197
appear to have set this beyond doubt. Their presence obviously
brings in other possible explanations of the coming and going of
elevated surface features.
Finally, we may ask what about the reliability of the maps? About
this it is to be said that the most recent map--that by Lowell--has
been confirmed by numerous drawings by different observers, and
that it is,itself the result of over 900 drawings. It has become
a standard chart of Mars, and while it would be rash to contend
for absence of errors it appears certain that the trend of the
principal canals may be relied on, as, also, the general features
of the planet's surface.
The question of the possibility of illusion has frequently been
raised. What I have said above to a great extent answers such
objections. The close agreement between the drawings of different
observers ought really to set the matter at rest. Recently,
however, photography has left no further room for scepticism.
First photographed in 1905, the planet has since been
photographed many thousands of times from various observatories.
A majority of the canals have been so mapped. The doubling of the
canals is stated to have been also so recorded.[1]
The hypothesis which I have ventured to put before you involves
no organic intervention to account for the
[1] E. C. Slipher's paper in _Popular Astronomy_ for March, 1914,
gives a good account of the recent work.
198
details on Mars' surface. They are physical surface features.
Mars presents his history written upon his face in the scars of
former encounters--like the shield of Sir Launcelot. Some of the
most interesting inferences of mathematical and physical
astronomy find a confirmation in his history. The slowing down in
the rate of axial rotation of the primary; the final inevitable
destruction of the satellite; the existence in the past of a far
larger number of asteroids than we at present are acquainted
with; all these great facts are involved in the theory now
advanced. If justifiably, then is Mars' face a veritable
Principia.
To fully answer the question which heads these lectures, we
should go out into the populous solitudes (if the term be
permitted) which lie beyond our system. It is well that there is
now no time left to do so; for, in fact, there we can only dream
dreams wherein the limits of the possible and the impossible
become lost.
The marvel of the infinite number of stars is not so marvellous
as the rationality that fain would comprehend them. In seeking
other minds than ours we seek for what is almost infinitely
complex and coordinated in a material universe relatively simple
and heterogeneous. In our mental attitude towards the great
question, this fact must be regarded as fundamental.
I can only fitly close a discourse which has throughout weighed
the question of the living thought against the unthinking laws of
matter, by a paraphrase of the words
199
of a great poet when he, in higher and, perhaps, more philosophic
language, also sought to place the one in comparison with the
other.[1]
Richter thought that he was--with his human heart
unstrengthened--taken by an angel among the universe of stars.
Then, as they journeyed, our solar system was sunken like a faint
star in the abyss, and they travelled yet further, on the wings
of thought, through mightier systems: through all the countless
numbers of our galaxy. But at length these also were left behind,
and faded like a mist into the past. But this was not all. The
dawn of other galaxies appeared in the void. Stars more countless
still with insufferable light emerged. And these also were
passed. And so they went through galaxies without number till at
length they stood in the great Cathedral of the Universe. Endless
were the starry aisles; endless the starry columns; infinite the
arches and the architraves of stars. And the poet saw the mighty
galaxies as steps descending to infinity, and as steps going up
to infinity.
Then his human heart fainted and he longed for some narrow cell;
longed to lie down in the grave that he might hide from infinity.
And he said to the angel:
"Angel, I can go with thee no farther. Is there, then, no end to
the universe of stars?"
[1] De Quincy in his _System of the Heavens_ gives a fine
paraphrase of "Richter's Dream."
200
Then the angel flung up his glorious hands to the heaven of
heavens, saying "End is there none to the universe of God? Lo!
also there is no beginning."
201