Schiaparelli did not see the
little moons that Hall discovered, and Hall did not perceive the
enigmatical lines that Schiaparelli detected. Hall had by far the larger
and more powerful telescope; Schiaparelli had much the more steady and
favorable atmosphere for astronomical observation. Yet these differences
in equipment and circumstances do not clearly explain why each observer
should have seen what the other did not.
There may be a partial explanation in the fact that an observer having
made a remarkable discovery is naturally inclined to confine his
attention to it, to the neglect of other things. But it was soon found
that Schiaparelli's lines--to which he gave the name "canals," merely on
account of their shape and appearance, and without any intention to
define their real nature--were excessively difficult telescopic objects.
Eight or nine years elapsed before any other observer corroborated
Schiaparelli's observations, and notwithstanding the "sensation" which
the discovery of the canals produced they were for many years regarded
by the majority of astronomers as an illusion.
But they were no illusion, and in 1881 Schiaparelli added to the
astonishment created by his original discovery, and furnished additional
grounds for skepticism, by announcing that, at certain times, many of
the canals geminated, or became double! He continued his observations at
each subsequent opposition, adding to the number of the canals observed,
and charting them with classical names upon a detailed map of the
planet's surface.
Pages:
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76