Dear Sir!
I thank you heartily, Sir, for your last very kind letter1, I got several months ago, after having exposed to you openly my feelings2 with regard to Prof. Tyndalls paper3. I did so convinced as I was, that you were above all such personal disputes and I fully adopt all conclusions of your letter. My intention never was to bring before the Royal Society any personal question, nor even any question of priority. I felt myself so much indebted to English men of Science that I would think it “mal placé” to provoke personal discussions, if not forced to do so. When ever I shall be so happy to see you again, I would be much interested to speak to you without any “arière pensée”. But for the moment it will be sufficient to declare to you, that I have no animosity against M T. as I think he has none against myself[.] I will not examine the motives he had, when he suggested to me ideas, which never were mines, and which I think absurd. I ask only to be the interprete of my own words, if these words, especially when translated, admit a double meaning, or rather I ask only to restitute their true meaning, laid down in many papers4, in the most explicite manner in a paper, whose date is anterior to Mr Tyndalls first publication about the subject. The way how that may be done is indifferent to me.
I fully succeeded this last time to sustain the theory of magnecrystallic action by analytical calculous as well as by experiment. I am enabled know to determine by calculous the position of equilibrium of a crystal, when suspended between the two poles along any direction whatever, as well as the relative number of its oscillations in any two suspensions. And, vice versá, having determined by observation any position of the crystal, however suspended, or the relative number of its oscillations, I can calculate the position of its magnetic axes.
I wanted an biaxial crystal to verify the theory. By far the best would have been ferrocyanite of potassium. But I did not succeed to get a perfectly clear crystal of this salt large enough to furnish a sphere (10mm or 15m diameter); till now all my labours to get such a crystal were lost. Therefore I recurred to formicate of copper, which I made crystallise myself. Under Prof. Beer5 valuable cooperation I had a complete success. I got very curious facts deduced by calculous and verified by experiment.
Encouraged by yourself, Sir, I think the results I obtained not unworthy to be laid before the Royal Society6 as a “temoignage de ma réconnaissance”. (Then I may in a note rectify Prof. Tyndals assertions (Phil. Trans. 145 I p.27).) Only my bad English gives me some trouble, but I prefer to send an original paper incorrectly written, like this specimen then to have a german paper translated into a good English but not exactly rendering my meaning.
My best whishes for your health. With all my heart | Yours | Plücker
Bonn January 2. 1857
TYNDALL, John (1855): “On the nature of the Force by which Bodies are repelled from the Poles of a Magnet; to which is prefixed, an Account of some Experiments on Molecular Influence”, Phil. Trans., 145: 1-51.
Please cite as “Faraday3220,” in Ɛpsilon: The Michael Faraday Collection accessed on 26 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/faraday/letters/Faraday3220