1870.] Notices of Scientific Works. 371 



the Sun, hut, from their peculiar condition, having the power to 

 impart more than they receive, and so serving as suns to their 

 systems of satellites which he regards as true worlds. Why under 

 these circumstances he talks of Uranus and Neptune, which he 

 includes in his subsidiary Solar system, — indeed he speaks of Jupiter, 

 Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune as " four suns " * — as Arctic planets 

 it is difficult to understand. 



Having dealt with what may be termed the legitimate portion 

 of his subject — the habitability of the spheres — in the first half of 

 his book, the author proceeds to consider such objects and pheno- 

 mena as meteors and comets, the other suns, nebulas, and he con- 

 cludes his volume with a chapter on " Supervision and Controul." 



We have space only for two or three passing criticisms. Mr. 

 Proctor adopts and enlarges upon the meteoric theory of the uni- 

 verse, which differs from the nebular theory of Laplace, in assuming 

 that at some time or other there was a chaos of moving meteors 

 and that these agglomerated into masses. In our Solar system, for 

 example, the sun first drained space of an immense quantity of 

 meteoric matter, leaving but little in its own immediate neighbour- 

 hood, so that first smaller planets were formed ; but as the attractive 

 force of the central orb diminished, larger centres (Jupiter, Saturn, 

 &c) were again set up; whilst in other portions of the universe 

 similar processes were going on. This hypothesis has received, and 

 will continue to receive, much attention. It is a kind of Darwinian 

 theory of the universe, not attempting to go back to the beginning 

 (for it is as difficult to account for the formation of a meteor as 

 of a sun), but endeavouring to reason by strict logical induction 

 from known and present phenomena to the probable past. Whoever 

 reads Mr. Proctor's argument, however, will be struck by his strain- 

 ing to appropriate all known phenomena, even such as offer con- 

 tradictory evidence, in his own favour ; whereas, many of his facts 

 or supposed facts are quite as applicable to the views of Laplace 

 as to the Meteoric hypothesis ; and such phenomena as the gaseous 

 nebulae, their proximity to star systems, and their probable absorp- 

 tion by such systems, tell at least as strongly against, as for, the 

 theory which he has adopted. Here, too, in his great flights of fancy 

 the author fails to see the full significance of some of the pheno- 

 mena to which he refers. Astronomers are in the habit of saying 

 that we see creative processes now going on in the heavens ; meaning 

 thereby that we see nebulous matter being formed into worlds to- 

 day. In all probability this is only true in one sense. The author, 

 quoting an anonymous writer, shows that we see many of the distant 

 stars, not as they are to-day, but as they were in ages past, for their 

 distance from us is so enormous, that the light which brings us 



* P. 174. 



