Imagine2 Moss3 stretched upon the floor with his head and shoulder propped by one little arm, the other in the air warding off a descending blow, over him his irate father wielding a birch rod, while with his eyes streaming with tears the boy exclaims “O Pa! don’t strike so hard”—I am Moss in this position.
He would in the first place declare his readiness to do almost every thing you have suggested4—He will put in “direct”, modify that strong statement;5 he will abolish Socrates. Nevertheless if you would deign to listen to a prostrate little boy he would in connexion with the Greek say that he still believes his allusions to be correct. Previous to Socrates & Christ men had certain notions regarding their relationship to the Deity, which notions they were unwilling to see disturbed. Both Socrates & Christ did disturb these notions, & for this they suffered. That Socrates was slain by the personal malice of the Sophists may be true, but then the charge against him shows that they were afraid to aver their real motives. They had the populace to excite with the fear that the relationships towards the Gods in which they had been accustomed to believe were in danger. Whether the dreaded change was to be brought about by the introduction of new deities, or by an ethereal rather than a physical philosophy, is a matter of entire indifference to the point in question.
The tendril & the pole shall be taken care of.6 The mention of extreme unction was simply made to avoid quoting the text. The word “protestant” placed before ‘clergyman’ will set this matter right. Moss’s chastener misestimates his boy’s character if he supposes that Moss had the least idea of being “Smart” in his allusion to ‘winking images’. Smartness, in truth, is a thing for which poor Moss entertains a rather hearty contempt, and he will abolish with right good will every expression that could possibly lead people to think that he wished to appear ‘smart’.
Nor is it within the capabilities of the boy’s constitution to manufacture a ‘sneer’. He confesses frankly that when he heard the Bishop of Oxford7 define the quantity of rain which was indicative of the displeasure of the Almighty, his mind and heart recoiled from what he believed, and continues to believe, mere Paganism. The position of the bishop at the time was not in the boy’s eyes a dignified one, but a transcendently presumptuous one. Nevertheless it is written “thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of the people”,8 & I will cleanse my writing9 from every thing that could be regarded as a sneer.
And now Moss will endeavour to set upon his legs and stand firmly there. The question that he has touched is a purely scientific question. Who discovered the connexion between the various agencies of Nature, and who but a scientific man has a right to affirm that the law by which a cloud forms and a shower descends is as strong a law, nay part of the same law as that by which a river rolls down hill? Science is incompetent to prove miracles impossible; but she is competent to state that the demand periodically made for fine weather & for rain cannot be complied with without a miracle. This is within the clear & distinct province of a scientific man. If left unaided by him when will Theologians reach the conception? never till doomsday—They will go on as heretofore “asking amiss”,10 and continue to find, as heretofore, their prayers a nullity. You may deem their faith harmless if not serviceable—I deem it harmful and bad; and I see it cropping out under a hundred noisome forms in society. The region in which prayer is operative is the human heart: retire to that citadel and you are safe from the attacks of science, but come out from it into that system of things which it is the vocation of science to explore, and confusion will infallibly attend your operations. You have no business there & were your army of “defenders” a million times what it is you would eventually be powerless in this position.
J. T. | 11/3/62
RI MS JT/1/T/1539
[11 March 1862]: Date from LT Transcript. The letter was written before Mountaineering in 1861 was published (on 16 April 1862).
Imagine: salutation and possibly other content missing from original and transcript.
Imagine Moss: Juliet’s youngest son, Maurice Emilius (1857–1932)
you have suggested: Tyndall is referring here to appeals from Juliet to moderate his discussion on miracles and the efficacy of prayer in the manuscript for Mountaineering in 1861. The letter in which Juliet makes these appeals is missing. However, when Juliet read the published version, ‘without the fetter of a critic’s task to bind me to … close verbal attention’ she described the chapter on miracles as ‘perfect now, and … more likely to do good in its quiet, sober tone than a more impetuous protest’. See letter 1887.
He will put in “direct”, modify that strong statement: this seems to refer to the statement, ‘the idea of direct personal volition mixing itself in the economy of nature is retreating more and more’ (Mountaineering in 1861, p. 34).
The tendril & the pole shall be taken care of.: it is not clear what the problem was in the manuscript but Tyndall writes in the published version that, ‘We may err in linking the imperishable with the transitory, and confound the living plant with the decaying pole to which it clings.’ (Mountaineering in 1861, p. 34).
The Bishop of Oxford: Rev. Samuel Wilberforce (1805–73), Anglican Bishop of Oxford. Wilberforce had instructed clergy in the Archdeanery to pray for fine weather to assist the harvest the previous summer.
“Thous shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of the people”: Biblical quotation from Acts 23: 5.
I will cleanse my writing: no direct reference to the Bishop of Oxford appears in Mountaineering in 1861.
“asking amiss”: biblical quotation from James 4: 3.
Please cite as “Tyndall1866,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on