As you know, the North Star is a most beautiful double. Its companion is of the ninth order of magnitude, that is, three magnitudes smaller than the smallest star visible to the naked eye on a dark night. There was a time when Polaris, as a double, was regarded as an excellent test for a good three inch telescope; that is any three inch instrument in which the companion could be seen was pronounced to be first-class. But so persistently have instruments of small aperture been improved that that star is no longer an absolute test for three inch objectives of fine quality, or any first-rate objective exceeding two inches for which Dawes proposed it as a standard of excellence, he having found that if the eye and telescope be good, the companion to Polaris may be seen with such an aperture armed with a power of eighty. As a matter of fact, Dawes, who was, like Burnham, blessed with most acute vision, saw the companion with an instrument no larger than this small one in my hand - one inch and three-tenths. Ward saw it with an inch and one-quarter objective, and Dawson with so small an aperture as one inch. T.T. Smith has seen it with a reflector stopped down to one inch and one-quarter, while in the instrument still known as the "great Dorpat reflector," it has been seen in broad daylight.

This historic telescope has, I believe, a twelve inch object glass, but the difficulty of seeing in sunshine so minute a star is such that the fact may fairly be mentioned here.

Another interesting feature is this. Objects once discovered, though thought to be visible in large telescopes only, may often be seen in much smaller ones. The first Herschel said truly that less optical power will show an object than was required for its discovery. The rifts, or canals, in the Great Nebula in Andromeda is a case in point, but two better illustrations may be taken from the planets. Though Saturn was for many years subjected to most careful scrutiny by skilled astronomers using the most powerful telescopes in existence, the crape ring eluded discovery until November, 1850, when it was independently seen by Dawes, in England, and Bond, in the United States. Both were capital observers and employed excellent instruments of large aperture, and it was naturally presumed that only such instruments could show the novel Saturnian feature. Not so. Once brought to the attention of astronomers, Webb saw the new ring with his three and seven-tenths telescope and Ross with an aperture not exceeding three and three-eighths in diameter. Nay, I am permitted to say that a venerable member of this society made drawings of it with a three inch refractor.

With a two inch objective, Grover not only saw the crape ring, but Saturn's belts, as well, and the shadow cast by the ball of the planet upon its system of rings. Titan, Saturn's largest moon, is merely a point of light as compared with the planet, as it appears in a telescope, yet it has been seen, so it is said, with a one inch glass. The shadow of this satellite, while crossing the face of Saturn, has been observed by Banks with a two and seven-eighths objective. By hiding the glare of the planet behind an occulting bar, some of Saturn's smallest moons were seen by Kitchener with a two and seven-tenths aperture and by Capron with a two and three-fourths one. Banks saw four of them with a three and seven-eighths telescope, Grover two of them with a three and three-quarter inch, and four inches of aperture will show five of them, so Webb says. Rhea, Dione and Tethys are more minute than Japetus, yet Cassini, with his inferior means, discerned them and traced their periods. Take the instance of Mars next. It was long believed that Mars had no satellites.

But in 1877, during one of the highly favorable oppositions of that planet which occur but once in about sixteen years, the able Hall, using the great 26 inch refractor at Washington, discovered two tiny moons which had never been seen before. One of these, called Deimos, is only six miles in diameter, the other, named Phobos, is only seven, and both are exceedingly close to the primary and in rapid revolution. The diameter of these satellites is really less than the distance from High Park, on the west of Toronto, to Woodbine race course, on the east of the city. No wonder these minute objects - seldom, if ever, nearer to us than about forty millions of miles - are difficult to see at all. Newcomb and Holden tell us that they are invisible save at the sixteen year periods referred to, when it happens that the earth and Mars, in their respective orbits, approach each other more nearly than at any other time. But once discovered, the rule held good even in the case of the satellites of Mars. Pratt has seen Deimos, the outermost moon, with an eight and one-seventh inch telescope; Erek has seen it with a seven and one-third inch achromatic; Trouvellot, the innermost one, with a six and three-tenths glass, while Common believes that any one who can make out Enceladus, one of Saturn's smallest moons, can see those of Mars by hiding the planet at or near the elongations, and that even our own moonlight does not prevent the observations being made.

It chances for the benefit of observers, in the northern hemisphere especially, that one of the sixteen year periods will culminate in 1893, when Mars will be most advantageously situated for close examination. No doubt every one will avail himself of the opportunity, and may we not reasonably hope that scores of amateur observers throughout the United States and Canada will experience the delight of seeing and studying the tiny moons of our ruddy neighbor?

And so I might proceed until I had wearied you with illustrations showing what can be done with telescopes so small that they may fairly be classed as "common," Webb says that such apertures, with somewhat high powers, will reveal stars down to the eleventh magnitude. The interesting celestial objects more conspicuous than stars of that magnitude are sufficiently numerous to exhaust much more time than any amateur can give to observing. Indeed, the lot of the amateur is a happy one. With a good, though small, telescope, he may have for subjects of investigation the sun with his spots, his faculae, his prominences and spectra; the moon, a most superb object in nearly every optical instrument, with her mountains, valleys, seas, craters, cones, and ever-changing aspects renewed every month, her occupations of stars, her eclipses, and all that; the planets, some with phases, and other with markings, belts, rings, and moons with scores of occupations, eclipses and transits due to their easily observed rotation around their primaries; the nebulae, the double, triple and multiple stars with sometimes beautifully contrasted colors, and a thousand and one other means of amusing and instructing himself.

Nature has opened in the heavens as interesting a volume as she has opened on the earth, and with but little trouble any one may learn to read in it.

I trust it has been shown that expensive telescopes are not necessarily required for practical work. My advice to an intending purchaser would be to put into the objective for a refractor, or into the mirror for a reflector, all the money he feels warranted in spending, leaving the mounting to be done in the cheapest possible manner consistent with accuracy of adjustment, because it is in the objective or in the mirror that the value of the telescope alone resides. In the shops may be found many telescopes gorgeous in polished tubes and brass mountings which, for effective work, are absolutely worthless. On this subject, I consulted the most eminent of all discoverers of double stars, an observer who, even as an amateur, made a glorious reputation by the work done with a six inch telescope. I refer to Mr. S.W. Burnham, of the Lick Observatory, who, in reply, kindly wrote: "You will certainly have no difficulty in making out a strong case in favor of the use of small telescopes in many departments of important astronomical work. Most of the early telescopic work was done with instruments which would now be considered as inferior to modern instruments, in quality as well as in size. You are doubtless familiar with much of the amateur work, in this country and elsewhere, done with comparatively small apertures. The most important condition is to have the refractor, whatever its size may be, of the highest optical perfection, and then the rest will depend on the zeal and industry of the observer." The italics are mine.

Incidentally, it may be mentioned that much most interesting work may be done even with an opera glass, as a few minutes' systematic observation on any fine night will prove. Newcomb and Holden assure us that "if Hipparchus had had even such an optical instrument, mankind need not have waited two thousand years to know the nature of the Milky Way, nor would it have required a Galilei to discover the phases of Venus or the spots on the sun." To amplify the thought, if that mighty geometer and observer and some of his contemporaries had possessed but the "common telescope," is it not probable that in the science of astronomy the world would have been to-day two thousand years in advance of its present position?

Paper read before the Astronomical and Physical Society of Toronto, Canada, April 18, 1891.