THE GLACIERS AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS. 753 



dead " could not " suffer to pass unchallenged." There is, I submit, 

 no color of reason in such a complaint, and it would never, I am per- 

 suaded, have been made had not Principal Shairp and his colleagues 

 found themselves in possession of a documeut which, though pub- 

 lished a dozen years ago by Principal Forbes, was never answered by 

 me, and which, in the belief that I am unable to answer it, is now re- 

 produced for my confutation. 



The document here referred to appeared soon after the publication 

 of the " Glaciers of the Alps " in 1860. It is entitled " Reply to Pro- 

 fessor Tyndall's Remarks in his Work on the ' Glaciers of the Alps, 

 relating to Rendu' s ' Theorie des Glaciers.' " It was obviously written 

 under feelings of great irritation, and, longing for peace, the only 

 public notice I took of it at the time was to say that " I have ab- 

 stained from answering my distinguished censor, not from inability to 

 do so, but because I thought, and think, that within the limits of the 

 case it is better to submit to misconception than to make science the 

 arena of personal controversy." My critics, however, do not seem to 

 understand that, for the sake of higher occupations, statements may 

 be allowed to pass unchallenged which, were their refutation worth 

 the necessary time, might be blown in shreds to the winds. Of this 

 precise character, I apprehend, are the accusations contained in the 

 republished essay of Principal Forbes, which his friends, professing to 

 know what he would have done were he alive, now challenge me to 

 meet. I accept the challenge, and throw upon them the responsibility 

 of my answer. . . .' 



Having thus disposed of the two really serious allegations in the 

 reply, I am unwilling to follow it through its minor details, or to spend 

 time in refuting the various intimations of littleness on my part con- 

 tained in it. The whole reply betrays a state of mental exacerbation 

 which I willingly left to the softening influence of time, and to which, 

 unless forced to it, I shall not recur. 



The biographer who has revived this subject speaks of " the numer- 

 ous controversies into which he " (Principal Forbes) " was dragged." 

 I hardly think the passive verb the appropriate one here. The fol- 

 lowing momentary glimpse of Principal Forbes's character points to a 

 truer theory of his controversies than that which would refer them to 

 a " drag " external to himself : 



" The hasty glance," says this biographer, " which I have been able 

 to bestow upon his less scientific letters has shown me that Forbes at- 

 tached great importance to mere honorary distinctions, as well as the 

 opinion of others regarding the value of his discoveries. It has opened 

 up a view of a, to me, totally unexpected feature of his character." 

 This is honest, but that the revelation should be " unexpected " is to 

 me surprising. The " love of approbation " here glanced at was in 

 Principal Forbes so strong that he could not bear the least criticism 



1 We omit this portion of the discussion, for lack of space. Editor, 

 tol. III.- 



