50 Prof. TyndalPs Notes on Scientific History. 



to me that it contained a single ungentlemanly term. It brought 

 me expressions of approval and sympathy from some of the most 

 eminent men in Europe ; and I was so content with this, that I 

 willingly — some thought, tamely — let the discussion drop. It was 

 quite natural that my style and matter should be the reverse of 

 agreeable to Prof. Thomson ; and, as might be expected, he ex- 

 pressed himself to this effect. He complained of the liberties which 

 I had taken with his name ; of the liberties I had taken with 

 other names. In short, he considered my whole tone "unpre- 

 cedented in scientific discussion," and he declined having any- 

 thing to do with me. On one technical question, moreover, he 

 made a complaint, to which, as it involves a point of personal 

 courtesy, I am anxious to reply. He complained that I had 

 printed my letter in the Philosophical Magazine without sending 

 him the original. I am informed by good authority that the 

 course I pursued was the usual and proper one. Had it been 

 customary to send the original in such a case, I should certainly 

 not have failed in this act of courtesy to Prof. Thomson. Had I 

 even known his personal views on the matter, I should have sent 

 him the original, regardless of the general practice. Nor should 

 I have allowed myself to be in any degree influenced by the fact 

 that Prof. Thomson had inserted in ' Good Words ' expressions 

 injurious to my character, which circulated unknown to me among 

 the 120,000 readers of that periodical, until their accidental 

 discovery by my assistant gave me an opportunity of demonstra- 

 ting their baselessness. I would at the same time remind him 

 that, though there is a dignity in silence when exercised at the 

 proper time and in the proper way, it is not dignity, nor even 

 manliness as defined in England, that permits a man to make 

 an unwarranted accusation, and prevents him from retracting it 

 after its injustice has been exposed. 



It is with great reluctance that I refer to these topics ; and 

 were I alone concerned, I should give the world no further 

 opportunity to animadvert on the dissensions of those among 

 whom, in the interest of their common vocation, brotherly kind- 

 ness ought to reign. But silence is scarcely becoming on my 

 part when I see the reputation of a man, in whom the finest 

 intellectual qualities are associated with the most shrinking 

 modesty of character, made the target of anonymous reviewers. 

 I never had an interest in this controversy apart from the desire 

 to do him justice. To me Dr. Mayer is personally unknown, 

 and my own scientific labours, unlike those of my chief censor, 

 are entirely unaffected by anything that he has done. I may 

 add that all that I had seen or known of Mr. Joule, previous to 

 this discussion, had served to inspire me with respect and attach- 

 ment for him. Personal liking and what has been called " pa- 



