Produced by Charlie Howard and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) MARS AND ITS MYSTERY [Illustration: LOWELL'S GLOBE OF MARS, 1903. _Frontispiece_] MARS AND ITS MYSTERY BY EDWARD S. MORSE MEMBER NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Author of "Japanese Homes and their Surroundings," "Glimpses of China and Chinese Homes," etc. _ILLUSTRATED_ BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1906 COPYRIGHT, 1906, BY LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. _All rights reserved_ Published October, 1906 THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U. S. A. To PERCIVAL LOWELL WHO HAS BY HIS ENERGY AND SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT ESTABLISHED A NEW STANDARD FOR THE STUDY OF MARS THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED PREFACE The following pages have been written for the general reader. The controversies over the interpretation of the curious markings of Mars and the wide divergence of opinion as to their nature first turned my attention to the matter. The question of intelligence in other worlds is of perennial interest to everyone, and that question may possibly be settled by an unprejudiced study of our neighboring planet Mars. Knowing the many analogies between Mars and the Earth, we are justified in asking what conditions really exist in Mars. Instead of flouting at every attempt to interpret the various and complicated markings of its surface, we should soberly consider any rational explanation of these enigmas from the postulate that the two spheres, so near together in space, cannot be so far apart physically, and from the fact that as intelligence is broadly modifying the appearance of the surface of the Earth, a similar intelligence may also be marking the face of Mars. A student familiar with a general knowledge of the heavens, a fair acquaintance with the surface features of the Earth, with an appreciation of the doctrine of probabilities, and capable of estimating the value of evidence, is quite as well equipped to examine and discuss the nature of the markings of Mars as the astronomer. If, furthermore, he is gifted with imagination and is free from all prejudice in the matter, he may have a slight advantage. Astronomers are probably the most exact of all students as to their facts, and in this discussion there is no attempt to introduce evidence they do not supply, as the frequent quotations from their writings will show. Having studied Mars through nearly one presentation of the planet with the great refractor at the Lowell Observatory, what I saw with my own eyes, uninfluenced by what others saw, will be presented in a short chapter at the end of this book. I wish to express my obligations to Professor Percival Lowell for the privileges of his observatory, for many of the illustrations in this book, and for his unbounded hospitality during my visit to Flagstaff. I am also deeply indebted to Mr. Russell Robb for valuable assistance during the preparation of the manuscript. E. S. M. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, October, 1906. CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. IMMEASURABLE DISTANCES OF SPACE 7 III. OTHER WORLDS INHABITED 14 IV. LOWELL'S BOOK ON MARS 31 V. TESTIMONY OF ASTRONOMERS 51 VI. THE STUDY OF PLANETARY MARKINGS 70 VII. DIFFICULTIES OF SEEING 79 VIII. VARIATION IN DRAWING 94 IX. THEORIES REGARDING THE CANALS 100 X. COMMENTS AND CRITICISM 125 XI. ATMOSPHERE AND MOISTURE 134 XII. NOTES ON IRRIGATION 141 XIII. VARIETY OF CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH LIFE EXISTS 147 XIV. MY OWN WORK 158 XV. WHAT THE MARTIANS MIGHT SAY OF US 166 XVI. SCHIAPARELLI, LOWELL, PERROTIN, THOLLON 172 XVII. LAST WORDS 180 INDEX 189 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LOWELL'S GLOBE OF MARS _Frontispiece_ Fig. 1. PLANISPHERE OF EARTH _Page_ 61 PLATES I. TOBACCO CULTIVATION UNDER CLOTH, PORTO RICO _Page_ 50 II. DRAWINGS OF SOLAR CORONA " 96 III. CHINESE BOWL, SHOWING CRACKLE " 107 IV. MUD CRACKS ON SHORE OF ROGER'S LAKE, ARIZONA " 108 V. NATURAL LINES, CRACKS, FISSURES, ETC. " 112 VI. ARTIFICIAL LINES, RAILWAYS, STREETS, CANALS, ETC. " 113 VII. DOME OF LOWELL OBSERVATORY, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA " 158 VIII. TWENTY-FOUR INCH TELESCOPE, LOWELL OBSERVATORY " 160 IX. DRAWINGS OF CANALS OF MARS BY THE AUTHOR " 162 PORTRAITS GIOVANNI VIRGINIO SCHIAPARELLI _Page_ 172 PERCIVAL LOWELL " 174 HENRI PERROTIN " 176 M. THOLLON " 178 _Life not wholly unlike that on the earth may therefore exist upon Mars for anything we know to the contrary._ SIMON NEWCOMB. MARS AND ITS MYSTERY I INTRODUCTION Had some one asked, fifty years ago, Is the Sun composed of chemical elements with which we are familiar? Shall we ever know? the question would not have been deemed worthy of a second thought. Realizing what has been accomplished, not only regarding the constitution of the Sun, but of the most remote stars, we are encouraged to ask: Is Mars inhabited? Shall we ever know? To what groups of students are we to appeal for an answer? If we want to know the diameter of Mars, its weight, the form of its orbit, the inclination of its axis, the period of its revolution around the Sun, and its rotation period, its ephemeris and its albedo, we ask the astronomer, for he has the instruments with which to observe and measure, and the mathematical knowledge necessary to reduce the measurements. If Mars were incandescent, we should appeal to the astrophysicist for information regarding its chemical composition. If, however, we want to know the probability of Mars being the abode of life, we should appeal to one who is familiar with the conditions of life upon our own globe. If the question is asked as to the existence of intelligence on the planet, we endeavor to trace evidences of its surface markings, and their character, whether natural or artificial. Knowing how profoundly man has changed the appearance of the surface features of our own globe in the removal of vast forests, in the irrigation of enormous tracts of sterile plain, the filling up of certain areas, like Peking, Tokio, London, with material having a different reflecting surface, we are to scan the surface of Mars for similar modifications, and for an answer ask those who are familiar with physical geography, with meteorology, with geology, including the character of natural cracks or crannies, deep cañon, or range of mountains, or any of the great cataclysms which have scarred the face of the Earth. Taking the great mass of facts as they are presented to us by astronomers, to what class are we to appeal as to the probability of life in other worlds? What class will form the most rational conclusions? Will it be the circle-squarers, perpetual-motion cranks, spiritualists, survivals of a past who believe the world is flat, those who have "anthropomorphic conceptions of the Supreme" and Hebraic conceptions of the origin of things, or will it be those who value observation and experiment, who appreciate the importance of large numbers, and who are endowed with a tithe of imagination? Most certainly the latter class. In approaching the interpretation of the markings of Mars we should first glance at a brief historical summary of what has already been done. We should examine the testimony of those who have seen and drawn the canals; we are then better prepared to examine the records of the latest observations and the explanation of their nature. In the meantime an inquiry must be made as to whether the mathematical astronomer, after all, is best fitted to judge of the surface features of a planet. Next we should take up in the following order the evidences, which are overwhelming, that a network of lines, geodetic in their character, mark the surface of Mars. It has been claimed that these lines show the result of irrigation, and, therefore, the irrigation features of our own planet should be examined. It has been objected that many astronomers have not been able to see the markings, and consequently their existence has been doubted. It will then be proper to point out that the difficulties of seeing are very great, and that the acutest eyesight, coupled with long practice, is necessary to recognize the markings. It has been objected that the drawings of the minuter details of Mars vary with different observers. It will be necessary to show that every kind of research employing graphic representation labors under the same difficulty, and none more so than astronomy. It has been objected that there is not sufficient moisture and atmosphere in Mars to sustain life, and this must be answered by those only who are familiar with conditions affecting life on our own planet. Various theories have been advanced, some of them physical, to explain the markings of Mars, and these must be considered, and, if possible, answered. Comments and criticism are difficult to repress, as the discoveries of Schiaparelli and the additional discoveries and deductions of Lowell have evoked discussions, which, in some instances, have been harsh and unreasonable, and, in one case, positively ridiculous. Schiaparelli has been called an impostor, and Lowell has come in for his full share of vituperation and innuendo. If this portion of the discussion is considered unparliamentary, the attitude and language of certain astronomers have provoked it. A brief account is presented of what the author was enabled to draw of the Martian details, with a transcript of his notes made at the time of observation, and finally a little imaginary sketch is given as to how the world would look from Mars; and if similar kinds of astronomers existed there, what comments and objections they might offer as to the inhabitability of the Earth. Such flights of the imagination are justified in that it gives one a chance to appreciate the weakness of some of the arguments urged against the idea of intelligence in Mars. It will be objected that some of the names herein quoted are not recognized as astronomers. I can only say that in every instance I have found references to the writings and essays of those that might be objected to in the pages of the "Observatory," and other reputable astronomical journals, and in no instances accompanied by adverse comment or criticism. If astronomers--even the distinguished Schiaparelli--quote these names in scientific memoirs, I may venture to do the same in a book written for the general reader. The objection, however, has always presented itself with every controversy; it was conspicuously marked in the passionate discussions over Darwin's "Origin of Species." The intelligent laity recognized the truth of Darwin's proposition long before the zoölogist began to waver. Essays by the unprofessional supporting Darwin's contention were discredited because the writers were not trained naturalists. The history of invention is crowded with instances where devices and processes have been invented by men whose trades or professions were the least likely to enable them to originate such ideas. II IMMEASURABLE DISTANCES OF SPACE _It is therefore perfectly reasonable to suppose that beings not only animated but endowed with reason inhabit countless worlds in space._ SIMON NEWCOMB. Until within recent centuries, man has not only believed that he and his kind were the only intelligent creatures in the universe, but that the little round ball on which he lived was the dominant part thereof. So rooted for ages was this conviction that it became fixed in man's mental structure, and hence the survival of the idea that still lingers in the minds of a few to-day. The conclusion was natural, however, for the behavior of the starry heavens and the Sun and the Moon seemed sufficient evidence that man, and the surface upon which he lived, was the centre of the universe. The stars were bright points of light, the Moon a silver disk, and the Sun a heat and light giving ball of fire, equally diminutive and not far away. Let one realize for a moment the experience of these early people. Everything aerial, with the exception of feathery birds, fluffy bats and flying insects, was composed of the lightest particles--cottony seeds, reluctantly falling snow-flakes, motes in the air, smoke and vaporous cloud, and, in contrast, the rock-foundationed and irregular surface upon which the people dwelt, and flat as far as man had reached. What wonder, then, that man viewed these brilliant points and dazzling disks as objects of no great size and not far away, hauled across the heavens by unseen spirits of some kind. The marvel of it all is, not that they believed as they did, but that any other views of cosmography could have been established. And yet the successive increments of astronomical knowledge, founded apparently on the soundest mathematics, were adopted in their turn. What more convincing than the epicyclic theory of Ptolemy, buttressed by figures so ingenious and convincing, that the theory might have lasted till now except for the truer understanding of planetary movements in relation to that of the Earth? All through this history are found traces of the barriers erected by prejudiced conservatives, of which the attitude of Tycho Brahe is a good example, though in this case it was probably his belief in the Hebraic conception of the universe which excited his opposition to Kepler's views, a conception which, unfortunately for the progress of astronomical research, still lingers among certain observers to-day and places them in precisely the same category with Tycho Brahe. With the gradual accumulation of knowledge it was found that of all the innumerable illuminated bodies in the heavens, only one,--just one,--the Moon, revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth instead of being all dominant in the affairs of the universe, played a very minor part, and, instead of being master, was a very humble midget revolving around the Sun; that, indeed, with the exception of the Moon, there were visible to the naked eye only three bright points of light in the whole range of the heavens more insignificant in size,--Mercury, Venus, and Mars,--while the other planets were vastly larger, and had many more satellites revolving around them. Then it was found that, with the exception of the few planets, the myriad stars had no connection with the Sun whatsoever, that the Sun was no longer the centre of a great universe. Later it was discovered through spectroscopic analysis that all the myriad of stars were composed of chemical elements similar to our Sun. Here, then, was the startling revelation that our Sun was simply a star, and that the stars represented a "universe of Suns," and, if we could get near any one star of the millions that sparkle in the heavens telescopically, we should see it as a round ball emitting light and heat. It was perhaps humiliating to find that our Sun was so insignificant in size that from Sirius, for example, it could not be seen with the naked eye, so small indeed that in the close companionship of other stars it would be swallowed up by their greater size and brilliancy. To assume, then, that our Sun, so identical to the stars in heat and light emitting properties, was the only Sun that had revolving around it a few minute balls, would be as absurd as if one should go on a pebbly beach, extending from Labrador to Florida for example, and picking up a single pebble, should have the hardihood to assert that this pebble was the only one, among the millions of pebbles, upon which would be found the bits of seaweed and little snails which it might support. The overwhelming vastness of the universe is entirely beyond the grasp of the human mind. The mere statement that it requires so many years for the light to reach us from a certain star, the parallax of which has been rudely established, affords one only a faint glimmer of the truth. The swing of our Earth about the Sun gives us a base line of 186,000,000 of miles, and yet, with this enormous base from which to subtend an angle, only a very few of the myriad of stars show the slightest displacement; the others exhibit no more signs of divergence than if while looking at them we had simply moved our heads from one side to the other! Fixed stars they appear to be, and are so called, though we are told they are all drifting in various directions, as our star-Sun is. Only by reducing all these vast distances and dimensions to a minute scale can the mind realize the futility of ever comprehending the illimitable distances of space. In order to consider the attitude of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the nearest fixed star, we will reduce the Sun's diameter of 866,000 miles to the dimensions of a ball one inch in diameter; the Earth reduced to the same scale would be a minute speck less than one one-hundredth of an inch in diameter; a perforation in paper made by the finest cambric needle would represent the size of this minute speck, the Earth. Following this scale we should place this speck nine feet from the inch ball, this distance representing 93,000,000 of miles, the Earth's distance from the Sun; Mars would be a still smaller speck a step farther off. Let us now proceed to Boston Common, for example, and on the smooth playground place our inch ball representing the Sun; taking three good steps we should place our minute speck, representing the Earth, upon the ground where it would be immediately lost in the fine gravel; another step and we would place a still smaller particle, representing Mars. How big a circle on the Earth's surface, using the inch ball as a centre, should we have to describe in order to include the nearest fixed star? Such a circle would reach to Detroit, Michigan, and Columbus, Ohio, or Wilmington, North Carolina! To find a circle which would include eight other fixed stars next in distance, and only eight of the thousands which render the heavens so beautiful on a clear winter's night--we should run such a circle through the centre of Hudson Bay, the waters of southern Greenland, Lake Winnipeg, and New Orleans! In this broad way only can we form a dim conception of the overwhelming distances of space, and, in this absolutely unthinkable space, our little Sun, with its constant rain of meteoric dust, an occasional comet, and its microscopic planets are literally bunched together. To admit, as we must then, that one of these motes has had irrigating canals on various parts of its surface since prehistoric times, and the other mote has nothing of the sort despite the geodetic lines that are seen marking its surface, is simply preposterous. Their disposition, their visibility coincident with the Martian summer, becoming apparent only when the snow caps melt, their convergence towards centres of distribution, all go to prove by the simplest analogy an identity of structure. Certainly the overwhelming force of Lowell's observations and arguments baffles any other reasonable explanation of the character and purpose of these markings. Here are the lines, some following the arcs of great circles, all appearing precisely when they should appear, and in progressive strength from the north when the vivifying water from the melting snow cap first starts the vegetation. Why certain parallels or doublings are observed in some of the canals is about as puzzling to us as the checkerboard townships of the West would appear to a Martian, where some would be yellow with the ripening grain while others, uncultivated, would appear of a different color. III OTHER WORLDS INHABITED _Whether the other fixed stars have similar planetary companions or not is to us a matter of pure conjecture, which may or may not enter into our conception of the universe. But probably every thoughtful person believes with regard to those distant suns that there is in space something besides our system on which they shine._ TYNDALL. It would be a waste of time to attempt an interpretation of the markings of Mars as a result of intelligent effort, if it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that our globe was not only unique among the bodies which probably accompany the innumerable suns, but was the only body, among them all, sustaining creatures of intelligence. If life exists in other planets of a nature with which we are familiar, then the physical conditions must be similar to those of our own planet. Later we shall point out the infinite variety of conditions under which life--even man--exists on this globe, and it will be shown that the question of higher or lower temperature, more or less humidity, higher or lower atmospheric pressure, greater or less force of gravity, can have but little weight in discussing the probability of life in other worlds. In a planet devoid of atmosphere, or a sphere glowing with its own heat, we may decide without question that life does not exist. Even in a globe in many respects like our own it would be hazardous to conjecture the kinds of organic forms in which it is manifested. Reasoning from analogy, if life exists in Mars, or other spheres in infinite space, it must have originated under much the same conditions as it originated here; at the outset the most primitive bits of protoplasm. But has life appeared in Mars? Tyndall, in graphic words, pictures the rounding of worlds from nebulous haze, and then says, "For eons, the immensity of which overwhelms man's conception, the Earth was unfit to maintain what we call life. It is now covered with visible living things. They are not formed of matter different from that around them. They are, on the contrary, bone of its bone and flesh of its flesh." Mars must come in the same category. It is a part of the original nidus from which our world was condensed, and however life originated in the past, the conditions for its origin, at least, must have been as favorable on the surface of Mars, as on the surface of the Earth, and, so far as we know to the contrary, even more favorable. In the beginning, Mars cooled and hardened with all those behaviors of contraction, condensation of vapor on its surface, erosion, etc., and it is impossible to avoid the conviction that life, as on our Earth, arose under the same physical conditions. Recalling the resemblance which Mars bears to the Earth, and the data which have already been established, we behold a world in many respects like ours, with its sunsets and sunrises, winds that sweep over its surface, the dust storms from the deserts, its snow-storms and snow-drifts, its dazzling fields of white in the north, with an occasional snow-storm that whitens the planet far down in latitude; the seasonal changes, and, most important of all, the melting ice caps, with rivulets and torrents, temporary arctic seas and frozen pools, its great expanses of vegetation and sterile plains. We have in Mars the variety of conditions under which life has assumed its infinite variety of aspects on the Earth, and which, by analogy, should have passed through similar stages in Mars. Life at the outset must have been protoplasmic; then came contractile tissue, muscular bundles, hardened structures within and without for their support, nerves to animate the muscles, and protection for nerve-trunk, either rigid or flexible. Hard parts might vary under a different force of gravity, though there might appear types of structure that could be classified with our own. All such conditions, however, are mere surmises, for about such matters we can reason only from analogy. The first proposition to establish is that the conception of the plurality of worlds is not unreasonable, and second, that many of the most eminent astronomers have believed in the inhabitability of other worlds, and this justifies a reasonable man to follow the inquiry. The belief is based upon legitimate analogies which have thus far guided man in every generalization, in the establishment of principles, and are continually appealed to in the details of every day's experience. From remote times it has been taken for granted by the best minds that other worlds besides ours sustain life. The early belief in the plurality of worlds was based on the idea that since spheres like ours had been fashioned by the Almighty they must have been made for the same purpose for which our globe seemed intended, to sustain life, and Scripture was freely quoted in support of the idea. Sir David Brewster, in his book "More Worlds Than One," says that the doctrine of the plurality of worlds was maintained by almost all the distinguished astronomers and writers who have flourished since the true figure of the Earth was determined: "Giordano Bruno of Nola, Kepler, and Tycho believed in it; and Cardinal Cusa and Bruno, before the discovery of binary systems among the stars, believed also that the stars were inhabited. Sir Isaac Newton likewise adopted it, and Dr. Bentley, Master of Trinity College, in his eighth sermon on the Confutation of Atheism from the origin and frame of the world, has ably maintained the same doctrine. In our own day we may number among its supporters the distinguished names of Laplace, Sir William and Sir John Herschel, Dr. Chalmers, Isaac Taylor, and M. Arago." The attitude of the intelligent world to-day is well shown in a recent number of London "Nature," where in a review of a book by Wallace, endeavoring to show that this world alone sustains life, the reviewer ends by saying: "To consider this Earth as the only inhabited body in the stellar universe, a reversion to prehistoric ideas, may or may not be an advance, but it will require very strong arguments before we can be brought to consider that its isolation in the Cosmos is indeed a fact." Until the discovery by Schiaparelli of the network of lines in Mars, laid out with seemingly intelligent precision, the arguments for the inhabitability of other worlds were based entirely upon analogy. Sir Richard Owen, the great comparative anatomist, in supporting the contention that life existed in other planets, said: "The grounds of belief vary with the probability of a proposition; if nothing better than analogy can be had--on analogy will belief be based." Professor O. M. Mitchell, the first director of the Cincinnati Observatory, in his work on "Popular Astronomy," says, in regard to the doctrine of the plurality of worlds: "It would be most incredible to assert, as some have done, that our planet, so small and insignificant in its proportions when compared with other planets with which it is allied, is the only world in the whole universe filled with sentient, rational and intelligent beings capable of comprehending the grand mysteries of the physical universe." The eminent French astronomer, M. Flammarion, has, in an eloquent passage in his "Plurality of Worlds," portrayed the vastness of the universe and the utter insignificance of our Earth in the immensity of space: "If advancing with the velocity of light[1] we could traverse from century to century this unlimited number of suns and spheres without ever meeting any limit to this prodigious immensity where God brings forth worlds and beings; looking behind, but no longer knowing in what part of the infinite to find this grain of dust called the Earth, we should stop fascinated and confounded by such a spectacle, and uniting our voice to the concert of universal nature we should say from the depths of our soul, Almighty God! how senseless we were to believe that there was nothing beyond the Earth, and that our abode alone possessed the privilege of reflecting thy greatness and honor." Compare these elevating thoughts with the shrunken attitude of one who has the conceit to imagine that he and his kind are not only alone in the universe but superadds to this monstrous conception the idea that the millions of great suns are designedly waltzing around solely for his edification and amusement, unmindful of the heedless way in which the millions of his race regard the overpowering majesty of the heavens. To the thousand millions that live to-day, and the thousand, thousand millions that have perished in the past, the starry heavens have never excited an emotion grateful, reverent, or curious, unless a flaming comet, or an eclipse of the Sun or Moon occurred, and then with superstitious fear have they gone grovelling in the dust. An astronomer imbued with Hebraic conceptions of the universe is poorly equipped to appreciate the arguments in favor of life in other worlds. He may be keen in perceiving lines in the spectrum, and the significance of their lateral displacement, but possessed with a belief--the result of early training--that a little two-legged human molecule could command the Sun and Moon to stand still, a realization of his own insignificance, or the possibility of intelligence in other worlds, must forever remain beyond his grasp. Emerson said "the dogmas shrivel as dry leaves at the door of the observatory." They never shrivel for such minds, but grow and flourish with a density that obscures by, its rankness every rational conception of the heavens above. As an illustration of the attitude of such mentalities we have to go back fifty years, for few survive to-day. Edward Hitchcock, Professor of Geology and Theology at Amherst, wrote a book just fifty years ago entitled "Plurality of Worlds," in which he denounces the idea; but observe the precise way in which he lays down the law: "The planets had no vital tendencies, they could have had such given only by an additional act or series of acts of creative power. As mere inert globes, they had no settled destiny to be the seats of life; they could have had such a destiny only by the appointment of Him who creates living things and puts them in the places which he chooses for them" (page 352). It may be objected that it is useless to bring up these old theological conceptions, as the world has happily gone beyond them, and only in an atavistic manner do we find a few still holding them; nevertheless it may be safely asserted that fifty years hence we shall look back upon the attitude of certain astronomers to-day with much the same pity and amusement which excites us when we regard the attitude of a similar class in the middle of the last century. Tyndall expresses the universal belief of thinkers in whatever line of work, that life is by no means confined to this Earth. He says: "Whether the other fixed stars have similar planetary companions or not is to us a matter of pure conjecture, which may or may not enter into our conception of the universe. But probably every thoughtful man believes, with regard to these distant Suns, that there is, in space, something besides our system on which they shine." One class of objectors to the idea that other worlds are inhabited endeavors to show that our position in the universe is unique, that the solar system itself is quite unlike anything existing elsewhere, and, to cap the climax, that our own little world has just the right amount of water, air, and gravitational force to enable it to be the abode of intelligent life, and nowhere else in the broad expanse of heaven can such physical habitudes be found as will enable life to originate or to exist! In a memoir on the "Evolution of the Solar System," by Professor T. J. J. See, the author, while not denying the possibility of other systems like our own, still considers our system unique. Here are his words: "Therefore, while observation gives us no grounds for denying the existence of other systems like our own, it does not enable us to affirm, or even to render probable, that such systems do exist." Because a number of binary stars have been discovered in which the two stars are nearly equal in mass, and their orbits highly eccentric, he therefore concludes that the millions of stars that stud the heavens are probably without satellites. The unreasonableness of this attitude is emphasized by realizing that these innumerable suns are similar to our own Sun, as revealed by the spectroscope, and have a similar eruptive energy. Professor Newcomb, however, says: "Evidence is continually increasing that dark and opaque worlds like ours exist and revolve around their primaries." Had Mr. See discovered that every star of the many million was accompanied by another star nearly equal in mass, with its marked eccentric behavior, then only would he be justified in his inference that our solar system was indeed unique. When one realizes that the stars are at such unimaginable distances that the highest powers of the telescope reveal even the nearest of them only as points of light--not as disks--and when one further realizes that the satellites of our Sun, even the largest of them, are diminutive globes compared to the vastness of the Sun, it seems unreasonable if not impossible to entertain the idea that none of these remote stars are accompanied by satellites, and that, therefore, this little Sun of ours stands without parallel in the universe. Tyndall, in his famous reply to the critics of his Belfast address, in speaking of the origin of life, referred to the Nebular Theory as follows: "According to it our sun and planets were once diffused through space as an impalpable haze out of which by condensation came the solar system. What caused it to condense? Loss of heat. What rounded the sun and planets? That which rounds a tear, molecular force." In these terse and graphic expressions we are made to understand the universality of law. So far as we have sounded the depths of the stellar universe we see the same obedience to gravitational laws, the same flashing lines in the spectrum. We encounter no phenomena that cannot be explained, or at least inferred, by the knowledge we have obtained from our little mote of the Cosmos. Mr. See thinks it remarkable that "previous investigators have almost invariably approached the problem of cosmogony from the point of view of the planets and satellites, and that no considerable attempt has been made to inquire into the development of the great number of systems observed among the fixed stars." It is true our planetary system has been used as a standard of measurement for the universe, and a very comprehensive standard it has proved to be. The law of universal gravitation was based on terrestrial and lunar observations, spectroscopic analysis was determined in a terrestrial laboratory. As George Iles says, a coal of fire may be raked from a grate and broken up to illustrate the rapid cooling of smaller masses. Even a child's spinning top may be used in an astronomical lecture. The study of our Sun led to the study of the fixed stars, and so our little system has thus far furnished us with examples and illustrations by which we interpret the universe. In our solar system we have a fair sample of the Cosmos in miniature, though our Sun is so modest in size, compared with the great orbs that appeal to us by their number and brilliancy. So far as our telescopes have sounded the heavens we find nebulous clouds in their structure showing inchoate masses, orbital and spiral arrangements, condensations in their centres. We have the binaries with their extraordinary properties, we have variables with their dark bodies revolving around their primaries. In our little system we also have dark bodies revolving around a luminous primary, from one of which we endeavor to interpret the mysteries of the universe; we have loose masses, as in comets with enormously elongated orbits; we have spheres of insignificant size, with small bodies revolving around them, and these epitomes revolving around a central sun; we have one of these bodies with meteoric rings; and, in the case of our own globe, a satellite of such size that except in the form of its orbit it might well represent a binary in embryo;--and, finally, a host of bodies big enough to reflect the rays of the sun, pursuing their various orbital paths. We are told that the stars are as distant from each other as we are from them. We may regard these systems of nebulæ, variables, doubles, etc., as different kinds or species of heavenly bodies; and to assert that our system is the only individual of the species in the universe seems contrary to all celestial analogy, for do we not have hundreds of binaries, thousands of variables, millions of suns, revealing the same fiery energy and consuming the same elemental fuel? Professor Newcomb in his "Reminiscences" describes his first sweeping the heavens, at random, with the then new twenty-six inch refractor at the Naval Observatory and discovering a little cluster of stars so small and faint that the individual stars eluded even the great power of this instrument. He says: "I could not help the vain longing which one must sometimes feel under such circumstances, to know what beings might live on planets belonging to what, from an earthly point of view, seemed to be on the border of creation itself." One would suppose that this expression of a longing to ascertain the character of the beings inhabiting planets circling these distant suns would induce one to study a planet analogous to our Earth, and so near in comparison to these unimaginable distances as to be within a hand's grasp, so to speak. The little interest Professor Newcomb has taken in the subject is well expressed in his late book "Astronomy for Everybody." In his chapter on Mars, in which _Everybody_ is certainly interested, he says: "The reader will excuse me for saying anything in this chapter about the possible inhabitants of Mars. He knows just as much of the subject as I do, and that is nothing at all." He might at least have given the various pronouncements of Schiaparelli, Lowell, and others as to the probable character of these remarkable markings on Mars, and their supposed significance. While Professor Newcomb's attitude on the question of the plurality of worlds has been somewhat conservative in the past he has lately, however, expressed himself on the question in no uncertain terms. In a recent article in "Harper's Magazine," entitled "Probability of Life in Other Worlds," he has lent his sanction to the rational idea that other worlds may be the abode of intelligent creatures. His recognition of the principle will do much to offset the influence if it ever had any, of a recent book published in England by Alfred Russel Wallace, in which the distinguished author attempts to show that this world stands alone as the abode of intelligent life. Despite his epoch-making work with Darwin, nearly fifty years ago, which must forever merit our gratitude, and the charm of his various essays on protective coloring, mimicry, theory of birds' nests, etc., he has since those lucid days expressed convictions of such a nature that if a future DeMorgan should write on human paradoxes he would classify Mr. Wallace as chief among them. A profound believer in evolution, he exempts man from the inexorable logic of the principle with about as much reason as if, confessing his belief in the nebular hypothesis, he should insist that the Earth was an exception. But to return to Professor Newcomb's recent utterances. In the above-mentioned article he says: "Not only does life, but intelligence, flourish on this globe under great variety of conditions as regards temperature and surroundings, and no sound reason can be shown why, under certain conditions which are frequent in the universe, intelligent beings should not acquire the highest development." Again he says: "Life, not wholly unlike that on the Earth, may therefore exist upon Mars, for anything we know to the contrary. More than this we cannot say." In his final summing up Professor Newcomb says: "It is therefore perfectly reasonable to suppose that beings not only animated but endowed with reason inhabit countless worlds in space." It would seem as if a mind capable of entertaining an idea of our uniqueness in the universe betrays the survival of a mental condition which, centuries ago, regarded the stars as bits of luminous material expressly designed to illuminate this little earth, around which they all pursued their daily paths. IV LOWELL'S BOOK ON MARS _This whole arrangement presents an indescribable simplicity and symmetry which cannot be the work of chance._ SCHIAPARELLI, in writing of the canals. In a discussion of the surface markings of Mars a broad sketch of what has already been accomplished in the study of that planet should be given for the general reader. I know of no better way of doing this than by giving a brief abstract of Percival Lowell's epoch-making work entitled "Mars." In this book he presents in a clear and striking manner the results of his own work covering continuous observations of the planet for many years. The preface is dated from Flagstaff, Arizona, 1895. Since that time he has issued three volumes of Memoirs, in quarto, of the Lowell Observatory, and a number of Bulletins in which he presents many additional facts confirming previous observations, besides new observations; and finally, in a late Bulletin, he has presented photographs of Mars made by his assistant, Mr. Lampland, in which a number of canals plainly show, thus setting forever at rest the question of the subjective character of the markings. The student must, however, follow the advice of an English reviewer and by all means read the book. "To determine," says Mr. Lowell, "whether a planet be the abode of life in the least resembling that with which we are acquainted, two questions about it must be answered in turn: first, are its physical conditions such as render it, in our general sense, habitable; and secondly, are there any signs of its actual habitation? These problems must be attacked in their order, for unless we can answer the first satisfactorily, it were largely futile to seek for evidence of the second." The reason why Mars in certain years becomes so conspicuous is that its orbit is highly eccentric. Every two years--the period of its revolution about the Sun--brings it nearest to the Sun, and once in fifteen years we find ourselves between it and the Sun at its nearest approach. Huyghens, in 1659, made a drawing of the dark region on Mars now known as the Syrtis Major, and, through its disappearance and reappearance, he discovered that the planet rotated on its axis, and roughly determined a daily period of twenty-four hours. For the first time it was known that Mars had a day and a night. As some doubts existed as to the correctness of Huyghens's figures, Cassini in 1666 determined anew the rotation period of Mars and found it to be twenty-four hours and forty minutes. From the white polar caps, the study of which we first owe to Maraldi, it was found that the tilt of its axis to the plane of its orbit was very nearly the same as that of the Earth. As this inclination determines the seasons, it was seen that Mars, like the Earth, had its spring, summer, autumn, and winter. A polar flattening was also observed which was slightly in excess of ours. "To all forms of life of which we have any conception, two things in Nature are vital, air and water." Has it an atmosphere? Without air no change could take place. The Moon without air remains unchanged, except what gravitation accomplishes in pulling down crater walls. "With Mars it is otherwise. Over the surface of that planet changes do occur, changes upon a scale vast enough to be visible from the Earth." The first sign of change occurs in the polar snow cap. It dwindles in size every two years (the time of a single revolution of Mars around the sun). For nearly two hundred years these white polar caps have been observed to wax and wane. As the Martian winter comes on in the northern hemisphere, for example, the polar cap extends its borders to the temperate zone. As summer comes on the snow cap is seen to dwindle gradually away, till by early autumn it presents but a tiny patch a few hundred miles across. Schiaparelli observed changes in tint which he noticed were correlated with the seasons. In 1894 observations were made continuously from early June till late in November. These dates, in Mars, represent the last of April till the last of August. During this time marked changes took place in the bluish-green areas of the planet. A wave of seasonal change swept down from the pole to the equator. The fact of this occurrence constitutes positive proof of the presence of an atmosphere. In another way the evidence was shown. A series of measurements of the polar and equatorial diameters of Mars were made, and these indicated that a visible layer of twilight atmosphere had been measured. This, Lowell explains by a diagram and other data. It is found, according to Lowell's observations, that the atmosphere is much freer from clouds than had been supposed. He shows conclusively that it is much rarer than that of the Earth. Appearances have been seen, however, which are best explained by assuming them to be clouds. During the opposition of 1892, Mr. Douglass, at that time an assistant astronomer at the Lowell Observatory, made a special study of the terminator of Mars.[2] A careful study of the terminator for almost every degree of latitude was made, and 733 irregularities were detected. Of this large number, 694 were not only recorded, but measured; and of these, 403 were depressions, and 291 were elevations of the surface. Many of these irregularities were supposed to be clouds, but the arguments to support this attribution are too technical to be presented here. Unmistakable clouds have also been seen moving at a definite rate of speed, as if carried along by the wind. "To sum up, now, what we know about the atmosphere of Mars: we have proof positive that Mars has an atmosphere; we have reason to believe this atmosphere to be very thin,--thinner at least by half than the air upon the summit of the Himalayas,--and in constitution, not to differ greatly from our own." As to the existence of water on the planet, one has only to consider the polar snow caps. In the height of the southern winter, the polar cap of snow measures over two thousand miles across, covering fifty-five degrees of latitude, with one unbroken waste of white. As spring advances the snow begins to melt, disappearing rapidly as summer comes on, and, as it melts, a dark band is seen bordering this edge. As the snow recedes the dark band recedes. This band is, therefore, not a permanent marking on the planet, but obviously water, the result of the melting snow--an arctic sea, in fact. This band is irregular, varying in width in different longitudes, as if the water filled up large areas of depression. When finally the snow cap disappears, as it did for the first time on record on the notable occasion of October 13, 1894, the dark band, which had become thinner, disappeared also, leaving only a yellow stretch of surface. An additional proof that this dark band is water, was established by Professor W. H. Pickering, for he discovered that the light reflected from its surface was polarized. The absurdity of the suggestion that these white polar caps are not snow, but congealed carbonic acid gas, is fully shown by Lowell. The asymmetry of the outline of these snow caps is paralleled by the irregularity of the Earth's polar caps. Glints of brilliant light are seen to flash out from this region, as if produced by sunlight reflected from a sloping surface. On comparing these flashes of light with observations made by Green, in 1877, they were found to be in the same place. Detached fields of snow were also observed below the receding line, an evidence that these regions were at a higher elevation. As before stated, on October 13, 1894, for the first time in the record of polar observations, the southern polar cap disappeared entirely. In this connection it may be of interest to observe that in the United States, in the summer of 1894, the temperature ranged a few degrees above the normal. (For this fact I am indebted to Professor Cleveland Abbe, E. S. M.) The large, irregular, dark regions on the planet have been supposed to be bodies of water, or seas, and have been described and named as such by astronomers. Lowell shows, however, that there is every reason to doubt this conclusion. "To begin with, they are of every grade of tint,--a very curious feature for seas to exhibit, unless they were everywhere but a few feet deep; which, again, is a most singular characteristic for seas that cover hundreds of thousands of square miles in extent,--seas, that is, as large as the Bay of Bengal. The Martian surface would
{'title': 'Mars and Its Mystery by Edward Sylvester Morse', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}