|
|
|
Prev
| Next
| Contents
HANS PFAALL."
Upon finishing the perusal of this very extraordinary document,
Professor Rub-a-dub, it is said, dropped his pipe upon the ground in
the extremity of his surprise, and Mynheer Superbus Von Underduk
having taken off his spectacles, wiped them, and deposited them in
his pocket, so far forgot both himself and his dignity, as to turn
round three times upon his heel in the quintessence of astonishment
and admiration. There was no doubt about the matter -- the pardon
should be obtained. So at least swore, with a round oath, Professor
Rub-a-dub, and so finally thought the illustrious Von Underduk, as he
took the arm of his brother in science, and without saying a word,
began to make the best of his way home to deliberate upon the
measures to be adopted. Having reached the door, however, of the
burgomaster's dwelling, the professor ventured to suggest that as the
messenger had thought proper to disappear -- no doubt frightened to
death by the savage appearance of the burghers of Rotterdam -- the
pardon would be of little use, as no one but a man of the moon would
undertake a voyage to so vast a distance. To the truth of this
observation the burgomaster assented, and the matter was therefore at
an end. Not so, however, rumors and speculations. The letter, having
been published, gave rise to a variety of gossip and opinion. Some of
the over-wise even made themselves ridiculous by decrying the whole
business; as nothing better than a hoax. But hoax, with these sort of
people, is, I believe, a general term for all matters above their
comprehension. For my part, I cannot conceive upon what data they
have founded such an accusation. Let us see what they say:
Imprimus. That certain wags in Rotterdam have certain especial
antipathies to certain burgomasters and astronomers.
Don't understand at all.
Secondly. That an odd little dwarf and bottle conjurer, both of whose
ears, for some misdemeanor, have been cut off close to his head, has
been missing for several days from the neighboring city of Bruges.
Well -- what of that?
Thirdly. That the newspapers which were stuck all over the little
balloon were newspapers of Holland, and therefore could not have been
made in the moon. They were dirty papers -- very dirty -- and Gluck,
the printer, would take his Bible oath to their having been printed
in Rotterdam.
He was mistaken -- undoubtedly -- mistaken.
Fourthly, That Hans Pfaall himself, the druken villain, and the three
very idle gentlemen styled his creditors, were all seen, no longer
than two or three days ago, in a tippling house in the suburbs,
having just returned, with money in their pockets, from a trip beyond
the sea.
Don't believe it -- don't believe a word of it.
Lastly. That it is an opinion very generally received, or which ought
to be generally received, that the College of Astronomers in the city
of Rotterdam, as well as other colleges in all other parts of the
world, -- not to mention colleges and astronomers in general, -- are,
to say the least of the matter, not a whit better, nor greater, nor
wiser than they ought to be.
~~~ End of Text ~~~
Notes to Hans Pfaal
{*1} NOTE--Strictly speaking, there is but little similarity between
the above sketchy trifle and the celebrated "Moon-Story" of Mr.
Locke; but as both have the character of _hoaxes _(although the one
is in a tone of banter, the other of downright earnest), and as both
hoaxes are on the same subject, the moon--moreover, as both attempt
to give plausibility by scientific detail--the author of "Hans
Pfaall" thinks it necessary to say, in _self-defence, _that his own
_jeu d'esprit _was published in the "Southern Literary Messenger"
about three weeks before the commencement of Mr. L's in the "New York
Sun." Fancying a likeness which, perhaps, does not exist, some of the
New York papers copied "Hans Pfaall," and collated it with the
"Moon-Hoax," by way of detecting the writer of the one in the writer
of the other.
As many more persons were actually gulled by the "Moon-Hoax" than
would be willing to acknowledge the fact, it may here afford some
little amusement to show why no one should have been deceived-to
point out those particulars of the story which should have been
sufficient to establish its real character. Indeed, however rich the
imagination displayed in this ingenious fiction, it wanted much of
the force which might have been given it by a more scrupulous
attention to facts and to general analogy. That the public were
misled, even for an instant, merely proves the gross ignorance which
is so generally prevalent upon subjects of an astronomical nature.
The moon's distance from the earth is, in round numbers, 240,000
miles. If we desire to ascertain how near, apparently, a lens would
bring the satellite (or any distant object), we, of course, have but
to divide the distance by the magnifying or, more strictly, by the
space-penetrating power of the glass. Mr. L. makes his lens have a
power of 42,000 times. By this divide 240,000 (the moon's real
distance), and we have five miles and five sevenths, as the apparent
distance. No animal at all could be seen so far; much less the minute
points particularized in the story. Mr. L. speaks about Sir John
Herschel's perceiving flowers (the Papaver rheas, etc.), and even
detecting the color and the shape of the eyes of small birds. Shortly
before, too, he has himself observed that the lens would not render
perceptible objects of less than eighteen inches in diameter; but
even this, as I have said, is giving the glass by far too great
power. It may be observed, in passing, that this prodigious glass is
said to have been molded at the glasshouse of Messrs. Hartley and
Grant, in Dumbarton; but Messrs. H. and G.'s establishment had ceased
operations for many years previous to the publication of the hoax.
On page 13, pamphlet edition, speaking of "a hairy veil" over the
eyes of a species of bison, the author says: "It immediately occurred
to the acute mind of Dr. Herschel that this was a providential
contrivance to protect the eyes of the animal from the great extremes
of light and darkness to which all the inhabitants of our side of the
moon are periodically subjected." But this cannot be thought a very
"acute" observation of the Doctor's. The inhabitants of our side of
the moon have, evidently, no darkness at all, so there can be nothing
of the "extremes" mentioned. In the absence of the sun they have a
light from the earth equal to that of thirteen full unclouded moons.
The topography throughout, even when professing to accord with
Blunt's Lunar Chart, is entirely at variance with that or any other
lunar chart, and even grossly at variance with itself. The points of
the compass, too, are in inextricable confusion; the writer appearing
to be ignorant that, on a lunar map, these are not in accordance with
terrestrial points; the east being to the left, etc.
Deceived, perhaps, by the vague titles, Mare Nubium, Mare
Tranquillitatis, Mare Faecunditatis, etc., given to the dark spots by
former astronomers, Mr. L. has entered into details regarding oceans
and other large bodies of water in the moon; whereas there is no
astronomical point more positively ascertained than that no such
bodies exist there. In examining the boundary between light and
darkness (in the crescent or gibbous moon) where this boundary
crosses any of the dark places, the line of division is found to be
rough and jagged; but, were these dark places liquid, it would
evidently be even.
The description of the wings of the man-bat, on page 21, is but a
literal copy of Peter Wilkins' account of the wings of his flying
islanders. This simple fact should have induced suspicion, at least,
it might be thought.
On page 23, we have the following: "What a prodigious influence must
our thirteen times larger globe have exercised upon this satellite
when an embryo in the womb of time, the passive subject of chemical
affinity!" This is very fine; but it should be observed that no
astronomer would have made such remark, especially to any journal of
Science; for the earth, in the sense intended, is not only thirteen,
but forty-nine times larger than the moon. A similar objection
applies to the whole of the concluding pages, where, by way of
introduction to some discoveries in Saturn, the philosophical
correspondent enters into a minute schoolboy account of that planet
-- this to the "Edinburgh journal of Science!"
But there is one point, in particular, which should have betrayed the
fiction. Let us imagine the power actually possessed of seeing
animals upon the moon's surface -- what would first arrest the
attention of an observer from the earth? Certainly neither their
shape, size, nor any other such peculiarity, so soon as their
remarkable situation. They would appear to be walking, with heels
up and head down, in the manner of flies on a ceiling. The real
observer would have uttered an instant ejaculation of surprise
(however prepared by previous knowledge) at the singularity of their
position; the fictitious observer has not even mentioned the
subject, but speaks of seeing the entire bodies of such creatures,
when it is demonstrable that he could have seen only the diameter of
their heads!
It might as well be remarked, in conclusion, that the size, and
particularly the powers of the man-bats (for example, their ability
to fly in so rare an atmosphere--if, indeed, the moon have any), with
most of the other fancies in regard to animal and vegetable
existence, are at variance, generally, with all analogical reasoning
on these themes; and that analogy here will often amount to
conclusive demonstration. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to add,
that all the suggestions attributed to Brewster and Herschel, in the
beginning of the article, about "a transfusion of artificial light
through the focal object of vision," etc., etc., belong to that
species of figurative writing which comes, most properly, under the
denomination of rigmarole.
There is a real and very definite limit to optical discovery among
the stars--a limit whose nature need only be stated to be understood.
If, indeed, the casting of large lenses were all that is required,
man's ingenuity would ultimately prove equal to the task, and we
might have them of any size demanded. But, unhappily, in proportion
to the increase of size in the lens, and consequently of
space-penetrating power, is the diminution of light from the object,
by diffusion of its rays. And for this evil there is no remedy within
human ability; for an object is seen by means of that light alone
which proceeds from itself, whether direct or reflected. Thus the
only "artificial" light which could avail Mr. Locke, would be some
artificial light which he should be able to throw-not upon the "focal
object of vision," but upon the real object to be viewed-to wit: upon
the moon. It has been easily calculated that, when the light
proceeding from a star becomes so diffused as to be as weak as the
natural light proceeding from the whole of the stars, in a clear and
moonless night, then the star is no longer visible for any practical
purpose.
The Earl of Ross's telescope, lately constructed in England, has a
speculum with a reflecting surface of 4,071 square inches; the
Herschel telescope having one of only 1,811. The metal of the Earl of
Ross's is 6 feet diameter; it is 5 1/2 inches thick at the edges, and
5 at the centre. The weight is 3 tons. The focal length is 50 feet.
I have lately read a singular and somewhat ingenious little book,
whose title-page runs thus: "L'Homme dans la lvne ou le Voyage
Chimerique fait au Monde de la Lvne, nouuellement decouuert par
Dominique Gonzales, Aduanturier Espagnol, autremét dit le Courier
volant. Mis en notre langve par J. B. D. A. Paris, chez Francois
Piot, pres la Fontaine de Saint Benoist. Et chez J. Goignard, au
premier pilier de la grand'salle du Palais, proche les Consultations,
Prev
| Next
| Contents
|
|
|