9th. March, 1856
My dear Tom
I have had a note1 from Col. Wynne in which he expresses his gratification on the arrangement that you have made regarding Eddy.2 He also enclosed me a note of the latter3 to him at the same time. Speaking of the money part of the matter he said it would be at the rate of £120 a year: no doubt he continued this will appear a large sum to you but when you remember the number of private lessons which I receive you will I am sure consider it extremely moderate. This in substance is what he said. I thought the figure large myself, but doubtless it is accounted for in the manner he indicates, and you have fairly looked at the question before deciding. At all events he could not be in better hands.
We had Thomson in town last week. He gave the Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society,4 and gave us a Friday evening.5 I heard a portion of the former but had to come away before it was finished.6 I am told it was very unhappy. He spent his time it is said in describing experiments which failed; and one person present (Grove) remarked that if everybody did so the greatest blockhead would have the longest paper. The impression regarding our Friday evening is I believe that it was not successful. People say he had considerable help from Faraday, Anderson & myself and yet got on but poorly. A friend of his and mine7 told me last night that he thought the lecture did him no good. I was amused one morning with a conversation in which I took part with Thomson. Lord Wrottesley, Faraday, Thomson, Cayley8 and myself had been to breakfast at Col. Sabine’s9 and on returning Cayley asked Thomson something regarding the influences of wire drawing on the density of the substance. He at once replied, and gave his reasons for his reply.10 They seemed quite convincing to him, but neither myself nor Cayley could see the matter with equal clearness. Coming up James’s street11 I suggested an hypothesis the admission of whose possibility would completely destroy all that he had said.12 He paused: admitted the validity of my remark and exclaimed just as promptly as before – ‘The whole theory of elasticity is wrong; Stokes has been urging a thought similar to yours with regard to light:13 no doubt the entire theory of elasticity must be modified to take in your notion [’] –Well: I could not but think cheaply of a theory which could be so easily shattered, nor could I rate the convictions as high that were liable to such sudden changes though appearing so positive as long as they were uncontroverted.
Yesterday a remarkable note from the Astronomer Royal14 reached me: I send it to you, but you will I hope send it back to me. I had sent him a copy of my last paper15 in the Phil. Mag. and this drew the note from him. I also send you another document16 still more pleasant than Airy’s which you will also send back to me or keep until I come down.
And now with regard to my coming down: I wish you would engage that place at Mrs Gale’s17 for me. Your house18 is full enough at present and I shall be near enough to you at Gale’s cottage. I expect to be coming down early next week, that is 8 days or so from the present time.19
I think I have nothing more to say. Goodbye. Love to Anna
Ever yours affectionately | John | Sunday 9th March 1856
RI MS JT/1/T/876
a note: letter missing.
regarding Eddy: see letters 1193, 1196, and 1197, n. 2.
a note of the latter: that is, Eddy Wynne; the letter is missing.
Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society: W. Thomson, ‘On the Electrodynamic Qualities of Metals’, Phil. Trans., 146 (1856), pp. 649–751, delivered on 28 February 1856.
Friday evening: see letter 1199, n. 1.
it was finished: According to Tyndall’s Journal, he left early in order to attend a dinner engagement with the London ophthalmologist William White Cooper (1816–86) (RI MS JT/2/13c/ 827). One of Cooper’s patients was the subject of Tyndall’s RI lecture ‘On a Peculiar Case of Colour Blindness’, Phil. Mag., 11 (1856), pp. 329–33.
a friend of his and mine: Tyndall’s Journal offers no clue to this person’s identity.
Cayley: see letter 1088, n. 2.
breakfast at Col. Sabine’s: This was on 29 February before Faraday and Tyndall returned with Thomson to the RI to help him prepare experiments for his Friday Evening Discourse (RI MS JT/2/13c/ 827).
his reasons for his reply: Thomson clearly recognised that Cayley’s question involved the theory of elasticity, the mathematical treatment of the deformation of solids and liquids under stress.
James’s Street: a road adjacent to Covent Garden Market.
all that he said: Tyndall had explored the effects of stress and deformation on solid bodies and found it affected their magnetic properties. He explained this in terms of their molecular constitution.
Stokes has … with regard to light: According to the wave theory, light consists of transverse vibrations in the ether. Augustin Fresnel had also argued that this ether was a solid through which the earth moved unhindered. However, this model could not account for stellar aberration. Having earlier pursued research on hydrodynamics, Stokes criticised Fresnel’s theory and during the period 1845–8 he advocated an elastic solid ether that, in the neighbourhood of the earth, was dragged along by the earth; a theory that could explain aberration. See G. G. Stokes, ‘On the Constitution of the Luminiferous Aether, Viewed wuth Reference to the Phenomenon of the Aberration of Light’, Phil. Mag., 29 (1846), pp. 6-10.
Astronomer Royal: see Airy’s letter 1202.
my last paper: letter 1202, n. 1.
another document: letter 1201 from Olivia Jones.
Mrs Gale’s: see letter 1198, n. 2.
Your house: The Hirsts lived at Vine Cottage in Broughton and Mrs Gale in an adjacent cottage.
from the present time: Tyndall joined the Hirsts at Vine Cottage on Tuesday 18 March (RI MS JT/2/13c/830).
Please cite as “Tyndall1203,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on