524 THE LIFE OF JAMES D. FORBES. [APPEND. 



hension' at page 128 of my Travels in the Alps ; and on the 

 preceding page (303), while he allows that certain passages of 

 Rendu's work ' are well known, from the frequent and flattering 

 references of Professor Forbes,' he adds, ' but there are others of 

 much greater importance which have hitherto remained unknown 

 in this country.' Through whose fault they remained unknown 

 he does not explicitly say; who extracted with commendation 

 the less important passages, leaving the more important ones in 

 forgetfulness, he leaves it to the reader to judge. I regret to say 

 that a similar tone prevails in many other passages. 



Now, an allegation that an author or observer has suppressed 

 his knowledge of the antecedent labours of others in the same 

 field, that he has even omitted some facts, while he claims credit 

 for candour by citing others of less importance, or which bear 

 less directly upon his own claims to their discovery, such an 

 allegation, I say, is an odious one, whether made explicitly or 

 by inevitable implication. It requires to be openly met by the 

 person whose character is really in question much more than 

 his originality. This is the first reason why I write the present 

 reply. 



Secondly, Had not the scarcity of my own work (the Tra 

 in the Alps, which has been long out of print), and in England 

 that of Eendu's Essay also, made the indispensable verification of 

 Professor Tyndall's citations and inferences (which are or may 

 be in the hands of everyone) a matter of difficulty, I might pos- 

 sibly have spared myself the disagreeable task of writing these 

 pages. My principal object must be to furnish the reader with 

 the means of deciding (1.) Whether the character given by me 

 of Kendu and his theory was so indefinite as to leave it to 

 Professor Tyndall to proclaim his merit for the first time. (2.) 

 Whether my citations from Rendu were not only different from 

 those made by Professor Tyndall, but whether they omitted 

 matter of much greater importance than they included, and, by 

 suppression, were calculated to mislead. (3.) Whether the con- 

 text of the passages cited by Professor Tyndall from my work, 

 and from that of Kendu, does not affect or modify their signi- 

 ficance. 



Before proceeding to this, may I be allowed to make one other 

 observation, generally applicable to such historical criticism as 

 that to which Professor Tyndall devotes so many pages of his 

 writings on the Glacier question ? 



It is a matter notorious in scientific discovery, that every 

 theory of the least importance has been preluded by the antici- 

 pations of men of sagacity and penetration, who yet wanted 

 the skill, or the perseverance, or the opportunity necessary to 



