Jan 20
My dear Tyndall
I made the requisite application for authorisation to have the salt specimen removed for cutting; but I am informed that the “small piece” contemplated by the Trustees in their acquiescence in your request2 is not the same thing as two pieces “considerable in size for this material” which was what I had reported you to require. The result is that the matter is to be again discussed at the Board of the Trustees & my proposal for the cutting the man & retaining the property in the portion, to be considered.
I am sorry for the delay to you.
Hereafter when some future Tyndall wants a piece more than twice as big as you do I or my successor may have to regret our grand and as I believe unique specimen having been divided into two pieces.
It seems like cutting up for a pocket glass a disc of perfect flint glass big enough for an exceptionally large Telescope.
You will not share this feeling.3 The true question however is how is our spur4 best to embrace this aim of science.
Natural History Museum, DF15/2
Please cite as “Tyndall1858,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on