540 THE LIFE OF JAMES 2). FORBES. [APPEND 



their author's theory. Their drift or bearing is simply that the 

 movement of a glacier is analogous to that of a river generally ; 

 and, in particular, that Eendu was of opinion that, as in a river, 

 the centre moves faster than the sides, and for the same reason. 

 I have shown, by extracts from my owft writings, that in both 

 these respects I have given full credit to Eendu for his just an- 

 ticipations. But I have also had to show that the grounds of 

 his belief were inadequate, as they were also unsatisfactory to 

 his contemporaries ; that they relied, on the one hand, on re- 

 ported estimates of velocity, at best vague, probably erroneous ; 

 and, on the other hand, on a fallacious observation, which, if inadu 

 aright, should have led the author to an opposite result. That 

 thus the claim of Eendu, viewed by the light of Professor 

 Tyndall's extracts, amounts to no more than I had previously 

 cordially admitted, and had also been (I may say) the first to 

 proclaim, that of having made a sagacious anticipation of a 

 true theory from limited observations of no great precision. 



. 8. Eeception of Rendu's ' Theorie ' at Nome and Abroad 



Conclusion. 



In two passages which I have already quoted, Professor Tyn- 

 dall has made the specific complaint, that ' in this country ' 

 certain passages of Eendu's writings have been unquoted, certain 

 original views which are patent upon the face of them ignored. 

 Can Professor Tyndall cite any foreign work in which gi\ 

 justice has been done to them, or in which the passages relied 

 on by him have been cited? He has not done so. Yet s 

 rately printed copies of the Tlworie dcs Glaciers were circulate I 

 by the author among men of science. Indeed,! have the Bishop's 

 own information that he had none remaining in December 

 1842. How is this? The truth is, that the effectual promul- 

 gation of Eendu's opinions and merits came from this country, 

 and through my own writings. 



That Eendu's theory did not rest on bases sufficient to con- 

 vince the foreign glacialists and physical philosophers of his 

 time, it would not be difficult to prove from the writings of his 

 contemporaries, not one of whom gave any heed to the doctrine 

 of plasticity. 1 We even find his essay quoted with approbation 



1 Thus, in a review of Reudu's Theorie in the Bibliotheque Univcr 

 for February 1841, signed by an eminent professor at Geneva, I find no r 

 ence to his speculations on the quasi-fluid motion of the glacier, or to its p as- 

 ticity, though he admits the more rapid motion of the centre on the basis of 

 the inaccurately observed curvature of the crevasses. On the contrary, lie 

 describes Rendu as leaving the cause of the descent of glaciers indetermi: 

 ' Quant au mouvemeut progressif des glaciers d'e'conlement, M. Rendu en 



