Edward Sylvester Morse

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.

PLATE II

DRAWINGS OF THE SOLAR CORONA BY VARIOUS OBSERVERS

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.