Professor Airy iii reply to Mr. Ivory. 443 



which I would not willingly hear from any one, as far below 

 me, in all respects, as I am below Mr. Ivory. 



But that your readers may judge ot the provocation that 

 I have o-iven, I will lay before them the article which is made 

 the gimmd of animadversion. The note to my paper ni the 

 Philosophical Transactions, of which Mr. Ivory complains, is 



as follows: , ,. . f. -i-i • 



« I have not considered the second condition ot equihbnum 

 <riven by Mr. Ivory in the Philosophical Transactions tor 1 824, 

 as the reasoning upon which that gentleman has founded the 

 necessity of such a condition, appears to me altogether de- 



^ Upon which Mr. Ivory (Phil. Mag. and Annals, N.S. vol. i. 

 p. 329, note) has made the following remarks : 



" In the Phil. Trans. 1826, p. 557, there is a note of Mr. 

 Airy, very injurious tome. He is treating of spheroids of variable 

 density, and evidently misapprehends my conditions of equi- 

 librium, which I have always limited to the case of homo- 

 <reneity. The R. S. are not responsible for the accuracy ot 

 what they publish; but I apprehend few instances will be 

 found so injurious to an individual, cast upon the public on 

 the authority of mere assertion, and arising from mistaken 

 notions. But I console myself because I know with he cer- 

 tainty of demonstration, that Mr. Airy's problem, admitting 

 that any practical utility could be attached to it is not solved, 

 and that it cannot possibly be solved except by my theoiy, 

 and indirectly, with the help of that law with which he so 

 flippantly finds fault. What a diflference between the superci- 

 lidifs importance of the Cambridge Professor, and the candid 

 expositions of M. Poisson ! " 



I will omit mention, for the moment, of those sentences 

 in which Mr. Ivory says that I am mistaken on the mathe- 

 matical points, anfl wfll allude at present only to those in 

 which he attacks my character as a gen leman. I ^.^ ^"^^^'^ 

 tbre state, that in my paper in the Phil, irans., ^t ^va my 

 business not to hwe^igate conditions ot equilibrium, but to 

 make use of those already known. 1 he equations wh.c a e 

 best known are the one (or rather the two) commonly ed, 

 and that which Mr. Ivory has suggested. l<or the lalui 

 saw no foundation, and I contented myselt with a simple slatc- 

 mcnt to that effect: the object and the limits « '>^> 1 ' P^^ 

 not allowing me to enter into details. But, should not 1 ..ve 

 ,nade even this statement, did 1 not thmk tha the cl.a aclei 

 of Mr. Ivory demanded it. I could mention the name ot .■- 

 other writer who has added one to the common '^^q"^^^"";^' 

 whose character did not seem to rc.,mre the same com pi .out 



<i T (^ W IIU II 



