Among the journals which went all lengths with contributors whom they
valued, was the _Mechanics' Magazine_[260] in the period 1846-56. I cannot
say that matters have not mended in the last ten years: and I draw some
{146} presumption that they have mended from my not having heard, since
1856, of anything resembling former proceedings. And on actual inquiry,
made since the last sentence was written, I find that the property has
changed hands, the editor is no longer the same, and the management is of a
different stamp. This journal is chiefly supported by voluntary articles:
and it is the journal in which, as above noted, the ridiculous charge
against the Astronomer Royal was made in 1849. The following instance of
attempt at revenge is so amusing that I select it as the instance of the
defect which I intend to illustrate; for its puerility brings out in better
relief the points which are not so easily seen in more adult attempts.
The _Mechanics' Magazine_, which by its connection with engineering, etc.,
had always taken somewhat of a mathematical character, began, a little
before 1846, to have more to do with abstract science. Observing this, I
began to send short communications, which were always thankfully received,
inserted, and well spoken of. Any one who looks for my name in that journal
in 1846-49, will see nothing but the most respectful and even laudatory
mention. In May 1849 occurred the affair at the Astronomical Society, and
my share in forcing the withdrawal of the name of the alleged contributor
to the journal. In February 1850 occurred the opportunity of payment. The
_Companion to the Almanac_[261] had to be noticed, in which, as then usual,
was an article signed with my name. I shall give the review of this article
entire, as a sample of a certain style, as well as an illustration of my
point. The reader will observe that my name is not mentioned. This would
not have done; the readers of the Magazine would have stared to see a name
of not infrequent occurrence in previous years all of a sudden fallen from
the heaven of respect into the pit of contempt, like Lucifer, son of the
morning. But before {147} giving the review, I shall observe that Mr.
Adams, in whose _favor_ the attack on the Astronomer Royal was made, did
not appreciate the favor; and of course did not come forward to shield his
champion. This gave deadly offence, as appear from the following passage,
(February 16, 1850):
"It was our intention to enter into a comparison of the contents of our
Nautical Almanack with those of its rival, the _Connaissance des Temps_;
but we shall defer it for the present. The Nautical Almanack for 1851 will
contain Mr. Adams's paper 'On the Perturbation of Uranus'; and when it
comes, in due course, before the public, we are quite sure that that
gentleman will expect that we shall again enter upon the subject with
peculiar delight. Whilst we have a thorough loathing for mean, cowardly,
crawlers--we have an especial pleasure in maintaining the claims of men who
are truly grateful as well as highly talented: Mr. Adams, therefore, will
find that he cannot be disappointed--and the occasion will afford us an
opportunity for making the comparison to which we have adverted."
This passage illustrates what I have said on the editorial function (Vol.
I, p. 15). What precedes and follows has some criticism on the Government,
the Astronomer Royal, etc., but reserved in allusion, oblique in sarcasm,
and not fiercely uncourteous. The coarseness of the passage I have quoted
shows editorial insertion, which is also shown by its blunder. The inserter
is waiting for the Almanac of 1851 that he may review Mr. Adams's paper,
which is to be contained in it. His own contributor, only two sentences
before the insertion, had said, "The Nautical Almanac, we believe, is
published three or four years in advance." In fact, the Almanac for
1851--with Mr. Adams's paper at the end--was published at the end of 1847
or very beginning of 1848; it had therefore been more than two years before
the public when the passage quoted was written. And probably every person
in the country who was fit to review Mr. Adams's {148} paper--and most of
those who were fit to read it--knew that it had been widely circulated, in
revise, at the end of 1846: my copy has written on it, "2d revise, December
27, 1846, at noon," in the handwriting of the Superintendent of the
Almanac; and I know that there was an extensive issue of these revises,
brought out by the Le-Verrier-and-Adams discussion. I now give the review
of myself, (February 23, 1850):
"_The British Almanack and Companion._
"The Companion to this Almanack, for some years after its first
publication, annually contained scientific articles by Sir J. Lubbock[262]
and others of a high order and great interest; we have now, however, closed
the publication as a scientific one in remembrance of what it was, and not
in consequence of what it is. Its list of contributors on science, has
grown 'small by degrees and beautifully less,' until it has dwindled down
to one--'a last rose of summer left withering alone.' The one contributor
has contributed one paper 'On Ancient and Modern Usage in Reckoning.'
"The learned critic's _chef d'oeuvre_, is considered, by competent judges,
to be an Essay on _Old Almanacks_ printed a few years ago in this annual,
and supposed to be written with the view of surpassing a profound memoir on
the same subject by James O. Halliwell,[263] Esq., F.R. and A.S.S., but the
tremendous effort which the learned writer then made to excel many titled
competitors for honors in the antique line appears to have had a sad effect
upon his mental powers--at any rate, his efforts have since yearly become
duller and duller; happily, at last, we should suppose, 'the ancient {149}
and modern usage in reckoning' indicates the lowest point to which the _vis
inertia_ of the learned writer's peculiar genius can force him.
"We will give a few extracts from the article.
"The learned author says, 'Those who are accustomed to settle the meaning
of ancient phrases by self-examination will find some _strange_ conclusions
arrived at by us.' The writer never wrote a more correct sentence--it
admits of no kind of dispute.
"'Language and counting,' says the learned author, 'both came before the
logical discussion of either. It is not allowable to argue that something
is or was, because it ought to be or ought to have been. That two negatives
make an affirmative, ought to be; if _no_ man have done _nothing_, the man
who has done nothing does not exist, and _every_ man has done _something_.
But in Greek, and in uneducated English, it is unquestionable that 'no man
has done nothing' is only an emphatic way of saying that no man has done
_anything_; and it would be absurd to reason that it could not have been
so, because it should not.'--p. 5.
"'But there _is_ another difference between old and new times, yet more
remarkable, for we have _nothing_ of it now: whereas in things indivisible
we count with our fathers, and should say in buying an acre of land, that
the result has no parts, and that the purchaser, till he owns all the
ground, owns none, the change of possession being instantaneous. This
second difference lies in the habit of considering nothing, nought, zero,
cipher, or whatever it may be called, to be at the beginning of the scale
of numbers. Count four days from Monday: we should now say Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday; formerly, it would have been Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday. Had we asked, what at that rate is the first day from
Monday, all would have stared at a phrase they had never heard. Those who
were capable of extending language would have said, Why it must be Monday
itself: the rest would have said, there can {150} be no first day from
Monday, for the day after is Tuesday, which must be the second day: Monday,
one; Tuesday, two,'--p. 10.
"We assure our readers that the whole article is equally lucid, and its
logic alike formal.
"There are some exceedingly valuable footnotes; we give one of the most
interesting, taken from the learned Mr. Halliwell's profound book on
Nursery Rhymes[264]--a celebrated production, for which it is supposed the
author was made F.R.S.
"'_One's nine_,
Two's some,
Three's a many,
Four's a penny,
Five's a little hundred.'
'The last line refers to five score, the so-called hundred being more
usually six score. The first line, looked at etymologically, is _one is not
one_, and the change of thought by which _nine_, the decimal of _one_, aims
to be associated with the decimal of _plurality_ is curious:'--Very.
"This valuable and profound essay will very probably be transferred to the
next edition of the learned Mr. Halliwell's rare work, of kindred worth,
entitled 'RARA MATHEMATICA,' it will then be deservedly handed down to
posterity as a covering for cheap trunks--a most appropriate archive for
such a treasure."
In December, 1846, the _Mechanics' Magazine_ published a libel on Airy in
the matter of the discovery of Neptune. In May, 1849, one * * * was to have
been brought forward for election at the Astronomical Society, and was
opposed by me and others, on the ground that he was the probable author of
this libel, and that he would not, perhaps could {151} not, deny it. [N.B.
I no more doubt that he was the author then I doubt that I am the author of
this sentence.][265]
Accordingly, * * * was withdrawn, and a discussion took place, for which
see the _Athenaeum_, No. 1126, May 26, 1849, p. 544. The _Mechanics'
Magazine_ was very sore, but up to this day has never ventured beyond an
attack on Airy, private whisperings against Adams--(see _ante_, p.
147),--and the above against myself. In due time, I doubt not my name will
appear as one of the _ames damnees_[266] of the _Mechanics' Magazine_.[267]