Apart from his decided opinion concerning the habitability of all the planets, Huygens draws his conclusions logically enough, inasmuch as he bases his affirmations on the knowledge of his time. An entirely opposite method is used by the Jesuit Father Kircher. He starts from the point of view that the principal object of nature is man and that all the rest is created for him. The planets are uninhabited because, apart from man, there could be no reasonable beings. But since they have upon man an influence determined by their astrological value, he finds the planets to be such as astrology represents them to be in their action upon us without considering their position with regard to the Sun. On Mercury, everything takes place gaily and joyously, since all those who are born under its influence are inclined to lightness and mischief. On Venus, everything is even better--or worse: he finds everything gracious and charming; a soft rosy light is spread over the planet, perfumes are wafted about everywhere, zephyrs mingle their murmurings with those of the brooks, and gold and precious stones sparkle everywhere. Jupiter having, like Venus, a beneficent influence upon man, everything there is perfect: the air is pure and wholesome, the waters crystal-clear, and the soil itself as bright as silver. On Mars, on the other hand, everything is of a warlike roughness, forbidding and terrible, rivers of boiling pitch overflow their banks and envelop the country in thick and suffocating smoke. Saturn, as a planet, is particularly accursed; everything looks like a deserted grave. The planets are not inhabited by human beings, but by angels or genii who rule them. (All these arguments of Kircher are not less infantile than those of Huygens, but they have left distinct traces in astrological literature, and even Victor Hugo reflects them eloquently.)