Part 6

In the experience of an astronomer, it is not an unusual occurrence that an object in the heavens, fairly conspicuous, remains unseen until by some lucky chance an observer sweeping the sky picks it up, and, having determined its position, it is promptly found by others. Professor H. H. Turner, in his "Astronomical Discovery of the Nineteenth Century," says: "It is a common experience in astronomy that an observer may fail to notice in a general scrutiny, some phenomenon which he can see perfectly well when his attention is called to it; when a man has made a discovery, and others are told what to look for, they often see it so easily that they are filled with amazement and chagrin that they never saw it before."

In the Rev. T. W. Webb's interesting book on "Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes," a reminiscence of the author is given by a friend in which the following is related as illustrating the varying ability of observers in seeing. "A curious instance of difference of vision was well illustrated one superb evening when Mr. Webb and the writer were observing Saturn with the nine and a half inch refractor at Hardwick. Mr. Webb saw distinctly the division in the outer ring which the writer could not see a trace of, while the writer picked up a faint point of light which afterwards turned out to be Enceladus (a satellite) which Mr. Webb could not see."

In my brief observation of Mars I probably might have made out many more details if I had permitted Mr. Lowell to tell me what to see, and where to look for them on the disk. This I would not allow him to do, nor did I study any of the numerous drawings in his own work, or the original memoirs of Schiaparelli, or other works containing drawings of Mars in his library. I would not learn the names of any of the regions, or canals, nor with a single exception do I know them now. Only when I had finished my last night's observations, did Mr. Lowell take my drawings and write out a list of the various canals, oases, etc., which I had made out. Thus, unaided, I drew simply what was plainly evident, though many other details flashed out for a second, which were not recorded, simply because I did not see them often enough to be sure of their precise position on the disk.

Mr. Lowell points out one of the reasons why so many observers and astronomers have not seen the canals. In the third volume of the "Annals of the Lowell Observatory" he refers to a certain series of observations of Mars, made in 1894, and says: "Not only was there no sign of a canal, but even the main markings showed disheartingly indefinite." "This vacancy of expression was due to the Martian date." "It was the very nick of time to see nothing, for the part of the planet most presented to the Earth was then at the height of the dead season, and in this fact lies the key to much past undetection and present unbelief in the phenomenon of the canals."

VIII

VARIATION IN DRAWING

_Let us not cheat ourselves with words. Conservatism sounds finely and covers any amount of ignorance and fear._

PERCIVAL LOWELL.

Much doubt has been expressed as to the existence of the so-called canals in Mars and other surface markings of that planet in consequence of the discrepancy seen in the drawings of the more delicate features by various observers. While in the main a certain general resemblance is seen in the topographical character of the network of lines, and a more close resemblance in the darker markings, notably the Syrtis Major, the disagreement in the minor details has led certain astronomers to deny their existence altogether, or to insist that most of the markings were subjective, or due to poor focusing, or the result of aberration of the eye or lens. Professor Simon Newcomb, in his "New Astronomy for Everybody," in speaking of the work of the observers at the Lick Observatory and the great telescope at their command coupled with favorable situation, says: "It is therefore noteworthy that the markings on the face of Mars as presented by Barnard do not quite correspond to the channels of Schiaparelli and Lowell." Newcomb also reproduces in his book the drawings of a region in Mars known as Solis Lacus, made by Campbell and Hussey, and finds they do not show an exact agreement between them. Now such objections might have some weight if drawings made by different observers of the Solar Corona, for example, or the Nebula of Orion, or the Milky Way had any close resemblance. As a matter of fact, these various drawings depart far more widely from the originals, as shown by photographic reproduction, than do the various drawings of Mars. Mr. Fison, in his "Recent Advances in Astronomy," in speaking of the divergence in the drawings made by different observers, says: "In inspecting sketches of the delicate details of the Corona of the Sun made at the same place by different observers, it is difficult to believe that the same object has been represented." To appreciate how widely divergent such drawings are one has only to refer to the United States Naval Observatory publication on the Total Eclipse of the Sun, July 29, 1878.

As an indication of the dissimilarity of the drawings of the Corona made at the same instant by different observers, many of whom are well-known astronomers, I may say that the various plates resemble in turn the following objects: a skate's egg-case; a circular battery discharging fire from one side while the smoke drifts away in the opposite direction; an ascidian, known as Molgula, with an extra aperture, however; a snowshoe; a radiolarian; a fighting shield of an Igorrote savage; an egg of a hair worm; a crushed spider, and other equally dissimilar objects. I have reproduced a few of these drawings (Plate II), that the reader may realize that my similes are not exaggerated. The many drawings which have been made of the Nebula of Orion, by astronomers of distinction, depart quite as widely from each other as do those of the Solar Corona. In Volume XXV of the "Naval Observatory Observations" is published a monograph of the central parts of the Nebula of Orion, by Professor E. S. Holden. He starts with a drawing made by Huyghens in 1659 and ends with a drawing made by Professor Langley in 1879. In a summary of the work the author says: "I am acquainted with but one drawing of the Nebula which is entirely above criticism, that of the late G. P. Bond. He was a skilled artist," etc. An examination of the drawings in this Memoir are equally distracting. In looking at them casually they suggest respectively a Japanese stocking pattern; an amoeba; an embryo cuttlefish; a plan of Boston, and other forms equally divergent. Mr. Fison, in his book above quoted, writes as follows of other astronomical subjects: "Drawings of the Milky Way as seen by the naked eye have been recently executed by two independent observers, Mr. Boeddicker and Mr. Eaton, each drawing the result of long and arduous observation, but in comparing them it is the exception rather than the rule to find any approximation in agreement in respect of the more delicate details." The drawings of the surface features of Mars by different observers do vary in respect of the more delicate details, but in every case they represent a map of some kind and do not remind one of a wheelbarrow, baptismal font, or other incongruous objects. These divergent drawings of the same object are not confined to celestial bodies. One has only to examine works on ancient Mexican and Egyptian monuments, or those of classical archæology, to see the astounding caricatures and perversions. The various drawings of the famous Dighton Rock inscription, covering a period of two hundred years, are striking examples of the vagaries of an artist. Moreover, the text accompanying the drawings often states that they were drawn with scrupulous care. The hieroglyphics are pecked out on the face of a rock in rough lines, half an inch wide and a third of an inch in depth. These marks are in enduring rock; it is the observer and his imperfect drawing which is at fault. The Nebula of Orion, the Milky Way, and, for the time being, the Solar Corona are permanent objective realities and have all been photographed, yet behold the drawings! It is unnecessary to state that the ability to draw varies quite as much with man as the ability to sing. A man may be an excellent observer and yet utterly unable to use a pencil, and any attempt on the part of one to draw who has no ability in that direction results in a fiasco. It is noteworthy that an artist with no knowledge of astronomy, or the art of telescopic observation, will make a more accurate drawing than one made by the best astronomer who has no ability as a draughtsman. Concerning the drawings of Mars, if one will turn to the "Annals of the Lowell Observatory," Volume I, Plate XIV, he will there see drawings made on successive nights by Mr. Lowell and his assistants, Mr. Douglass and Mr. Drew, showing a remarkable agreement. After finishing my observations of Mars, which covered nearly a complete presentation of the planet, I made a comparison between my drawings and those made by Professor Lowell and his secretary, Miss Leonard, and a few made by the assistant astronomers, Mr. Lampland and Mr. Slipher, and the agreement was almost absolute, the only difference being that their drawings portrayed additional features which in some cases I had caught a glimpse of but could not fix. I found it exceedingly difficult to draw in the correct positions details within a circle, and particularly when the axis of that circle was inclined some degrees from the vertical, indicated by a spider's thread in the ocular.

I think any reasonable man will admit that the divergence seen in the various drawings of Mars by different observers cannot be held as an argument against their existence.

IX

THEORIES REGARDING THE CANALS

_In knowledge, that man only is to be condemned and despised who is not in a state of transition._

FARADAY.

Having shown to the satisfaction of any reasonable mind that the delicate lines, known as canals, do exist, it will be interesting to examine some of the theories which have been advanced to explain these markings, as well as some of the absurd deductions drawn from their existence. The late Dr. J. Joly, Professor of Geology in the University of Dublin, in a paper on the Origin of the Canals of Mars ("Trans." Royal Soc., Dublin) came to the conclusion that meteoric bodies, revolving on or near the surface of Mars, produced these lines. In brief, he supposed that Mars at various times in the early stages of his history, when his rotation period was much shorter, attracted small bodies, which, after whirling about the planet, finally came down on the crust and caused these lines. He conceived of satellites twice the diameter of Phobos, or say, seventy-two miles in diameter, flying about Mars at a distance of sixty-three miles, which would at this distance, by its attractive force, exert a stress on the supposed thin crust of Mars of from fifteen to thirty tons per square foot, and thus rend the surface of the planet in a zone two hundred and twenty miles wide, thus forming two parallel ridges which might be visible to us as double canals. This preposterous idea takes no account of the greater attractive force of the Earth, and that it too should have had precisely the same experience, more often repeated. No trace of such behaviors, however, has ever been detected. The Moon, too, should have caught some of these heavy bodies, but while conspicuous cracks are seen on her surface, and delicate ridges are seen radiating from the larger volcanoes, not a trace of these great meteoric furrows has ever been observed. It takes no account of the chances--one in a million--that these cavorting meteors should meet at common centres, and if they did, the impossibility that they should stop abruptly and then start off in opposite directions. It takes no account of many of the lines following the arc of a great circle, or what finally became of three or four hundred of these meteors to tally with the number of the canals, unless it is supposed that some of them went whirling around the planet three or four times, changing their courses instantly and repeatedly. Indeed, the advancement of such absurd ideas shows the desperate despair of a man who tries to escape the admission that the lines in question may be artificial--and hence the result of intelligence working to a definite end--by a conception as crazy as one might possibly get in a disordered dream. To heighten the absurdity of this theory, if that were possible, Mr. J. L. E. Dryer, who signs a notice of this paper, while calling attention to the fact that this hypothesis takes no account of the correlation of changes in the canals with seasonal changes on the planet, otherwise soberly says: "It must be conceded that there is nothing in the new hypothesis contrary to observed facts."

Mr. J. Orr, in the pages of the "British Astronomical Journal," assuming that Schiaparelli believed that the canals were excavated (despite the fact that Schiaparelli called them _canali_, or channels), and compared them to the English Channel and the Channel of Mozambique--for at the outset he had no doubt of their being natural configurations--proceeds to show the impossibility of an idea that was never entertained. His attempt is as childish and ridiculous as the theory he conjures up. Mr. Orr, taking it for granted that the only explanation offered for these lines is that they are excavated, concludes that a Martian canal, like Tartarus, "should be seventy feet in depth (one might ask, why not five hundred or five thousand?) and that the canals of Mars would contain 1,634,000 of our Suez Canals, and would require an army of two hundred million men, working for one thousand of our years, for their construction," and similar idiocies regarding the population of Mars, which he concludes "must be 409,000,000, thus showing that all the adult males, and a large number of women, must have been engaged in the great work." In connection with this absurd travesty, let us pause for a moment to consider the extraordinary character of the president of this society before which this paper was read. A man who is the senior assistant of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, instead of rebuking this balderdash as entirely beside the question, stated as the result of an experiment with a lot of charity-school children, that the canals are merely illusions of the brain, and this in the face of the testimony of a number of astronomers, many of whom are highly distinguished, that the markings do exist. This man seriously commented on the paper by saying: "He hoped that Mr. Orr's statistical, but nevertheless amusing and instructive, paper might prove one more nail in the coffin of a very absurd idea which had certainly got most undue currency, namely, that the canals of Mars could possibly be the work of human agents." Equally astounding, too, is it that this nonsense the "Astronomical Journal of the Pacific" republishes without a word of comment. But what could we expect of the mentality of the senior assistant of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, who, with the great vault of heaven crowded with enigmas awaiting an answer, should waste a particle of gray matter in trying to ascertain precisely where Joshua stood when he commanded the Sun to stand still so that he could have a little more time for his bloody work. Even the day of the month is ascertained; he finds that the date of this murderous affair was about July 22, and that the Sun must have risen exactly at 5 A. M. and set at 7 P. M. The Moon, he concludes, must have been about its third quarter and was within half an hour of setting. He could not fix the year, however! Fancy all this detail without a word of exegetical criticism, or comment on the precise words of Joshua. "And he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies." Not even a pious query as to why the Lord did not shower down a few more meteorites, rather than disarrange the whole solar system. Such an attitude of the mind renders one incapable of appreciating anything in astronomic research beyond that which can be measured and photographed. The above is a fair illustration of the intolerable attitude of many of those who deny the existence of the canals, or, if admitting them as existent, resort to every expedient to disprove their artificial character.

Among the interesting suggestions as to the cause of the lines on Mars is that proposed by Professor W. H. Pickering, who, while admitting that they represent bands of vegetation, believes that they have their counterpart on the Moon, and that both are produced by volcanic forces, the cracking of the surface being the result of internal strain and stress. The fissures thus produced permit the escape of water vapor and carbon dioxide, and thus the natural irrigation of these cracks is effected and growth of vegetation follows. This opinion should have great weight, as Professor Pickering has made a profound study of lunar details, and is one of the foremost authorities on the subject. He has also drawn many of the surface features of Mars, and was at one time connected with the Lowell Observatory. He it was who suggested irrigation to account for the great apparent width of the Martian lines. In the "Annals of the Harvard College Observatory," Vol. LIII, No. 14, Professor Pickering presents a study of a crater on the Moon's surface, known as Eratosthenes, accompanied by drawings and photographs of an area within the crater revealing a few irregular cracks which he thinks correspond to the well-known canals of Mars; indeed, he calls these lines canals though he believes them to be cracks. A few spots, probably craterlets, he compares to the oases of Lowell. That there is no atmosphere on the Moon is admitted by all. Professor Pickering's keen eye has, however, detected a change in the appearance of these cracks which he attributes to vegetation, animated in its growth by water vapor and carbonic acid gas, as before remarked. In this supposition he may be right, though it seems difficult to believe that so deliquescent an organism as a plant could withstand a variation of temperature from two to three hundred degrees below zero, to one above that of boiling water. One might naturally ask why the greater cracks so conspicuous on the Moon's surface, typical examples of which are found in the Mare Serenitis, Mare Triangulatis, and surroundings, do not emit aqueous vapor and carbon dioxide, and thus show similar features of widening and change of shade. Admitting the correctness of Pickering's views, it seems impossible to see any resemblance between this diminutive agglomeration of lines within a lunar crater, and the great geodetic lines sweeping for hundreds of miles across the face of Mars.

In the lunar crater, known as Flammarion's Circle, a most typical branching crack is seen. An examination of these lunar cracks, of which I made drawings through the great telescope at the Lowell Observatory, showed them to be cracks of the most unmistakable character, paralleled on the Earth's surface, by sunbaked fissures. If volcanic forces have caused these cracks in the Moon the same kind of energy should have produced the same general results in Mars, and circular craters should equally be in evidence, for many of the lunar craters are sufficiently large to be detected were they on Mars. They would certainly be indicated on the terminator, and yet not a trace of such markings has been found. It is rather extraordinary, too, that such earthquake fissures on any great scale should not have been filled with trap, silicate, or other injected material. Indeed it is strange that such a triangulating arrangement of cracks has not been found on the Earth's surface.

In order to pronounce the lines on Mars as simply cracks one should study the various kinds of cracks in similar surfaces on the Earth. In such a study he would be amazed at the similarity of cracks. When there is a grain in the substance, as in wood, the cracks follow the grain, though even in this material they are discontinuous. In amorphous material they have essentially the same character; whether in the almost microscopic crackle of old Satsuma pottery, or huge cracks in sun-dried mud, the areas enclosed are generally polygonal. If the material be of impalpable fineness the edges of the cracks are smooth and clean-cut, as in Plate III, from a Chinese bowl; whereas if the material is coarse and pebbly the edges of the cracks are rough and irregular, as in Plate IV, from the muddy shores of a lake. Cracks arising from contraction never converge to a common centre, and when not connected with another crack they taper to a point. They begin at indefinite places and end in an equally indefinite manner. That there should be a common resemblance in cracks due to contraction is evident as they arise from a shrinking of the surface. The most ancient deposits, millions of ages ago, reveal mud cracks differing in no respect from those found to-day. We subjoin a few forms of cracks from various surfaces, to show their essential resemblance. It will be seen that the cracks in the Moon are identical in character to those found on the Mesa at Flagstaff. They start from some indefinite point, are irregular in outline and end as indefinitely. A poor asphalt pavement offers one of the best opportunities for the study of the formation of various kinds of cracks and fissures. On the edge of a sloping sidewalk one may see the cracks due to a sliding, or lateral displacement of the surface; the effects of subsidence show a number of cracks around the area of depression; the growth of a tree crowding the asphalt shows the effect of lateral thrust, and an enlargement of a root below, or the effects of frost show cracks due to elevation. All these various cracks reveal the same features: they are discontinuous, they begin and end without definition. Schiaparelli says in regard to the _canali_ of Mars: "None of them have yet been seen cut off in the middle of the continent, remaining without beginning or without end." These lines on the surface of Mars, as a writer in "Nature" says, are almost without exception geodetically straight, supernaturally so, and this in spite of their leading in every possible direction. It is inconceivable that cracks should be laid out with such geodetic precision. We have seen that cracks have no definite beginning or termination; we have seen that the lines of Mars begin and end at definite places. Cracks are irregular, vary in width and differ entirely from the straight lines depicted by Schiaparelli, Lowell, and others. But if we admit them to be natural cracks in the crust we are compelled to admit that the forces implicated in such cracks must have been active many millions of years ago, as Mars, being a much older planet than the Earth, must have long since ceased to show those activities which the Earth, even to-day, exhibits in such phenomena as earthquakes, subsidences, elevations, and the like. Now cracks made at that early time in the history of the planet must have long since become filled with detritus and obliterated in other ways, and no evidence would show, even on close inspection, of their former existence, much less at a distance of 50,000,000 of miles, more or less.