190 
NATURE 
[Fuly 7, 1870 
“Other Worlds than Ours” 
Mr. PRITCHARD, in reviewing my book on the plurality of 
worlds, says that I represent Mr. Lockyer as impeding the pro- 
gress of science ; on the contrary, I regard Mr. Lockyer as one 
who has, in a most marked and important manner, advanced the 
cause of science, and I confidently anticipate admirable work 
from him in the future. It is surely not wrong in me to express 
openly my opinion that Mr. Lockyer’s theory of the corona” is 
erroneous, or that (precisely decause an expedition will set forth 
next December to observe the corona) the arguments against it 
cannot advantageously be neglected. But to assert, in the face 
of the fact that I give reasons for objecting to it, that I object 
“simply because” Mr. Lockyer’s ‘‘opinions do not square 
with mine,” is to make a misstatement which one can scarcely 
imagine to result from mere negligence. 
Mr. Pritchard quotes my words, ‘I have very little doubt that 
Uranus has at least eight satellites,” and asks how I venturg to 
set my opinion in antagonism with Mr, Lassell’s observations. 
How strange he should not have quoted the next sentence also, 
which would have shown that, as a matter of fact, I set the 
observations of Sir W. Herschel against the ofiion of the esteemed 
and eminent astronomer who is President of the Astronomical 
Society. One can scarcely imagine this omission to result from 
mere negligence, 
Mr. Pritchard makes me say, in the face of Sir William Thom- 
son’s abandonment of the theory, that the sun’s heat is derived 
from a battery of meteors, ‘‘Z am quite certain . . . that 
at least an important proportion of the sun’s heat” is so supplied. 
And he adds, ‘‘ We may fairly ask whence has Mr. Proctor this 
certain knowledge?” How strange that he should have omitted 
the remainder of the sentence! What I actually wrote was, ‘I 
am quite certain there is no flaw in the evidence I have adduced 
from the laws of probability, and that we are bound to accept as 
a legitimate conclusion from that evidence the theory that at 
least an important proportion,” &c. This reference to the 
evidence, and to the laws of probability, would have spoiled 
Professor Pritchard’s reasoning. Here, again, we can scarcely 
imagine that the omission results from mere negligence. 
There are other points of the same kind in Mr. Pritchard’s 
review, which space prevents my dwelling on. Suffice it to say, 
that every criticism it contains is vyitiated by misstatements or 
omissions, which one can scarcely imagine to result from mere 
negligence. 
RicHARD A, PROCTOR 
Pinkish Colour of the Sun 
IN reference to the “pinkish colour of the sun,” notiged by 
several of your correspondents, it may interest them to learn that 
in one of the last numbers of Cosyzos an account is given of this 
very same appearance, observed on the 23rd of May, at Rohrbach, 
on the Moselle, by a M. Hamant. He states, ‘‘ that up to about 
two o’clock the day had been very warm, without a breath of 
wind. At twenty minutes past two the horizon became charged 
with mist, and a storm seemed imminent. About three the sun 
lost its brilliancy, assumed a pale yellow hue, and might have 
been taken for the moon had it not been for its diameter. The 
mist now began to rise, a north-west wind began to blow very 
* Foran accurate though incomplete statement of Dr. Frankland’s and 
Mr. Lockyer’s theory of the Corona, we refer our readers to the first number 
of Nature Many of them will not be surprised to find that it is of 
what Mr. Proctor states it to be. Dr. Frankland and Mr. Lockyer, from 
their laboratory experiments, have shown that the pressure at the base of the 
chrorosphere is small, and they have therefore stated that it is scarcely 
ossible that a very extensive atmosphere lies outside the chromosphere. 
Mr. Lockyer has shown, moreover, that the height of the chromosphere as 
seen by the new method probably falls far short of its real height as seen dur- 
ing an eciipse as it wasscen by Dr. Gould. Areference to the same number of 
this journal will also show that Mr. Proctor has misrepresented Dr. Gould’s 
statements, which endorse the idea put forward by Dr. Frankland and Mr. 
Lockyer. Dr. Gould has expressly stated ‘‘ that there were many phenomena 
which would almost lead to the belief that it was an atmospheric rather thana 
cosutical phenomenon.” ‘This is an opinion held by Faye and other dis- 
tinguished astronomers, and Mr. Lockyer has simply shown that should this 
turn out to be the case, the continuous spectrum observed may be explained. 
Astronomers did not require Mr. Proctor to tell them what he has recently 
been enforcing; but, more modest than he, they have been waiting for 
facts, and Mr. Proctor surely is old enough to see that by attempting to 
evolve the secretse the universe, about which the workers speak doubtfully, 
out of the depths of his moral consciousness, he simply makes himself 
ridiculous, and spoil much of the good work he is doing in popularising the 
science,—ED, 
hard ; at half-past four the sun became rose-coloured, and at a 
quarter-past five it turned scarlet.” 
The exact coincidence to be observed between this account and 
that given by Mr, A. S, Herschel (NATURE, June 16), is worthy 
of notice, 
Mr. Herschel similarly observed this “very unusual pinkish 
colour,” between five o’clock on the 23rd of May, at Hawkhurst 
in Kent. He notices the ‘‘thick haze of apparently low 
cirrostratus or, perhaps, rain cloud.” This phenomenon is so 
rare that it is mentioned in old chronicles as a sign of Divine 
wrath, Of late years the most remarkable case was that observed 
in South America by M. Emdiais, alluded to in Cosmos. 
It is, however, especially to be noticed that whereas the two 
accounts referred to above state distinctly that the phenomenon 
occurred on ‘‘the 23rd of May,” your other corespondents state 
that it also occurred ‘‘on Sunday, the 22nd,” at about the same 
time, five o’clock. (See NaTruRE, May 26, June 2). 
It is most remarkable that such a rare phenomenon should 
have occurred on two consecutive days ; visible on the first day 
at Dunmurry and Dublinand Tynemouth, and on the second in 
Kent and Gloucestershire and on the Moselle. The hazy nature 
of the atmosphere on both days seems to have been permanent, 
and is, without doubt, the cause of the phenomenon. 
‘Joun’P. EARWAKER 
Merton College, Oxford, June 28 
Monographs of M. Michel Chasles 
A FEW years ago I read ten or a dozen papers of a masterly 
history of geometry by M. Chasles. It was in French, in some 
quarto transactions of a learned society. 
I am desirous of recovering the title and reference, and ask 
for assistance in the columns of NATURE. 
No such a paper as that I refer to is in the Royal Society’s 
admirable catalogue, 
Was Chasles’ Agergu historigue contributed to a learned 
society? It was published at Brussels, in 1837, but it is scarce, 
and I have not seen a copy. 
C. M. INGLEBY 
Iiford, E., June 11 
Geographical Prizes 
In reading the report in a recent number on the Prize Medals 
of the Royal Geographical Society, doubtless many of your 
readers will have thought very reasonable the wish of Sir 
Roderick Murchison, ‘‘that Eton, Harrow, and Rugby, and 
other great schools might in future years send candidates for 
these medals.” 
It may be well therefore if I explain very briefly the grounds 
on which the masters of Rugby were almost unanimous in wish- 
ing to decline the invitation of the Royal Geographical Society, 
The examination is in fact a competition between schools in a 
subordinate branch of education. Hence the advantage lies not 
with the best school, but with the one which allows the greatest 
liberty of choice of special studies. A school like Rugby, whose 
curriculum, though not narrow, is strongly defined, is at a posi- 
tive disadvantage in such a competition with a school whose 
general curriculum is narrower, but its organisation looser ; one 
which allows free specialisation, and prepares for particular 
examinations. We cannot feel that the school that wins is likely 
to be the best school. 
Further, we agreed that the proposal would not really encourage 
the study of geography in the school, but would attract only a 
few individuals. There are in every school certain accumulative 
prize-acquisitive boys who would learn Chinese or Crystallography 
or Indian Finance if a prize were offered for such subjects ; and it 
would be these boys who would compete for the geographical 
medals—such boys would gain little by learning, and the school 
would gain nothing, 
On these and some other grounds the proposal was declined by 
the Rugby masters ; and when it is recollected that it was when 
Dr. Temple was head-master, most of your readers will be sure 
that it was not from indifference to real progress, nor from stu- 
pidity, nor from fear of novelty, nor to avoid honourable com- 
petition with other schools, that we did so decline it. 
Rugby, June 13 J. M. WILson 
meg ne teeing ania other 
