Sig. Ricco"s estimate is that these objects or beings or cranes must have been at least five and a half miles high.
17
The vast dark thing that looked like a poised crow of unholy dimensions.
a.s.suming that I shall ever have any readers, let him, or both of them, if I shall ever have such popularity as that, note how dim that bold black datum is at the distance of only two chapters.
The question:
Was it a thing or the shadow of a thing?
Acceptance either way calls not for mere revision but revolution in the science of astronomy. But the dimness of the datum of only two chapters ago. The carved stone disk of Tarbes, and the rain that fell every afternoon for twenty--if I haven"t forgotten, myself, whether it was twenty-three or twenty-five days!--upon one small area. We are all Thomsons, with brains that have smooth and slippery, though corrugated, surfaces--or that all intellection is a.s.sociative--or that we remember that which correlates with a dominant--and a few chapters go by, and there"s scarcely an impression that hasn"t slid off our smooth and slippery brains, of Leverrier and the "planet Vulcan." There are two ways by which irreconcilables can be remembered--if they can be correlated in a system more nearly real than the system that rejects them--and by repet.i.tion and repet.i.tion and repet.i.tion.
Vast black thing like a crow poised over the moon.
The datum is so important to us, because it enforces, in another field, our acceptance that dark bodies of planetary size traverse this solar system.
Our position:
That the things have been seen:
Also that their shadows have been seen.
Vast black thing poised like a crow over the moon. So far it is a single instance. By a single instance, we mean the negligible.
In _Popular Science_, 34-158, Serviss tells of a shadow that Schroeter saw, in 1788, in the lunar Alps. First he saw a light. But then, when this region was illuminated, he saw a round shadow where the light had been.
Our own expression:
That he saw a luminous object near the moon: that that part of the moon became illuminated, and the object was lost to view; but that then its shadow underneath was seen.
Serviss explains, of course. Otherwise he"d not be Prof. Serviss. It"s a little contest in relative approximations to realness. Prof. Serviss thinks that what Schroeter saw was the "round" shadow of a mountain--in the region that had become lighted. He a.s.sumes that Schroeter never looked again to see whether the shadow could be attributed to a mountain. That"s the crux: conceivably a mountain could cast a round--and that means detached--shadow, in the lighted part of the moon.
Prof. Serviss could, of course, explain why he disregards the light in the first place--maybe it had always been there "in the first place." If he couldn"t explain, he"d still be an amateur.
We have another datum. I think it is more extraordinary than--
Vast thing, black and poised, like a crow, over the moon.
But only because it"s more circ.u.mstantial, and because it has corroboration, do I think it more extraordinary than--
Vast poised thing, black as a crow, over the moon.
Mr. H.C. Russell, who was usually as orthodox as anybody, I suppose--at least, he wrote "F.R.A.S." after his name--tells in the _Observatory_, 2-374, one of the wickedest, or most preposterous, stories that we have so far exhumed:
That he and another astronomer, G.D. Hirst, were in the Blue fountains, near Sydney, N.S.W., and Mr. Hirst was looking at the moon--
He saw on the moon what Russell calls "one of those remarkable facts, which being seen should be recorded, although no explanation can at present be offered."
That may be so. It is very rarely done. Our own expression upon evolution by successive dominants and their correlates is against it. On the other hand, we express that every era records a few observations out of harmony with it, but adumbratory or preparatory to the spirit of eras still to come. It"s very rarely done. Lashed by the phantom-scourge of a now pa.s.sing era, the world of astronomers is in a state of terrorism, though of a highly attenuated, modernized, devitalized kind.
Let an astronomer see something that is not of the conventional, celestial sights, or something that it is "improper" to see--his very dignity is in danger. Some one of the corralled and scourged may stick a smile into his back. He"ll be thought of unkindly.
With a hardihood that is unusual in his world of ethereal sensitivenesses, Russell says, of Hirst"s observation:
"He found a large part of it covered with a dark shade, quite as dark as the shadow of the earth during an eclipse of the moon."
But the climax of hardihood or impropriety or wickedness, preposterousness or enlightenment:
"One could hardly resist the conviction that it was a shadow, yet it could not be the shadow of any known body."
Richard Proctor was a man of some liberality. After a while we shall have a letter, which once upon a time we"d have called delirious--don"t know that we could read such a thing now, for the first time, without incredulous laughter--which Mr. Proctor permitted to be published in _Knowledge_. But a dark, unknown world that could cast a shadow upon a large part of the moon, perhaps extending far beyond the limb of the moon; a shadow as deep as the shadow of this earth--
Too much for Mr. Proctor"s politeness.
I haven"t read what he said, but it seems to have been a little coa.r.s.e.
Russell says that Proctor "freely used" his name in the _Echo_, of March 14, 1879, ridiculing this observation which had been made by Russell as well as Hirst. If it hadn"t been Proctor, it would have been someone else--but one notes that the attack came out in a newspaper. There is no discussion of this remarkable subject, no mention in any other astronomic journal. The disregard was almost complete--but we do note that the columns of the _Observatory_ were open to Russell to answer Proctor.
In the answer, I note considerable intermediateness. Far back in 1879, it would have been a beautiful positivism, if Russell had said--
"There was a shadow on the moon. Absolutely it was cast by an unknown body."
According to our religion, if he had then given all his time to the maintaining of this one stand, of course breaking all friendships, all ties with his fellow astronomers, his apotheosis would have occurred, greatly a.s.sisted by means well known to quasi-existence when its compromises and evasions, and phenomena that are partly this and partly that, are flouted by the definite and uncompromising. It would be impossible in a real existence, but Mr. Russell, of quasi-existence, says that he did resist the conviction; that he had said that one could "hardly resist"; and most of his resentment is against Mr. Proctor"s thinking that he had not resisted. It seems too bad--if apotheosis be desirable.
The point in Intermediatism here is:
Not that to adapt to the conditions of quasi-existence is to have what is called success in quasi-existence, but is to lose one"s soul--
But is to lose "one"s" chance of attaining soul, self, or ent.i.ty.
One indignation quoted from Proctor interests us:
"What happens on the moon may at any time happen to this earth."
Or:
That is just the teaching of this department of Advanced Astronomy:
That Russell and Hirst saw the sun eclipsed relatively to the moon by a vast dark body:
That many times have eclipses occurred relatively to this earth, by vast, dark bodies:
That there have been many eclipses that have not been recognized as eclipses by scientific kindergartens.
There is a merger, of course. We"ll take a look at it first--that, after all, it may have been a shadow that Hirst and Russell saw, but the only significance is that the sun was eclipsed relatively to the moon by a cosmic haze of some kind, or a swarm of meteors close together, or a gaseous discharge left behind by a comet. My own acceptance is that vagueness of shadow is a function of vagueness of intervention; that a shadow as dense as the shadow of this earth is cast by a body denser than hazes and swarms. The information seems definite enough in this respect--"quite as dark as the shadow of this earth during the eclipse of the moon."
Though we may not always be as patient toward them as we should be, it is our acceptance that the astronomic primitives have done a great deal of good work: for instance, in the allaying of fears upon this earth.
Sometimes it may seem as if all science were to us very much like what a red flag is to bulls and anti-socialists. It"s not that: it"s more like what unsquare meals are to bulls and anti-socialists--not the scientific, but the insufficient. Our acceptance is that Evil is the negative state, by which we mean the state of maladjustment, discord, ugliness, disorganization, inconsistency, injustice, and so on--as determined in Intermediateness, not by real standards, but only by higher approximations to adjustment, harmony, beauty, organization, consistency, justice, and so on. Evil is outlived virtue, or incipient virtue that has not yet established itself, or any other phenomenon that is not in seeming adjustment, harmony, consistency with a dominant. The astronomers have functioned bravely in the past. They"ve been good for business: the big interests think kindly, if at all, of them. It"s bad for trade to have an intense darkness come upon an unaware community and frighten people out of their purchasing values. But if an obscuration be foretold, and if it then occur--may seem a little uncanny--only a shadow--and no one who was about to buy a pair of shoes runs home panic-stricken and saves the money.