Neptune in America: Negotiating a Discovery

Smith Robert W. , “The Cambridge network in action: The discovery of Neptune”, Isis, lxxx (1989), 395–422, and Chapman Allan , “Public research and private duty: George Biddell Airy and the search for Neptune”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xix (1988), 121–39. For a listing of the literature on the discovery of Neptune, see Smith , “The Cambridge network”, note 3, p. 396.

In this paper, we have generally followed the participants' own language and spoken of ‘discovery’ instead of the ‘construction of facts’. See also the comments on the use of discovery in Smith , “The Cambridge network”, note 1, p. 395.

This term is from Michael Mulkay, preface to Augustine Brannigan, Social basis of scientific discoveries (Cambridge, 1981), p. viii.

See, for example, Brannigan , Social basis of scientific discoveries , and Schaffer Simon , “Scientific discoveries and the end of natural philosophy”, Social studies of science, xvi (1986), 387–420. Nevertheless , as the ‘discovery’ of a major planet is also surely in some sense an unveiling of nature, it should be borne in mind as our argument develops, that we do not wish to suggest that the term ‘discovery’ is only a shorthand notation for ‘the construction of knowledge’.

Smith , “The Cambridge network in action”, 418–22.

Pannekoek Anton , “The discovery of Neptune”, Centaurus, iii (1953), 126–37.

Bruce Robert V. , The launching of modern American science 1846–1876 (Ithaca, 1987), 218. For accounts of the Lazzaroni, see ibid. , 217–39, and Miller Lillian Voss Frederick , and Hussey Jeanette , The Lazzaroni: Science and scientists in mid-nineteenth century America (Washington, D.C., 1972). James Ann Mary , Elites in conflict: The antebellum clash over the Dudley Observatory (New Brunswick, 1987) presents a superb case study of the Lazzaroni in action. For a more sceptical analysis of the use of the Lazzaroni network as an explanatory tool, see Beach Mark , “Was there a scientific Lazzaroni?”, in Nineteenth century American science: A reappraisal, ed. by Daniels George H. (Evanston, Ill., 1972), 115–32.

This point was made by Sally Dieke in her entry on d'Arrest in the Dictionary of scientific biography, i (New York, 1970), 295–6, p. 296. For the obituaries of d'Arrest, see Dreyer J. L. E. , Vierteljahrsschrift der astronomischen Gesellschaft, xi (1876), 1–14, and Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, xxxvi (1876), 155–8.

Herschel John to Whewell William , 29 December 1846, Herschel Papers, Royal Society (HS.22.294). For the context of this quote, see Smith , “The Cambridge network in action”, 416.

“Important from Europe: Arrival of Steamship Caledonia at Boston”, New York Herald, 22 October 1846.

“To the Editor of the Courier”, Boston Courier, 23 October 1846, 2. Benjamin Apthorp Gould, who was an assistant at the Berlin Observatory at the time of the optical discovery of Neptune, was probably the first American to observe Neptune, although no direct evidence has come to light that he was.

Maury M. F. , “The new planet”, Washington Union, 26 October 1846.

[ Mitchel O. M. ], “Le Verrier's planet”, Sidereal messenger, i (1846), 42–44, p. 44. Mitchel later recalled that as soon as he heard that Leverrier had sent results on the predicted planet to the Académie des Sciences in August 1846, he had immediately written to Leverrier for the computed position and directions on the best way to conduct a search. See Mitchel O. M. , The planetary and stellar worlds: A popular exposition of the great discoveries and theories of modern astronomy … (New York, 1851), 217–18.

Boston Courier, op. cit. (ref. 11).

“The new planet”, Washington Union, 26 October 1846, signed “Washington Union”.

National intelligencer, “The new planet”, 27 October 1846, 2.

“The progress of astronomical science — Le Verrier's planet”, New York Herald, 29 October 1846, 2.

Jones Bessie Z. (ed.), “Diary of the two Bonds 1846–49: First Directors of the Harvard College Observatory”, Harvard Library bulletin, xv (1967), 368–86, p. 385, and xvi (1968), 49–71 and 178–207, see vol. xvi, pp. 49–50.

Hackley's article was reprinted as “Claims of French and English astronomers to the discovery of Le Verrier”, in the Sidereal messenger, i (1847), 68–70.

Meigs Henry , “The new planet — ‘Le Verrier’”, National intelligencer, 19 February 1847, 1.

See, for example, Curley Jas. , “To the Editors”, National intelligencer , 31 March 1847, 2; “4. Le Verrier's planet”, American journal of science and arts, 2nd series, iii (1847), 128–32, and “The new planet”, Sidereal messenger, i (1847), 94–96.

Dana Dwight James to Haldeman S. S. , 14 March 1848, quoted in Daniels George H. , Science in American society: A social history (New York, 1971), 144.

According to Walker, he had asked Maury to authorize a search for Leverrier's postulated planet back in August 1846 but had been denied permission. Walker, however, mentions this occurrence in only one of his published articles on Neptune, and we have found no corroborating evidence for this statement. See Sears C. Walker to Joseph Henry, 25 May 1847, “Schreiben des Herrn J. Henry, Secretairs der Smithsonian Institution an den Herausgeber”, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxvi (1847), cols 65–78, see cols 65–66.

Rothenberg M. , “Observers and theoreticians: Astronomy at the Naval Observatory, 1845–1861”, in Sky with ocean joined, ed. by Dick S. and Doggett Leroy E. (Washington, D.C., 1983), 29–43, p. 37. On Walker, see also Gould B. A. , An address on Sears Cook Walker, delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 29, 1854 (Cambridge, Mass., 1854) and Rothenberg M. , “The educational and intellectual background of American astronomers, 1825–1875” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr, 1974), 81–86.

Grosser Morton , The discovery of Neptune (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 50–52.

Walker Sears C. , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune”, Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, ii (1851), 3–60, p. 10.

Reported in “Two hundred and eighty-eighth Meeting”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 39–43, pp. 41–42.

Ibid., 42.

Walker , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune” (ref. 26), 10–12.

Ibid. , 12–13; Walker to Henry , op. cit. (ref. 23). It should be noted that several European astronomers, including Adams, computed circular elements with similar results within a month of Neptune's discovery, but it is not clear when Walker learned of these investigations: Gould Apthorp Benjamin Jr , Report on the history of the discovery of Neptune (Washington, D.C., 1850), 41.

Walker , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune” (ref. 26), 13–17; Walker to Henry , op. cit. (ref. 23).

Walker Sears C. to Maury Lieut. M. F. , 2 February 1847, Letters Received, Naval Observatory Records, RG 78.7, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Walker to Henry , op. cit. (ref. 23), cols 71–75.

Walker Sears C. , “Investigations which led to the detection of the coincidence between the computed place of the Planet Leverrier, and the observed place of a star recorded by Lalande, in May 1795”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, x (1853), 141–53, pp. 147–8 (this paper was read to the Society on 19 February 1847); Walker , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune” (ref. 26), 17–20.

“The Planet Leverrier — American views”, Washington Union, 9 February 1847. The original letter is in Letters Sent, Naval Observatory Records, RG 78.1, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Loomis Elias , “Historical notice of the discovery of the planet Neptune”, American journal of science and arts, 2nd series, v (1848), 187–205, p. 195. Lenzen V. F. , Benjamin Peirce and the U.S. Coast Survey (San Francisco, 1968), 12.

Petersen A. C. “Nachsuchung früherer Beobachtung des Le Verrier'schen Planeten”, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxv (1846–47), cols 303–6; a brief announcement of Petersen's discovery appeared ibid., cols 291–2. See also Gould , Report on the history of the discovery of Neptune (ref. 30), 141–2, and Hoyt W. G. , Planets X and Pluto (Tucson, 1980), 62.

“Note presentée par M. Le Verrier”, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, xxiv (1847), 529–31, p. 531. Leverrier called Uranus “Herschel” in the hope that Neptune would be named “Leverrier”.

Walker's Elements III is taken from Walker , “Investigations which led to the detection of the coincidence between the computed place of the Planet Leverrier …” (ref. 33), 148. Leverrier's orbit is from Leverrier U. J. J. , “Sur la planète qui produit les anomalies observées dans le mouvement d'Uranus — Détermination de sa masse, de son orbite, et de sa position actuelle”. Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, xxiii (1846), 428–38, p. 432. Adams's orbit is taken from Loomis , “Historical notice of the discovery of the planet Neptune” (ref. 35), 195 and is based on Adams's Hypothesis II: See Adams J. C. , “An explanation of the observed irregularities in the motion of Uranus, on the hypothesis of disturbances caused by a more distant planet; with a determination of the mass, orbit, and position of the disturbing body”, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vii (1846), 149–52, p. 151.

Walker in fact did not notice the colon until after he had announced his finding. See Walker , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune” (ref. 26), 18.

Lalande's prediscovery measurement of Neptune's position differs from currently predicted positions by seven seconds of arc. This problem is discussed in Rawlins Dennis , “The great unexplained residual in the orbit of Neptune”, Astronomical journal, lxxv (1970), 856–7. On another possible prediscovery observation of Neptune, see Kowal Charles T. and Drake Stillman , “Galileo's observation of Neptune”, Nature, cclxxxvii (1980), 311–13.

Mauvais F. V. , “Sur une observation inedité de la nouvelle planète”, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, xxiv (1847), 666–9; noted in report of “Two hundred and ninety-fifth Meeting”, in Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846), 144–57, p. 149.

Eisele Carolyn “Benjamin Peirce”, Dictionary of scientific biography, x (New York, 1974), 478–81, p. 479. The European training of many American scientists is discussed in Sinclair Bruce , “Americans abroad: Science and cultural nationalism in the early nineteenth century”, in The sciences in the American context: New perspectives, ed. by Reingold Nathan (Washington, D.C., 1979), 35–53; and Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), chap. 3.

Peterson Sven R. , “Benjamin Peirce: Mathematician and philosopher”, Journal of the history of ideas, xxvi (1955), 89–112, p. 89. For biographical material on Peirce, see Eisele , “Benjamin Peirce” (ref. 42); Lenzen , Benjamin Peirce and the U.S. Coast Survey (ref. 35); King Moses (ed.), Benjamin Peirce: A memorial collection (Cambridge, Mass., 1881), which contains a biographical sketch and a number of obituary pieces on Peirce; and Archibald R. C. (ed.), “Benjamin Peirce”, American mathematical monthly, xxxii (1925), 1–30, which includes several reminiscences by his students.

Holden E. C. , Memorials of William Cranch Bond and of his son George Phillips Bond (San Francisco and New York City, 1897), 36.

Newcomb Simon , The reminiscences of an astronomer (Boston and New York, 1903), 75–78, and Science in nineteenth century America: A documentary history, ed. by Reingold Nathan (Chicago, 1985), 136.

Peirce Benjamin , review of Bowditch's translation of the Traité de mécanique céleste, North American review, xlviii (1839), 143–80, pp. 144–5.

“Notice of the computations of Mr. Sears C. Walker, who found that a star was missing …”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 57–65, p. 65.

Ibid., 65. For a modern analysis of Peirce's claim, see Rawlins D. , “Some simple results regarding gravitational disturbance by exterior planets — with historical applications”, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, cxlvii (1970), 177–86.

Op. cit. (ref. 47), 66.

Ibid., 67. See also Hoyt , Planets X and Pluto (ref. 36), 65.

“Le Verrier's planet”, Sidereal messenger, i (1847), 85–86, p. 86, and also, for example, “Le Verrier's planet”, National intelligencer, 26 March 1847, 3.

Clarke Agnes M. , A popular history of astronomy during the nineteenth century (New York, 1886), 104. The differences between the classical problem of perturbations and the inverse perturbation problem are discussed in Norwood Russell Hanson, “Leverrier: The zenith and nadir of Newtonian mechanics”, Isis, liii (1962), 359–78, pp. 362–3.

Report of “May 4, 1847 — Monthly Meeting”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 144–6, p. 144. The paper originally appeared in the Boston Courier: Peirce B. , “Perturbations of Uranus”, 30 April 1847, 20.

As will be discussed in the next section, this latter finding won some support for Peirce's “happy accident” hypothesis. Neptune's mass in fact remained unknown until William Lassell confirmed in July 1847 the existence of a satellite that he had first suspected in October 1846.

Walker Sears C. to Peirce Benjamin , 3 May 1847, Benjamin Peirce Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University (hereafter cited as Peirce Papers), reprinted in Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 146–8.

Walker , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune” (ref. 26), 27–28.

Report of Peirce's communication of Walker's elliptic elements of Neptune, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 285–95.

Report of Peirce's communication of a letter from Sears Cook Walker to Peirce, 6 March 1848, ibid., 331–2.

“Schrieben des Herrn Lassell an den Herausgeber”, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxvi (1847), cols 165–8.

Although Lassell published his tentative, initial sighting of Neptune's chief satellite, other astronomers could not find it. It is worth noting that Lassell first glimpsed the satellite using his newly constructed 24-inch reflector, which was then one of the world's most powerful telescopes. On Lassell's discovery of this moon, see Smith Robert W. and Baum Richard , “William Lassell and the ring of Neptune: A case study in instrumental failure”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xv (1984), 1–17.

Benjamin Peirce to the Boston Courier , 22 October 1847, reprinted under “Astronomical”, National intelligencer, 26 October 1847, 2. See also “Mass of Neptune”, Sidereal messenger, ii (1847), 28–29.

Peirce Benjamin to Walker Sears C. , 26 October 1847, under “To the Editors”, National intelligencer, 30 October 1847, 3.

The Bonds' diary entry of 21 November 1846 mentions Lassell's October 1846 observation of a satellite of Neptune but does not indicate whether they tried to locate it. A letter written by William Cranch Bond in March 1847 also mentions the satellite and the possible existence of a ring, but again does not indicate whether or not he and his son had attempted to observe them. It is worth adding that in November 1846 the Bonds did not have access to a large telescope. The new Harvard 15-inch ‘Great Refractor’ was not mounted until the summer of 1847 and was apparently not fully installed and adjusted until September: Bond W. “Observations on Lassell's satellite of Neptune”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 184; Bond W. C. to Mitchell William , 24 March 1847, Correspondence File: Mitchell, Wm., Records of the Harvard College Observatory, Harvard University Archives; Jones (ed.), “Diary of the two Bonds” (ref. 18), xvi, 49, 53–58, 66.

Jones (ed.), “Diary of the two Bonds” (ref. 18), xvi, 66–70. The diary also mentions the possible existence of a second Neptunian satellite, which they were not able to confirm.

Report of Peirce's communication of his calculations on the elements of the orbit of Neptune's satellite, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 295.

Report of Peirce's communication of his investigation of Neptune's action on Uranus, ibid., 332–42, pp. 332–3.

Ibid., 338.

Peirce Benjamin to Gales Messrs and Seaton , 13 March 1848, “Leverrier and Mr. Pierce [sic]”, National intelligencer, 22 March 1848, 3.

Draft, Benjamin Peirce to [ Mitchel O. M. ], 7 April 1848, Peirce Papers. Peirce made essentially the same statement in his report to the American Academy on 4 April 1848. See Report of Peirce's communication on his investigation of Neptune's action on Uranus, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, i (1846–48), 332–42, p. 338.

Struik Dirk J. , Yankee science in the making, rev. edition (New York, 1962), 416. Nevertheless, Everett did forward Peirce's comments to Europe's leading astronomical journal. See “On the new planet Neptune”, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxv (1846–47), cols 375–88.

Sparks Jared to Peirce Benjamin , 19 March 1847, Peirce Papers.

Henry Joseph to Bache Dallas Alexander , 31 March 1847, Box 3, Folder 20, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Smithsonian Institution Archives. As Robert Bruce has remarked, American scientists had a reputation in Europe for rushing into print: Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), 70.

Walker Sears C. to Peirce Benjamin , 3 May 1847, Peirce Papers.

Hetherington Norriss S. , “Mid-nineteenth century American astronomy: Science in a developing nation”, Annals of science, xl (1983), 61–80, pp. 61–65.

Loomis Elias to Peirce Benjamin , 15 April 1847, Peirce Papers.

Maury M. F. to Loomis Elias , 20 April 1847, Letters Sent, Naval Observatory Records, RG 78.1, National Archives, Washington, D.C. In this letter, Maury told Loomis: “… I am not prepared to go quite so far as you and P[eirce] …, i.e. that the discovery was a chance shot …. However you have no doubt thought over this subject, and are more capable of judging rightly than I am. There is much to be said on your side”.

Elias Loomis to Benjamin Peirce, 7 January 1848, Peirce Papers; Loomis , “Historical notice of the discovery of the planet Neptune” (ref. 35).

Loomis , “Historical notice of the discovery of the planet Neptune”, 204–5.

Loomis Elias , “The relations of Neptune to Uranus”, American journal of science and arts, 2nd series, v (1848), 435–7. Loomis's letter to the journal is dated 11 April 1848.

Elias Loomis to Benjamin Peirce, 17 April 1848, Peirce Papers.

Loomis Elias , The recent progress of astronomy: Especially in the United States (New York, 1850), 54.

Ibid., 59.

McCormmach Russell , “Ormsby MacKnight Mitchel's Sidereal messenger, 1846–1848”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cx (1966), 35–47.

[ Mitchel O. M. ], “Professor Challis on the new planet”, Sidereal messenger, i (1847), 81.

Mitchel O. M. to Peirce B. , 29 March 1847, Peirce Papers.

[ Mitchel O. M. ], “The new planet”, Sidereal messenger, i (1847), 107.

Mitchel O. M. to Peirce B. , 13 September 1847, Peirce Papers.

“The planet Neptune (first called Le Verrier)”, and “The planet Neptune”, Sidereal messenger, ii (1847), 26–28 and 36–38.

“M. Le Verrier and the planet Neptune”, Sidereal messenger, ii (1848), 68–69, p. 68.

Leverrier's letter, dated 9 February 1848, originally appeared under “To the Editors”, National intelligencer, 10 March 1848, 2, and was then reprinted in the Sidereal messenger, ii (1848), 69–70. A portion of this letter was published too in Reingold (ed.), Science in nineteenth century America (ref. 45), 140–1.

Letter, Peirce Benjamin to Mitchel O. M. , 13 March 1848, Sidereal messenger, ii (1848), 70–71, p. 71.

Ibid. , 70. McCormmach , “Ormsby Macknight Mitchel's Sidereal messenger” (ref. 83), 39.

Peirce B. to Mitchel O. M. , 22 March 1848, quoted in McCormmach , “Ormsby MacKnight Mitchel's Sidereal messenger” (ref. 83), 42.

Sidereal messenger, ii (1848), 70–71.

Mitchel O. M. , The orbs of heaven, or, The planetary and stellar worlds …, fifth edition (London, 1854), 146.

Ibid., 147.

Babinet J. , “Sur la position actuelle de la planète située au delà de Neptune, et provisoirement nommée Hypérion”, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, xxvii (1848), 202–8; Leverrier U. J. J. , “Remarques de M. Le Verrier à l'occasion de la communication précédente”, ibid. , 208–10. Leverrier's further responses to Babinet and other critics reached a wide audience through translations in various journals outside France. See, for example, “Leverrier's remarks on the planet Neptune”, American journal of science and arts, 2nd series, vii (1849), 118–22, and “The planet Neptune”, The Athenaeum, 7 October 1848, 1007.

Leverrier U. J. J. , “Mémoire sur la planète Neptune”, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, xxvii (1848), 325–32. This was translated under “Le Verrier's further vindication of his predicted theory”, American journal of science and arts, 2nd series, vii (1849), 442–7.

“Neptune — Whether Neptune or not”, The Athenaeum, 4 November 1848, 1102–3.

Walker Sears C. to Peirce B. , 29 March 1847, Peirce Papers.

His letter appears in the National intelligencer, 22 May 1847, 3.

“Communication: To the Editors”, National intelligencer, 4 June 1847, 1.

Walker S. C. under “Astronomical”, National intelligencer, 26 October 1847, 2.

Walker , “Researches relative to the planet Neptune” (ref. 26), 8–9.

Bond W. C. to Loomis Elias , 13 December 1847, Correspondence: Drafts of Letters 1847, Records of the Harvard College Observatory, Harvard University Archives.

Jones , “Diary of the two Bonds” (ref. 18), xvi, 185–6.

Ibid., 186–7, 189; Jones Zaban Bessie and Boyd Gifford Lyle , The Harvard College Observatory (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 97.

Comstock George C. , “Benjamin Apthorp Gould”, Biographical memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, xvii (1924), 153–80. For further biographical material on Gould, see James , Elites in conflict (ref. 7), esp. chap. 3.

Gould B. A. , “Neptune 1848: Ephemeris for Berlin mean midnight”, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxvii (1848), cols 347–50, and “Ephemeris of Neptune for the last half of the year 1849”, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxix (1849), cols 59–62.

Herschel J. , Outlines of astronomy (London, 1849), 518.

Herschel J. , letter to The Athenaeum, under heading “The planet Neptune”, 25 November 1848, 1176. A similar line was taken by Jacobi C. G. J. in 1848: “One must wonder how such precise results could have been drawn from such sparse and uncertain quantities; this can only be attributed to the circumspect treatment of these data and to the exemplary application of all aids. Those who attribute the discovery to chance because the agreement is not closer than the nature of the thing permits should indeed give permission for other chance discoveries to be made.” Extract from a letter of Prof. Jacobi C. G. J. , 10 October 1848, Astronomische Nachrichten, xxviii (1849), cols 45–46, cited in Herrmann Dieter B. , The history of astronomy from Herschel to Hertzsprung (Cambridge, 1984), 37.

James , Elites in conflict (ref. 7), 124.

Gould B. A. , “Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy”, Christian examiner and religious miscellany, xlvii (1849), 268–95, p. 275.

Ibid., 290.

Ibid., 289.

Ibid., 295.

Gould , Report on the history of the discovery of Neptune (ref. 30), 44.

Ibid., 55.

Henry Joseph to Loomis Elias , 30 October 1849, Loomis Papers, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. We are most grateful to Marc Rothenberg for bringing this letter to our attention.

Barnes Barry , T. S. Kuhn and social science (New York, 1982), 96–98.

Morrell J. B. , “Professionalisation”, in Companion to the history of modern science , ed. by Olby R. C. Cantor G. N. Christie J. R. R. and Hodge M. J. S. (London, 1990), 980–9, p. 984. See also Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), and Reingold N. , “Definitions and speculations: The professionalisation of science in America in the nineteenth century”, in The pursuit of knowledge in the early American Republic: American scientific and learned societies from colonial times to the Civil War, ed. by Oleson A. and Brown S. C. (Baltimore and London, 1976), 33–69.

Dupree Hunter A. , Science in the Federal Government: A history of policies and activities to 1940 (Baltimore, 1986), chap. 4, especially pp. 76–79; Kohlstedt Gregory Sally , The formation of the American scientific community: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1848–60 (Urbana, 1976), chap. 4, especially pp. 78–87.

Dupree , Science in the Federal Government (ref. 122), 100–5.

Guralnick Stanley M. , Science and the ante-bellum American college (Philadelphia, 1975).

Chittenden Russell H. , History of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University, 1846–1922 (New Haven, 1928), i, chap. 2; Storr Richard J. , The beginnings of graduate education in America (Chicago, 1953), 46–56.

Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), 8. The first American Ph.D. degrees were awarded in 1861 at Yale.

Sinclair , “Americans abroad” (ref. 42); and Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), chap. 3.

Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), 11–12, 85, 95–96.

Mendillo Michael DeVorkin David , and Berendzen Richard , “History of American astronomy”, Astronomy, iv (1976), 20–63, espec. pp. 44–49; Warner Jean Deborah , “Astronomy in antebellum America”, in Reingold (ed.), The sciences in the American context (ref. 42), 55–75; Brush Stephen G. , “Looking up; The rise of astronomy in America”, American studies, xx (1979), 41–67; Hetherington , “Mid-nineteenth century American astronomy” (ref. 74); and Loomis , The recent progress of astronomy (ref. 81). For an excellent bibliographic essay on the history of American astronomy, see Rothenberg Marc , “History of astronomy”, Osiris, n.s., i (1985), 117–31.

Musto David F. , “A survey of the American observatory movement, 1800–1850”, Vistas in astronomy, ix (1968), 87–92; Jones and Boyd , Harvard College Observatory (ref. 107), 36–38.

Warner Jean Deborah , Alvan Clark and Sons: Artists in optics (Washington, D.C., 1968); Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), 102.

McCormmach , “Ormsby MacKnight Mitchel's Sidereal messenger” (ref. 83); Herrmann D. B. , “B. A. Gould and his Astronomical journal”, Journal for the history of astronomy, ii (1971), 98–108; and Bruce , The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), 178–80.

Bruce . The launching of modern American science (ref. 7), 26.

Dana Dwight James to Haldeman S. S. , 14 March 1848, quoted in Daniels, Science in American society (ref. 22), 144.

Shryock Richard , “American indifference to basic science during the nineteenth century”, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, ii (1948), 50–65, p. 52. Daniels George H. also discusses this point briefly in his Science in American society: A social history (New York, 1971), 142–5.

Gray A. to Peirce B. , 26 March 1848, quoted in Archibald R. C. , “The writings of Peirce”, American mathematical monthly, xxxii (1925), 20–30, p. 22.