148 Dr. Akin's further Statements concerning 



Prof. Tyndall regrets that he was not more "suspicious" 

 and I more " open" ; and he employs in this connexion several 

 other expressions in keeping with his usual urbanity. No 

 doubt Prof. TyndalPs and my own views on this latter sub- 

 ject differ considerably. I have stated already that in Octo- 

 ber 1864 he gave me a duplicate proof of the paper he was 

 then publishing. Having read it in his presence, I proposed 

 to "talk it over" with him, when he replied that "there was 

 nothing to talk over." Had. I shared Prof. TyndalPs views 

 regarding conduct, no doubt I should have been more " out- 

 spoken," and should have pressed upon him the remarks I 

 wished to make, notwithstanding. As to the " rule of courtesy 

 in this country," as in others, regarding the publication of pri- 

 vate correspondence, I am very well aware of it, and have acted 

 accordingly. I have not published any of Prof. TyndalPs letters 

 to me, nor have I committed that worse offence than a breach of 

 courtesy, which he seems to be willing to lay at my door. He 

 "challenges" me "expressly" to publish the letter which I 

 received from him from the Isle of Wight, and from which I 

 have quoted two words. I hold that letter at Prof. TyndalPs 

 disposal, for him to publish it entirely if he chooses to do so. 

 Por the vindication of my own good faith, it will be sufficient 

 if I transcribe the whole of the sentence from which I have 

 made the quotation to which Prof. Tyndall objects. It is as 

 follows : — " As to the possibility of converting the Herscheilic 

 rays into Newtonic rays, I do not entertain a doubt ; and indeed 

 the piece of work which I had set before me for attack on my 

 return from this place was a series of experiments on this very 

 subject." This letter was written in April 1864 ; the article in 

 the ' Saturday Review/ to which it in another part refers, ap- 

 peared in January 1864. This is substantially what I have 

 stated in the Philosophical Magazine for December last. 



Prof. Tyndall is mistaken in stating that I had written to him 

 a " friendly note" twenty-four hours before my last article was 

 published in this Magazine. I simply wrote to him a formal 

 note, accompanying a book-parcel, which in itself was the indi- 

 cation of a rupture. That both were not sent a week or two 

 earlier was the fault of the bookbinder. 



It is evidently the same undue reliance on his superiority of 

 age and seniority as a physicist, that, as he fancied, entitled 

 him to adopt a tone of affected disregard towards me, which 

 emboldened also Prof. Tyndall to state that, had I remained 

 silent for some indefinite period, and shown myself sufficiently 

 meek, "he had intended to give me an opportunity of attaching 

 my name to the experiments he had been making." But in this 

 Prof. Tyndall entirely misrepresents our relative positions. It 



