492 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



through the whole of June, and through 

 nearly the whole of July, 1873, I was occu- 

 pied with-these echoes ; one of the phases of 

 thought then passed through, one of the so- 

 lutions then weighed in the balance and 

 found wanting, being identical with that 

 which Prof. Henry now oifers for solution. 



"But though it thus deflected me from 

 the proper track, shall I say that authority 

 in science is injurious? Not without some 

 qualification. It is not only injurious, but 

 deadly, when it cows the intellect hato fear 

 of questioning it. But, the authority which 

 so merits our respect as to compel us to test 

 and overthrow all its supports before accept- 

 ing a conclusion opposed to it, is not wholly 

 noxious. On the contrary, the disciplines it 

 imposes may be in the highest degree salu- 

 tary, though they may end, as in the present 

 case, in the ruin of authority. The tmth 

 thus established is rendered firmer by our 

 struggles to reach it." 



A correspondent of the Nation from 

 Baltimore, quoting the above passage, 

 characterizes the "glaring injustice" 

 of the concluding portion of its arti- 

 cle, and adds: "Any candid reader 

 can see that the passage on which your 

 reviewer bases such serious imputations 

 cannot possibly bear the interpretation 

 which every one reading it as given in 

 your review is compelled to put upon 

 it. Prof. Tyndall never indicates that it 

 was the authority of Prof. Henry that 

 impeded him in his researches." The 

 sentence italicised in the extract upon 

 the previous page is perfectly conclu- 

 sive in showing what Prof. Tyndall did 

 mean by the authority which embar- 

 rassed him until he rejected it. 



In his letter Prof. Tyndall puts 

 an end to the charge, so that the Na- 

 tion is compelled to acknowledge it- 

 self "in error in supposing that the 

 claim of Dr. Tyndall to have ruined 

 authority was aimed at Prof. Henry." 

 One would think that, when the Na- 

 tion's critic had been convicted of blun- 

 dering by a correspondent, and when 

 his fabric of detraction had been so ef- 

 fectually demolished by Prof. Tyndall 

 himself that the writer was compelled 

 to back out of it, he would have had 

 the grace to drop the subject. But, on 



the contrary, he renews the insulting 

 imputation. Having made a slanderous 

 charge entirely upon the assumption 

 that Prof. Tyndall was exulting in the 

 ruin of Prof. Henry's authority, and 

 having barbed his article with this libel, 

 when it was swept away, he says : "It 

 would have been more in order for him 

 to show the propriety of his language 

 in claiming to have 'ruined' the 'au- 

 thority ' of any one among his scientific 

 predecessors, for it was on the alleged 

 self-conceit implied in such a claim as 

 made by himself that we based our 

 ' peroratory invective.' " 



Now, we aver that there is nothing 

 in the passage quoted that is open to 

 the offensive construction here put upon 

 it, and which never would have been 

 thought of, but for the unscrupulous 

 distortion of its meaning by the Na- 

 tion's critic; but that the real import 

 of the extract is entirely contrary to 

 that which has been ascribed to it. 

 That which was written to enforce the 

 lesson of cautious self-examination and 

 circumspection in dealing with the men- 

 tal difficulties of scientific research is 

 wrested into an opposite expression of 

 arrogance and self-conceit. It is not 

 to be forgotten, here, that the scientific 

 man, to the extent of his originality 

 and power, is a questioner of things 

 established. His attitude is that of an 

 enemy of authority. It is his recog- 

 nized business, as evinced by the com- 

 mon forms of speech, to " subvert " au- 

 thority, to "break down " authority, to 

 "overthrow," "crush " and "ruin" au- 

 thority. Call the motive which impels 

 the man of science what you please, 

 the fact remains that in virtue of his 

 being a man of science, aimiug to ar- 

 rive at new views, he is a destroyer of 

 authority. But just because this is his 

 necessary work he is in danger from 

 the state of mind it produces ; and it 

 becomes important not to forget that 

 there is good as well as bad in author- 

 ity. Prof. Tyndall simply intimated the 

 need there is that the inquirer should 



