Page images
PDF
EPUB

instead of Struve's estimated 28 years. Although, perhaps, in the latter case the small number of stars chosen are too few to strike a fair average. Nevertheless 50 to 28 is no small disproportion.

Again, a glance at the above Table also shows a marked diversity, even between stars of equal magnitude (brightness being taken as the standard). For instance, while Castor of the twins-(a Ist magnitude star)-sends us his light in 54 years, so does μ Cassiopeiæ, though the latter is a star of about the 6th magnitude (the faintest that can be seen with unaided vision): while Procyon-another star of the Ist magnitude-has a light passage of 10 years, Antares, of similar magnitude, wants about 150 years to reach us by his light. And yet again we have two other first magnitude stars (Rigel and Spica) requiring 320 and 362 years for their light passages. Against this compare the smallest star on the list ( Draconis), occupying only 9 years.

In a word, the Table shows what I have always held since I got any grasp of Astronomy, that the stars are distributed through space irrespective of size and distance; and that it is dangerous to conclude that the brightest stars are always the nearest, or that the small specks of astral light necessarily connote that such stars are themselves diminutive. Canopus, the brightest star of the southern hemisphere, with a mass (weight) a million times our own sun, is nevertheless, so distant that the latest calculation assigns it a parallax of o".001, which would make it about nineteen thousand billion miles distant and requiring a light time of over 3,000 years.

But to return to the view or opinion upon individual isolation of systems and island universes, the Table shows a remarkable disparity of distances between the score of measured stars, ranging from a four years' light passage up to 360. Moreover, even of the very few, some 3 or 4, whose light passage is much about the same, we cannot conclude that these are not perfectly isolated from one another; inasmuch as, though equally distant from us, they may be by no means equally distant from one another. We must not forget that (to us) the heavens are spherical, and that all

these stars have far different declinations and right ascensions (in geographical language, latitudes and longitudes). The well known star, Polaris, always over head, is much about the same distance from us as Pollux of the Twins, and yet they are so far from one another that, while we can always see the former, we cannot get a look at the other for three months of the year, in our latitude.

An illustrious astronomer-not long deceased-beautifully presents this thought (though for another object), when he writes :

In the solar system we are presented with a finite number of bodies placed within a region of unoccupied space; bearing a very large ratio to the dimensions of the solar domain. In the sidereal system we seem to be presented with a finite number of such suns, forming a cluster, which is surrounded on all sides by unmeasured depths of space. Assuming our system to form one of a finite number of similar systems, separated from each other by distances bearing a very large ratio to the dimensions of each, and that thus a system of a higher order is formed, which again forms one of a finite number of similar systems, and so on continually, the dimensions of each system of whatever order being always VERY SMALL IN COMPARISON with the distance separating it from its neighbours,-then there would no longer result as a necessary consequence even an appreciable illumination of the whole heavens.1

This learned astronomer does not wish it to be understood that he supports this hypothesis, but he advances it for the purpose of meeting a difficulty sometimes raised concerning the illumination of sidereal space. I quote him, not as favouring my view, but as presenting it in a clearer way than I may be able.

There is another very important consideration which naturally suggests itself in studying the above Table, viz. :whether these stars or suns, especially those of the Ist magnitude, are to be put down as being of similar size, volume, mass or weight? Want of clearness on this point often occasions confusion in the mind of non-astronomers. Now, it is necessary first to bear in mind that the astronomical standard or basis of magnitude is not size, but brightness.

'The Universe, by R. A. Procter, p. 67.

In other words, according to the degree of brightness, the stars are classified under magnitudes. I am not saying that I approve of this method. We have to accept it as a fact. Now, with very little reflection we can see that brightness does not depend upon size (hence magnitude), volume or weight. If we put a large iron globe (say a foot in diameter) into a furnace, and bring it out when glowing red hot, we know that in a dark room this would radiate a certain amount of light; but a very small bulb of electric light would produce a much greater illumination. Not only some stars or suns may present a much larger illuminating surface, but may also enjoy much higher powers of inherent luminosity. I have never accepted brightness in the stars as a standard either of their magnitude or of their nearness. Hence I derived no small satisfaction in reading a paper in the February number of Knowledge, from the able pen of Professor Gore, wherein, writing on this very subject, he tells us that :

1o. Ungula ( Centauri-the 8th on my Table) has probably a mass (weight) 855 times greater than our sun;

2o. Aldebaran (a Tauri) is 882 times heavier than our sun; 3°. Rigel (8 Orionis) has a volume 52,000 and a mass 20,000 times greater than our sun;

4°. Antares (a Scorpii) is 12,000 times brighter, and Pollux (Geminorum) 100 times brighter than our sun. (Remark this does not mean size or weight.)

5°. Canopus, called the Lamp of the South,' is probably equal in mass to one million of our suns.1

An astronomer regards our earth as a pigmy amongst the other planets of our system, how will he now regard our sun amongst the other suns of the sidereal kingdom ?2 In support of my contention, the same learned professor admits in the same paper, that the hypothesis (viz., that the stars are in general of approximately equal size and brightness) has never had any real evidence to support it, and that

'I find in my note book that it would require 216,000 suns to make such a globe as Canopus.

2 * Guilleman tells us that if Sirius, the flaming Dog-star, so glorious in our winter evenings, took the place of our sun, we should receive 94 times more light.-The Sun, page 17. More modern authors give twice this estimate.

'modern researches have proved that they differ greatly in absolute size, and also in intrinsic brilliancy of surface."1

Passing, then, from the particular to the general, what does the title I have given to this paper import?

The stars are suns of varied size and brightness and probably centres of planetary systems, as our sun is the centre of our own. These solar systems are but members of what the ancients designated 'constellations.' These are like ' islands,' in an æthereal sea. The milky ways,' and resolvable nebulæ form island universes;' while all these together, stars, suns, constellations, systems, clusters, milky ways, and nebulæ, constitute the ONE GRAND SIDEREAL KINGDOM OF THE OMNIPOTENT CREATOR.

All are governed by the same laws of centrifugal and centripetal motion; all are subject to sidereal and planetary evolution; all revolve around their own respective centres of gravity; each system or island universe' in revolution, too, around some one grand centre. (Is that the locale of Heaven?) The apex of our own sidereal centre we may be able to approximate; that of the whole sidereal kingdom —I make bold to write-Never!

There are mysteries of Astronomy, as there are mysteries of nature. They may be mysteries to the end. 'So far shalt thou go: but no farther.' Nevertheless, like the heavens themselves, they show forth the glory of God' and declare the work of His hands. Vale!

E. A. SELLEY, O.S.A.

'Knowledge, Feb., 1904.

2

Our solar system is calculated to be travelling towards the constellation of the Lyre with a velocity of about 12 miles per second.

BOSSUET AND RICHARD SIMON

Quis enim doctus pariter vel indoctus, cum in manus volumen assumpserit et a saliva quam semel imbibit viderit disceptare quod lectitat, non statim erumpat in vocem me falsarium, me clamitans esse sacrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere?-HIERON. Praef. in Evang. ad Damasum.

B

OSSUET'S last years were full of conflict. He had, indeed, been often engaged in controversy with the Protestants, and had taken a prominent part in the defence of Gallicanism; but in these discussions he had always maintained the character of being a man of moderation, more anxious to convince than to crush his opponents. Far different were the disputes which embittered the latter part of his long life. He still defended the Church against the fanatical Jurieu and the philosopher Leibniz; but now he attacked the Jansenists for refusing to submit to authority, and the Jesuits for tolerating pagan rites. In answer to Padre Caffaro he wrote a treatise condemning the theatre; and the gentle Malebranche was warned that the great prelate was writing against him. Then there came the unhappy rupture with his friend Fénelon over the mystical writings of Madame Guyon. But in Bossuet's own eyes all these were as nothing compared with his dispute with Richard Simon. I find him as much excited about this affair as about any other,' writes Abbé Ledieu; his zeal is aroused whenever it is mentioned. He says that it is of greater importance than any affair that he has hitherto been engaged in; more important even than that of M. de Cambrai (Fénelon), because it has to do with a book written for the people.' And Bossuet himself, writing to a brother bishop, says :'The spirit of infidelity is gaining ground in the world every day, as you have often heard me observe. But it is worse at present, because it is the Gospel itself which is made use of for the corruption of religion. I can only thank God that at my age He has left me strength enough to resist this torrent.'

« PreviousContinue »