WCP1363

[1]

[in ARW’s hand] Answd

Newton,

Melcombe Bingham,

Dorchester.

24^th Dec 1903¹

Dear Sir,

I have just got "Man's place in the Universe"¹ from Mudie.¹ 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 & Astrophysics — visual spectroscopic work of both sun & stars) — 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 Flammarion² 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 exception 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. I think that [5] 2 the great bulk of Stars are simply collections of meteoric bodies. There are one or two little things which I think might be altered for a second edition of your book — Canopus is not "a Sirian star" ^{(page 96)} but a Procyonian star — even [6] if we do not accept Lockyer's³ rather large sub-division of Stellar Spectra. We have always considered Procyon spectrum as distinctly peculiar — intermediate between Sirian & Solar.

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 Stars—⁴

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. but I may be wrong.

Also — I dont [sic] think that we, as a body, put much faith in the "collision" theory [9] 3 of Novae — to which you refer to 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 Catalogues — & 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 congratulations on a work which cannot but do much good —

I have the pleasure to remain, Dear Sir, | yours faithfully | Alex^r. Foote.⁵ [signature]