[February, 
1 14 Correspondence. 
Of course this principle of the conservation of matter lies out- 
side the range of physical science, and requires the constant 
operation of a power above nature ; but there is nothing miracu- 
lous about it, in the sense of deviation from natural experience. 
It is intelligible, and offers hindrance to no mode of investiga- 
tion. I have taken my postulate from the scientific theologian 
Swedenborg, who claimed that it was revealed to him that the 
creative energy thus flows into nature, and reaches its quantita- 
tive limit in the production of dense and inert bodies, from whence 
it begins to operate formatively or organically. But other philo- 
sophers have held that the conservation of energy is simply the 
maintenance of the primeval creative force, and that the universe 
would no longer exist were that force withdrawn. 
It should be added that there has been no other mechanical 
conception of dense matter as necessitating gravitative action 
ever been put forth, even as being maintained by a power above 
Nature. 
• Wm. Denovan. 
VARIABLE STARS. 
I SHALL be glad if you will allow me to rectify an error in my 
paper on “ Variable Stars. On page 40 you will find that I have 
stated that the temporary star observed by Tycho Brahe and the 
star in corona were both situated close to the Milky Way. 
Clearly enough, if a star is situated in Corona it cannot be nearer 
the Milky Way than one-half of the Sun’s distance therefrom. 
The mistake occurred as follows : — I had written a paragraph on 
the Star of 1572, as it appears in the “Journal of Science,” and 
also a paragraph on the Star which appeared in Aquila, A.D. 389, 
and which was for some time as bright as Venus, eventually dis- 
appearing, as others have done, completely. I then continued, 
as in the article (page 40, line 11 from bottom), “ Both these 
stars, &c.” 
It struck me afterwards, however, that the instance of the star 
in corona would be more suitable for purposes of illustration, so 
I struck out that part relating to the star of 389 in favour of that 
of 1866, but unfortunatelyjomitted to alter the following paragraph. 
On page 34, 13th line from bottom, “ analytical ” is a printer’s 
error. It should be “ analogical.” 
Readers will greatly oblige by taking note of these corrections, 
the necessity for which I much regret. 
J. R. Sutton, 
