theory that Hesiod composed the latter poem can scarcely\nbe entertained by any scholar.) As I long since pointed out in my essay\n'A New Theory of Achilles' Shield' ('Light Science,' first series), no\npoet so inferior as actually to borrow Homer's words in part of the\ndescription of the Shield of Hercules could have written the other parts\nnot found in the Shield of Achilles. 'I cannot for my own part entertain\nthe slightest doubt'--that is to say, I think it altogether\nprobable--that Homer composed the lines supposed to describe the Shield\nof Hercules long before he introduced the description, pruned and\nstrengthened, into that particular part of the Iliad where it served his\npurpose best. And I have as little doubt that the original description,\nof which we only get fragments in either poem, related to something far\nmore important than a shield. The constellations are not suitable\nadornments for the shield of fighting man, even though he was under the\nspecial care of a celestial mother and had armour made for him by a\ncelestial smith. Yet we learn that Achilles' shield displayed--\n\n  The starry lights that heav'n's high convex crown'd\n  The Pleiads, Hyads, and the northern beam,\n  And great Orion's more refulgent beam,--\n  To which, around the cycle of the sky,\n  The bear revolving, points his golden eye,--\n  Still shines exalted.\n\nAnd so forth. The Shield of Hercules displayed at its centre the polar\nconstellation the Dragon. We read also that--\n\n  There was the knight of fair-hair'd Danae born,\n  Perseus.\n\nOrion is not specially mentioned, but Orion, Lepus, and the Dogs seem\nreferred to:--\n\n                                  Men of chase\n  Were taking the fleet hares; two keen-toothed dogs\n  Bounded beside.\n\nHomer would find no difficulty in pluralising the mighty Hunter and the\nhare into huntsmen and hares when utilising a description originally\nreferring to the constellation.\n\nI conceive that the original description related to one of those zodiac\ntemples whose remains are still found in Egypt, though the Egyptian\ntemples of this kind were probably only copies of more ancient Chaldaean\ntemples. We know from Assyrian sculptures that representations of the\nconstellations (and especially the zodiacal constellations) were common\namong the Babylonians; and, as I point out in the essay above referred\nto, 'it seems probable that in a country where Sabaeanism or star-worship\nwas the prevailing form of religion, yet more imposing proportions would\nbe given to zodiac temples than in Egypt.' My theory, then, respecting\nthe two famous 'Shields' is that Homer in his eastern travels visited\nimposing temples devoted to astronomical observation and star-worship,\nand that nearly every line in both descriptions is borrowed from a poem\nin which he described a temple of this sort, its domed zodiac, and those\nillustrations of the labours of different seasons and of military or\njudicial procedures which the astrological proclivities of\nstar-worshippers led them to associate with the different\nconstellations. For the arguments on which this theory is based I have\nnot here space. They are dealt with in the essay from which I have\nquoted.\n\nOne point only I need touch upon here, besides those I have mentioned\nalready. It may be objected that the description of a zodiac temple has\nnothing to connect it with the subject of the Iliad. This is certainly\ntrue; but no one who is familiar with Homer's manner can doubt that he\nwould work in, if he saw the opportunity, a poem on some subject outside\nthat of the Iliad, so modifying the language that the description would\ncorrespond with the subject in hand. There are many passages, though\nnone of such length, in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, which seem thus\nto have been brought into the poem; and other passages not exactly of\nthis kind yet show that Homer was not insensible to the advantage of\noccasionally using memory instead of invention.\n\nAny one who considers attentively the aspect of the constellation Draco\nin the heavens, will perceive that the drawing of the head in the maps\nis not correct; the head is no longer pictured as it must have been\nconceived by those who first formed the constellation. The two bright\nstars Beta and Gamma are now placed on a head in profile. Formerly they\nmarked the two eyes. I would not lay stress on the description of the\nDragon in the Shield of Hercules, 'with eyes oblique retorted, that\naskant shot gleaming fire;' for all readers may not be prepared to\naccept my opinion that that description related to the constellation\nDraco. But the description of the constellation itself by Aratus\nsuffices to show that the two bright stars I have named marked the eyes\nof the imagined monster--in fact, Aratus's account singularly resembles\nthat given in the Shield of Hercules. 'Swol'n is his neck,' says Aratus\nof the Dragon--\n\n          ... Eyes charg'd with sparkling fire\n  His crested head illume. As if in ire,\n  To Helice he turns his foaming jaw,\n  And darts his tongue, barb'd with a blazing star.\n\nAnd the dragon's head with sparkling eyes can be recognised to this day,\nso soon as this change is made in its configuration, whereas no one can\nrecognise the remotest resemblance to a dragon's head in profile. The\nstar barbing the Dragon's tongue would be Xi of the Dragon according to\nAratus's account, for so only would the eyes be turned towards Helice\nthe Bear. But when Aratus wrote, the practice of separating the\nconstellations from each other had been adopted; in fact, he derived his\nknowledge of them chiefly from Eudoxus, the astronomer and\nmathematician, who certainly would not have allowed the constellations\nto be intermixed. In the beginning, there are reasons for believing it\nwas different, and if a group of stars resembled any known object it\nwould be called after that object, even though some of the stars\nnecessary to make up the figure belonged already to some other figure.\nThis being remembered, we can have no difficulty in retorting the\nDragon's head more naturally--not to the star Xi of the Dragon, but to\nthe star Iota of Hercules. The four stars are situated thus,\n[Illustration] the larger ones representing the eyes; and so far as the\nhead is concerned it is a matter of indifference whether the lower or\nthe upper small star be taken to represent the tongue. But, as any one\nwill see who looks at these stars when the Dragon is best placed for\nordinary (non-telescopic) observation, the attitude of the animal is far\nmore natural when the star Iota of Hercules marks the tongue, for then\nthe creature is situated like a winged serpent hovering above the\nhorizon and looking downwards, whereas when the star Xi marks the\ntongue, the hovering Dragon is looking upwards and is in an unnaturally\nconstrained position. (I would not, indeed, claim to understand\nperfectly all the ways of dragons; still it may be assumed that a dragon\nhovering above the horizon would rather look downwards in a natural\nposition than upwards in an awkward one.)\n\nThe star Iota of Hercules marks the heel of this giant, called the\nKneeler (Engonasin) from time immemorial. He must have been an important\nfigure on the old zodiac temples, and not improbably his presence there\nas one of the largest and highest of the human figures may have caused a\nzodiac-dome to be named after Hercules. The Dome of Hercules would come\nnear enough to the title, 'The Shield of Hercules,' borne by the\nfragmentary poem dealt with above. The foot of the kneeling man was\nrepresented on the head of the dragon, the dragon having hold of the\nheel. And here, again, some imagine that a sculptured representation of\nthese imagined figures in the heavens may have been interpreted and\nexpanded into the narrative of a contest between the man and the old\nserpent the dragon, Ophiuchus the serpent-bearer being supposed to\ntypify the eventual defeat of the dragon. This fancy might be followed\nout like that relating to the deluge; but the present place would be\nunsuitable for further inquiries in that particular direction.\n\nSome interest attaches to the constellation Ophiuchus, to my mind, in\nthe evidence it affords respecting the way in which the constellations\nwere at first intermixed. I have mentioned one instance in which, as I\nthink, the later astronomers separated two constellations which had once\nbeen conjoined. Many others can be recognised when we compare the actual\nstar-groups with the constellation-figures as at present depicted. No\none can recognise the poop of a ship in the group of stars now assigned\nto the stern of Argo, but if we include the stars of the Greater Dog,\nand others close by, a well-shaped poop can be clearly seen. The head\nof the Lion of our maps is as the head of a dog, so far as stars are\nconcerned; but if stars from the Crab on one side and from Virgo on the\nother be included in the figure, and especially Berenice's hair to form\nthe tuft of the lion's tail, a very fine lion with waving mane can be\ndiscerned, with a slight effort of the imagination. So with Bootes the\nherdsman. He was of old 'a fine figure of a man,' waving aloft his arms,\nand, as his name implies, shouting lustily at the retreating bear. Now,\nand from some time certainly preceding that of Eudoxus, one arm has been\nlopped off to fashion the northern crown, and the herdsman holds his\nclub as close to his side as a soldier holds his shouldered musket. The\nconstellation of the Great Bear, once I conceive the only bear (though\nthe lesser bear is a very old constellation), has suffered wofully.\nOriginally it must have been a much larger bear, the stars now forming\nthe tail marking part of the outline of the back; but first some folks\nwho were unacquainted with the nature of bears turned the three stars\n(the horses of the plough) into a long tail, abstracting from the animal\nall the corresponding portion of his body, and then modern astronomers\nfinding a great vacant space where formerly the bear's large frame\nextended, incontinently formed the stars of this space into a new\nconstellation, the Hunting Dogs. No one can recognise a bear in the\nconstellation as at present shaped, but any one who looks attentively at\nthe part of the skies occupied by the constellation will recognise\n(always 'making believe a good deal') a monstrous bear, with the proper\nsmall head of creatures of the bear family, and with exceedingly\nwell-developed plantigrade feet. Of course this figure cannot at all\ntimes be recognised with equal facility; but before midnight during the\nlast four or five months in the year, the bear occupies positions\nfavouring his recognition, being either upright on his feet, or as if\ndescending a slope, or squatting on his great haunches. As a long-tailed\nanimal the creature is more like one of those wooden toy-monkeys which\nused to be made for children, and may be now, in which the sliding\nmotion of a ringed rod carried the monkey over the top of a stick. The\nlittle bear has I think been borrowed from the dragon, which was\ncertainly a winged monster originally.\n\nNow the astronomers who separated from each other, and in so doing\nspoiled the old constellation-figures, seem to have despaired of freeing\nOphiuchus from his entanglements. The Serpent is twined around his body,\nthe Scorpion is clawing at one leg. The constellation makers have _per\nfas et nefas_ separated Scorpio from the Serpent Holder, spoiling both\nfigures. But the Serpent has been too much for them, insomuch that they\nhave been reduced to the abject necessity of leaving one part of the\nSerpent on one side of the region they allow to Ophiuchus, and the other\npart of the Serpent to the other.\n\nA group of constellations whose origin and meaning are little understood\nremains to be mentioned. Close by the Dragon is King Cepheus, beside him\nhis wife Cassiopeia (the Seated Lady), near whom is Andromeda the\nChained Lady. The Sea Monster Cetus is not far away, though not near\nenough to threaten her safety, the Ram and Triangle being between the\nmonster's head and her feet, the Fishes intervening between the body of\nthe monster and her fair form. Close at hand is Perseus, the Rescuer,\nwith a sword (looking very much like a reaping-hook in all the old\npictures) in his right hand, and bearing in his left the head of Medusa.\nThe general way of accounting for the figures thus associated has been\nby supposing that, having a certain tradition about Cepheus and his\nfamily, men imagined in the heavens the pictorial representation of the\nevents of the tradition. I have long believed that the actual order in\nthis and other cases was the reverse of this, that men imagined certain\nfigures in the heavens, pictured these figures in their astronomical\ntemples or observatories, and made stories to fit the pictures\nafterwards, probably many generations afterwards. Be this as it may, we\ncan at present give no satisfactory explanation of the group of\nconstellations.\n\nWilford gives an account, in his 'Asiatic Researches,' of a conversation\nwith a pundit or astronomer respecting the names of the Indian\nconstellations. 'Asking him,' he says, 'to show me in the heavens the\nconstellation Antarmada, he immediately pointed to Andromeda, though I\nhad not given him any information about it beforehand. He afterwards\nbrought me a very rare and curious work in Sanscrit, which contained a\nchapter devoted to _Upanachatras_, or extra-zodiacal constellations,\nwith drawings of _Capuja_ (Cepheus) and of _Casyapi_ (Cassiopeia) seated\nand holding a lotus-flower in her hand, of Antarmada charmed with the\nFish beside her, and last of _Paraseia_ (Perseus), who, according to the\nexplanation of the book, held the head of a monster which he had slain\nin combat; blood was dropping from it, and for hair it had snakes.' Some\nhave inferred from the circumstance that the Indian charts thus showed\nthe Cassiopeian set of constellations, that the origin of these figures\nis to be sought in India. But probably both the Indian and the Greek\nconstellation-figures were derived from a much older source.\n\nThe zodiacal twelve are in some respects the most important and\ninteresting of all the ancient constellations. If we could determine the\norigin of these figures, their exact configuration as at first devised,\nand the precise influences assigned to them in the old astrological\nsystems, we should have obtained important evidence as to the origin of\nastronomy itself. Not indeed that the twelve signs of the zodiac were\nformed at the beginning or even in the early infancy of astronomy. It\nseems abundantly clear that the division of the zodiac (which includes\nthe moon's track as well as the sun's) had reference originally to the\nmoon's motions. She circuits the star-sphere in about twenty-seven days\nand a third, while the lunation or interval from new moon to new moon\nis, as we all know, about twenty-nine days and a half in length. It\nwould appear that the earliest astronomers, who were of course\nastrologers also, of all nations--the Indian, Egyptian, Chinese,\nPersian, and Chaldaean astronomers--adopted twenty-eight days (probably\nas a rough mean between the two periods just named) for their chief\nlunar period, and divided the moon's track round the ecliptic into\ntwenty-eight portions or mansions. How they managed about the fractions\nof days outstanding--whether the common lunation was considered or the\nmoon's motion round the star-sphere--is not known. The very\ncircumstance, however, that they were for a long time content with their\ntwenty-eight lunar mansions shows that they did not seek great precision\nat first. Doubtless they employed some rough system of 'leap-months' by\nwhich, as occasion required, the progress of the month was reconciled\nwith the progress of the moon, just as by our leap-years the progress of\nthe year is reconciled with the progress of the sun or seasons.\n\nThe use of the twenty-eight-day period naturally suggested the division\nof time into weeks of seven days each. The ordinary lunar month is\ndivided in a very obvious manner into four equal parts by the lunar\naspects. Every one can recognise roughly the time of full moon and the\ntimes of half moon before and after full, while the time of new moon is\nrecognised from these two last epochs. Thus the four quarters of the\nmonth, or roughly the four weeks of the month, would be the first\ntime-measure thought of;--after the day, which is the necessary\nfoundation of all time measures. The nearest approach which can be made\nto a quarter-month in days is the week of seven days; and although some\nlittle awkwardness arose from the fact that four weeks differ\nappreciably from a lunar month, this would not long prevent the adoption\nof the week as a measure of time. In fact, just as our years begin on\ndifferent days of the week without causing any inconvenience, so the\nancient months might be made to begin with different week-days. All that\nwould be necessary to make the week measure fairly well the quarters of\nthe month, would be to start each month on the proper or nearest\nweek-day. To inform people about this, some ceremony could be appointed\nfor the day of the new moon, and some signal employed to indicate the\ntime when this ceremony was to take place. This--the natural and obvious\ncourse--we find was the means actually adopted, the festival of the new\nmoon and the blowing of trumpets in the new moon being an essential part\nof the arrangements adopted by nations who used the week as a chief\nmeasure of time. The seven days were not affected by the new moons so\nfar as the nomenclature of these days, or special duties connected with\nany one of them, might be concerned.\n\nOriginally the idea may have been to have festivals and sacrifices at\nthe time of new moon, first quarter, full moon, and third quarter; but\nthis arrangement would naturally (and did, as we know, actually) give\nway before long to a new moon festival regulating the month and\nseventh-day festivals, each class of festival having its appropriate\nsacrifices and duties. This, I say, was the natural course. Its adoption\n_may_ have been aided by the recognition of the fact that the seven\nplanets of the old system of astronomy might conveniently be taken to\nrule the days and the hours in the way described in the essay on\nastrology. That that nomenclature and that system of association between\nthe planets and the hours, days, and weeks of time-measurement was\neventually adopted, is certain; but whether the convenience and apparent\nmystical fitness of this arrangement led to the use of weekly festivals\nin conjunction with monthly ones, or whether those weekly festivals were\nfirst adopted in the way described above, or whether (which seems\naltogether more likely) both sets of considerations led to the\narrangement, we cannot certainly tell. The arrangement was in every way\na natural one; and one may say, considering all the circumstances, that\nit was almost an inevitable one.\n\nThere was, however, another possible arrangement, viz., the division of\ntime into ten-day periods, three to each month, with corresponding new\nmoon festivals. But as the arrival of the moon at the _thirds_ of her\nprogress are not at all so well marked as her arrival at the quarters,\nand as there is no connection between the number ten and the planets,\nthis arrangement was far less likely to be adopted than the other.\nAccordingly we find that only one or two nations adopted it. Six sets of\nfive days would be practically the same arrangement; five sets of six\nfor each month would scarcely be thought of, as with that division the\nuse of simple direct observations of the moon for time measurement,\nwhich was the real aim of all such divisions, would not be convenient or\nindeed even possible for the generality of persons. Few could tell\neasily when the moon is two-fifths or four-fifths full, whereas every\none can tell when she is half-full or quite full (the requisite for\nweekly measurement); and it would be possible to guess pretty nearly\nwhen she is one-third or two-thirds full, the requisite for the\ntridecennial division.\n\nMy object in the above discussion of the origin of the week (as\ndistinguished from the origin of the Sabbath, which I considered in the\nessay on astrology), has been to show that the use of the twelve\nzodiacal signs was in every case preceded by the use of the twenty-eight\nlunar mansions. It has been supposed that those nations in whose\nastronomy the twenty-eight mansions still appear, adopted one system,\nwhile the use of the twelve signs implies that another system had been\nadopted. Thus the following passage occurs in Mr. Blake's version of\nFlammarion's 'History of the Heavens:'--'the Chinese have twenty-eight\nconstellations, though the word _sion_ does not mean a group of stars,\nbut simply a mansion or hotel. In the Coptic and ancient Egyptian the\nword for constellations has the same meaning. They also have\ntwenty-eight, and the same number is found among the Arabians, Persians,\nand Indians. Among the Chaldaeans or Accadians we find no sign of the\nnumber twenty-eight. The ecliptic, or \"yoke of the sky,\" with them, as\nwe see in the newly-discovered tablet, was divided into twelve\ndivisions, as now, and the only connection that can be imagined between\nthis and the twenty-eight is the opinion of M. Biot, who thinks that the\nChinese had originally only twenty-four mansions, four more being added\nby Chenkung, 1100 B.C., and that they corresponded with the twenty-four\nstars, twelve to the north and twelve to the south, that marked the\ntwelve signs of the zodiac amongst the Chaldaeans. But under this\nsupposition the twenty-eight has no reference to the moon, whereas we\nhave every reason to believe it has.' The last observation is\nundoubtedly correct--the twenty-eight mansions have been mansions of the\nmoon from the beginning. But in this very circumstance, as also in the\nvery tablets referred to in the preceding passage, we find all the\nevidence needed to show that originally the Chaldaeans divided the\nzodiac into twenty-eight parts. For we find from the tablets that, like\nthe other nations who had twenty-eight zodiacal mansions, the Chaldaeans\nused a seven-day period, derived from the moon's motions, every seventh\nday being called _sabbatu_, and held as a day of rest. We may safely\ninfer that the Chaldaean astronomers, advancing beyond those of other\nnations, recognised the necessity of dividing the zodiac with reference\nto the sun's motions instead of the moon's. They therefore discarded the\ntwenty-eight lunar mansions, and adopted instead twelve solar signs;\nthis number twelve, like the number twenty-eight itself, being selected\nmerely as the most convenient approximation to the number of parts into\nwhich the zodiac was naturally divided by another period. Thus the\ntwenty-eighth part of the zodiac corresponds roughly with the moon's\ndaily motion, and the twelfth part of the zodiac corresponds roughly\nwith the moon's monthly motion; and both the numbers twenty-eight and\ntwelve admit of being subdivided, while twenty-nine (a nearer approach\nthan twenty-eight to the number of days in a lunation) and thirteen\n(almost as near an approach as twelve to the number of months in a year)\ndo not.\n\nIt seems to me highly probable that the date to which all inquiries into\nthe origin of the constellations and the zodiacal signs seems to\npoint--viz. 2170 B.C.--was the date at which the Chaldaean astronomers\ndefinitely adopted the new system, the lunisolar instead of lunar\ndivision of the zodiac and of time. One of the objects which the\narchitects of the Great Pyramid (not the king who built it) may have had\nwas not improbably this--the erection of a building indicating the epoch\nwhen the new system was entered upon, and defining in its proportions,\nits interior passages, and other features, fundamental elements of the\nnew system. The great difficulty, an overwhelming difficulty it has\nalways seemed to me, in accepting the belief that the year 2170 B.C.\ndefined the beginning of exact astronomy, has been this, that several of\nthe circumstances insisted upon as determining that date imply a\nconsiderable knowledge of astronomy. Thus astronomers must have made\ngreat progress in their science before they could select as a day for\ncounting from, the epoch when the slow reeling motion of the earth (the\nso-called precessional motion) brought the Pleiades centrally south, at\nnoon, at the time of the vernal equinox. The construction of the Great\nPyramid, again, in all its astronomical features, implies considerable\nproficiency in astronomical observation. Thus the year 2170 B.C. may\nvery well be regarded as defining the introduction of a new system of\nastronomy, but certainly not the beginning of astronomy itself. Of\ncourse we may cut the knot of this difficulty, as Prof. Smyth and Abbe\nMoigno do, by saying that astronomy began 2170 B.C., the first\nastronomers being instructed supernaturally, so that the astronomical\nMinerva came into full-grown being. But I apprehend that argument\nagainst such a belief is as unnecessary as it would certainly be\nuseless.\n\nAnd now let us consider how this theory accords with the result to which\nwe were led by the position of the great vacant space around the\nsouthern pole. So far as the date is concerned, we have already seen\nthat the epoch 2170 B.C. accords excellently with the evidence of the\nvacant space. But this evidence, as I mentioned at the outset,\nestablishes more than the date; it indicates the latitude of the place\nwhere the most ancient of Ptolemy's forty-eight constellations were\nfirst definitely adopted by astronomers. If we assume that at this place\nthe southernmost constellations were just fully seen when due south, we\nfind for the latitude about thirty-eight degrees north. (The student of\nastronomy who may care to test my results may be reminded here that it\nis not enough to show that every star of a constellation would when due\nsouth be above the horizon of the place--what is wanted is, that the\nwhole constellation when towards the south should be visible at a single\nview. However, the whole constellation may not have included all the\nstars now belonging to it.) The station of the astronomers who founded\nthe new system can scarcely have been more than a degree or two north of\nthis latitude. On the other side, we may go a little further, for by so\ndoing we only raise the constellations somewhat higher above the\nsouthern horizon, to which there is less objection than to a change\nthrusting part of the constellations below the horizon. Still it may be\ndoubted whether the place where the constellations were first formed was\nless than 32 or 33 degrees north of the equator. The Great Pyramid, as\nwe know, is about 30 degrees north of the equator; but we also know that\nits architects travelled southwards to find a suitable place for it. One\nof their objects may well have been to obtain a fuller view of the\nstar-sphere south of their constellations. I think from 35 to 39 degrees\nnorth would be about the most probable limits, and from 32 to 41 degrees\nnorth the certain limits of the station of the first founders of solar\nzodiacal astronomy.\n\nWhat their actual station may have been is not so easily established.\nSome think the region lay between the sources of the Oxus (Amoor) and\nIndus, others that the station of these astronomers was not very far\nfrom Mount Ararat--a view to which I was led long ago by other\nconsiderations discussed in the first appendix to my treatise on 'Saturn\nand its System.'\n\nAt the epoch indicated, the first constellation of the zodiac was not,\nas now, the Fishes, nor, as when a fresh departure was made by\nHipparchus, the Ram, but the Bull, a trace of which is found in Virgil's\nwords--\n\n  Candidus auratis aperit cum cornibus annum Taurus.\n\nThe Bull then was the spring sign, the Pleiades and ruddy Aldebaran\njoining their rays with the sun's at the time of the vernal equinox. The\nmidsummer sign was the Lion (the bright Cor Leonis nearly marking the\nsun's highest place). The autumn sign was the Scorpion, the ruddy\nAntares and the stars clustering in the head of the Scorpion joining\ntheir rays with the sun's at the time of the autumnal equinox. And\nlastly the winter sign was the Water Bearer, the bright Fomalhaut\nconjoining his rays with the sun's at midwinter. It is noteworthy that\nall these four constellations really present some resemblance to the\nobjects after which they are named. The Scorpion is in the best drawing,\nbut the Bull's head is well marked, and, as already mentioned, a leaping\nlion can be recognised. The streams of stars from the Urn of Aquarius\nand the Urn itself are much better defined than the Urn Bearer.\n\nI have not left myself much space to speak of the finest of all the\nconstellations, the glorious Orion--the Giant in his might, as he was\ncalled of old. In this noble asterism the figure of a giant ascending a\nslope can be readily discerned when the constellation is due south. At\nthe time to which I have referred the constellation Orion was\nconsiderably below the equator, and instead of standing nearly upright\nwhen due south high above the horizon, as now in our northern latitudes,\nhe rose upright above the south-eastern horizon. The resemblance to a\ngiant figure must then have been even more striking than it is at\npresent (except in high northern latitudes, where Orion, when due south,\nis just fully above the horizon). The giant Orion has long been\nidentified with Nimrod; and those who recognise the antitypes of the Ark\nin Argo, of the old dragon in Draco, and of the first and second Adams\nin the kneeling Hercules defeated by the serpent and the upright\nOphiuchus triumphant over the serpent, may, if they so please, find in\nthe giant Orion, the Two Dogs, the Hare, and the Bull (whom Orion is\nmore directly dealing with), the representations of Nimrod, that mighty\nhunter before the Lord, his hunting dogs, and the animals he hunted.\nPegasus, formerly called the Horse, was regarded in very ancient times\nas the Steed of Nimrod.\n\nIn modern astronomy the constellations no longer have the importance\nwhich once attached to them. They afford convenient means for naming the\nstars, though I think many observers would prefer the less attractive\nbut more business-like methods adopted by Piazzi and others, according\nto which a star rejoices in no more striking title than 'Piazzi XIIIh.\n273,' or 'Struve, 2819.' They still serve, however, to teach beginners\nthe stars, and probably many years will pass before even exact astronomy\ndismisses them altogether to the limbo of discarded symbolisms. It is,\nindeed, somewhat singular that astronomers find it easier to introduce\nnew absurdities among the constellations than to get rid of these old\nones. The new and utterly absurd figures introduced by Bode still remain\nin many charts despite such inconvenient names as _Honores Frederici_,\n_Globum AErostaticum_ and _Machina Pneumatica_; and I have very little\ndoubt that a new constellation, if it only had a specially inconvenient\ntitle, would be accepted. But when Francis Baily tried to simplify the\nheavens by removing many of Bode's absurd constellations, he was abused\nby many as violently as though he had proposed the rejection of the\nNewtonian system. I myself tried a small measure of reform in the three\nfirst editions of my 'Library Atlas,' but have found it desirable to\nreturn to the old nomenclature in the fourth.\n\n  THE END.\n\n_Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n\n_Edinburgh and London_\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] These reflections were suggested to Tacitus by the conduct of\nThrasyllus (chief astrologer of the Emperor Tiberius), when his skill\nwas tested by his imperial employer after a manner characteristic of\nthat agreeable monarch. The story runs thus (I follow Whewell's\nversion): 'Those who were brought to Tiberius on any important matter,\nwere admitted to an interview in an apartment situated on a lofty cliff\nin the island of Capreae. They reached this place by a narrow path,\naccompanied by a single freedman of great bodily strength; and on their\nreturn, if the emperor had conceived any doubts of their\ntrustworthiness, a single blow buried the secret and its victim in the\nocean below. After Thrasyllus had, in this retreat, stated the results\nof his art as they concerned the emperor, Tiberius asked him whether he\nhad calculated how long he himself had to live. The astrologer examined\nthe aspect of the stars, and while he did this showed hesitation, alarm,\nincreasing terror, and at last declared that \"The present hour was for\nhim critical, perhaps fatal.\" Tiberius embraced him, and told him \"he\nwas right in supposing he had been in danger, but that he should escape\nit,\" and made him henceforward his confidential counsellor.' It is\nevident, assuming the story to be true (as seems sufficiently probable),\nthat the emperor was no match for the charlatan in craft. It was a\nnatural thought on the former's part to test the skill of his astrologer\nby laying for him a trap such as the story indicates--a thought so\nnatural, indeed, that it probably occurred to Thrasyllus himself long\nbefore Tiberius put the plan into practice. Even if Thrasyllus had not\nbeen already on the watch for such a trick, he would have been but a\npoor trickster himself if he had not detected it the moment it was\nattempted, or failed to see the sole safe course which was left open to\nhim. Probably, with a man of the temper of Tiberius, such a\ncounter-trick as Galeotti's in _Quentin Durward_ would have been unsafe.\n\n[2] The belief in the influence of the stars and the planets on the\nfortunes of the new-born child was still rife when Shakespeare made\nGlendower boast:\n\n\n              At my nativity\n  The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes\n  Of burning cressets; know, that at my birth\n  The frame and huge foundation of the earth\n  Shook like a coward.\n\nAnd Shakespeare showed himself dangerously tainted with freethought in\nassigning (even to the fiery Hotspur) the reply:\n\n              So it would have done\n  At the same season, if your mother's cat\n  Had kittened, though yourself had ne'er been born.\n\nIn a similar vein Butler, in _Hudibras_ ridiculed the folly of those who\nbelieve in horoscopes and nativities:\n\n  As if the planet's first aspect\n  The tender infant did infect\n  In soul and body, and instil\n  All future good and future ill;\n  Which in their dark fatalities lurking,\n  At destined periods fall a-working,\n  And break out, like the hidden seeds\n  Of long diseases, into deeds,\n  In friendships, enmities, and strife.\n  And all th' emergencies of life.\n\n\n\n[3] Preface to the _Rudolphine Tables_.\n\n[4] It is commonly stated that Bacon opposed the Copernican theory\nbecause he disliked Gilbert, who had advocated it. 'Bacon,' says one of\nhis editors, 'was too jealous of Gilbert to entertain one moment any\ndoctrine that he advanced.' But, apart from the incredible littleness of\nmind which this explanation imputes to Bacon, it would also have been an\nincredible piece of folly on Bacon's part to advocate an inferior theory\nwhile a rival was left to support a better theory. Bacon saw clearly\nenough that men were on their way to the discovery of the true theory,\nand, so far as in him lay, he indicated how they should proceed in order\nmost readily to reach the truth. It must, then, have been from\nconviction, not out of mere contradiction, that Bacon declared himself\nin favour of the Ptolemaic system. In fact, he speaks of the diurnal\nmotion of the earth as 'an opinion which we can demonstrate to be most\nfalse;' doubtless having in his thoughts some such arguments as misled\nTycho Brahe.\n\n[5] To Bacon's theological contemporaries this must have seemed a\ndreadful heresy, and possibly in our own days the assertion would be\njudged scarcely less harshly, seeing that the observance of the\n(so-called) Sabbath depends directly upon the belief in quite another\norigin of the week. Yet there can be little question that the week\nreally had its origin in astrological formulae.\n\n[6] In Bohn's edition the word 'defective' is here used, entirely\nchanging the meaning of the sentence. Bacon registers an _Astrologia\nSana_ amongst the things needed for the advancement of learning, whereas\nhe is made to say that such an astrology must be registered as\ndefective.\n\n[7] The astrologers were exceedingly ingenious in showing that their art\nhad given warning of the great plague and fire of London. Thus, the star\nwhich marks the Bull's northern horn--and which is described by Ptolemy\nas like Mars--was, they say, exactly in that part of the sign Gemini\nwhich is the ascendant of London, in 1666. Lilly, however, for whom they\nclaim the credit of predicting the year of this calamity, laid no claim\nhimself to that achievement; nay, specially denied that he knew when the\nfire was to happen. The story is rather curious. In 1651 Lilly had\npublished his _Monarchy or no Monarchy_, which contained a number of\ncurious hieroglyphics. Amongst these were two (see frontispiece) which\nappeared to portend plague and fire respectively. The hieroglyphic of\nthe plague represents three dead bodies wrapped in death-clothes, and\nfor these bodies two coffins lie ready and two graves are being dug;\nwhence it was to be inferred that the number of deaths would exceed the\nsupply of coffins and graves. The hieroglyphic of the fire represents\nseveral persons, gentlefolk on one side and commonfolk on the other,\nemptying water vessels on a furious fire into which two children are\nfalling headlong. The occurrence of the plague in 1665 attracted no\nspecial notice to Lilly's supposed prediction of that event, though\nprobably many talked of the coincidence as remarkable. But when in 1666\nthe great fire occurred, the House of Commons summoned Lilly to attend\nthe committee appointed to enquire into the cause of the fire. 'At two\nof the clock on Friday, the 25th of October 1666,' he attended in the\nSpeaker's chamber, 'to answer such questions as should then and there be\nasked him.' Sir Robert Brooke spoke to this effect: 'Mr. Lilly, this\ncommittee thought fit to summon you to appear before them this day, to\nknow if you can say anything as to the cause of the late fire, or\nwhether there might be any design therein. You are called the rather\nhither, because in a book of yours long since printed, you hinted some\nsuch thing by one of your hieroglyphics.' Unto which he replied: 'May it\nplease your honours, after the beheading of the late king, considering\nthat in the three subsequent years the Parliament acted nothing which\nconcerned the settlement of the nation's peace, and seeing the\ngenerality of the people dissatisfied, the citizens of London\ndiscontented, and the soldiery prone to mutiny, I was desirous,\naccording to the best knowledge God had given me, to make enquiry by the\nart I studied, what might, from that time, happen unto the Parliament\nand nation in general. At last, having satisfied myself as well as I\ncould, and perfected my judgment therein, I thought it most convenient\nto signify my intentions and conceptions thereof in forms, shapes,\ntypes, hieroglyphics, etc., without any commentary, that so my judgment\nmight be concealed from the vulgar, and made manifest only unto the\nwise; I herein imitating the examples of many wise philosophers who had\ndone the like. Having found, sir, that the great city of London should\nbe sadly afflicted with a great plague, and not long after with an\nexorbitant fire, I framed these two hieroglyphics, as represented in the\nbook, which in effect have proved very true.' 'Did you foresee the\nyear?' said one. 'I did not,' said Lilly; 'nor was desirous; of that I\nmade no scrutiny. Now, sir, whether there was any design of burning the\ncity, or any employed to that purpose, I must deal ingenuously with you,\nthat since the fire I have taken much pains in the search thereof, but\ncannot or could not give myself the least satisfaction therein. I\nconclude that it was the finger of God only; but what instruments He\nused thereunto I am ignorant.'\n\n[8] Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheek were evidently not well\ntaught in astrology. 'Shall we set about some revels?' says the latter.\n'What shall we do else?' says Toby; 'were we not born under Taurus?'\n'Taurus, that's sides and heart,' says sapient Andrew. 'No, sir,'\nresponds Toby, 'it's legs and thighs. Let me see thee caper.'\n\n[9] 'This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick\nin fortune (often the surfeit of our own behaviour), we make guilty of\nour disasters the sun, moon, and stars: as if we were villains on\nnecessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and\ntreacherous by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers,\nby inforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are, evil,\nby a divine thrusting on.'--SHAKESPEARE (_King Lear_).\n\n[10] There are few things more remarkable, or to reasoning minds more\ninexplicable, than the readiness with which men undertook in old times,\nand even now undertake, to interpret omens and assign prophetic\nsignificance to casual events. One can understand that foolish persons\nshould believe in omens, and act upon the ideas suggested by their\nsuperstitions. The difficulty is to comprehend how these superstitions\ncame into existence. For instance, who first conceived the idea that a\nparticular line in the palm of the hand is the line of life; and what\ncan possibly have suggested so absurd a notion? To whom did the thought\nfirst present itself that the pips on playing-cards are significant of\nfuture events; and why did he think so? How did the 'grounds' of a\nteacup come to acquire that deep significance which they now possess for\nMrs. Gamp and Betsy Prig? If the believers in these absurdities be asked\n_why_ they believe, they answer readily enough either that they\nthemselves or their friends have known remarkable fulfilments of the\nominous indications of cards or tea-dregs, which must of necessity be\nthe case where millions of forecasts are daily made by these instructive\nmethods. But the persons who first invented those means of divination\ncan have had no such reasons. They must have possessed imaginations of\nsingular liveliness and not wanting in ingenuity. It is a pity that we\nknow so little of them.\n\n[11] Wellington lived too long for the astrologers, his death within the\nyear having unfortunately been predicted by them many times during the\nlast fifteen years of his life. Some astrologers were more cautious,\nhowever. I have before me his horoscope, carefully calculated, _secundum\nartem_, by Raphael in 1828, with results 'sufficiently evincing the\nsurprising verity and singular accuracy of astrological calculations,\nwhen founded on the correct time of birth, and mathematically\ncalculated. I have chosen,' he proceeds, 'the nativity of this\nillustrious native, in preference to others, as the subject is now\nliving, and, consequently, all possibility of making up any fictitious\nhoroscope is at once set aside; thus affording me a most powerful shield\nagainst the insidious representations of the envious and ignorant\ntraducer of my sublime science.' By some strange oversight, however,\nRaphael omits to mention anything respecting the future fortunes of\nWellington, showing only how wonderfully Wellington's past career had\ncorresponded with his horoscope.\n\n[12] 'I have still observed,' says an old author, 'that your right\nMartialist doth seldom exceed in height, or be at the most above a yard\nor a yard and a half in height' (which is surely stint measure). 'It\nhath been always thus,' said that right Martialist Sir Geoffrey Hudson\nto Julian Peveril; 'and in the history of all ages, the clean tight\ndapper little fellow hath proved an overmatch for his burly antagonist.\nI need only instance, out of Holy Writ, the celebrated downfall of\nGoliath and of another lubbard, who had more fingers in his hand, and\nmore inches to his stature, than ought to belong to an honest man, and\nwho was slain by a nephew of good King David; and of many others whom I\ndo not remember; nevertheless, they were all Philistines of gigantic\nstature. In the classics, also, you have Tydeus, and other tight compact\nheroes, whose diminutive bodies were the abode of large minds.'\n\n[13] It is likely that Swedenborg in his youth studied astrology, for in\nhis visions the Mercurial folk have this desire of knowledge as their\ndistinguishing characteristic.\n\n[14] It is singular that, when there is this perfectly simple\nexplanation of the origin of the nomenclature of the days of the week,\nan explanation given by ancient historians and generally received,\nWhewell should have stated that 'various accounts are given, all the\nmethods proceeding upon certain arbitrary arithmetical processes\nconnected in some way with astrological views.' Speaking of the\narrangement of the planets in the order of their supposed distances, and\nof the order in which the planets appear in the days of the week, he\nsays, 'It would be difficult to determine with certainty why the former\norder was adopted, and how and why the latter was derived from it.' But,\nin reality, there is no difficulty about either point. The former\narrangement corresponded precisely with the periodic times of the seven\nplanets of the old Egyptian system (unquestionably far more ancient than\nthe system adopted by the Greeks), while the latter springs directly\nfrom the former. Assign to the hours of the day, successively, the seven\nplanets in the former order, continuing the sequence without\ninterruption day after day, and in the course of seven days each one of\nthe planets will have ruled the first hour of a day, in the\norder,--Saturn, the sun, the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Venus.\nWhat arbitrary arithmetical process there is in this it would be\ndifficult to conceive. Arithmetic does not rule the method at all. Nor\nhas any other method ever been suggested; though this method has been\npresented in several ways, some arithmetical and some geometrical. We\nneed then have no difficulty in understanding what seems so perplexing\nto Whewell, the universality, namely, of the notions 'which have\nproduced this result,' for the notions were not fantastic, but such as\nnaturally sprang from the ideas on which astrology itself depends.\n\n[15] The following remarks by the Astronomer-Royal on this subject seem\nto me just, in the main. They accord with what I had said earlier in my\nessay on Saturn and the Sabbath of the Jews ('Our Place among\nInfinities,' 11th essay). 'The importance which Moses attached to it\n[the hebdomadal rest] is evident; and, with all reverence, I recognise\nto the utmost degree the justice of his views. No direction was given\nfor religious ceremonial' (he seems to have overlooked Numbers xxviii.\n9, and cognate passages), 'but it was probably seen that the health\ngiven to the mind by a rest from ordinary cares, and by the opportunity\nof meditation, could not fail to have a most beneficial religious\neffect. But, to give sanction to this precept, the authority of at least\na myth was requisite. I believe it was simply for this reason that the\nmyth of the six days of creation was preserved. It is expressly cited in\nthe first delivery of the commandments, as the solemn authority (Exodus\nxxxi. 17) for the command. It is remarkable that at the second mention\nof the commandment (Deuteronomy v.) no reference is made to the\ncreation; perhaps, after the complete establishment of Jehovistic ideas\nin the minds of the Israelites, they had nearly lost the recollection of\nthe Elohistic account, and it was not thought desirable to refer to it'\n(Airy, 'On the Early Hebrew Scriptures,' p. 17). It must be regarded as\na singular instance of the persistency of myths, if this view be\ncorrect, that a myth which had become obsolete for the Jews between the\ntime of Moses and that of the writer (whoever he may have been) who\nproduced the so-called Mosaic book of Deuteronomy, should thereafter\nhave been revived, and have come to be regarded by the Jews themselves\nand by Christians as the Word of God.\n\n[16] Of course it may be argued that nothing in the world is the result\nof _mere_ accident, and some may assert that even matters which are\ncommonly regarded as entirely casual have been specially designed. It\nwould not be easy to draw the precise line dividing events which all men\nwould regard as to all intents and purposes accidental from those which\nsome men would regard as results of special providence. But common sense\ndraws a sufficient distinction, at least for our present purpose.\n\n[17] This star, called _Thuban_ from the Arabian _al-Thuban_, the\nDragon, is now not very bright, being rated at barely above the fourth\nmagnitude, but it was formerly the brightest star of the constellation,\nas its name indicates. Bayer also assigned to it the first letter of the\nGreek alphabet; though this is not absolutely decisive evidence that so\nlate as his day it retained its superiority over the second magnitude\nstars to which Bayer assigned the second and third Greek letters. In the\nyear 2790 B.C., or thereabouts, the star was at its nearest to the true\nnorth pole of the heavens, the diameter of the little circle in which it\nthen moved being considerably less than one-fourth the apparent diameter\nof the moon. At that time the star must have seemed to all ordinary\nobservation an absolutely fixed centre, round which all the other stars\nrevolved. At the time when the pyramid was built this star was about\nsixty times farther removed from the true pole, revolving in a circle\nwhose apparent diameter was about seven times as great as the moon's.\nYet it would still be regarded as a very useful pole-star, especially as\nthere are very few conspicuous stars in the neighbourhood.\n\n[18] Even that skilful astronomer Hipparchus, who may be justly called\nthe father of observational astronomy, overlooked this peculiarity,\nwhich Ptolemy would seem to have been the first to recognise.\n\n[19] It would only be by a lucky accident, of course, that the direction\nof the slant tunnel's axis and that of the vertical from the selected\ncentral point would lie in the same vertical plane. The object of the\ntunnelling would, in fact, be to determine how far apart the vertical\nplanes through these points lay, and the odds would be great against the\nresult proving to be zero.\n\n[20] It may, perhaps, occur to the reader to inquire what diameter of\nthe earth, supposed to be a perfect sphere, would be derived from a\ndegree of latitude measured with absolute accuracy near latitude 30 deg.\nA degree of latitude measured in polar regions would indicate a diameter\ngreater even than the equatorial; one measured in equatorial regions\nwould indicate a diameter less even than the polar. Near latitude 30 deg.\nthe measurement of a degree of latitude would indicate a diameter very\nnearly equal to the true polar diameter of the earth. In fact, if it\ncould be proved that the builders of the pyramid used for their unit of\nlength an exact subdivision of the polar diameter, the inference would\nbe that, while the coincidence itself was merely accidental, their\nmeasurement of a degree of latitude in their own country had been\nsingularly accurate. By an approximate calculation I find that, taking\nthe earth's compression at 1-300, the diameter of the earth, estimated\nfrom the accurate measurement of a degree of latitude in the\nneighbourhood of the great pyramid, would have made the sacred\ncubit--taken at one 20,000,000th of the diameter--equal to 24.98 British\ninches; a closer approximation than Professor Smyth's to the estimated\nmean probable value of the sacred cubit.\n\n[21] It is, however, almost impossible to mark any limits to what may be\nregarded as evidence of design by a coincidence-hunter. I quote the\nfollowing from the late Professor De Morgan's _Budget of Paradoxes_.\nHaving mentioned that 7 occurs less frequently than any other digit in\nthe number expressing the ratio of circumference to diameter of a\ncircle, he proceeds: 'A correspondent of my friend Piazzi Smyth notices\nthat 3 is the number of most frequency, and that 3-1/7 is the nearest\napproximation to it in simple digits. Professor Smyth, whose work on\nEgypt is paradox of a very high order, backed by a great quantity of\nuseful labour, the results of which will be made available by those who\ndo not receive the paradoxes, is inclined to see confirmation for some\nof his theory in these phenomena.' In passing, I may mention as the most\nsingular of these accidental digit relations which I have yet noticed,\nthat in the first 110 digits of the square root of 2, the number 7\noccurs more than twice as often as either 5 or 9, which each occur eight\ntimes, 1 and 2 occurring each nine times, and 7 occurring no less than\neighteen times.\n\n[22] I have substituted this value in the article 'Astronomy,' of the\n_British Encyclopaedia_, for the estimate formerly used, viz. 95,233,055\nmiles. But there is good reason for believing that the actual distance\nis nearly 92,000,000 miles.\n\n[23] It may be matched by other coincidences as remarkable and as little\nthe result of the operation of any natural law. For instance, the\nfollowing strange relation, introducing the dimensions of the sun\nhimself, nowhere, so far as I have yet seen, introduced among pyramid\nrelations, even by pyramidalists: 'If the plane of the ecliptic were a\ntrue surface, and the sun were to commence rolling along that surface\ntowards the part of the earth's orbit where she is at her mean distance,\nwhile the earth commenced rolling upon the sun (round one of his great\ncircles), each globe turning round in the same time,--then, by the time\nthe earth had rolled its way once round the sun, the sun would have\nalmost exactly reached the earth's orbit. This is only another way of\nsaying that the sun's diameter exceeds the earth's in almost exactly the\nsame degree that the sun's distance exceeds the sun's diameter.'\n\n[24] It has been remarked that, though Hipparchus had the enormous\nadvantage of being able to compare his own observations with those\nrecorded by the Chaldaeans, he estimated the length of the year less\ncorrectly than the Chaldaeans. It has been thought by some that the\nChaldaeans were acquainted with the true system of the universe, but I do\nnot know that there are sufficient grounds for this supposition.\nDiodorus Siculus and Apollonius Myndius mention, however, that they were\nable to predict the return of comets, and this implies that their\nobservations had been continued for many centuries with great care and\nexactness.\n\n[25] The language of the modern Zadkiels and Raphaels, though\nmeaningless and absurd in itself, yet, as assuredly derived from the\nastrology of the oldest times, may here be quoted. (It certainly was not\ninvented to give support to the theory I am at present advocating.) Thus\nruns the jargon of the tribe: 'In order to illustrate plainly to the\nreader what astrologers mean by the \"houses of heaven,\" it is proper for\nhim to bear in mind the four cardinal points. The eastern, facing the\nrising sun, has at its centre the first grand angle or first house,\ntermed the Horoscope or ascendant. The northern, opposite the region\nwhere the sun is at midnight, or the _cusp_ of the lower heaven or\nnadir, is the Imum Coeli, and has at its centre the fourth house. The\nwestern, facing the setting sun, has at its centre the third grand angle\nor seventh house or descendant. And lastly, the southern, facing the\nnoonday sun, has at its centre the astrologer's tenth house, or\nMid-heaven, the most powerful angle or house of honour.' 'And although,'\nproceeds the modern astrologer, 'we cannot in the ethereal blue discern\nthese lines or terminating divisions, both reason and experience assure\nus that they certainly exist; therefore the astrologer has certain\ngrounds for the choice of his four angular houses' (out of twelve in\nall) 'which, resembling the palpable demonstration they afford, are in\nthe astral science esteemed the most powerful of the whole. '--Raphael's\n_Manual of Astrology_.\n\n[26] Arabian writers give the following account of Egyptian progress in\nastrology and the mystical arts: Nacrawasch, the progenitor of Misraim,\nwas the first Egyptian prince, and the first of the magicians who\nexcelled in astrology and enchantment. Retiring into Egypt with his\nfamily of eighty persons, he built Essous, the most ancient city of\nEgypt, and commenced the first dynasty of Misraimitish princes, who\nexcelled as cabalists, diviners, and in the mystic arts generally. The\nmost celebrated of the race were Naerasch, who first represented by\nimages the twelve signs of the zodiac; Gharnak, who openly described the\narts before kept secret; Hersall, who first worshipped idols; Sehlouk,\nwho worshipped the sun; Saurid (King Saurid of Ibn Abd Alkohm's\naccount), who erected the first pyramids and invented the magic mirror;\nand Pharaoh, the last king of the dynasty, whose name was afterwards\ntaken as a kingly title, as Caesar later became a general imperial title.\n\n[27] It is noteworthy how Swedenborg here anticipates a saying of\nLaplace, the greatest mathematician the world has known, save Newton\nalone. Newton's remark that he seemed but as a child who had gathered a\nfew shells on the shores of ocean, is well known. Laplace's words, '_Ce\nque nous connaissons est peu de chose; ce que nous ignorons est\nimmense_,' were not, as is commonly stated, his last. De Morgan gives\nthe following account of Laplace's last moments, on the authority of\nLaplace's friend and pupil, the well-known mathematician Poisson: 'After\nthe publication (in 1825) of the fifth volume of the Mecanique Celeste,\nLaplace became gradually weaker, and with it musing and abstracted. He\nthought much on the great problems of existence, and often muttered to\nhimself, \"_Qu'est-ce que c'est que tout cela!_\" After many alternations\nhe appeared at last so permanently prostrated that his family applied to\nhis favourite pupil, M. Poisson, to try to get a word from him. Poisson\npaid a visit, and after a few words of salutation, said, \"J'ai une bonne\nnouvelle a vous annoncer: on a recu au Bureau des Longitudes une lettre\nd'Allemagne annoncant que M. Bessel a verifie par l'observation vos\ndecouvertes theoriques sur les satellites de Jupiter.\" Laplace opened\nhis eyes and answered with deep gravity. \"_L'homme ne poursuit que des\nchimeres._\" He never spoke again. His death took place March 5, 1827.'\n\n[28] The reason assigned by Swedenborg is fanciful enough. 'In the\nspiritual sense,' he says, 'a horse signifies the intellectual principle\nformed from scientifics, and as they are afraid of cultivating the\nintellectual faculties by worldly sciences, from this comes an influx of\nfear. They care nothing for scientifics which are of human erudition.'\n\n[29] Similar reasoning applies to the moons of Jupiter, and it so\nchances that the result in their case comes out exactly the same as in\nthe case of Saturn; all the Jovian moons, if full together, would\nreflect only the sixteenth part of the light which we receive from the\nfull moon. It is strange that scientific men of considerable\nmathematical power have used the argument from design apparently\nsupplied by the satellites, without being at the pains to test its\nvalidity by the simple mathematical calculations necessary to determine\nthe quantity of light which these bodies can reflect to the planets\nround which they travel. Brewster and Whewell, though they took opposite\nsides in the controversy about other inhabited worlds, agreed in this.\nBrewster, of course, holding the theory that all the planets are\ninhabited, very naturally accepted the argument from design in this\ncase. Whewell, in opposing that theory, did not dwell at all upon the\nsubjects of the satellites. But in his 'Bridgewater Treatise on\nAstronomy and General Physics,' he says, 'Taking only the ascertained\ncases of Venus, the Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, we conceive that a\nperson of common understanding will be strongly impressed with the\npersuasion that the satellites are placed in the system with a view to\ncompensate for the diminished light of the sun at greater distances.\nMars is an exception; some persons might conjecture from this case that\nthe arrangement itself, like other useful arrangements, has been brought\nabout by some wider law which we have not yet detected. But whether or\nnot we entertain such a guess (it can be nothing more), we see in other\nparts of creation so many examples of apparent exceptions to rules,\nwhich are afterwards found to be capable of explanation, or to be\nprovided for by particular contrivances, that no one familiar with such\ncontemplations will, by one anomaly, be driven from the persuasion that\nthe end which the arrangements of the satellites seem suited to answer\nis really one of the ends of their creation.'\n\n[30] The reader who cares enough about such subjects to take the\nnecessary trouble, can easily make a little model of Saturn and his ring\nsystem, which will very prettily illustrate the effect of the rings both\nin reflecting light to the planet's darkened hemisphere and in cutting\noff light from the planet's illuminated hemisphere. Take a ball, say an\nordinary hand-ball, and pierce it through the centre with a fine\nknitting-needle. Cut out a flat ring of card, proportioned to the ball\nas the ring system of Saturn to his ball. (If the ball is two inches in\ndiameter, strike out on a sheet of cardboard two concentric circles, one\nof them with a radius of a little more than an inch and a half, the\nother with a radius of about two inches and three-eights, and cut out\nthe ring between these two circles.) Thrust the knitting-needle through\nthis ring in such a way that the ball shall lie in the middle of the\nring, as the globe of Saturn hangs (without knitting-needle connections)\nin the middle of his ring system. Thrust another knitting-needle\ncentrally through the ball square to the plane of the ring, and use this\nsecond needle, which we may call the polar one, as a handle. Now take\nthe ball and ring into sunlight, or the light of a lamp or candle,\nholding them so that the shadow of the ring is as thin as possible. This\nrepresents the position of the shadow at the time of Saturnian spring or\nautumn. Cause the shadow slowly to shift until it surrounds the part of\nthe ball through which the polar needle passes on one side. This will\nrepresent the position of the shadow at the time of midwinter for the\nhemisphere corresponding to that side of the ball. Notice that while the\nshadow is traversing this half of the ball, the side of the ring which\nlies towards that half is in shadow, so that a fly or other small insect\non that half of the ball would see the darkened side of the ring. A\nSaturnian correspondingly placed would get no reflected sunlight from\nthe ring system. Move the ball and ring so that the shadow slowly\nreturns to its first position. You will then have illustrated the\nchanges taking place during one half of a Saturnian year. Continue the\nmotion so that the shadow passes to the other half of the ball, and\nfinally surrounds the other point through which the polar needle passes.\nThe polar point which the shadow before surrounded will now be seen to\nbe in the light, and this half of the ball will illustrate the\nhemisphere of Saturn where it is midsummer. It will also be seen that\nthe side of the ring towards this half of the ball is now in the light,\nso that a small insect on this half of the ball would see the bright\nside of the ring. A Saturnian correspondingly placed would get reflected\nsunlight from the ring system _both by day and by night_. Moving the\nball and ring so that the shadow returns to its first position, an\nentire Saturnian year will have been illustrated. These changes can be\nstill better shown with a Saturnian orrery (see plate viii. of my\nSaturn), which can be very easily constructed.\n\n[31] Not 'of course' because Tycho used it, for, like other able\nstudents of science, he made mistakes from time to time. Thus he argued\nthat the earth cannot rotate on her axis, because if she did bodies\nraised above her surface would be left behind--an argument which even\nthe mechanical knowledge of his own time should have sufficed to\ninvalidate, though it is still used from time to time by paradoxers of\nour own day.\n\n[32] Chinese chronicles contain other references to new stars. The\nannals of Ma-touan-lin, which contain the official records of remarkable\nappearances in the heavens, include some phenomena which manifestly\nbelong to this class. Thus they record that in the year 173 a star\nappeared between the stars which mark the hind feet of the Centaur. This\nstar remained visible from December in that year until July in the next\n(about the same time as Tycho Brahe's and Kepler's new stars, presently\nto be described). Another star, assigned by these annals to the year\n1011, seems to be the same as a star referred to by Hepidannus as\nappearing A.D. 1012. It was of extraordinary brilliancy, and remained\nvisible in the southern part of the heavens during three months. The\nannals of Ma-touan-lin assign to it a position low down in Sagittarius.\n\n[33] Still a circumstance must be mentioned which tends to show that the\nstar may have been visible a few hours earlier than Dr. Schmidt\nsupposed. Mr. M. Walter, surgeon of the 4th regiment, then stationed in\nNorth India, wrote (oddly enough, on May 12, 1867, the first anniversary\nof Mr. Birmingham's discovery) as follows to Mr. Stone:--'I am certain\nthat this same conflagration was distinctly perceptible here at least\nsix hours earlier. My knowledge of the fact came about in this wise. The\nnight of the 12th of May last year was exceedingly sultry, and about\neight o'clock on that evening I got up from the tea-table and rushed\ninto my garden to seek a cooler atmosphere. As my door opens towards the\neast, the first object that met my view was the Northern Crown. My\nattention was at once arrested by the sight of a strange star outside\nthe crown' (that is, outside the circlet of stars forming the diadem,\nnot outside the constellation itself). The new star 'was then certainly\nquite as bright--I rather thought more so--as its neighbour Alphecca,'\nthe chief gem of the crown. 'I was so much struck with its appearance,\nthat I exclaimed to those indoors, \"Why, here is a new comet!'\" He made\na diagram of the constellation, showing the place of the new star\ncorrectly. Unfortunately, Mr. Walter does not state why he is so\nconfident, a year after the event, that it was on the 12th of May, and\nnot on the 13th, that he noticed the new star. If he fixed the date only\nby the star's appearance as a second-magnitude star, his letter proves\nnothing; for we know that on the 13th it was still shining as brightly\nas Alphecca, though on the 14th it was perceptibly fainter.\n\n[34] The velocity of three or four miles per second inferred by the\nelder Struve must now be regarded (as I long since pointed out would\nprove to be the case) as very far short of the real velocity of our\nsystem's motion through stellar space.\n\n[35] M. Cornu's observations are full of interest, and he deserves\nconsiderable credit for his energy in availing himself of the few\nfavourable opportunities he had for making them. But he goes beyond his\nprovince in adding to his account of them some remarks, intended\napparently as a reflection on Mr. Huggins's speculations respecting the\nstar in the Northern Crown. '_I_,' says M. Cornu, 'will not try to form\nany hypothesis about the cause of the outburst. To do so would be\nunscientific, and such speculations, though interesting, cumber science\nwofully.' This is sheer nonsense, and comes very ill from an observer\nwhose successes in science have been due entirely to the employment of\nmethods of observation which would have had no existence had others been\nas unready to think out the meaning of observed facts as he appears to\nbe himself.\n\n[36] The same peculiarity has been noticed since the discovery of the\ndark ring, the space within that ring being observed by Coolidge and G.\nBond at Harvard in 1856 to be apparently darker than the surrounding\nsky.\n\n[37] I cannot understand why Mr. Webb, in his interesting little work,\n_Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes_, says that the satellite\ntheory of the rings certainly seems insufficient to account for the\nphenomena of the dark ring. It seems, on the contrary, manifest that the\ndark ring can scarcely be explained in any other way. The observations\nrecently made are altogether inexplicable on any other theory.\n\n[38] A gentleman, whose acquaintance I made in returning from America\nlast spring, assured me that he had found demonstrative evidence showing\nthat a total eclipse of the moon then occurred; for he could prove that\nAbraham's vision occurred at the time of full moon, so that it could not\notherwise have been dark when the sun went down (v. 17). But the horror\nof great darkness occurred when the sun was going down, and total\neclipses of the moon do not behave that way--at least, in our time.\n\n[39] It is not easy to understand what else it could have been. The\nnotion that a conjunction of three planets, which took place shortly\nbefore the time of Christ's birth, gave rise to the tradition of the\nstar in the east, though propounded by a former president of the\nAstronomical Society, could hardly be entertained by an astronomer,\nunless he entirely rejected Matthew's account, which the author of this\ntheory, being a clergyman, can scarcely have done.\n\n[40] As, for instance, when he makes Homer say of the moon that\n\n  Around her throne the vivid planets roll,\n  And stars unnumbered gild the glowing pole.\n\nIt is difficult, indeed, to understand how so thorough an astronomer as\nthe late Admiral Smyth could have called the passage in which these\nlines occur one of the finest bursts of poetry in our language, except\non the principle cleverly cited by Waller when Charles II. upbraided him\nfor the warmth of his panegyric on Cromwell, that 'poets succeed better\nwith fiction than with truth.' Macaulay, though not an astronomer,\nspeaks more justly of the passage in saying that this single passage\ncontains more inaccuracies than can be found in all Wordsworth's\n'Excursion.'\n\n[41] It may be necessary to throw in here a few words of explanation,\nlest the non-astronomical reader should run away with the idea that the\nso-called exact science is a very inexact science indeed, so far as\ncomets are concerned. The comet of 1680 was one of those which travel on\na very eccentric orbit. Coming, indeed, from out depths many times more\nremote than the path even of the remotest planet, Neptune, this comet\napproached nearer to the sun than any which astronomers have ever seen,\nexcept only the comet of 1843. When at its nearest its nucleus was only\na sixth part of the sun's diameter from his surface. Thus the part of\nthe comet's orbit along which astronomers traced its motion was only a\nsmall part at one end of an enormously long oval, and very slight errors\nof observation were sufficient to produce very large errors in the\ndetermination of the nature of the comet's orbit. Encke admitted that\nthe period might, so far as the comparatively imperfect observations\nmade in 1680 were concerned, be any whatever, from 805 years to many\nmillions of years, or even to infinity--that is, the comet might have a\npath not re-entering into itself, but carrying the comet for ever away\nfrom the sun after its one visit to our system.\n\n[42] For a portion of the passages which I have quoted in this essay I\nam indebted to Guillemin's 'Treatise on Comets,' a useful contribution\nto the literature of the subject, though somewhat inadequate so far as\nexposition is concerned.\n\n[43] Something very similar happened only a few years ago, so that we\ncannot afford to laugh too freely at the terrors of France in 1773. It\nwas reported during the winter of 1871-1872, that Plantamour, the Swiss\nastronomer, had predicted the earth's destruction by a comet on August\n12, 1872. Yet there was no other foundation for this rumour than the\nfact that Plantamour, in a lecture upon comets and meteors, had stated\nthat the meteors seen on August 10, 11, and 12 are bodies following in\nthe track of a comet whose orbit passes very near to the earth's. It was\nvery certainly known to astronomers that there could be no present\ndanger of a collision with this comet, for the comet has a period of at\nleast 150 years, and had last passed close to the earth's orbit (not to\nthe earth herself, be it understood) in 1862. But it was useless to\npoint this out. Many people insisted on believing that on August 12,\n1872, the earth would come into collision, possibly disastrous, with a\nmighty comet, which Plantamour was said to have detected and to have\nshown by a profound calculation to be rushing directly upon our\nunfortunate earth.\n\n[44] A rather amusing mistake was made by the stenographers of a New\nYork paper in reporting the above sentence, which I happened to quote in\na lecture upon Comets and Meteors. Instead of Paradise they wrote Paris.\nThose acquainted with Pitman's system of short-hand, the one most\ncommonly employed by reporters, will easily understand how the mistake\nwas made, the marks made to represent the consonants p, r, d, and s\ndiffering little from those made to represent the consonants p, r, and s\n(the 'd' or 't' sound is represented, or may be represented, by simply\nshortening the length of the sign for the preceding consonant). The\nmistake led naturally to my remarking in my next lecture that I had not\nbefore known how thoroughly synonymous the words are in America, though\nI had heard it said that 'Good Americans, when they die, go to Paris.'\n\n[45] On the occasion of my first visit to America, in 1873, I for the\nfirst time succeeded in obtaining a copy of this curious pamphlet. It\nhad been mentioned to me (by Emerson, I think) as an amusing piece of\ntrickery played off by a scientific man on his brethren; and Dr. Wendell\nHolmes, who was present, remarked that he had a copy in his possession.\nThis he was good enough to lend me. Soon after, a valued friend in New\nYork presented me with a copy.\n\n[46] This Locke must not be confounded with Richard Lock, the\ncircle-squarer and general paradoxist, who flourished a century earlier.\n\n[47] The nurses' tale is, that the man was sent to the moon by Moses for\ngathering sticks on the Sabbath, and they refer to the cheerful story in\nNumbers xv. 32-36. According to German nurses the day was not the\nSabbath, but Sunday. Their tale runs as follows: 'Ages ago there went\none Sunday an old man into the woods to hew sticks. He cut a faggot and\nslung it on a stout staff, cast it over his shoulder, and began to\ntrudge home with his burthen. On his way he met a handsome man in Sunday\nsuit, walking towards the church. The man stopped, and asked the\nfaggot-bearer; \"Do you know that this is Sunday on earth, when all must\nrest from their labours?\" \"Sunday on earth or Monday in heaven, it's all\none to me?\" laughed the wood-cutter. \"Then bear your bundle for ever!\"\nanswered the stranger. \"And as you value not Sunday on earth, yours\nshall be a perpetual Moon-day in heaven; you shall stand for eternity in\nthe moon, a warning to all Sabbath-breakers.\" Thereupon the stranger\nvanished; and the man was caught up with his staff and faggot into the\nmoon, where he stands yet.' According to some narrators the stranger was\nChrist; but whether from German laxity in such matters or for some other\nreason, no text is quoted in evidence, as by the more orthodox British\nnurses. Luke vi. 1-5 might serve.\n\n[48] Milton's opinion may be quoted against me here; and as received\nideas respecting angels, good and bad, the fall of man, and many other\nsuch matters, are due quite as much to Milton as to any other authority,\nhis opinion must not be lightly disregarded. But though, when Milton's\nSatan 'meets a vast vacuity' where his wings are of no further service\nto him,\n\n              'All unawares\n  Flutt'ring his pennons vain, plumb down he drops\n  Ten thousand fathoms deep, and to this hour\n  Down had been falling, had not by ill chance\n  The strong rebuff of some tumultuous cloud,\n  Instinct with fire and nitre, hurried him\n  As many miles aloft,'\n\nyet this was written nearly a quarter of a century before Newton had\nestablished the law of gravity. Moreover, there is no evidence to show\nin what direction Satan fell; 'above is below and below above,' says\nRichter, 'to one stripped of gravitating body;' and whether Satan was\nunder the influence of gravity or not, he would be practically exempt\nfrom its action when in the midst of that 'dark, illimitable ocean' of\nspace,\n\n              'Without bound,\n  Without dimensions, where length, breadth, and height,\n  And time and place are lost.'\n\nHis lighting 'on Niphates' top,' and overleaping the gate of Paradise,\nmay be used as arguments either way. On the whole, I must (according to\nmy present lights) claim for Satan a freedom from all scientific\nrestraints. This freedom is exemplified by his showing all the kingdoms\nof the world from an exceeding high mountain, thus affording the first\npractical demonstration of the flat-earth theory, the maintenance of\nwhich led to poor Mr. Hampden's incarceration.\n\n[49] The _Sun_ itself claimed to have established the veracity of the\naccount in a manner strongly recalling a well-known argument used by\northodox believers in the Bible account of the cosmogony. Either, say\nthese, Moses discovered how the world was made, or the facts were\nrevealed to him by some one who had made the discovery: but Moses could\nnot have made the discovery, knowing nothing of the higher departments\nof science; therefore, the account came from the only Being who could\nrationally be supposed to know anything about the beginning of the\nworld. 'Either,' said the _New York Sun_, speaking of a mathematical\nproblem discussed in the article, 'that problem was predicated by us or\nsome other person, who has thereby made the greatest of all modern\ndiscoveries in mathematical astronomy. We did not make it, for we know\nnothing of mathematics whatever; therefore, it was made by the only\nperson to whom it can rationally be ascribed, namely Herschel the\nastronomer, its only avowed and undeniable author.' In reality,\nnotwithstanding this convincing argument, the problem was stolen by\nLocke from a paper by Olbers, shortly before published, and gave the\nmethod followed by Beer and Maedler throughout their selenographical\nresearches in 1833-37.\n\n[50] I had at the same time the good fortune to satisfy in equal degree,\nthough quite unexpectedly, an English student of the sun, who at that\ntime bore me no great good-will. Something in the article chanced to\nsuggest that it came from another, presumably a rival, hand; while an\nessay which appeared about the same time (the spring of 1872) was\ncommonly but erroneously attributed to me. Accordingly, a leading\narticle in _Nature_ was devoted to the annihilation of the writer\nsupposed to be myself, and to the lavish and quite undeserved laudation\nof the article I had written, which was selected as typifying all the\ngood qualities which an article of the kind should possess. Those\nacquainted with the facts were not a little amused by the mistake.\n\n[51] The Astronomer-Royal once told me that he had found that few\npersons have a clear conception of the fact that the stars rise and set.\nStill fewer know how the stars move, which stars rise and set, which are\nalways above the horizon, which move on large circles, which on small\nones; though a few hours' observation on half-a-dozen nights in the year\n(such observations being continuous, but made only at hourly intervals)\nwould show dearly how the stars move. It is odd to find even some who\nwrite about astronomy making mistakes on matters so elementary. For\ninstance, in a primer of astronomy recently published, it is stated that\nthe stars which pass overhead in London rise and set on a slant--the\nreal fact being that _those_ stars never rise or set at all, never\ncoming within some two dozen moon-breadths of the horizon.\n\n[52] In passing let me note that, of course, I am not discussing the\narguments of paradoxists with the remotest idea of disproving them. They\nare not, in reality, worth the trouble. But they show where the general\nreader of astronomical text-books, and other such works, is likely to go\nastray, and thus conveniently indicate matters whose explanation may be\nuseful or interesting.\n\n[53] Sterne anticipated this paradoxist in (jestingly) attributing\nglassiness to an inferior planet. He made the inhabitants, however, not\nthe air, glassy. 'The intense heat of the country,' he says, speaking of\nthe planet Mercury, 'must, I think, long ago have vitrified the bodies\nof the inhabitants to suit them for the climate; so that all the\ntenements of their souls may be nothing else, for aught the soundest\nphilosophy can show to the contrary, but one fine transparent body of\nclear glass; so that till the inhabitant grows old and tolerably\nwrinkled, whereby the rays of light become monstrously refracted, or\nreturn reflected from the surface, etc., his soul might as well play the\nfool out o' doors as in her own house.'\n\n[54] It will be seen from Table X. of my treatise on Saturn that the\nring disappeared on December 12, remaining invisible (because turning\nits dark side earthwards) till the spring of 1613. But on December 4,\nthe ring must have been quite invisible in a telescope so feeble as\nGalileo's. The ring then would have been little more than a fine line of\nlight as seen with one of our powerful modern telescopes.\n\n[55] _North British Review_ for August 1860.\n\n[56] He had, indeed, at an earlier stage, shown a marvellous ignorance\nof astronomy by the remark, which doubtless appeared to him a safe one,\nthat when he saw a planet on the sun in September he supposed it was\nMercury; a September transit of Mercury being as impossible as an\neclipse of the sun during the moon's third quarter.\n\n[57] It is, by the way, somewhat amusing to find Baron Humboldt\nreferring a question of this sort to the great mathematician Gauss, and\ndescribing the problem as though it involved the most profound\ncalculations. Ten minutes should suffice to deal with any problem of the\nkind.\n\n\n  Transcriber's Note\n\n  The following typographical errors were corrected.\n\n  Page          Error       Correction\n\n  4             Julias      Julius\n\n  35            genuis      genius\n\n  36            artficers   artificers\n\n  37            signfies    signifies\n\n  footnote 14   preplexing  perplexing\n\n  45            Chaldean    Chaldaean\n\n  46            Chaldeans   Chaldaeans\n\n  225           peruquier   perruquier\n\n  237           peruque     perruque\n\n  281           Northfolk   Norfolk\n\n  350           ascant      askant","title":"Myths and Marvels of Astronomy","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":118621}