<h2> Notes to Hans Pfaal </h2>
<p>(*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 <i>hoaxes</i> (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 <i>self-defence,</i> that his own <i>jeu d'esprit</i>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!"</p>
<p>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 <i>situation</i>. They
would appear to be walking, with heels up and head down, in the manner of
flies on a ceiling. The <i>real</i> observer would have uttered an instant
ejaculation of surprise (however prepared by previous knowledge) at the
singularity of their position; the <i>fictitious</i> 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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The Earl of Ross's telescope, lately constructed in England, has a <i>speculum</i>
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.</p>
<p>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, nouellement decouvert par Dominique Gonzales,
Aduanturier Espagnol, autrem�t 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, MDCXLVII." Pp. 76.</p>
<p>The writer professes to have translated his work from the English of one
Mr. D'Avisson (Davidson?) although there is a terrible ambiguity in the
statement. "J' en ai eu," says he "l'original de Monsieur D'Avisson,
medecin des mieux versez qui soient aujourd'huy dans la c�noissance
des Belles Lettres, et sur tout de la Philosophic Naturelle. Je lui ai
cette obligation entre les autres, de m' auoir non seulement mis en main
cc Livre en anglois, mais encore le Manuscrit du Sieur Thomas D'Anan,
gentilhomme Eccossois, recommandable pour sa vertu, sur la version duquel
j' advoue que j' ay tir� le plan de la mienne."</p>
<p>After some irrelevant adventures, much in the manner of Gil Blas, and
which occupy the first thirty pages, the author relates that, being ill
during a sea voyage, the crew abandoned him, together with a negro
servant, on the island of St. Helena. To increase the chances of obtaining
food, the two separate, and live as far apart as possible. This brings
about a training of birds, to serve the purpose of carrier-pigeons between
them. By and by these are taught to carry parcels of some weight-and this
weight is gradually increased. At length the idea is entertained of
uniting the force of a great number of the birds, with a view to raising
the author himself. A machine is contrived for the purpose, and we have a
minute description of it, which is materially helped out by a steel
engraving. Here we perceive the Signor Gonzales, with point ruffles and a
huge periwig, seated astride something which resembles very closely a
broomstick, and borne aloft by a multitude of wild swans <i>(ganzas)</i>
who had strings reaching from their tails to the machine.</p>
<p>The main event detailed in the Signor's narrative depends upon a very
important fact, of which the reader is kept in ignorance until near the
end of the book. The <i>ganzas,</i> with whom he had become so familiar,
were not really denizens of St. Helena, but of the moon. Thence it had
been their custom, time out of mind, to migrate annually to some portion
of the earth. In proper season, of course, they would return home; and the
author, happening, one day, to require their services for a short voyage,
is unexpectedly carried straight tip, and in a very brief period arrives
at the satellite. Here he finds, among other odd things, that the people
enjoy extreme happiness; that they have no <i>law;</i> that they die
without pain; that they are from ten to thirty feet in height; that they
live five thousand years; that they have an emperor called Irdonozur; and
that they can jump sixty feet high, when, being out of the gravitating
influence, they fly about with fans.</p>
<p>I cannot forbear giving a specimen of the general <i>philosophy</i> of the
volume.</p>
<p>"I must not forget here, that the stars appeared only on that side of<br/>
the globe turned toward the moon, and that the closer they were to it<br/>
the larger they seemed. I have also me and the earth. As to the<br/>
stars, <i>since there was no night where I was, they always had the same<br/>
appearance; not brilliant, as usual, but pale, and very nearly like the<br/>
moon of a morning. </i>But few of them were visible, and these ten times<br/>
larger (as well as I could judge) than they seem to the inhabitants<br/>
of the earth. The moon, which wanted two days of being full, was of a<br/>
terrible bigness.<br/>
<br/>
"I must not forget here, that the stars appeared only on that side<br/>
of the globe turned toward the moon, and that the closer they were to it<br/>
the larger they seemed. I have also to inform you that, whether it was<br/>
calm weather or stormy, I found myself <i>always immediately between the<br/>
moon and the earth.</i> I<i> </i>was convinced of this for two reasons-because<br/>
my birds always flew in a straight line; and because whenever we<br/>
attempted to rest, <i>we were carried insensibly around the globe of the<br/>
earth. </i>For I admit the opinion of Copernicus, who maintains that it<br/>
never ceases to revolve <i>from the east to the west, </i>not upon the poles<br/>
of the Equinoctial, commonly called the poles of the world, but upon<br/>
those of the Zodiac, a question of which I propose to speak more at<br/>
length here-after, when I shall have leisure to refresh my memory in<br/>
regard to the astrology which I learned at Salamanca when young, and<br/>
have since forgotten."<br/></p>
<p>Notwithstanding the blunders italicized, the book is not without some
claim to attention, as affording a naive specimen of the current
astronomical notions of the time. One of these assumed, that the
"gravitating power" extended but a short distance from the earth's
surface, and, accordingly, we find our voyager "carried insensibly around
the globe," etc.</p>
<p>There have been other "voyages to the moon," but none of higher merit than
the one just mentioned. That of Bergerac is utterly meaningless. In the
third volume of the "American Quarterly Review" will be found quite an
elaborate criticism upon a certain "journey" of the kind in question—a
criticism in which it is difficult to say whether the critic most exposes
the stupidity of the book, or his own absurd ignorance of astronomy. I
forget the title of the work; but the <i>means</i> of the voyage are more
deplorably ill conceived than are even the <i>ganzas</i> of our friend the
Signor Gonzales. The adventurer, in digging the earth, happens to discover
a peculiar metal for which the moon has a strong attraction, and
straightway constructs of it a box, which, when cast loose from its
terrestrial fastenings, flies with him, forthwith, to the satellite. The
"Flight of Thomas O'Rourke," is a <i>jeu d' esprit</i> not altogether
contemptible, and has been translated into German. Thomas, the hero, was,
in fact, the gamekeeper of an Irish peer, whose eccentricities gave rise
to the tale. The "flight" is made on an eagle's back, from Hungry Hill, a
lofty mountain at the end of Bantry Bay.</p>
<p>In these various <i>brochures</i> the aim is always satirical; the theme
being a description of Lunarian customs as compared with ours. In none is
there any effort at <i>plausibility</i> in the details of the voyage
itself. The writers seem, in each instance, to be utterly uninformed in
respect to astronomy. In "Hans Pfaall" the design is original, inasmuch as
regards an attempt at <i>verisimilitude,</i> in the application of
scientific principles (so far as the whimsical nature of the subject would
permit), to the actual passage between the earth and the moon.</p>
<p>(*2) The zodiacal light is probably what the ancients called Trabes.
Emicant Trabes quos docos vocant.—Pliny, lib. 2, p. 26.</p>
<p>(*3) Since the original publication of Hans Pfaall, I find that Mr. Green,
of Nassau balloon notoriety, and other late aeronauts, deny the assertions
of Humboldt, in this respect, and speak of a decreasing inconvenience,—precisely
in accordance with the theory here urged in a mere spirit of banter.</p>
<p>(*4) Havelius writes that he has several times found, in skies perfectly
clear, when even stars of the sixth and seventh magnitude were
conspicuous, that, at the same altitude of the moon, at the same
elongation from the earth, and with one and the same excellent telescope,
the moon and its maculae did not appear equally lucid at all times. From
the circumstances of the observation, it is evident that the cause of this
phenomenon is not either in our air, in the tube, in the moon, or in the
eye of the spectator, but must be looked for in something (an atmosphere?)
existing about the moon.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />