Astronomical Myths: Based on Flammarions's "History of the Heavens" — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
Astronomical Myths: Based on Flammarions's "History of the Heavens"
John Stuart Mill · en
We have already said that the signs of the zodiac are not now the same
as the zodiacal constellations, and this is now easily understood. It is
not worth while to say that the sun enters such and such a part of the
Fishes at the equinox, and changes every year. So the part of the
heavens it _does_ then enter--be it Fishes, or Aquarius, or the Ram--is
called by the same name--and is called a _sign_; the name chosen is the
Ram or Aries, which coincided with the constellation of that name when
the matter was arranged. There is another equally important and
instructive result of this precession of the equinox. For the earth's
axis is always perpendicular to the plane of the equator, and if the
latter moves, the former must too, and change its position with respect
to the axis of the ecliptic, which remains immovable. And the ends of
these axes, or the points they occupy among the stars, called their
poles, will change in the same way; the pole of the equator, round which
the heavens appear to move, describing a curve about the pole of the
ecliptic; and since the ecliptic and equator are always _nearly_ at the
same angle, this curve will be very nearly a circle, as represented on
preceding page.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.]
Now the pole of the equator is a very marked point in the heavens,
because the star nearest to it appears to have no motion. If then we
draw such a figure as above, so as to see where this pole would be at
any given date, and then read in any old record that such and such a
star had no motion, we know at once at what date such a statement must
have been made. This means of estimating dates is less certain than the
other, because any star that is nearer to the pole than any other will
appear to have no motion _relatively_ to the rest, unless accurate
measurements were made. Nevertheless, when we have any reason to believe
that observations were carefully made, and there is any evidence that
some particular star was considered the Pole Star, we have some
confidence in concluding the date, examples of which will appear in the
sequel; and we may give one illustration now, though not a very
satisfactory one. Hipparchus cites a passage from the sphere of Eudoxus,
in which he says, _Est vero stella quaedam in eodem consistens loco, quae
quidem polus est mundi._ (There is a certain immovable star, which is
the pole of the world.)