142 Prolc'Sf:or Forbos o)i ihv First Dlscorerij of (he 



liavc gone in support of (he Glacier Theory, woiikl, I knew, not have 

 satisfied INI. xVgassi/. 



" 3d, That, from tlie perusal of Charpentier's work, and from communi- 

 cations with those best acquainted with the history of the Theory in Swit- 

 zerland, I had begun to perceive, that were I to take any part in the dis- 

 cussion going on between Agassiz and Charpentier, it must be in favour 

 of the latter, and not of the former, as an original observer and just rea- 

 soner," 



I reached home in the month of October 1841, and soon com- 

 menced the Historical Review of the Glacier Question which 

 I had projected. Whilst I was thus engaged, the Coviptes 

 Reudus of the Academy of Sciences at Paris for the 18th Oc- 

 tober reached me. In it I found a letter from M. Agassiz to 

 Baron Humboldt, containing the following passage, with refe- 

 rence to the observations made on the Glacier of the Aar. 



Extract Seventh. — From Professor Agassiz to Baron IhimholJt. 



" Le fait le plus nouveau que j'ai remarque, c'cst la presence dans la 

 masse de la glace de rubans verticaux de glace bleue, alternant avec dcs 

 bandes de glace blanche d'un quart de ligne a plusieurs pouces de large, 

 s'etendant sur toute la longueur du glacier, c'est a dire, a plusieurs lieues 

 de longueur, et pe'netrant a une profondeur d'au moius 120 pieds puisqne 

 j'ai observe encore cc phenomene au fond du trou de sonde." 



On reading this letter, from which all mention even of my 

 presence on the glacier of the Aar is excluded, my first 

 impression was of surprise and pain. That I could not 

 suH'er so direct a plagiarism to remain unchallenged never 

 appeared to me to admit of doubt ; le fait le phis nouveau 

 (pie j'ai remarque, was an assertion as articulate as it was 

 unfounded. How to take notice of it was a point of more 

 difficulty. I felt fully the delicacy of my position. Towards M. 

 Agassiz I felt the warmest friendship ; sympathy with his zeal, 

 and gratitude for his kindness and hospitality. This he avcU 

 knew : during several weeks of the closest intimacy, we had been 

 perpetually engaged in discussions connected with his theore- 

 tical views, and also respecting facts. I believe it may safely 

 be stated, that neither of us ever for a moment lost temper in 

 these amicable disputes, which often lasted for hours together, 

 and which were uninterrupted either by our walks or our 

 meals. His enthusiasm and good temper in these discussions 

 delighted me, oven where he failed to convince me of the 



