Adams. Those who know all the story about Mr. Airy being arrested in his progress by the neglect of Mr. Adams to answer a letter, with all the imputations which might have been thrown upon himself for laxity in the matter, know also that Mr. Airy's conduct exhibited moral courage, honest feeling, and willingness to sacrifice himself, if need were, to the attainment of the ends of private justice, and the establishment of a national claim. A writer in a magazine, in a long and elaborate article, argued the supposition--put in every way except downright a.s.sertion, after the fashion of such things--that Mr. Airy had communicated Mr. Adams's results to M. Le Verrier, with intention that they should be used. His presumption as to motive is that, had Mr. Adams been recognized, "then the discovery must have been indisputably an _Englishman's_, and that Englishman not the Astronomer Royal." Mr. Adams's conclusions were "retouched in France, and sent {141} over the year after." The proof given is that it cannot be "imagined" otherwise.

"Can it then be imagined that the Astronomer Royal received such results from Mr. Adams, supported as they were by Professor Challis's[251] valuable testimony as to their probable accuracy, and did not bring the French astronomer acquainted with them, especially as he was aware that his friend was engaged in matters bearing directly upon these results?"

The whole argument the author styles "evidence which I consider it difficult to refute." He ends by calling upon certain persons, of whom I am one, to "see ample justice done." This is the duty of every one, according to his opportunities. So when the reputed author--the article being anonymous--was, in 1849, proposed as a Fellow of the Astronomical Society, I joined--if I remember right, I originated--an opposition to his election, until either the authorship should be denied, or a proper retraction made.

The friends of the author neither denied the first, nor produced the second: and they judged it prudent to withdraw the proposal. Had I heard of any subsequent repentance, I would have taken some other instance, instead of this: should I yet hear of such a thing, I will take care to notice it in the continuation of this list, which I confidently expect, life and health permitting, to be able to make in a few years. This much may be said, that the author, in a lecture on the subject, given in 1849, and published with his name, did _not_ repeat the charge.

[The libel was published in the _Mechanics' Magazine_,[252] (vol. for 1846, pp. 604-615): and the editor supported it as follows, (vol. for 1847, p.

476). In answer to Mr. Sheepshanks's charitable hope that he had been hoaxed, {142} he says: "Mr. Sheepshanks cannot certainly have read the article referred to.... Severe and inculpatory it is--unjust some may deem it (though we ourselves are out of the number.)... A 'hoax' forsooth! May we be often the dupes of such hoaxes!" He then goes on to describe the article as directed against the Astronomer Royal's alleged neglect to give Mr. Adams that "encouragement and protection" which was his due, and _does not hint one word_ about the article containing the charge of having secretly and fraudulently transmitted news of Mr. Adams's researches to France, that an Englishman might not have the honor of the discovery. Mr.

Sheepshanks having called this a "deliberate calumny," without a particle of proof or probability to support it, the editor says "what the reverend gentleman means by this, we are at a loss to understand." He then proceeds _not_ to remember. I repeat here, what I have said elsewhere, that the management of the journal has changed hands; but from 1846 to 1856, it had the collar of S.S. (scientific slander). The prayer for more such things was answered (See p. 349).]

JAMES IVORY.[253]

I have said that those who are possessed with the idea of conspiracy against themselves are apt to imagine both conspirators and their bad motives and actions. A person who should take up the idea of combination against himself without feeling ill-will and originating accusations would be indeed a paradox. But such a paradox has existed. It is very well known, both in and beyond the scientific world, that the late James Ivory was subject to the {143} impression of which I am speaking; and the diaries and other sources of anecdote of our day will certainly, sooner or later, make it a part of his biography. The consequence will be that to his memory will be attached the unfavorable impression which the usual conduct of such persons creates; unless it should happen that some one who knows the real state of the case puts the two sides of it properly together. Ivory was of that note in the scientific world which may be guessed from Laplace's description of him as the first geometer in Britain and one of the first in Europe. Being in possession of accurate knowledge of his peculiarity in more cases than one; and in one case under his own hand: and having been able to make full inquiry about him, especially from my friend the late Thomas Galloway[254]--who came after him at Sandhurst--one of the few persons with whom he was intimate:--I have decided, after full deliberation, to forestall the future biographies.

That Ivory was haunted by the fear of which I have spoken, to the fullest extent, came to my own public and official knowledge, as Secretary of the Astronomical Society. It was the duty of Mr. Epps,[255] the a.s.sistant Secretary, at the time when Francis Baily[256] first announced his discovery of the Flamsteed Papers, to report to me that Mr. Ivory had called at the Society's apartments to inquire into the contents of those papers, and to express his hope that Mr. Baily was not attacking living persons under the names of Newton and Flamsteed.[257] Mr. Galloway, to whom I communicated this, immediately went to Mr. Ivory, and succeeded, after some explanation, in setting him right. This is but one of many instances in which a man of thoroughly sound judgment in every other respect seemed to be under a complete chain of delusions about the conduct of {144} others to himself. But the paradox is this:--I never could learn that Ivory, pa.s.sing his life under the impression that secret and unprovoked enemies were at work upon his character, ever originated a charge, imputed a bad motive, or allowed himself an uncourteous expression. Some letters of his, now in my possession, referring to a private matter, are, except in the main impression on which they proceed, un.o.bjectionable in every point: they might have been written by a cautious friend, whose object was, if possible, to prevent a difference from becoming a duel without compromising his princ.i.p.al's rights or character. Knowing that in some quarters the knowledge of Ivory's peculiarity is more or less connected with a notion that the usual consequences followed, I think the preceding statement due to his memory.

THREE CLa.s.sES OF JOURNALS.

In such a record as the present, which mixes up the grossest speculative absurdities with every degree of what is better, an instance of another kind may find an appropriate place. The faults of journalism, when merely exposed by other journalism pa.s.s by and are no more regarded. A distinct account of an undeniable meanness, recorded in a work of amus.e.m.e.nt and reference both, may have its use: such a thing may act as a warning. An editor who is going to indulge his private grudge may be prevented from counting upon oblivion as a matter of certainty.

There are three kinds of journals, with reference to the mode of entrance of contributors. First, as a thing which has been, but which now hardly exists, there is the journal in which the editor receives a fixed sum to _find the matter_. In such a journal, every article which the editor can get a friend to give him is so much in his own pocket, which has a great tendency to lower the character of the articles; but I am not concerned with this point. Secondly, there is the journal which is supported by voluntary contributions of {145} matter, the editor selecting. Thirdly, there is the journal in which the contributor is paid by the proprietors in a manner with which the literary editor has nothing to do.

The third cla.s.s is the safe cla.s.s, as its editors know: and, as a usual rule, they refuse unpaid contributions of the editorial cast. It is said that when Canning[258] declined a cheque forwarded for an article in the _Quarterly_, John Murray[259] sent it back with a blunt threat that if he did not take his money he could never be admitted again. The great publisher told him that if men like himself in position worked for nothing, all the men like himself in talent who could not afford it would not work for the _Quarterly_. If the above did not happen between Canning and Murray, it _must have happened_ between some other two. Now journals of the second cla.s.s--and of the first, if such there be--have a fault to which they alone are very liable, to say nothing of the editorial function (see the paper at the beginning, p. 11 et seq.), being very much cramped, a sort of grat.i.tude towards effective contributors leads the journal to help their personal likes and dislikes, and to sympathize with them. Moreover, this sort of journal is more accessible than others to articles conveying personal imputation: and when these provoke discussion, the journal is apt to take the part of the a.s.sailant to whom it lent itself in the first instance.

THE MECHANICS' MAGAZINE.

Among the journals which went all lengths with contributors whom they valued, was the _Mechanics' Magazine_[260] in the period 1846-56. I cannot say that matters have not mended in the last ten years: and I draw some {146} presumption that they have mended from my not having heard, since 1856, of anything resembling former proceedings. And on actual inquiry, made since the last sentence was written, I find that the property has changed hands, the editor is no longer the same, and the management is of a different stamp. This journal is chiefly supported by voluntary articles: and it is the journal in which, as above noted, the ridiculous charge against the Astronomer Royal was made in 1849. The following instance of attempt at revenge is so amusing that I select it as the instance of the defect which I intend to ill.u.s.trate; for its puerility brings out in better relief the points which are not so easily seen in more adult attempts.

The _Mechanics' Magazine_, which by its connection with engineering, etc., had always taken somewhat of a mathematical character, began, a little before 1846, to have more to do with abstract science. Observing this, I began to send short communications, which were always thankfully received, inserted, and well spoken of. Any one who looks for my name in that journal in 1846-49, will see nothing but the most respectful and even laudatory mention. In May 1849 occurred the affair at the Astronomical Society, and my share in forcing the withdrawal of the name of the alleged contributor to the journal. In February 1850 occurred the opportunity of payment. The _Companion to the Almanac_[261] had to be noticed, in which, as then usual, was an article signed with my name. I shall give the review of this article entire, as a sample of a certain style, as well as an ill.u.s.tration of my point. The reader will observe that my name is not mentioned. This would not have done; the readers of the Magazine would have stared to see a name of not infrequent occurrence in previous years all of a sudden fallen from the heaven of respect into the pit of contempt, like Lucifer, son of the morning. But before {147} giving the review, I shall observe that Mr.

Adams, in whose _favor_ the attack on the Astronomer Royal was made, did not appreciate the favor; and of course did not come forward to shield his champion. This gave deadly offence, as appear from the following pa.s.sage, (February 16, 1850):

"It was our intention to enter into a comparison of the contents of our Nautical Almanack with those of its rival, the _Connaissance des Temps_; but we shall defer it for the present. The Nautical Almanack for 1851 will contain Mr. Adams's paper 'On the Perturbation of Ura.n.u.s'; and when it comes, in due course, before the public, we are quite sure that that gentleman will expect that we shall again enter upon the subject with peculiar delight. Whilst we have a thorough loathing for mean, cowardly, crawlers--we have an especial pleasure in maintaining the claims of men who are truly grateful as well as highly talented: Mr. Adams, therefore, will find that he cannot be disappointed--and the occasion will afford us an opportunity for making the comparison to which we have adverted."

This pa.s.sage ill.u.s.trates what I have said on the editorial function (Vol.

I, p. 15). What precedes and follows has some criticism on the Government, the Astronomer Royal, etc., but reserved in allusion, oblique in sarcasm, and not fiercely uncourteous. The coa.r.s.eness of the pa.s.sage I have quoted shows editorial insertion, which is also shown by its blunder. The inserter is waiting for the Almanac of 1851 that he may review Mr. Adams's paper, which is to be contained in it. His own contributor, only two sentences before the insertion, had said, "The Nautical Almanac, we believe, is published three or four years in advance." In fact, the Almanac for 1851--with Mr. Adams's paper at the end--was published at the end of 1847 or very beginning of 1848; it had therefore been more than two years before the public when the pa.s.sage quoted was written. And probably every person in the country who was fit to review Mr. Adams's {148} paper--and most of those who were fit to read it--knew that it had been widely circulated, in revise, at the end of 1846: my copy has written on it, "2d revise, December 27, 1846, at noon," in the handwriting of the Superintendent of the Almanac; and I know that there was an extensive issue of these revises, brought out by the Le-Verrier-and-Adams discussion. I now give the review of myself, (February 23, 1850):

"_The British Almanack and Companion._

"The Companion to this Almanack, for some years after its first publication, annually contained scientific articles by Sir J. Lubbock[262]

and others of a high order and great interest; we have now, however, closed the publication as a scientific one in remembrance of what it was, and not in consequence of what it is. Its list of contributors on science, has grown 'small by degrees and beautifully less,' until it has dwindled down to one--'a last rose of summer left withering alone.' The one contributor has contributed one paper 'On Ancient and Modern Usage in Reckoning.'

"The learned critic's _chef d'oeuvre_, is considered, by competent judges, to be an Essay on _Old Almanacks_ printed a few years ago in this annual, and supposed to be written with the view of surpa.s.sing a profound memoir on the same subject by James O. Halliwell,[263] Esq., F.R. and A.S.S., but the tremendous effort which the learned writer then made to excel many t.i.tled compet.i.tors for honors in the antique line appears to have had a sad effect upon his mental powers--at any rate, his efforts have since yearly become duller and duller; happily, at last, we should suppose, 'the ancient {149} and modern usage in reckoning' indicates the lowest point to which the _vis inertia_ of the learned writer's peculiar genius can force him.

"We will give a few extracts from the article.

"The learned author says, 'Those who are accustomed to settle the meaning of ancient phrases by self-examination will find some _strange_ conclusions arrived at by us.' The writer never wrote a more correct sentence--it admits of no kind of dispute.

"'Language and counting,' says the learned author, 'both came before the logical discussion of either. It is not allowable to argue that something is or was, because it ought to be or ought to have been. That two negatives make an affirmative, ought to be; if _no_ man have done _nothing_, the man who has done nothing does not exist, and _every_ man has done _something_.

But in Greek, and in uneducated English, it is unquestionable that 'no man has done nothing' is only an emphatic way of saying that no man has done _anything_; and it would be absurd to reason that it could not have been so, because it should not.'--p. 5.

"'But there _is_ another difference between old and new times, yet more remarkable, for we have _nothing_ of it now: whereas in things indivisible we count with our fathers, and should say in buying an acre of land, that the result has no parts, and that the purchaser, till he owns all the ground, owns none, the change of possession being instantaneous. This second difference lies in the habit of considering nothing, nought, zero, cipher, or whatever it may be called, to be at the beginning of the scale of numbers. Count four days from Monday: we should now say Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday; formerly, it would have been Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Had we asked, what at that rate is the first day from Monday, all would have stared at a phrase they had never heard. Those who were capable of extending language would have said, Why it must be Monday itself: the rest would have said, there can {150} be no first day from Monday, for the day after is Tuesday, which must be the second day: Monday, one; Tuesday, two,'--p. 10.

"We a.s.sure our readers that the whole article is equally lucid, and its logic alike formal.

"There are some exceedingly valuable footnotes; we give one of the most interesting, taken from the learned Mr. Halliwell's profound book on Nursery Rhymes[264]--a celebrated production, for which it is supposed the author was made F.R.S.

"'_One's nine_, Two's some, Three's a many, Four's a penny, Five's a little hundred.'

'The last line refers to five score, the so-called hundred being more usually six score. The first line, looked at etymologically, is _one is not one_, and the change of thought by which _nine_, the decimal of _one_, aims to be a.s.sociated with the decimal of _plurality_ is curious:'--Very.

"This valuable and profound essay will very probably be transferred to the next edition of the learned Mr. Halliwell's rare work, of kindred worth, ent.i.tled 'RARA MATHEMATICA,' it will then be deservedly handed down to posterity as a covering for cheap trunks--a most appropriate archive for such a treasure."

In December, 1846, the _Mechanics' Magazine_ published a libel on Airy in the matter of the discovery of Neptune. In May, 1849, one * * * was to have been brought forward for election at the Astronomical Society, and was opposed by me and others, on the ground that he was the probable author of this libel, and that he would not, perhaps could {151} not, deny it. [N.B.

I no more doubt that he was the author then I doubt that I am the author of this sentence.][265]

Accordingly, * * * was withdrawn, and a discussion took place, for which see the _Athenaeum_, No. 1126, May 26, 1849, p. 544. The _Mechanics'

Magazine_ was very sore, but up to this day has never ventured beyond an attack on Airy, private whisperings against Adams--(see _ante_, p.

147),--and the above against myself. In due time, I doubt not my name will appear as one of the _ames d.a.m.nees_[266] of the _Mechanics' Magazine_.[267]

T. S. DAVIES ON EUCLID.

First, as to Mr. Halliwell. The late Thomas Stephens Davies,[268] excellent in geometry, and most learned in its history, was also a good hand at enmity, though not implacable. He and Mr. Halliwell, who had long before been very much one, were, at this date, very much two. I do not think T. S.

Davies wrote this article; and I think that by giving my reasons I shall do service to his memory. It must have been written at the beginning of February; and within three days of that time T. S. Davies was making over to me, by his own free act, to be kept until claimed by the relatives, what all who knew even his writings knew that he considered as the most precious deposit he had ever had in his keeping--Horner's[269] papers. His letter announcing the transmission is dated February 2, 1850. This is a strong point; but there is another quite as strong. Euclid and {152} his writings were matters on which T. S. Davies knew neither fear nor favor: he could not have written lightly about a man who stood high with him as a judge of Euclid. Now in this very letter of Feb. 2, there is a sentence which I highly value, because, as aforesaid, it is on a point on which he would never have yielded anything, to which he had paid life-long attention, and on which he had the bias of having long stood alone. In fact, knowing--and what I shall quote confirms me,--that in the matter of Euclid his hand was against every man, I expected, when I sent him a copy of my 22-column article, "Eucleides" in Smith's _Dictionary_,[270] to have received back a criticism, that would have blown me out of the water: and I thought it not unlikely that a man so well up in the subject might have made me feel demolished on some points. Instead of this, I got the following: "Although on one or two minor points I do not quite accord with your views, yet as a whole and without regard to any minor points, I think you are the first who has succeeded in a delineation of Euclid as a geometer." All this duly considered, it is utterly incredible that T. S. Davies should have written the review in question. And yet Mr. Halliwell is treated just as T. S.

Davies would have treated him, as to tone and spirit. The inference in my mind is that we have here a marked instance of the joining of hatreds which takes place in journals supported by voluntary contributions of matter.

Should anything ever have revived this article--and no one ever knows what might have been fished up from the forgotten ma.s.s of journals--the treatment of Mr. Halliwell would certainly have thrown a suspicion on T. S.

Davies, a large and regular contributor to the Magazine. It is good service to his memory to point out what makes it incredible that he should have written so unworthy an article.

The fault is this. There are four extracts: the first {153} three are perfectly well printed. The printing of the _Mechanics' Magazine_ was very good. I was always exceedingly satisfied with the manner in which my articles appeared, without my seeing proof. Most likely these extracts were printed from my printed paper; if not the extractor was a good copier. I know this by a test which has often served me. I use the subjunctive--"if no man _have_ done nothing," an ordinary transcriber, narrating a quotation almost always lets his own habit write _has_. The fourth extract has three alterations, all tending to make me ridiculous. _None_ is altered, in two places, into _nine_, _denial_ into _decimal_, and _comes_ into _aims_; so that "none, the denial of one, comes to be a.s.sociated with the denial of plurality," reads as "nine, the decimal of one, aims to be a.s.sociated with the decimal of plurality." This is intentional; had it been a compositor's reading of bad handwriting, these would not have been the only mistakes; to say nothing of the corrector of the press. And both the compositor and reader would have guessed, from the first line being translated into "one is not one," that it must have been "one's none," not "one's nine." But it was not intended that the gem should be recovered from the unfathomed cave, and set in a Budget of Paradoxes.

We have had plenty of slander-paradox. I now give a halfpennyworth of bread to all this sack, an instance of the paradox of benevolence, in which an individual runs counter to all the ideas of his time, and sees his way into the next century. At Amiens, at the end of the last century, an inst.i.tution was endowed by a M. de Morgan, to whom I hope I am of kin, but I cannot trace it; the name is common at Amiens. It was the first of the kind I ever heard of. It is a Salle d'Asyle for children, who are taught and washed and taken care of during the hours in which their parents must be at work. The founder was a large wholesale grocer and colonial importer, who was made a Baron by Napoleon I for his commercial success and his charities. {154}

JAS. SMITH AGAIN.

1862. Mr. Smith replies to me, still signing himself Nauticus: I give an extract:

"By hypothesis [what, again!] let 14 24' be the chord of an arc of 15 [but I wont, says 14 24'], and consequently equal to a side of a regular polygon of 24 sides inscribed in the circle. Then 4 times 14 24' = 57 36'

= the radius of the circle ..."