4th Feb. 1855
My dear Tom
Would you kindly glance over the enclosed1 and tell me if you think the argument of any value. This is Sunday and I have been within all day – never once shaved nor drew clean linen over my shoulders. I walked out tonight in the mud and mist and felt all the better for the draught of adulterated oxygen. On my return I encountered two young men on the footway distributing tracts to a rabble of big and little boys which surrounded them. One as he handed the tract to each pronounced in a low voice ‘the Sabbath’ – the other an older hand or perhaps of a warmer temperament exclaimed as he distributed his ware ‘Christ the only Saviour’ – I stood and watched them for some time with no small interest, for I could discern beneath the wildness of the enthusiasts eye the working of that spirit which keeps the world out of the mud. As far as intellect and recognition of intellect go I was never better than I am at present, but there was a something at the heart of these methodist fanatics which I lacked and which I longed for – Not of course to make use of it as they did, but to apply it to my own private purposes. I was invited to dine with Sir Charles Lyell on Wednesday last at the geological club2 and we went afterwards to the geological society together – There was a paper to be read on cleavage by a brother of the late Edward Forbes,3 and Lyell wrote to me4 informing me of the fact. Well the paper was read – the results of experiments were described & shewn and the whole question of cleavage and foliation was deemed settled for ever. Geologists of great eminence5 rose and eulogized the memoir, and all seemed to admit that the important question with which it professed to deal was completely solved – During this time the conviction was rising more clearly in my mind that the experiments were just as much in need of explanation as the subject which they professed to clear up. The president6 had mentioned my name in connexion with one or two others when he asked for remarks – I waited for a fitting opportunity, it came and I rose and stated my views7 of the experiments and of their value with reference to the point in question. At first I was heard with silent attention, it became more earnest as I proceeded and as I drew towards the conclusion of what I had to say the loud and general cries of ‘hear hear’ shewed that my convictions had been contagious and had won the audience. The theory of Forbes was virtually declared ‘not proven’8 – He replied to me afterwards but evidently made no way in removing the impression which my remarks had created.
Now here was an exhibition of intellectual vigour which was pleasant while it lasted – but it was founded on an external impulse and when this was withdrawn I sank again into a state of intellectual meanness. My power over science is I think increasing greatly, but the power and vigour of what I call my soul is not commensurate. But why do I tell you so? Not for your edification alone but through the selfish prompting that by dwelling upon the subject I may clear away the moss which chokes those inner fountains and allow the abundant spirit to gush forth once more. On Friday night Airy gave us an excellent lecture9 on his recent pendulum experiments – Next morning I breakfasted with him and Faraday at Barlow’s.10 He is a proud man they say and I was led to deem him a dry crust – but the man is full of humour and he and Barlow spouted parodies during half of breakfast time. He has had a discussion with Scoresby11 lately in the Athenaeum12 on the magnetism of iron ships – I see a gap to be filled in the science of the subject and tomorrow I intend to make some experiments for the purpose of supplying the needful facts.
But all this is vapid to me. I think I have been too comfortable all day and thus set my spirit to sleep – these English fires are not so good for the students as the dingy German stove – the latter does not woo you with its gleam and sparkle and you can bear to sit far away from it – here on the contrary I feel an unconscious tendency to draw towards the fire – if I obey this tendency I become warm and comfortable, and dozy, and finally all manful vigour seems squeezed out of me. I am sometimes inclined to make a vow against fires altogether; and I sympathise strongly with the habit of Socrates of going barefoot and using his hair for shelter. I will not contend for an uneasy fretful activity which breeds disease of brain and body – but a wakeful and vigorous habit of thought – a prompt realization of that which duty dictates are conducive to health both mental and bodily. With regard to my lectures I feel far less anxious than I used to be for I feel far more power – The lecture that you heard13 was certainly by a good deal the worst I have given this year and I hope it will continue so. It is now nearly bed time and I will soon bid the world goodnight – send me back that letter quickly – Now I have given you an intellectual beggar’s dish14 which will improve the flavour of your breakfast. Good bye and believe me
Yours as ever | John
RI MS JT/1/T/593
the enclosed: enclosure missing. This enclosure was a copy of the Tyndall’s draft response to Faraday, the revised version being letter 1042.
Sir Charles Lyell … at the geological club: see letter 1033.
brother of the late Edward Forbes: David Forbes; see letter 1033, n. 1. Edward Forbes, who had held the chair of natural history at the University of Edinburgh, had died on 18 November 1854.
Lyell wrote to me: letter 1033.
Geologists of great eminence: In his Journal for 30 January Tyndall mentioned that Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and Samuel Sharp (1814–82) complimented David Forbes (RI MS JT/2/13c/724).
The president: Lord Wrottesley.
stated my views: ‘It seemed to me evident that the hypothesis that the rock was perfectly homogeneous before heating – an hypothesis which nobody thought of disputing – was wholly baseless. The heat merely demonstrated the non homogeneous nature of the rock, and <words missing> by removing the dark colour which masked the true structure of the rock had merely exhibited the latter: there appeared to be no grounds for supposing that any such movement of solid matter through solid matter across sensible distances as inferred by Forbes and admitted by others had ever taken place’ (Tyndall’s Journal, 31 January 1855: RI MS JT/2/13c/724).
not proven: The verdict of ‘not proven’ was one of the three outcomes available in Scottish courts (the other two being ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’). Other courts in the UK did not have this third option.
Airy gave us an excellent lecture: Airy’s Friday Evening Discourse at the RI was entitled ‘On the Pendulum Experiments Lately Made in the Harton Colliery, for Ascertaining the Mean Density of the Earth’ and was published in Roy. Inst. Proc., 2 (1854–8), pp. 17–23.
Barlow’s: John Barlow lived on Berkeley St, Piccadilly.
Scoresby: William Scoresby (1789–1857), the curate of Bessingby, Yorkshire, had been an arctic explorer and made significant contributions to the study of terrestrial magnetism.
a discussion … lately in the Athenaeum: Airy, ‘Correction of the Compass in Iron Ships’, Athenæum, 3 February 1855, pp. 146–8.
The lecture that you heard: Hirst had attended the first of Tyndall’s ‘Electricity and Magnetism’ lectures, which had been held on 16 January. In his Journal entry for that day Tyndall complained of a bad headache which ‘continued bad throughout the lecture’ (RI MS JT/2/13c/714).
beggar’s dish: The ‘beggar’s dish’ was ‘a regular and proper part of his [the mendicant’s] professional accoutrements’ and was used by ‘itinerant professed beggars and … wandering tribes of gypsies’ to collect offerings. However, according to the article ‘Beggar’s Dish’ in Chamber’s Edinburgh Journal (25 February 1832, p. 27) it had by the 1830s largely gone out of fashion.
Please cite as “Tyndall1037,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on