establishing a reputation. But he had to struggle 10 years with that neglect 

 and incredulity which is the common lot of native genius in this coun- 

 try." 32 Maria Mitchell explained that "Mr. Clark's lack of mathematical 

 learning, or learning of any kind, kept him out of the confidence of the 

 scholarly persons around Boston. His work was too much like empiricism; 

 his claims seemed to be unreliable." 33 But Clark was no less educated 

 nor more empirical than was Fitz. The contrast between Clark's obscurity 

 and Fitz's early recognition can, I think, be accounted for largely by 

 the company the two men kept. Essentially an artist, Clark was unable 

 to fit into the conservative and highly mathematical Cambridge astro- 

 nomical community; nor did he try to work with the photographers in 

 Boston. Fitz, on the other hand, was called upon to supply optical instru- 

 ments for the many New Yorkers investigating the new techniques of 

 photography and spectroscopy and their applications to astronomy; as 

 an active member of the American Photographical Society, Fitz met 

 frequently with other members, such as Lewis Morris Rutherfurd, and 

 John William and Henry Draper- 

 Much of Alvan Clark's obscurity was perhaps his own fault. He was 

 extremely averse to advertising his work in any way. He never published 

 a price list, although astronomers requested it; nor would he show his 

 instruments at any of the popular international exhibitions. 34 What is 

 more, before his correspondence with Dawes, Clark probably did not 

 know how fine his lenses actually were. For a critical evaluation of his 

 early work Clark had turned to the astronomers at Harvard, William 

 Cranch Bond and his son, George Phillips Bond. The Bonds, unfortu- 

 nately, were jealous of their infrequent and valuable observing time, 

 often in poor health, and constantly besieged by the Boston public who 

 had paid for their new telescope; understandably, the imperfections in 

 Clark's first mirrors quickly eroded their patience. 35 The first lens Clark 

 showed to the Bonds seemed equally unsatisfactory; although the imper- 

 fection — the 4-inch achromat showed star images with tails — was later 



32 Simon Newcomb, Popular Astronomy, p. 139. 



33 Maria Mitchell, Alvan Clark and Telescope Making (ms of lecture, in library 

 of the Maria Mitchell Association, Nantucket, Mass.). 



34 "Alvan Clark," Harper's Weekly (1887), p. 631. 



35 See William C. Bond, Diary, 1 846-1 849, entry for 26 April 1846 (in Bond 

 Papers, Harvard University Archives). 



