WCP1363

[1]^1,2

Newton,

Melcombe Bingham,

Dorchester.

Station — Dorchester 12 miles.

Telegrams — Melcombe Bingham 1 mile.

24^th Dec[ember] 1903

Dear Sir,

I have just got "Man's place in the Universe" from Mudie. After waiting some time which is a sign that the book is popular! And I must send you my congratulations on a very able & convincing piece of work — I have [2] never myself, as a working Astronomer (my departments being Solar Physics & Astrophysics³ — visual spectroscopic work of both sun & stars)⁴ — seen any reason to think that the doctrine of a Plurality of Worlds is a necessary outcome of the immensity of space [3] and its crowding with Stars.

I think you are quite right to protest against the nonsense talked by Flammarion⁵ and others.

The idea has for some time past been forced on my own mind, from many lines of our work, that our Sun is decidedly the exception⁶ among stars, and the chief [4] difference I think will be found in his[?] being Single — not a double star. I cannot say that the "Solar Cluster" hypothesis is free from some difficulties, but I regard the Solar type of spectrum as indicative not so much of as any particular age of star, as of a state of rest and tranquility [sic]. I think that [5]⁷ the great bulk of Stars are simply collections of meteoric bodies.⁸ There are one or two little things which I think might be altered for a second edition of your book — Canopus is not ^{(page 96)} "a Sirian star" but a Procyonian star⁹ — even [6] if we do not accept Lockyer's¹⁰ rather large sub-division of Stellar Spectra. We have always considered Procyon['s] spectrum as distinctly peculiar — intermediate between Sirian & Solar.¹¹

This is obvious to an observer even with a small telescope & a star spectroscope. [7] See my remarks in "Knowledge," April 1903. Chemistry of the Stars¹² —

I also think that we should not say that Sun Spots are always accompanied by terrestrial magnetic disturbance but are only "frequently" accompanied. Page 106 — "Violent commotions in the sun...are always, &c."

[8] Also — I am not an authority on Stellar Parallax but I think 61 Cygni is not now "the second nearest star." (bottom of page 74). I fancy it is a star Ll 21185.¹³ but I may be wrong.

Also — I dont [sic] think that we, as a body, put much faith in the "collision" theory [9]¹⁴ of Novae — to which you refer to [sic] once or twice. That is to say we dont [sic] think that 2 bodies, dark or otherwise, collide, but that a dark body gets entangled in Nebula [10] possibly also dark — at any rate hitherto unknown to our Catalogues¹⁵ — & that the conflagration is thus kindled.

I have mentioned these one or two small points because you have appealed to our work as evidence [11] in your favour. It is our duty to see that our work is correctly represented.

With my best congratulation<s> on a work which cannot but do much good —

I have the pleasure to remain, Dear Sir, | Yours faithfully | Alex[ande]^r. Foote. [signature]