146 
NATURE 
[DECEMBER 17, 1896 
been since he left the University. It will generally be 
felt that it was fortunate for Cambridge life and mathe- 
matical advancement that the views that he urged were 
not generally admitted by those responsible for the 
scheme of instruction and education. 
It is unnecessary to recall here the principal events of | 
Airy’s scientific career. So many accounts were written 
shortly after his death by those well qualified to speak, 
that his indefatigable work and the honours that he 
earned are comparatively fresh in our memories. But | 
there have been moments of unusual interest in his busy 
life, when his conduct has been somewhat rudely assailed, 
and his judgment questioned by his contemporaries. 
One would like to know what Airy thought of these 
attacks, and whether he attempted to justify himself to 
his own mind. So far as this autobiography goes, there 
is no evidence that he was ever elated by well-merited 
success, or depressed by captious criticism. He never 
makes any attempt to defend himself or to blame others. 
The path of duty, as he conceived it, is manfully pursued 
with firmness and decision. His confident reliance on 
his own judgment seems never for a moment to desert 
him. As an illustration, one may quote his reference to 
the discovery of Neptune. In the whole history of 
astronomy, there is no subject about which a keener 
interest is felt, by amateurs especially, than in the Adams 
and Le Verrier controversy, and the part played by the 
more conspicuous actors in that history. Few, possibly, 
have read the whole correspondence, and fewer still, 
probably, are qualified to give a right judgment on all 
the facts ; but this does not prevent warm partisanship 
and a determined effort to find a scapegoat, on whom 
they can vent their spleen and ill-temper. And if this is 
still the case after fifty years, one can imagine what were 
the excitement and the disappointment at the time of dis- 
covery. Here is the last place in which Airy can say 
how he was affected by the uproar, and also to add any- 
thing to the history of the epoch. Practically he says 
nothing. He contents himself by referring to his official 
communications to the Royal Astronomical Society, and 
adding, “I was abused most savagely both by English 
and French,” but there is not one word to hint that he 
ever thought he could have acted differently, or that the 
course he pursued was not the only one practicable. His 
equanimity is apparently quite undisturbed. Similarly, in 
1847, when Airy endeavoured to persuade the Royal 
Astronomical Society to so alter the bye-laws as to permit 
a medal tobe given to both Adams and Le Verrier, and 
his proposal was defeated after two days’ stormy dis- 
cussion, there is no evidence to show that he blames 
those who prevented this act of tardy justice, or that he 
considered their judgment was warped by unworthy 
motives. The attacks made across the Council table on 
that occasion were certainly bitter, and in some cases 
unwarrantable ; but on Airy they seem to have left no 
permanent impression, or at least so slight that he does 
not care to chronicle it. 
But that Airy could feel acutely and rebuke severely 
is quite sufficiently testified by his conduct towards Sir 
James South and General Sabine. These two names 
have been frequently quoted as illustrative of the bitter- 
ness of Airy’s animosity. But it must be remembered 
NO. 1416, VOL. 55 | 
that both these opponents called in question his conduct 
as Director of the Observatory, and it is possible that 
he felt more keenly attacks directed against the institu- 
tion than against himself personally. From the former 
it will be admitted that Airy had ample provocation. 
South had attacked him in the House of Commons 
through Sir Robert Inglis, questioning almost everything 
that Airy had done in the Observatory, and later had 
lodged a formal complaint at the Admiralty that Airy 
did not personally observe with the instruments in his. 
charge. Sir James was worsted on both occasions ; but in 
his reference to them, Airy does not exhibit any rancour, 
or think it necessary to add anything to the defence 
made at the time of the accusation. For him the in- 
cident is closed, and he refers to it as impersonally as. 
to any other piece of history. General Sabine had im- 
plied mistrust of the magnetical observations, and after 
an acrimonious correspondence, Airy distinctly intimated 
that he could no longer act in confidence with Sabine 
as a member of the Board of Visitors. There the 
ncident closed, and the dispute probably went no 
further than concerned the special matter in question ; 
for Airy subsequently makes a not unkindly reference 
to Sabine’s general powers as a mathematician and 
investigator. 
It has been said of Airy that he was a man who never 
made a friend, and this has been adduced as a proof of 
the moroseness or the self-sufficiency of his character. 
The editor seems to have had some such remark in his 
mind, and at the conclusion of what may be called the 
first part of Airy’s life—namely, the exchange of Cam- 
bridge for Greenwich—he inserts some remarks on the 
friends with whom Airy was intimate, and with whom 
he maintained constant intercourse till their death. As 
these friends were all older than Airy, they all pre- 
deceased him, and one can understand that there is no 
similar reference to friends that he made at Greenwich, 
when he left the Observatory for the White House. A 
man who had enjoyed the intimacy of Whewell and of 
Sedgwick, of Sheepshanks and of Peacock, may have 
found it difficult to fill their places, and with him memory 
may have satisfied the want that social intercourse meets 
in other men. Moreover, he was singularly happy in 
his family relations. Other writers have told us what 
Airy did in scientific work; this book tells us some- 
thing of his private life, and exhibits him as a most 
affectionate husband and devoted father. His wife, to 
whom he proposed marriage two days after his intro- 
duction, a mark of precipitancy that one would have 
scarcely anticipated in the late Astronomer Royal, “was 
by natural ability and education well qualified to enter 
into the pursuits of her husband, and in many cases to 
assist him.” In one place, Sir George Airy tells us that 
the best diagrams with which he illustrated his lectures 
were painted by his wife. His solicitude to make her 
participate in the pleasures he derived from his 
short journeys, by writing to her daily while he was 
absent, speaks much for his affectionate disposition. 
Those who have known Airy only in his official relations, 
will find much in this book to make them review the 
estimate they may have formed of his character. 
W. E. P. 
