Venus was once supposed to possess a satellite. But belief in its existence has died out. No one, indeed, has caught even a deceptive glimpse of such an object during the last 125 years. Yet it was repeatedly and, one might have thought, well observed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Fontana "discovered" it in 1645; Cassini--an adept in the art of seeing--recognised it in 1672, and again in 1686; Short watched it for a full hour in 1740 with varied instrumental means; Tobias Mayer in 1759, Montaigne in 1761; several astronomers at Copenhagen in March, 1764, noted what they considered its unmistakable presence; as did Horrebow in 1768. But M. Paul Stroobant,[883] who in 1887 submitted all the available data on the subject to a searching examination, identified Horrebow's satellite with Theta Libræ, a fifth-magnitude star; and a few other apparitions were, by his industry, similarly explained away. Nevertheless, several withstood all efforts to account for them, and together form a most curious case of illusion. For it is quite certain that Venus has no such conspicuous attendant. * * * * * The third planet encountered in travelling outward from the sun is the abode of man. He has in consequence opportunities for studying its physical habitudes altogether different from the baffling glimpse afforded to him of the other members of the solar family. Regarding the earth, then, a mass of knowledge so varied and comprehensive has been accumulated as to form a science--or rather several sciences--apart. But underneath all lie astronomical relations, the recognition and investigation of which constitute one of the most significant intellectual events of the present century. It is indeed far from easy to draw a line of logical distinction between items of knowledge which have their proper place here, and those which should be left to the historian of geology. There are some, however, of which the cosmical connections are so close that it is impossible to overlook them. Among these is the ascertainment of the solidity of the globe. At first sight it seems difficult to conceive what the apparent positions of the stars can have to do with subterranean conditions; yet it was from star measurements alone that Hopkins, in 1839, concluded the earth to be solid to a depth of at least 800 or 1,000 miles.[884] His argument was, that if it were a mere shell filled with liquid, precession and nutation would be much larger than they are observed to be. For the shell alone would follow the pull of the sun and moon on its equatorial girdle, leaving the liquid behind; and being thus so much the lighter, would move the more readily. There is, it is true, grave reason to doubt whether this reasoning corresponds with the actual facts of the case;[885] but the conclusion to which it led has been otherwise affirmed and extended.