I9I2.] DEPTH OF THE MILKY WAY. 9 



§ 5. Some of the Distances of the Remotest Stars as 

 Heretofore Calculated by Astronomers. 



1. Sir William Herschel, Phil. Trans. ^ 1802, p. 498, " almost 2,000,003 light- 



years." 



2. Sir John Herschel, " Outlines," edition of 1869, p. 583, " upwards of 



2,000 light-years." 



3. Guillemin, " The Heavens," trans, by Lockyer, 1867, p. 433, " upwards of 



20,000 light-years." 



4. Bartlett, " Spherical Astronomy," 1874, p. 149, " upwards of 2,437.5 light- 



years." 



5. Newcomb, " Popular Astronomy," edition of 1878, p. 481, " about 14,000 



light-years" (for the Herschel stars). 



6. Gierke, " System of the Stars," 1890, p. 314, "less than 36.000 light-years." 



7. Ranyard, " Old and New Astronomy," 1892, p. 748, " less than 70,000 light- 



years." 



8. Young, " General Astronomy," edition of 1904, p. 563, " 10,000 to 20,000 



light-years." 



9. Newcomb, " The Stars," 1908, p. 319, " at least 3,000 light-years." 

 10. See, " Researches," Vol. H., 1910, p. 638, " 4,500,000 light-years." 



From this table it will be seen that there was a great falling off 

 in the distances following the epoch of Sir William Herschel; and 

 that the present writer was the first to recognize the fallacy of the 

 recent estimates of distance, and to restore the large values used 

 by that unrivaled astronomer one hundred and ten years ago. Here 

 we have a good illustration of the retrogradation of opinion in astron- 

 omy, under the cultivation of inferior genius. Sir John Herschel's 

 preference for such small distances over the large values used by 

 his father is indeed remarkable and very regrettable. Evidently the 

 small value used by Newcomb is simply an echo of the reduction in 

 distance made by Sir John Herschel. The absurdity of these small 

 values — not over five times that of the helium stars of 4.14 magni- 

 tude investigated at Lick Observatory — ought to impress us with the 

 small importance to be attached to any opinion merely because it is 

 currently accepted. Thus we have a clear case of misleading tra- 

 dition transmitted from the second Herschel, and the amazing spec- 

 tacle of the whole world using values about a thousand times too 

 small, for the greater part of a century, in times which were sup- 

 posed to be very enlightened ! Strange indeed that the correct work 



