NATURE 



iz 



THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1897. 



THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF PROFESSOR 

 ADAMS. 



The Scientific Papers of John Couch Adams, M.A., Sc.D., 

 D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., late Lowndean Professor of 

 Astronomy and Geometry in the University of Cam- 

 bridge. Vol. i. Edited by W. G. Adams, Sc.D., 

 F.R.S. With a memoir by J. W. L. Glaisher, Sc.D., 

 F.R.S. Pp. liv + 502. (Cambridge: University Press, 

 1896.) 



TO collect with completeness, and to edit with care 

 and reverence, the scientific work of those whom 

 the world has followed with close and respectful attention, 

 must be a grateful and, at times, a necessary task. The 

 opportunities of publication are fortunately numerous, 

 for many learned societies and scientific bodies are 

 eager to make known the researches of those whom 

 they are proud to reckon among their associates or 

 supporters. Obviously, this general scattering is attended 

 \\ ith many evils, which collection will effectually remove. 

 Not only will readier access be given to the student 

 to those papers in which he is interested, but the repu- 

 tation of the author will probably be enhanced by the 

 greater coherency which his work is likely to acquire. 

 In the present instance, however, though the result will 

 be welcomed by many, the necessity for collection is not 

 so apparent as in some other famous cases. The number 

 of published papers is not large — sixty-two in all, of 

 which five are addresses from the presidential chair to 

 the recipients of the medals of the Royal Astronomical 

 Society, and a few others, the results of observations 

 connected with the direction of the Cambridge Observ- 

 atory. Of the more important papers, each is usually 

 complete in itself, since it was seldom necessary for 

 .\dams to return to a subject which he had once dis- 

 cussed. Neither did Prof. Adams select many channels 

 by which to make his thoughts and results known to 

 the world. The Astronomical Society sufficed him for 

 the greater part, and their publications are readily ac- 

 cessible, though it must be admitted that the Council 

 of that Society have very recently found themselves 

 compelled to republish one of his more interesting 

 papers. 



Dr. Glaisher contributes an appreciative account of 

 Adams's life. Without containing many new facts, it 

 shows a keen insight into his character, and makes the 

 reader understand in some measure, the reason why 

 Adams maintained so pre-eminent a position among his 

 contemporaries. The thoroughness with which he did 

 his work, the innate craving after perfection, the steady 

 maintenance of a high standard of excellence, the dislike 

 to hurried and incomplete publication, all contributed 

 to give him that superiority which he never courted, 

 and to make him an authority whom all respected. 

 Naturally, the history of the discovery of Neptune figures 

 largely in the biographical notice. It is a subject that 

 apparently never wearies, and concerning which the last 

 word will never be written. But all the material facts 

 have long since been threshed out, and there is no new 

 source from which any fresh information can be derived. 

 NO. 1439, VOL. 56J 



Dr. Glaisher permits himself to criticise in some par- 

 ticulars the conduct of both Airy and Challis. 



" Adams was not fortunate," he says, " in the two 

 astronomers to whom he communicated his results ; 

 neither of them gave to a young and retiring man the kind 

 of help or advice that he should have received. ... As 

 Professor in the University, he (Challis) should not have 

 allowed a young Senior Wrangler, through modesty or 

 diffidence, to do such injustice to himself ... It is im- 

 possible not to contrast the admiration with which he 

 (Airy) received Le Verrier's published writings with the 

 indifference shown towards Adams's still unpublished 

 work. Adams was certainly as clearly convinced of the 

 reality of the planet as Le Verrier, and whatever claims 

 the latter has to the name of philosopher rather than 

 mathematician, apply equally to the former." 



This is no doubt true, but it does not seem to be as 

 distinctly remembered as it should be that Adams in 

 fame and reputation suffered no irreparable injury. 

 Greater attention could not have been drawn to the 

 excellence and originality of his work, or the philosophic 

 character of the original conception, than was occasioned 

 by the untoward circumstances that surround the dis- 

 covery of Neptune. Though no one sought less for 

 public applause than did Adams, the effect of the con- 

 troversy was to advertise his merits far more widely 

 than would have been the case, if Le Verrier's papers had 

 not appeared. The immediate effect was to place Adams 

 at one bound in the front rank of astronomers ; and 

 perhaps there is no other instance, in scientific life, of a 

 reputation so a^ured being so swiftly won. He presents 

 the singular — perhaps the unique — instance of a young 

 man being unable to add to his rapidly acquired reputa- 

 tion. That the high level at which he commenced his 

 career was amply sustained, will of course be universally 

 admitted ; but it was almost impossible that it could be 

 raised, in the public mind, at least. 



The investigation of the perturbations of Uranus, of 

 course, occupies the first place in the collected series of 

 papers ; and to this discussion is added, as a matter of 

 historical interest, some of the earliest observations of 

 Neptune made by Prof. Challis, as well as an account 

 of the zonal measurements made at the instance of the 

 late Astronomer Royal, with a view to the detection of 

 the planet prior to the actual discovery at Berlin. More 

 interest, however, attaches to a reference to a reprint of 

 Adams's original paper in Liouville's Journal de Math^- 

 matiques for 1875, because it is accompanied by a less 

 known note, that Prof Adams contributed in reply to 

 some criticisms of Prof. Pierce. Very shortly after the dis- 

 covery of the planet. Prof Pierce had contended that the 

 true period of Neptune differed so widely from that 

 assigned by Adams to the hypothetical planet, that the 

 aiscovered object was not the planet indicated by 

 geometry, and that in fact its discovery must be regarded 

 as a happy accident. The main contention of Prof. 

 Pierce was that the commensurability of the mean 

 motion of Uranus with that of Neptune would give rise 

 to perturbations always in the same part of the orbit of 

 the inferior planet, whereas the perturbations due to the 

 hypothetical planet would not occur with the same 

 regularity, but would vary 80° upon the orbit of Uranus, 

 at each successive conjunction and opposition. Adams 

 had little difficulty in disposing of this criticism, ihouKh 



E 



