Alas! for the days that are gone.
When I was in danger brave Tyndall stood nigh;
In him I always had one
Who would Butler and Sheehan1 defy.
May 1st 1841.
‘My dear Tyndall’
Your truly pathetic motto2 would launch me into the debilitated state from which I had so lately recovered, were it not that I cited to my aid some portion of fortitude, at the moment that retrospection caused the scenes of by-gone days to flit, in glowing colours, across my mind.
So it appears you have emerged from your caterpiller state and resumed the proud position of a butterfly in your airy rounds of epistolary correspondence: Oh! happy abstention from your embryo state, for by such a transition, you have been protected from the ill-fated sting of the Munster ichneumon controvertist,3 who once proudly sparkled as a luminary of the first magnitude, in his grammatical orbit, but being constrained to hide his diminished rays in this trajectory, he assumed the projectile force of a polemical hero, hoping thereby to retrieve his lost name and to trace out a course never before trodden in the religious world.
What does this Munster pratler mean. Does he intend with his controversial club4 to level low whole phalanxes of his fellow men, for adoring our eternal Father conformably to the dictating of their consciences? Will he have the audacity to pronounce the sentence of eternal reprobation on his fellow man for not kneeling before the same altar with him.
‘Curse on the heart,’ says Moore, ‘that would try truth by such a standard as this.’5
I despise such litigations altogether. Shame on the dastard that has promoted them. Ask the satanic ichneumon what was Tom MGuire’s opinion at Glasgow about those persons who differed from him on points of belief.6 Leave those persons who hold the green acres and those who have their hands deep in the pockets of the peasantry, to dispute about articles of faith, and live in peace and amity with your neighbour. This suggestion is not directed at you, but towards, if I anticipate truly, that dolt7 who is already writhing beneath the poignancy of the irrefutable arguments that you have adduced in favour of those tenets which you profess.
I can safely throw the detention of my last letter on the back of fate, and if I guess right your controversy with the sentence-making doctor8 protracted your answer until the 18th of April. I delayed writing this till I could assure you that I am completely retrieved and that I have concurred with your request9 in setting aside my studies of the musty pages of Diaphantus10 and Newton together with the elaborate pursuits of the Differential and integral calculus, as given by Lacroix.11 This dereliction of study tended more to ameliorate my constitution than all the other medical operations I underwent; so that it is obvious to me that too close an adherence to study preys heavily on the human frame.
As to the finding of the logarithm of a decimal, I believe that you are pretty well aware of the method of determining that of a whole number, therefore find the log of the decimal just as if it were a whole number, and then prefix a negative sign and you will have the logarithm of the decimal sought. Hurrah for the great utility of nonentity12 and the dragging of it into existence. Example:– required the log of 1000 or 001. You well know that the logarithm of 1000 is 3; and that division is performed by subtraction of logarithm hence 3 - 1 = 2 = log of (1000 ÷ 10) = 100. 2 - 1 = 1 = log of (100 ÷ 10) = 10. 1 - 1 = 0 = log of 10 ÷ 10 = 1. 0 - 1 = -1 = log of (1 ÷ 10) = 0.1. -1 - 1 = -2 = log of (0.1 ÷ 10) = 0.01. -2 - 1 = -3 = log of (0.01 ÷ 10) = 0.001;13 which shows that if we prefix the negative sign to the logarithm of any whole number, we will have the logarithm of the decimal corresponding to the same number. If you desire it I shall, in my next letter, send the calculation of a complicated decimal, but I flatter myself the preceding illustration sufficiently simplifies the subject for you.
I had nearly forgotten to inform you that the Reverend Thomas C. Dixon14 paid me a visit the other day. He listened on while I examined all the classes, after which he wrote a most excellent comment on my capabilities in my Report Book. Furthermore he has corresponded with the Board of Education and stated to them in the most flattering and eulogistic terms the efficiency and literary acquirements of your old teacher. I have no more at present to communicate to you save my mother’s best respects, who earnestly solicits your presence among us this summer.
I remain your ever | faithful teacher | John Conwill.
RI MS JT/1/11/3518
LT Transcript Only
Butler and Sheehan: inspectors of schools.
Your truly pathetic motto: not identified, but possibly the motto in letter 0055, if Tyndall’s father had shown that letter to Conwill.
Munster ichneumon controvertist: See letter 0005, n. 6 for Munster, although Conwill is here referring to County Cork. An ichneumon is a small parasitic hymenopterous insect (family Ichneumonidæ), which deposits its eggs in or on the larva of another insect (OED). Conwill is dismissing his unnamed opponent as a parasite, probably the ‘malignant critic’ mentioned in letter 0052. It might also refer to Tyndall’s opponent in the public debate, see letters 0057–9.
his controversial club: possibly relates to the debate mentioned in the three previous letters.
Curse … a standard as this: adaptation of ‘… perish the hearts, and the laws that try Truth, valour, or love, by a standard like this!’ from ‘Come, Send Round the Wine’ (1820) by the Irish poet Thomas Moore (1779–1852).
Tom MGuire’s … points of belief: At a public dinner in Glasgow in 1837 Father Thomas Maguire ‘delivered a powerful speech against religious anti-Catholic prejudices’ (Freeman’s Journal, 6 December 1847, p. [2]).
that dolt: possibly either Anthony LeBert (letter 0058) or the ‘Munster ichneumon controvertist’ (n. 3).
the sentence-making doctor: see letter 0052, n. 9.
your request: see letter 0054.
Diaphantus: Diophantus (see letter 0054, n. 6) made important contributions to algebra and the theory of numbers.
Lacroix: The French mathematician Sylvestre François Lacroix (1765–1843) produced several influential textbooks including his three-volume Traité du Calcul Differential et du Calcul Intégral (1797–1800) and his Traité Élémentaire du Calcul Differential et du Calcul Intégral (1802).
the great utility of nonentity: For Conwill’s views on non-entity, quantity and the theory of numbers, see letters 0028 and 0039, including notes.
hence … 0.001: LT’s typescript contains incorrect numbers and mathematical signs. The text has therefore been reconstructed by the editors.
Reverend Thomas C. Dixon: not identified.
Please cite as “Tyndall0060,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on 27 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/tyndall/letters/Tyndall0060