Part 5

It seems strange that nine years should elapse before an astronomer with an interest in the subject, coupled with an acute vision and the patience to observe assiduously, should arise to confirm the existence of these markings, but in another chapter I have called attention to the little interest astronomers have manifested in planetary markings of any kind. It has been shown elsewhere that acute vision, with a clear and, above all, a steady atmosphere, are the chief essentials in making out the markings. It is curious to note the attitude of some astronomers, who, having seen the canals and even drawn them, denied their veritability. Their explanations cover "illusions due to the property of light itself, the inability of the eye to maintain its mechanism of accommodation, the behavior of air waves, temporary alteration of the focus of the eye, undetected astigmatism," etc., etc. But, to return to the astronomers who have drawn them. On the unfavorable opposition of 1888, Schiaparelli declares that "the canali had all the distinctness of an engraving on steel, with the magical beauty of a colored engraving." He furthermore says: "As far as we have been able to observe them hitherto, they are certainly fixed configurations upon the planet, the Nilosyrtis has been seen in that place for nearly one hundred years and some of the others for at least thirty years."

In this connection it is interesting to quote from Schiaparelli who, until many years after he discovered the canals of Mars, had no doubt of their natural origin. As late as 1893, he still considered them natural. In speaking of the canals, he says: "It is not necessary to suppose here the work of intelligent beings; and in spite of the almost geometric appearance of their whole system, for the present we incline to believe that they are product of the evolution of a planet, much as on the Earth is the English Channel, or the Channel of Mozambique." This extract may be found in a memoir in "Natura ed Arte," 1893, page 22. On page 24 of the same memoir Schiaparelli illustrates the elasticity of his mind and a thoroughly unprejudiced attitude by saying: "Their singular aspect, and the fact that they are drawn with absolute geometric precision, as if they were the product of rule and compass, have induced some people to see in them the work of intelligent beings, inhabitants of the planet. I should be very careful not to combat this supposition, which involves no impossibility." (The italics are ours.) His comparison of the Martian lines with the English Channel and the Channel of Mozambique, if he means any resemblance in form and not in the manner of formation, is most unfortunate, for on the whole face of the Earth he could not have mentioned surface features more totally unlike any feature of the Martian surface, as drawn by him, than these two channels: the English Channel, 100 miles wide at its mouth and 200 miles long, tapering to the Straits of Dover; the Mozambique Channel, hour-glass shaped, 1,100 miles long, and, at its narrowest part, 260 miles wide, and at either end nearly 700 miles wide. Had he suggested the Red Sea, 1,200 miles long, or the Straits of Malacca, 350 miles long, a nearer resemblance to the canals of Mars might have been seen, though even here it would be impossible to find their counterparts in Mars. These channels are merging with the ocean, are nearly half the width of their length, and enlarge at both ends, while the canali of Mars run for hundreds of miles as straight as ruled lines. How slight the resemblance is may be appreciated by comparing the following figure of the Earth (Fig. 1), upon which the Red Sea, the English and the Mozambique Channels and the Straits of Malacca are indicated.

In 1897 Schiaparelli becomes still more convinced of their artificiality. In his Memoir XXV, in the Reale Academia del Lincei, in speaking of the canals, he says: "This whole arrangement presents an indescribable simplicity and symmetry which cannot possibly be the work of chance." In a letter to Mr. Lowell, dated December 4, 1904, he writes: "Your theory of vegetation becomes more and more probable." Mr. A. Stanley Williams, in the "Observatory" for June, 1899, in a paper entitled "Notes on Mars," described the appearance of certain canals, regions, etc., in great detail. He notices that at the crossing of the canals a little dark spot occurs, a feature, he says, which was first elucidated by Professor Lowell in 1894. Mr. Williams also noticed the black streak bordering the northern snow cap, which Mr. Lowell in his book on Mars has interpreted as a body of water resulting from the melting snow.

In the Quarterly Journal of the Astronomical Society of Wales, the Rev. Theo. E. R. Phillips publishes an excellent drawing of Mars in color. In this drawing he shows a large number of regions, a number of canals, and other features which, he says, "came out with the clearness and sharpness of an engraving, and bore no resemblance to the 'diffused streaks' or amorphous smudges one sees for the canals in imperfect seeing." In this drawing the polar snow caps show with remarkable vividness.

Professor W. H. Pickering, in a continuous record of observations on Mars, published in the "Annals of the Lowell Observatory," records under August 20: "The dark north canals are also noticeable, and, had they looked as they now do, could not possibly have been missed on the 16th."

Dr. Phil. Fauth has, with a seven inch objective, drawn and published sixty-three drawings of Mars in which a great many canals are shown, a list of which he presents in his memoir on the subject.

The lamented Perrotin, for some time Director of the Nice Observatory, in company with M. Janssen, at Meudon, observed Mars through the great equatorial (32-2/3 inch), and published the results in the "Comptes Rendues" (Vol. CXXIV, No. 7). He describes the several zones, the northern equatorial zone "being more particularly the zone of the extraordinary canals, the discovery of which we owe to Schiaparelli, and to which we ourselves, by our publication, in 1886, called the attention of the astronomical world."

The London "Nature," March 17, 1904, in noting the death of M. Henry Perrotin, speaks of him as one of the ablest advocates of astronomical science. He devoted much time to Mars. "Aware that he was working at the extreme limit of visibility, and knowing the tendency for self-deception to creep in and impair the value of such delicate observations, he sought opportunities of making similar measures and records with different instruments, and under varied conditions, in order to remove, so far as possible, the evils of bias and partiality from the results of his researches."

Dr. Terby of Louvain, in a memoir entitled "Physical Observations of Mars," a translation of which appeared in the "Astronomical and Astrophysical Journal," No. 106, identifies many of Schiaparelli's canali and other details depicted in Schiaparelli's map of Mars. In conclusion Dr. Terby says: "After what we have seen we dare affirm that henceforth the progress of areography will be in the hands of those alone who, freeing themselves from the shackles of doubt, will resolutely engage in the way traced by the celebrated astronomer of Milan. A new era has begun in the study of Mars by the discovery of canals and their doubling, and by the micrometric determination of one hundred and fourteen fundamental points on the map, an era succeeding to that which was inaugurated a half century ago by the construction of the first two hemispheres and by the approximate fixing of fourteen points by Mäedler." Dr. Terby further says: "But these results have an incontestable value in the presence of the incredulity with which certain astronomers still consider the beautiful discoveries of Milan. Who would believe it? In spite of the beautiful drawings of M. Perrotin one reads still that the discoveries of M. Schiaparelli have not been confirmed by the largest instruments."

In "Astronomy and Astrophysics," No. 108, is published a series of contributions on Mars by Professors Edward C. Holden, William H. Pickering, C. A. Young, Lewis Swift, George C. Comstock, E. E. Barnard, and H. C. Wilson. All of these men are astronomers and all are connected as directors or observers with various observatories in the United States. Many sent sketches, most of them saw the canals, all saw the polar snow caps and darker regions. To say that these astronomers were sketching details which existed only in their imagination is simply preposterous.

Professor Herbert A. Howe, Director of the Chamberlin Observatory, at Denver, in his "Elements of Descriptive Astronomy" says: "If we have simply to answer the question, 'Would a man, as constituted at present, if transported to Mars find it possible to exist there?' The most probable answer is, 'No.' While one must not be dogmatic, it may be said, with some assurance, that the man would gasp a few times and die. However, it is conceivable that manlike beings might find a home there." Mr. Howe could have said without being dogmatic that a man thus transported would die of what is known as Caisson disease.

Among those who assert that the canals are artificial we have Professor Percival Lowell as pre-eminent. He has erected an observatory in the region of one of the clearest atmospheres in the world, has furnished it with the finest telescope that Clark ever made, and for the chief purpose of studying the surface features of Mars. In his interesting book on Mars he has presented the results of his observations in so lucid and convincing a manner that a reviewer of the English edition of the work, in an English astronomical journal, is led to write: "We may say at once that we feel bound to accept these observations as sufficient evidence of the real existence of the markings without expressing an opinion as to what they may be." The reviewer ends by saying: "Indeed, there is a subtle deftness in the way Mr. Lowell deals with his observations which gives the impression that he has been there and seen it all, and it is really hard to say why we cannot accept his conclusions. It is probable, because we are shy to receive new facts at a first statement. In time, no doubt, we shall be willing to accept his deductions (or facts) as to the markings. We were about to advance objections, but they seem poor, and really it is a case where each person must read and form his own ideas--but by all means read."

We have already presented a summary of his observations. We may add here, however, an extract from his book on the solar system. In this Mr. Lowell says of Mars: "What we see hints of the existence of beings who are in advance of, not behind us in the journey of life," and again: "Life on Mars must take on a very different guise from what it wears on the Earth. It is certain there can be no man there--that is as certain as anything can be. But this does not preclude a local intelligence equal to, and perhaps easily superior to, our own. We seem to have evidence that something of the sort does exist there at the present moment and has made imprint of its existence far exceeding anything we have left on Mother Earth."

George W. Morehouse, in his "Wilderness of Worlds," says: "Taken all together we must regard Mars as probably an inhabited world and very similar to the Earth."

Mr. Hector Macpherson, Jr., member of the Astronomical Society of France, in his interesting book "Astronomers of To-day," says, in regard to Mr. Lowell's book on Mars: "He does not ask us to believe anything fantastical or extravagant. His hypothesis has been framed to account for all the various Martian features. At present we can only say that it is the most comprehensive and probable theory yet advanced to explain the phenomena of the red planet."

Professor Todd, Director of the Astronomical Observatory at Amherst College, in his book on Stars and Telescopes, in referring to drawings of a region in the southern portion of Mars, known as the Solis Lacus, and a complicated drawing of another region, says: "Whether one views this marvellous and intricate system as a whole, or in some portion of high detail, it is difficult to escape the conviction that the canali have, at least in part, been designed and executed with a definite end in view."

There are many who do not deny the existence of some forms of life on the planet, but are not prepared to admit the existence of intelligent creatures. Sir Robert Ball expresses himself as follows: "That there may be types of life of some kind on Mars is, I should think, quite likely."

The number of astronomers above quoted, who have seen and drawn the canals, might be augmented, but a sufficient number have been cited to show that the evidence of the presence of these markings does not rest with a few, furthermore, some of these observers can only interpret the markings as the result of intelligent action. It may be urged that among those quoted are some whose opinion may not have great weight since they are not professional astronomers. One must insist that the study of planetary markings as well as the interpretation of their meanings comes not only within the province of planetary astronomers, but that any broad-minded man, with an acute eye and familiar with the sciences connected with the surface features of the Earth, is quite competent to make observations of his own and to judge of the merits of the question.

THE STUDY OF PLANETARY MARKINGS

Their singular aspect, and the fact that they are drawn with absolute geometric precision as if they were the product of rule and compass, have induced some people to see in them the work of intelligent beings, inhabitants of the planet. I should be careful not to combat this supposition which involves no impossibility.

SCHIAPARELLI.

It is a question whether, after all, the study of planetary markings comes within the province of astronomers. Not more, perhaps, than the study of physical geography and subjects connected with the surface features of the Earth, comes under the cognizance of those whose profession it is to determine the oscillation of the pole, the Earth's movements due to the Moon, etc. Indeed, these lines of research are strictly astronomical. With the study of the surface markings of the Moon, or Mars, features of an entirely different kind are to be interpreted, and quite a different equipment is necessary. It is no wonder, then, that astronomers, the most conservative of all classes of investigators, should view with suspicion the results of the work of Schiaparelli, Lowell and others. Immersed in mathematics, trusting in nothing that cannot be measured and reckoned, as a class holding their imagination in abeyance, is it any surprise that they should present an attitude of indifference and even hostility to the work of those who, differently equipped mentally, have attempted a definition and solution of the riddle of the Martian markings? To appreciate how foreign to the studies of an astronomer is the interpretation of the canals of Mars, one has simply to scan the index of any astronomical publication, or the titles of papers in the transactions of astronomical societies. For example, take volumes XX and XXI of the "Astronomical Journal" and tabulate the papers, memoirs, etc., therein published, numbering two hundred and thirty-eight, and we find of these, seventy-four on the stars; sixty-two on the comets; nineteen on planets and satellites, mostly mathematical; eighteen on the Sun; eighteen on the asteroids; fifteen on Eros; ten on polar motion and latitude; four on Nova Persei; and seventeen miscellaneous, consisting of logarithms, instruments, Gegenschein, etc.; and only one on Mars, and this on the polar snow caps!

As to the question whether it is more important to add another to the thousands of variable stars and binaries, and hundreds of asteroids, already determined, or to consider whether we are alone in the universe and, if so, the significance of it, I think with the intelligent public there can be no doubt.

A fair sample of the subjects which occupy the astronomers' mind, and which are so remote from the study of planetary markings, and have so little interest for the public, may be gathered from the following list selected at random from an astronomical publication. Notes on variable stars; Maxima and minima of long period variables; Micrometrical measurements of the companion of Procyon; The problem of three bodies; Ephemeris of Comet a, 1901; On the eruptive energy of the stars; Eclipse cycles; Determinations of the aberration-constant from right ascension; Theory of a resisting medium upon bodies moving in parabolic orbits; Weights and systematic corrections of meridian observation in right ascension and declination; and other titles equally profound. Many of these memoirs consist of hundreds of pages of figures, and, as a friend of mine observed, not a column footed up! Take for example a title like the following: "Method of developing the perturbative functions, also precepts for executing their development." This memoir is accompanied by pages of algebraic formulæ which the layman turns over in despair, the only illumination consisting of a few words in English which render the gloom still more apparent,--such words as "hence," "or," "we therefore have," "if we put." Of what we "have," and why we "put," we are left in profound ignorance. Now I venture to believe that the great world of humanity takes but little interest in such pages, or in the kinds of titles above given, though fully realizing that they mean something and represent important steps in astronomic research. It would add greatly to the value of these contributions if a brief summary in plain English could be given at the end of these papers, but it is the rarest event that these collectors of data ever make any generalizations, or form any deductions.

My faith in the appalling character of algebraic formulæ received a rude shock when I learned of an experience of Louise Michel, the anarchist, who was transported for life to New Caledonia (afterwards pardoned). On arriving at the savage island, true to her humanitarian instincts, "she immediately established a school for native children, who by a curious freak of their minds, she noted with rejoicing, took naturally to algebra before they learned arithmetic!"

Hovenden quotes Huxley as saying that mathematics "is that study that knows nothing of observation, nothing of induction, nothing of experiment, nothing of causation." He also quotes the words of Clerk Maxwell, who said, in regard to mathematicians, that it was "doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds." They never seem to appeal to the doctrine of probabilities nor do they in any way permit imagination to act as a stimulus to suggestive thought.

Least of all would a layman ridicule or question the painstaking labor involved in astronomic work, though he cannot see a glimmer of light or intelligence in the enigmatical pages. A certain class of astronomers might take a lesson from an intelligent public in ceasing to scoff and ridicule what they are unable to see themselves in the Martian markings. The chief work of these men indicates the cold precise measuring of points of light in the heavens, the determination of orbits, elements and ephemeris of heavenly bodies, the determination of solar parallax, etc., most of the subjects strictly mathematical, a question of careful measurements for which the necessary instruments are at hand, or simply sweeping the heavens for a new variable, binary or asteroid. Parallaxes and orbits are matters of measurement to be reckoned by the figures of anybody else. It is obvious from all this that little or no interest is manifested by astronomers in planetary markings, least of all in those of Mars. The exasperating feature of the matter is that they persistently repudiate the observation of others equally well equipped, and endowed with the same enthusiasm and devotion to their work.

The way in which the gatherers of the raw material arrogate to themselves the science of astronomy, relegating the thinkers and generalizers to the limbo of speculation, is as if the book-keepers of a corporation should assume themselves to be the master-minds of the concern and the banker, or financier, at the head of it, a dreamer not worth regarding.