Mars and Its Mystery

by Edward Sylvester Morse

In the following chapter are presented abstracts from memoirs, communications, etc., of a few among the many astronomers and observers who have recognized the markings on the planet, and, in many cases, have made drawings of them. Before presenting these few brief records, I have compiled, from Camille Flammarion's great work on Mars, the names of those astronomers whose drawings he reproduces in this monograph, for such it is. A brief examination of Flammarion's volume will give one an idea of the extent and variety of work which has already been accomplished in interpreting the surface features of Mars, and the number of astronomers who have made contributions to the subject.

Flammarion divides these observations into three periods; the first, beginning with the rude drawing of Fontana, in 1636, followed by Huyghens, in 1659, Cassini, in 1666, and many others up to Harding, in 1824. In this period the drawings were rude, though a number of the more conspicuous features were established, and above all, the existence of what was interpreted as snow in the white polar caps. Astronomically many points were determined, such as an approximation of the period of revolution, the distance of Mars from the Sun, the diameter of the planet, its mass, the inclination of its axis, the eccentricity of its orbit, its period of rotation, etc.

The second period begins with the remarkable work of Beer and Mäedler, in 1830 and subsequent years. To them belongs the honor of being the first astronomers to make a chart of the planet. An advance standard was set for future studies, and the work which followed revealed details in the surface markings never before suspected. The second period, from 1830 to 1877, includes the observations and drawings of Beer and Mäedler, 1830; Sir John Herschel, 1830; Galle, 1837; Warren de la Rue, 1856; Webb, 1856; Secchi, 1858; Liais, 1860; Schmidt, 1862; Lockyer, 1862; Phillips, 1862; Lassell, 1862; Knott, 1862; Kaiser, 1862; Dawes, 1864; Franzenne, 1864; Williams, 1867; Proctor, 1867; Lahardeley, 1871; Burton, 1871; Wilson, 1871; Gledhill, 1871; Flammarion, 1873; Terby, 1873; Green, 1873; Trouvelot, 1873; Lohse, 1873; Holden, 1875.

The third period extends from 1877 to 1892, when Flammarion published his book. The following drawings are given: Flammarion, 1877–88; Paul and Prosper Henry, 1877; Neisten, 1877–79–81–88; Terby, 1877–79–88; Van Ertborn, 1877; Cruls, 1877; Dreyer, 1877–79; Lohse, 1877–79–83–84; Green, 1877; Schiaparelli, 1877–79; Maunder, 1879; Konkoly, 1879; Boeddicker, 1881–84; Burton, 1882; Trouvelot, 1884; Knoble, 1884; Denning, 1886; Perrotin and Thollon, 1886; Proctor, 1888; Perrotin, 1888; Holden and Keeler, 1888; Wislicenus, 1888–90; W. H. Pickering, 1890; Williams, 1890; Giovannozzi, 1890; Guillaume, 1890.

It is impossible to follow these various drawings of Mars from the earliest ones of the first period, many of little value, to the slow yet certain advance as seen in the more detailed drawings of the second period, without realizing the gradual improvement of the telescope, coupled with a greater number of observers endowed with better eyesight and impelled by deeper interest in the work. In the third period, culminating with the great work of Schiaparelli, and confirmed by the remarkable observations of Perrotin and Thollon, we see the results of still more arduous devotion to the work; a great advance in telescopes, with better definition, and, in the case of the observations at Nice and Milan, a steadier atmosphere through which to observe. Flammarion brought his work up to 1892.

Lowell's work on Mars, though of a kind with Schiaparelli, is, in every circumstance accompanying it, so remarkable that we may well consider the standard now set by him as the beginning of another period; and this period will fix a standard which will consist in securing observers who, in the language of Sir David Gill, have a special faculty, an inborn capacity, a delight in the exercise of exceptional acuteness of eyesight and natural dexterity, coupled with the gift of imagination as to the true meaning of what they observe. With this standard established, there must also go a perfect telescope for definition, mounted on an elevation a mile and a half or more above the level of the sea, in a region of the clearest and steadiest atmosphere in the world.

One cannot help reflecting on these various drawings presented in Flammarion's work, and wondering what the results would have been if all these astronomers could have had telescopes as incomparable as that at Flagstaff, perched on some high mountain peak with a clear and steady atmosphere continuous for weeks, and, superadded to all these advantages, independent fortunes to enable them to transport their telescopes thousands of miles south when a favorable opposition of Mars occurred at a low altitude.

The astronomers who have advanced certain theories to explain the markings may be counted as admitting their existence, whatever they may be. Among the other astronomers to be referred to are, first, those who admit the markings, and have in all likelihood seen them; second, those who have observed and made drawings of the markings; and, third, those who have drawn them and admit, or at least do not deny, their artificiality.

Miss Agnes M. Clerke, an astronomical writer of great merit, who has written a most lucid and comprehensive "History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century," says: "The canals of Mars are an existent and permanent phenomenon." Mr. Thomas Lindsay, of Toronto, read some notes before the Astronomical Society of that city in regard to the phenomenon of the so-called doubling of the canals and the explanation advanced that it was due to errors in focusing. "It had been stated by several English observers that, by racking the eyepiece within or without the focus, all the phenomena might be produced." In the case of Mars, however, he asks: "How is it possible that all the observers had their telescopes unadjusted, and, if any one had, would he not be immediately aware of it?" Mr. Lindsay thought that the theory was too obviously opposed to the simplest kind of common sense to merit a moment's consideration.

Mr. John A. Patterson, in his Presidential address before the Astronomical Society of Toronto, in speaking of Mars, said the discoveries rest on the bed rock of scientific evidence; and, after speaking of the supposed spectroscopic evidence that there was no atmosphere in Mars, refers to the polar snow caps, their melting, and the lines of vegetation that are supposed to mark the margin of the canals, and he asks: "Is it possible that all these may be consistent with no vapor floating above the surface? Is it sound philosophy to conclude that the condition of things on our own little world gauges the possibilities and relations that exist in our sister world? Dame Nature does not turn out all her products in one pattern."