1872.} The Construction of the Heavens. 311 
Wright, Lambert, and Michell associated with those of 
the Herschels and Struve; how seldom, indeed, are they men- 
tioned at all; and if the name of Kant is held in high 
honour, how little is this due to its association with astrono- 
mical theories! Yet I do not hesitate to say, that Wright, 
Kant, Lambert, and Michell did more to advance men’s 
ideas respecting the constitution of the sidereal universe 
than all the astronomers who lived before the time of Sir 
W. Herschel. 
We owe to Wright, of Durham, the enunciation of that 
theory of the universe which is so commonly. presented 
in our text-books of astronomy, as representing the “‘ out- 
come,” so to speak, of the labours of the elder Herschel. 
Nor did Wright simply enunciate that theory; he based it 
on observation. All that was hypothetical in his reasoning 
was the idea with which he started that the stars are 
arranged with a certain general uniformity throughout the 
sidereal system. ‘‘ It seems inconsistent,” he said, ‘‘ with 
the harmony observed in all the other arrangements of 
nature, that one scheme of stars should be arranged with 
perfect symmetry, while another is scattered irregularly.” 
It is far safer—so Wright reasoned—to conclude that the 
seeming incongruity between the aspect of the Milky Way, 
which is unquestionably a zone of stars, is due only to the 
imperfect nature of our survey, both as respects extent 
of space and duration in time. ‘‘ When we reflect,” he 
proceeds, ‘‘upon the various configurations of the planets, and 
the changes which they perpetually undergo, we may be 
assured that nothing but a like eccentric position of the 
stars could occasion such confusion among bodies otherwise 
so regular; in like manner we may conclude, that as the 
planetary system if viewed from the sun would appear 
those who turn for awhile from their special branches of research to the study 
of some special astronomical subject, however skilfully they may treat that 
subject. It also excludes those (and again, as I take it, the exclusion is right and 
proper) who have made all science their subject. But unlike other definitions 
which I have heard advanced, it does not exclude any class of astronomical 
workers orthinkers. If we take a familiarity with any special branch of astrono- 
mical lore, whether observational or mathematical, or theoretical or historical, 
as essential to the character of the true astronomer, we must in every case 
exclude many who have given nearly the whole of their scientific life and 
labour to the advancement of the science of astronomy. We might thus 
adopt a definition excluding Adams and Leverrier, or another excluding Airy 
or Challis, or another excluding Huggins and De la Rue, or another excluding 
Dawes and Webb, and Knott and Browning. Newton could be excluded 
because he was not an observer of the heavens; Sir W. Herschel because he 
was not an adept in manipulating the formule of Laplace and Lagrange. In 
fine, we might successively exclude every student of astronomy that has ever 
lived, with perhaps the single exception of the younger Herschel. 
