In the first place, however, I would desire to make a few remarks on the objections which have been expressed by an observer to whom astronomy is indebted for very useful work, against the endeavour to interpret the facts ascertained respecting these so-called new stars. M. Cornu, who made some among the earliest spectroscopic observations of the star in Cygnus, after describing his results, proceeded as follows:—“Grand and seductive though the task may be of endeavouring to draw from observed facts inductions respecting the physical state of this new star, respecting its temperature, and the chemical reactions of which it may be the scene, I shall abstain from all commentary and all hypothesis on this subject. I think that we do not yet possess the data necessary for arriving at useful conclusions, or at least at conclusions capable of being tested: however attractive hypotheses may be, we must not forget that they are outside the bounds of science, and that, far from serving science, they seriously endanger its progress.” This, as I ventured to point out at the time, is utterly inconsistent with all experience. M. Cornu’s objection to theorizing when he did not see his way to theorizing justly, is sound enough; but his general objection to theorizing is, with all deference be it said, sheerly absurd. It will be noticed that I say theorizing, not hypothesis-framing; for though he speaks of hypotheses, he in reality is describing theories. The word hypothesis is too frequently used in this incorrect sense—perhaps so frequently that we may almost prefer sanctioning the use to substituting the correct word. But the fact really is, that many, even among scientific writers, when they hear the word hypothesis, think immediately of Newton’s famous “hypotheses non fingo,” a dictum relating to real hypotheses, not to theories. It would, in fact, be absurd to suppose that Newton, who had advanced, advocated, and eventually established, the noblest scientific theory the world has known, would ever have expressed an objection to theorizing, as he is commonly understood to have done by those who interpret his “hypotheses non fingo” in the sense which finds favour with M. Cornu. But apart from this, Newton definitely indicates what he means by hypotheses. “I frame no hypotheses,” he says, “_for whatever is not deduced from phenomena is to be called an hypothesis_.” M. Cornu, it will be seen, rejects the idea of deducing from phenomena what he calls an hypothesis, but what would not be an hypothesis according to Newton’s definition: “Malgré tout ce qu’il y aurait de séduisant et de grandiose à tirer de ce fait des inductions, etc., je m’abstiendrai de tout commentaire et de toute hypothèse à ce sujet.” It is not thus that observed scientific facts are to be made fruitful, nor thus that the points to which closer attention must be given are to be ascertained.