scopes they still appear as mere points of light-minute disks of no measurable diameter. Hence their real diameter remains unknown. Even their relative brilliancy does not help us in the matter. For the stellar distances hitherto determined show that the brightest stars are not always the nearest to the earth. The nearest of them all-Alpha Centauri-is certainly one of the brightest; but, on the other hand, Arcturus, a star of about the same brilliancy as Alpha Centauri, is-if the measures of its distance are reliableat a distance about 25 times greater than that of 61 Cygni, a star of only the fifth magnitude! This latter star is actually a little nearer to us than the brilliant Sirius, "the monarch of the skies."

In the case of a binary, or revolving double, star, however, the case is different. Although we cannot measure the actual diameter of the disks of the component stars, we can measure the distance between them, and then-if their distance from the earth can be determined-we are enabled to calculate by Kepler's third law of orbital motion the sum of the masses of the components in terms of the sun's

mass.

The components of a double star may, however, be so close that they cannot be separated by the highest powers of our largest telescopes. We cannot, therefore, in these cases, measure the distance between the components. To all intents and purposes they are to the telescopic observer single stars, and the fact of their duplicity would remain undetected.

But here a new method of research, discovered in recent years, comes to our aid. By means of the spectroscope we can determine the rate in miles per second at which a star is approaching or receding from the earth. If, then, a star, apparently single in the telescope, consists in reality of two close components revolving round each other in a short period, we can find in some cases the velocity of the components in miles per second, although we know nothing of the star's distance from the earth. For, suppose the plane of the stellar orbit to pass through the earth, or nearly so. Then, when the line joining the components is at right angles to the line of sight, one of the stars will be rapidly approaching the eye, and the other receding from it. All the dark lines in the spectrum of the first star will

consequently be displaced toward the blue end of the spectrum, while those of the second will be equally shifted toward the red end-if the masses of the components are equal. Each line will therefore appear double, and from the observed distance between them we can easily compute the velocity. When the motion becomes perpendicular to the line of sight the motion to and from the eye ceases, and the lines again become single. We have then merely to determine the times at which the lines appear single and double. As the lines will evidently double twice during each revolution, we must double the observed interval to obtain the period of revolution of one component round the other. The velocity and period thus found enable us at once to compute the actual dimensions of the system in miles, and its mass with reference to that of the

sun.

In the course of spectroscopic researches on stellar spectra, undertaken at the Harvard Observatory for the Henry Draper Memorial, Professor Pickering found that the calcium line K. in the spectrum of the star Zeta, in Ursa Major, more popularly known as Mizar-the middle star in the "tail" of the Great Bear or handle of "the Plough"-appeared at times double, while on other occasions it was seen single and well defined. Other lines of the spectrum showed a similar variation. variation. This doubling of the spectral lines was found to recur at regular intervals of about 52 days, thus indicating that the star was in reality a close double, with the components so close that no telescope yet constructed has hitherto been able to reveal its duplicity. Photographs of the spectrum of Mizar, taken on 70 nights in 1887-1889, show that the relative orbital velocity is about 100 miles per second, and the period of revolution of one component round the other about 104 days. the observed dates on which the spectral lines appeared double, Professor Pickering predicted that they would be again double on or about December 9, 1889. This prediction was duly fulfilled on December 8, thus proving the reality of the discovery. Assuming that the orbit is circular, with its plane passing through the earth, or nearly so, he finds that the distance between the components is about 143 millions of miles, or about the distance of Mars from the sun, and their combined

From

mass about 40 times the mass of the sun. Considering the brightness of the star, and its probably vast distance from the earth, this great mass is not very surprising. Mizar has long been known as a wide double star, the companion being of about the fourth magnitude, and visible with a small telescope. Its duplicity was discovered by Riccioli in 1650, and it was measured by Bradley in 1755. It was the first pair photographed by the American astronomer Bond. It must now be looked upon as a triple star. Close to it is a fifth-magnitude star, known as Alcor, which is visible to the naked eye, and was considered by the ancients as a test of keen vision. It is now, however, plain enough to good eyesight, and is sometimes spoken of as a naked eye double." Mizar is therefore a most interesting star; double to the naked eye, a closer double with a moderate telescope, and yet again double to the eye of the spectroscope. Between Mizar and Alcor is an eight-magnitude star, discovered by Einmart in 1691.

66

Professor Pickering thinks that the greatest distance between the components of Mizar may perhaps be about 1 times its annual parallax, and is probably far too small to be ever detected by any telescope. Klinkerfues found for this star a very small parallax, indicating a distance about 5 million times the sun's distance from the earth, or a journey for light of about 76 years! The spectroscope has thus enabled us to discover the existence of an invisible body! If the orbit is slightly inclined to the line of sight, the dimensions and corresponding mass of the system would be increased. It seems improbable that the plane of motion passes exactly through the earth, for in that case there would be an occultation twice in each revolution which would probably produce some diminution in the light of the star, as in the case of variable stars of the Algol type. I am not aware that any such regular variability has been observed in the light of Mizar. We must therefore conclude that the mass of the system is really more than that computed by Professor Pickering.

A similar spectroscopic result has been found in the case of the bright star Beta Auriga, for which the observations indicate a period of about 8 days, with a diameter of the orbit of about 16 millions of miles. From these data I find that the combined mass of the components would

be much less than in the case of Mizar— about 1 that of the sun. A similar variation was found to occur in the star 44 Ophiuchi. This star has been strongly suspected of fluctuations in its light, and it may possibly be a variable of the type of Algol. Professor Vogel finds a similar motion in the bright star Spica-the leading brilliant of the constellation Virgo, or the Virgin with a period of about 4 days. Here however the lines are merely shifted, not doubled, or at least not distinctly so, as in Mizar and Beta Auriga. This indicates that one of the components is so faint that its spectrum is not seen, or only seen with difficulty, and that the observed motion is chiefly that of the brighter component. From the observed velocity-about 53 miles a second-Vogel computes that, for components of equal mass, the total mass of the system would be about 24 times the mass of the sun.

With reference to the Algol variables, it has long been suspected that the decrease in their light at minimum might possibly be due to the interposition of a dark eclipsing satellite. This periodical variation in the light of Algol itself, seems to have been known to the ancients, as its name implies the "demon star." The true character of its variation was, however, first determined by Goodricke, in 1782, when its period from minimum to minimum of light was 2 days 20 hours 48 minutes 59 seconds. This has slowly diminished to its present value of 2 days 20 hours 48 minutes 51 seconds, according to a recent investigation by Chandler. Some few years since Professor Pickering undertook a mathematical investigation of the case, and showed that a dark eclipsing satellite revolving in a nearly circular orbit round Algol, in the period indicated by the light variation, would explain the observed phenomenon within the limits of errors of observation, and he pointed out that the orbit of the bright star might be determined by spectroscopic observations without any knowledge of the star's distance from the earth.

Assuming the correctness of this hypothesis, and taking into consideration the observed diminution of light at minimum, Mr. Maxwell H all computed that the den

* Mr. Fowler has quite recently found that the bright star Vega is also a close double, with a period of only 24 hours 41 minutes, and a mass about 224 times that of the sun.

ity of Algol is only one-fourth that of water. From spectroscopic observations made by Professor Vogel at Potsdam in 1888 and 1889, he concludes that the decrease of light is really due to an eclipsing satellite. He found that before the minimum of light the star is receding from the earth at the rate of 24 miles a second, and, after the minimum, approaching with a velocity of 28 miles. The observations also show a motion of translation of the system in space at the rate of about 2 miles per second, toward the earth. As suming the orbit to be circular with its plane passing through the earth, Professor Vogel computes the diameter of Algol at 1,061,000 miles, and that of the dark companion 830,000 miles, with a distance between them of 3,230,000 miles. He makes the mass of Algol four-ninths of the sun's mass, and that of the companion twoninths, or a combined mass equal to twothirds of the mass of the sun. Taking the sun's density as 1.44, and its diameter 866,000 miles, I find that the above dimensions give a mean density for the components of Algol of about one-third of that of water, not differing much from Maxwell Hall's result, and showing the correctness of his conclusion that, "in the case of the components of Algol, as Mr. Lockyer argues in the case of the sun, we are undoubtedly dealing with masses of gas.' The spectrum of Algol is of the first or Sirian type, all the spectral lines being faint except those of hydrogen, a type of spectrum which indicates that the star is very hot, and therefore probably in the gaseous state. This confirms the conclusion as to its density derived from the spectroscopic evidence of its orbital motion, and proves the correctness of the hypothesis that the variation in its light is due to a dark eclipsing satellite.

Professor Vogel assumes that both the components of the Algol system have the same density. But if this be so, we have the curious case of two bodies not differing largely in volume, of which one is intensely hot, and the other nearly a dark body. Vogel does not, however, consider it necessary to assume that the satellite is absolutely dark. It may be still in a very heated condition, but to agree with the observed variation the light of the companion cannot be greater than one-eightieth of that of Algol itself. As the spectrum of Algol is of the first type, we may conclude, I think, that the intensity of its light is greater than that of our sun. The light emitted by the satellite may therefore possibly be equal to several thousand times the light of the full moon without interfering with the hypothesis. Professor Vogel refers to the parallel case of Sirius and its comparatively dark companion.

The brightness of Algol and its comparatively small mass might be taken to indicate a relative proximity to the earth; but if its parallax were even one second of arc (a highly improbable value), the greatest distance between the components would amount to only one twenty-ninth of a second, a distance quite beyond the dividing power of even the largest telescopes.

It is to be hoped that the spectroscopic method may be applied to other stars of the Algol type, but some of these are so faint that a very large telescope would be required for the purpose. The following are, however, sufficiently bright to repay examination with telescopes of moderate power: Lambda Tauri, magnitude 3, and Delta Libræ, of the 5th magnitude. The others we must leave to the great Lick telescope or Mr. Common's 5-feet reflector.-Gentleman's Magazine.

WHO has not suffered lately from The osophy and Esoteric Buddhism? Journals are full of it, novels overflow with it, and oh! the private and confidential letters to ask what it all really means. It is nearly as bad as the Anglo-Jewish craze and the Original Home of the Aryans. Esoteric NEW SERIES-VOL. LIII., No. 3.

Buddhism has no sweet odor in the nostrils of Sanskrit and Pali scholars. They try to keep aloof of it, and to avoid all controversy with its prophets and prophetesses. But it seems hard on them that they should be blamed for not speaking out, when their silence says really all that

27

true.

is required. Many people, no doubt, are much distressed in their minds when they are told that Christianity is but a second edition of Buddhism. Is it really true? they ask. Why did you not tell us all this before? Surely you must have known it, and were only afraid to tell us. Then follow other questions: Does Buddhism really count more believers than any other religion Is Buddhism really older than Christianity? And does it really contain many things which are found in the Bible? Now, let us suppose that all this were Would it make Christianity less true if it were in a minority, and if the majority of human beings were on the side of Buddhism? Would it make Christianity less true if it were young, and if Buddhism were older by five hundred years? Would it make Christianity less true, if Buddhism contained many things which are taught in the Bible also The apostles of Esoteric Buddhism may really have been doing more good than they are aware of, if they have helped to bring questions like these before a larger public, and made people see that truth does not depend on majorities, that truth does not depend on antiquity, and that truth does not cease to be truth because it is held by others besides ourselves.

It is not to be wondered at, however, if people who know their own religion only, and even that very slightly, as far as its history is concerned, and who certainly know nothing of any other religions, except that they are the work of the devil, should be surprised at a number of more or less striking similarities which have been pointed out between Christianity and Buddhism.

Some people may still remember the charming volumes of Huc and Gabet, giving an account of their travels from China to Tibet. Nothing disturbed these excellent Roman Catholic priests so much as the Buddhist ritual in Tibet. When they visited the Buddhist temples, they could almost have imagined themselves in St. Peter's at Rome. The vestments were the same, the censers were the same, the hands of the priests were folded in the same way as at Rome, the very smell of the incense reminded them of more homely sinells. What could they say? They saw but one way out of it. It was the devil who had counterfeited all this for his own vile purposes.

But if this way of escape is barred, if the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity must not be explained by the wiles of the Tempter, what remains? Two ways, and two ways only, are open. Either, one of these two religions borrowed from the other, or the similarities between them must be traced back to that common foundation which underlies all religions.

If any actual borrowing or imitation. took place, it would seem to follow that it could have been Christianity only that was the borrower. Buddha died 477 B.C., and at the time of King Asoka, 259-222 B.C., his religion had been recognized as the state religion of his kingdom. Asoka was the grandson of King Chandragupta or Sandrocyptos, who was the contemporary of Seleucus; and at his court at Patalibothra lived Megasthenes, the ambassador of Seleucus. These are historical facts, and the chronological priority of Buddhism cannot well be contested. It does not follow by necessity that a more recent religion must have borrowed from a more ancient one, yet it must be admitted that we know of no other instance where a more ancient borrowed from a more recent religion.

us.

Mere ritual coincidences, such as disturbed the peace of mind of my excellent friend, the Abbé Huc, need not agitate Even the existence of monasterics, both for men and women, the use of rosaries for praying, the ringing of bells for calling the faithful together, the shaving of the head by priests, and the like, can hardly be considered as essential to any religion, and none of them has been proved to have been coeval with the rise of either Christianity or Buddhism. In several cases we know the independent antecedents of these customs and ecclesiastical in. stitutions. If Buddhist friars shaved their heads and were called Mundas, or shavelings, there was a reason for it. In India different castes and even different families had each their peculiar way of wearing the hair. This custom can be traced back even to Vedic times. Buddhism, which lifted its priesthood out of and above all trammels of caste, naturally forbade the wearing of hair as a distinctive feature of caste or class, and introduced in consequence the complete shaving of the hair, not mere tonsure, among its clergy. sides, there was the example of Buddha

Be

himself, who, on renouncing his princely rank, cut off his flowing locks, and became a shaveling.

Whatever the origin of the tonsure may have been, it could never have been an imitation of the example set by the Prince of Kapilavastu cutting off his flowing locks. The Early Christians seem to have considered it a shame for any man to have long hair; but that again is very different from the tonsure. It may show great ignorance, but I must confess that I do not know the true origin of the tonsure in the history of the Christian Church.

Mr. Oswald Felix has been publishing a number of articles in American papers, which have attracted attention in England also. His object is to prove that Christianity must have taken over not only its doctrines, but inany of the incidents also as related in the Gospels, from Buddhist sources. Mr. Oswald Felix is, I believe, one of the more conscientious and fairninded students of Buddhism. He takes his authorities either from authentic texts, the canonical writings of Southern and Northern Buddhists, or from such works as Seydel's Das Evangelium von Jesu, and not from Madame Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled. When my friends asked me to answer his articles, I urged my old plea that it is useless to argue about Homer with a man who does not know Greek, and that it would be equally useless to argue about Buddha and Buddhism with antagonists, however clever, who do not know Sanskrit or Pali. But then I was reminded that Bishops have sometimes written about Moses without knowing Hebrew, and that it was confessedly my chief object in publishing a large collection of English translations of the "Sacred Books of the East' to enable those ignorant of Sanskrit, Pali, Zend, Pehlevi, Chinese, Arabic, and all the rest, to form their own opinion of the great religions of the world. At last came urgent letters and appeals which admitted of no refusal, and here is the substance of one of my answers.

I am told that Mr. Felix Oswald has published the following statement: "According to the Lalita-Vistara, one of the sacred books of Northern Buddhism, Buddha converted his first disciples, half of them formerly followers of his precursor, Rudraka, while sitting under a figtree. The first disciples of Christ were seceders from the followers of John the

Baptist, the precursor of the world-renouncing Messiah. 'I have seen you under the fig-tree,' says Jesus, when His converts introduce Nathanael. Nathanael then at once recants his doubts. Sitting under the sacred fig-tree is one of the mystic tokens of Buddhist Messiahship.'

So far Mr. Oswald Felix. Let us now examine the case more closely. That the founders of the Christian and Buddhist religions should both have had precursors, can hardly be called a very startling coincidence, particularly when we consider how different was the relation of John the Baptist to Christ from that of Rudraka to Buddha. But that the Buddhist and the Christian Messiah should both have converted their disciples under a fig-tree does sound strange, and, being without any apparent motives, would seem to require some explanation. If there was borrowing on this point between the two religions, one would naturally think of India as the original home of the story. In India it was perfectly natural that Buddha should be represented as sitting under a fig-tree. Hermits in India lived under the shelter of trees, and no tree in India gave better shelter than the Indian fig-tree. Different Buddhas were supposed to have been sitting under different trees, and were distinguished in consequence by the trees which they had chosen as their own.

The fig-tree in Palestine, however, has nothing in common with the fig-tree in India, nor do we ever hear of Jewish Rabbis sitting under trees while teaching.

But is there a child in a Sunday-school that could not at once tell Mr. Oswald Felix and his predecessor, Dr. Seydel, that Christ never sat under a fig-tree! We read : "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wert under the fig-tree, I saw thee." Of Christ Himself sitting and teaching under a fig-tree there is no trace anywhere.

No judge, I suppose, would hesitate to say after this, "There is no case. But Dr. Seydel, who seems to be Mr. Oswald Felix's chief authority, is not discouraged. He tells us that Abubekr recognized Mo. hammed as sent by God, because he sat under a tree, and because no one could sit under that tree after Jesus. This, he maintains, proves that Jesus also sat under a tree, and that this was a sign of His Messiahship. But, unfortunately, the tree thus mentioned in a Modammedan legend