BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. xxvii 



planet, but one would have thought that at the same time he would have felt some 

 regret that Adams's paper had remained so long untouched in his keeping, thus depriving 

 this country and his own University of the merit of the first announcement. It is 

 impossible not to contrast the admiration with which he 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 writings with the indifference shown towards Adams's still unpublished work.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 what- 

 ever claims the latter has to the name of philosopher rather than mathematician apply 

 equally to the former. It is difficult also to see how Airy could have felt justified in 

 writing to Le Verrier, after the discovery of the planet, the words, "you are to be 

 recognised beyond doubt as the real predictor of the planet's place." 



It has been said, and truly, that it was no part of the Astronomer Royal's duty 

 to search for a new planet, and that he had no telescope available for the purpose 

 even if he had desired to do so: but Adams (who possibly acted on Challis's advice) 

 cannot be much blamed for taking his paper to Greenwich, in hopes that the planet 

 might be found in this country. Adams himself seems to have been content to leave 

 the matter in the hands of the Astronomer Royal, and it is to be remarked that 

 at that time he was not only the official head of Astronomy, but was much looked up 

 to by Cambridge men as one who had recently given a great impulse to astronomical 

 studies in the University, as professor and director of the Observatory '. 



When it became known in Cambridge that Airy and Challis had been in possession 

 of results which would have enabled the planet to be discovered in 1845 a good deal of 

 indignation was naturally felt at the apathy and incredulity with which Adams's work 

 had been received. This led Sedgwick, an intimate friend of Airy, to write two letters 

 on the subject, which are now in the archives of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. 

 The second of these letters, dated December 6, 1846, contains the following interesting 

 passages. 



" Adams, though a great philosopher in his way, has shown no worldly wisdom, 

 indeed has acted like a bashful boy rather than like a man who had made a great 

 discovery. 



" Again, he was certainly wrong in not answering Airy's letter. How strange and 

 how unfortunate ! Surely he must have been ill advised on this point ; but I will 

 try to learn this from himself. 



"Just as I had written so far, in came Adams, to return my call, and five minutes 

 after in came Sheepshanks, who, after chatting for half an hour with his surplice on, 

 went to drink tea at the Lodge. Adams remained and drank tea with me, and we 

 have had a very long chat.... 



" (1) He called at the Observatory soon after his calculations were finished the 

 Astronomer Royal away bad luck, but no blame anywhere this was September 1845. 



(2) Called again (October, the same Autumn) and the Astronomer out left his card 

 heard that Airy would return soon, and therefore left word that he would call again. 



(3) Did call again (I think in a little more than an hour) and was told that the 



1 Adams did at last contemplate publication, for he British Association," and in his letter of November 18, 



concludes his letter of September 2, 1846 to the Astronomer 1846 (p. xxviii) he states that he drew up such a paper but 



Eoyal with the words, "I have been thinking of drawing arrived at the meeting too late to present it. 

 up a brief account of my investigation to present to the 



