To the "university-trained mind" here is wildness almost as wild as Roger Bacon's once appeared to be; though of course even the layest of lay brothers must not assume that all wild science will in time become accepted law, as some of Roger's did. Retort to Mr. Fort must be left to the outraged astronomer. If indeed any astronomer could feel himself so little outraged as to offer a retort. Lay brethren are outside the quarrel and must content themselves with gratitude to a man who writes two such books as "New Lands" and "The Book of the Damned"; gratitude for passages and pictures--moving pictures--of such cyclonic activity and dimensions that a whole new area of a reader's imagination stirs in amazement and is brought to life.
rtisement. When, in August 1878, Prof. Swift and Prof. Watson said that, during an eclipse of the sun, they had seen two luminous bodies that might be planets between Mercury and the Sun, Prof. Chase announced that, five years before, he had made a prediction, and that it had been confirmed by the positions of these bodies. Three times, in capital letters, he screamed, or announced, according to one's sensitiveness, or prejudices, that the "new planets" were in the exact positions of his calculations. Prof. Chase wrote that, before his time, there had been two great instances of astronomic calculation confirmed: the discovery of Neptune and the discovery of "the asteroidal belt," a claim that is disingenuously worded. If by mathematical principles, or by any other definite principles, there has ever been one great, or little, instance of astronomic discovery by means of calculations, confusion must destroy us, in the introductory position that we take, or expose our irresponsibility, and vitiate all that foll