Part I

. We calculated on an absence of three days, and estimated that the stakes which had just been fixed would be ready for measurement on our return; but we did not reach Chamouni until the afternoon of Friday, the 14th. Heavy clouds settled, during our descent, upon the summits behind us, and a thunder-peal from the Aiguilles soon heralded a fall of rain, which continued without intermission till the afternoon of the 16th, when the atmosphere cleared, and showed the mountains clothed to their girdles with snow. The Montanvert was thickly covered, and on our way to it we met the servants in charge of the cattle, which had been driven below the snow-line to obtain food.

[Sidenote: THROUGH GLOOM TO THE TACUL.]

On Monday morning, the 17th, a dense fog filled the valley of the Mer de Glace. I watched it anxiously. The stakes which we had set at the Tacul had been often in my thoughts, and I wished to make some effort to save the labour and peril incurred in setting them from being lost. I therefore set out, in one of the clear intervals, accompanied by my friend and Simond, determined to measure the motion of the stakes, if possible, or to fix them more firmly, if they still stood. As we passed, however, from l'Angle to the glacier, the fog became so dense and blinding that we halted. At my request Mr. Hirst returned to the Montanvert; and Simond, leaving the theodolite in the shelter of a rock, accompanied me through the obscurity to the Tacul. We found the topmost stake still stuck by its point in the ice; but the two others had disappeared, and we afterwards discovered their fragments in a snow-buttress, which reared itself against the base of the precipice. They had been hit by the falling stones, and crushed to pieces. Having thus learned the worst, we descended to the Montanvert amid drenching rain.

[Sidenote: DESCENT OF BOULDERS.]

On the morning of the 18th there was no cloud to be seen anywhere, and the sunlight glistened brightly on the surface of the ice. We ascended to the Tacul. The spontaneous falling of the stones appeared more frequent this morning than I had ever seen it. The sun shone with unmitigated power upon the ice, producing copious liquefaction. The rustle of falling debris was incessant, and at frequent intervals the boulders leaped down the precipice, and rattled with startling energy amid the rocks at its base. I sent Simond to the top to remove the looser stones; he soon appeared, and urged the moraine-shingle in showers down the precipice, upon a bevelled slope of which some blocks long continued to rest. They were out of the reach of the guide's baton, and he sought to dislodge them by sending other stones down upon them. Some of them soon gave way, drawing a train of smaller shingle after them; others required to be hit many times before they yielded, and others refused to be dislodged at all. I then cut my way up the precipice in the manner already described, fixed the stake, and descended as speedily as possible. We afterwards fixed the bottom stake, and on the 20th the displacements of all three were measured.[C] The spaces passed over by the respective stakes in 24 hours were found to be as follows:--

Inches. Top stake 6.00 Middle stake 4.50 Bottom stake 2.56

[Sidenote: MOTION OF STAKES.]

The height of the precipice was 140.8 feet, but it sloped off at its upper portion. The height of the middle stake above the ground was 35 feet, and of the bottom one 4 feet. It is therefore proved by these measurements that the bottom of the ice-wall at the Tacul moves with less than half the velocity of the top; while the displacement of the intermediate stake shows how the velocity gradually increases from the bottom upwards.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] 'Edinb. Phil. Journ.,' Oct. 1846, p. 417.

[B] Agassiz, 'Systeme Glaciaire,' p. 522.

[C] On this latter occasion my guide volunteered to cut the steps for me up to the pickets; and I permitted him to do so. In fact, he was at least as anxious as myself to see the measurement carried out.

WINTER MOTION OF THE MER DE GLACE.

(12.)

The winter measurements were executed in the manner already described, on the 28th and 29th of December, 1859. The theodolite was placed on the mountain's side flanking the glacier, and a well-defined object was chosen at the opposite side of the valley, so that a straight line between this object and the theodolite was approximately perpendicular to the axis of the glacier. Fixing the telescope in the first instance with its cross hairs upon the object, its end was lowered until it struck the point upon the glacier at which a stake was to be fixed. Thanks to the intelligence of my assistants, after the fixing of the first stake they speedily took up the line at all other points, requiring very little correction to make their positions perfectly accurate. On the day following that on which the stakes were driven in, the theodolite was placed in the same position, and the distances to which the stakes had moved from their original positions were accurately determined. As already stated, the first line crossed the glacier about 80 yards above the Montanvert Hotel.

[Sidenote: HALF OF SUMMER MOTION.]

Line No. I.--Winter Motion in Twenty-four Hours.

No. of stake. Inches. West 1 7-1/4 2 11 3 13-1/2 4 13 5 13-3/4 6 14-1/4 7 15-3/4 8 15-3/4 9 12-1/4 10 12 11 6-1/2 East.

[Sidenote: THE SAME LAW IN SUMMER AND WINTER.]

The maximum here is fifteen and three-quarters inches; the maximum summer motion of the same portion of the glacier is about thirty inches. These measurements also show that in winter, as well as in summer, the side of the glacier opposite to the Montanvert moves quicker than that adjacent to it. The stake which moved with the maximum velocity was beyond the moraine of La Noire. The second line crossed the glacier about 130 yards below the Montanvert.

Line No. II.--Winter Motion in Twenty-four Hours.

No. of stake. Inches. 1 7-3/4 2 9-1/2 3 13-3/4 4 16 5 16 6 15-3/4 7 17-1/2 8 16-1/2 9 14-1/2 10 14

The maximum here is an inch and three-quarters greater than that of line No. 1. The summer maximum at this portion of the glacier also exceeds that of the part intersected by line No. 1. The surface of the glacier between the two lines is in a state of tension which relieves itself by a system of transverse fissures, and thus permits of the quicker advance of the forward portion.

My desire, in making these measurements, was, in the first place, to raise the winter observations of the motion to the same degree of accuracy as that already possessed by the summer ones. Auguste Balmat had already made a series of winter observations on the Mer de Glace; but they were made in the way employed before the introduction of the theodolite by Agassiz and Forbes, and shared the unavoidable roughness of such a mode of measurement. They moreover gave us no information as to the motion of the different parts of the glacier along the same transverse line, and this, for reasons which will appear subsequently, was the point of chief interest to me.

CAUSE OF GLACIER-MOTION.

DE SAUSSURE'S THEORY.

(13.)

Perhaps the first attempt at forming a glacier-theory is that of Scheuchzer in 1705. He supposed the motion to be caused by the conversion of water into ice within the glacier; the known and almost irresistible expansion which takes place on freezing, furnishing the force which pushed the glacier downward. This idea was illustrated and developed with so much skill by M. de Charpentier, that his name has been associated with it; and it is commonly known as the Theory of Charpentier, or the Dilatation-Theory. M. Agassiz supported this theory for a time, but his own thermometric experiments show us that the body of the glacier is at a temperature of 32 deg. Fahr.; that consequently there is no interior magazine of cold to freeze the water with which the glacier is supposed to be incessantly saturated. So that these experiments alone, if no other grounds existed, would prove the insufficiency of the theory of dilatation. I may however add, that the arguments most frequently urged against this theory deal with an assumption, which I do not think its author ever intended to make.

[Sidenote: THE GLACIER SLIDES.]

Another early surmise was that of Altmann and Gruener (1760), both of whom conjectured that the glacier slid along its bed. This theory received distinct expression from De Saussure in 1799; and has since been associated with the name of that great alpine traveller, being usually called the 'Theory of Saussure,' and sometimes the 'Sliding Theory.' It is briefly stated in these words:--

"Almost every glacier reposes upon an inclined bed, and those of any considerable size have beneath them, even in winter, currents of water which flow between the ice and the bed which supports it. It may therefore be understood that these frozen masses, drawn down the slope on which they repose, disengaged by the water from all adhesion to the bottom, sometimes even raised by this water, must glide by little and little, and descend, following the inclinations of the valleys, or of the slopes which they cover. It is this slow but continual sliding of the ice on its inclined base which carries it into the lower valleys."[A]

[Sidenote: STRAINED INTERPRETATION.]

De Saussure devoted but little time to the subject of glacier-motion; and the absence of completeness in the statement of his views, arising no doubt from this cause, has given subsequent writers occasion to affix what I cannot help thinking a strained interpretation to the sliding theory. It is alleged that he regarded a glacier as a perfectly rigid body; that he considered it to be "a mass of ice of small depth, and considerable but uniform breadth, sliding down a uniform valley, or pouring from a narrow valley into a wider one."[B] The introduction "of the smallest flexibility or plasticity" is moreover emphatically denied to him.[C]

It is by no means probable that the great author of the 'Voyages' would have subscribed to this "rigid" annotation. His theory, be it remembered, is to some extent _true_: the glacier moves over its bed in the manner supposed, and the rocks of Britain bear to this day the traces of these mighty sliders. De Saussure probably contented himself with a general statement of what he believed to be the substantial cause of the motion. He visited the Jardin, and saw the tributaries of the Mer de Glace turning round corners, welding themselves together, and afterwards moving through a sinuous trunk-valley; and it is scarcely credible that in the presence of such facts he would have denied all flexibility to the glacier.

The statement that he regarded a glacier to be a mass of ice of uniform width, is moreover plainly inconsistent with the following description of the glacier of Mont Dolent: "Its most elevated plateau is a great circus, surrounded by high cliffs of granite, of pyramidal forms; thence the glacier descends through a gorge, in which _it is narrowed_; but after having passed the gorge, it _enlarges again_, spreading out like a fan. Thus it has on the whole the form of a sheaf tied in the middle and dilated at its two extremities."[D]

[Sidenote: GLACIER OF MONT DOLENT.]

Curiously enough this very glacier, and these very words, are selected by M. Rendu as illustrative of the plasticity of glaciers. "Nothing," he says, "shows better the extent to which a glacier moulds itself to its locality than the form of the glacier of Mont Dolent in the Valley of Ferret;" and he adds, in connexion with the same passage, these remarkable words:--"There is a multitude of facts which would seem to necessitate the belief that the substance of glaciers enjoys a kind of ductility which permits it to mould itself to the locality which it occupies, to grow thin, to swell, and to narrow itself like a soft paste."[E]

FOOTNOTES:

[A] 'Voyages,' Sec. 535.

[B] James D. Forbes, 'Occasional Papers on the Theory of Glaciers,' 1859, p. 100.

[C] "I adhere to the definition as excluding the introduction of the smallest flexibility or plasticity." 'Occ. Pap.,' p. 96.

[D] 'Voyages,' tome ii. p. 290.

[E] In connexion with this brief sketch of the 'Sliding Theory,' it ought to be stated, that Mr. Hopkins has proved experimentally, that ice may descend an incline at a sensibly uniform rate, and that the velocity is augmented by increasing the weight. In this remarkable experiment the motion was due to the slow disintegration of the lower surface of the ice. See 'Phil. Mag.,' 1845, vol. 26.

RENDU'S THEORY.

(14.)

[Sidenote: RENDU'S CHARACTER.]

M. Rendu, Bishop of Annecy, to whose writings I have just referred, died last autumn.[A] He was a man of great repute in his diocese, and we owe to him one of the most remarkable essays upon glaciers that have ever appeared. His knowledge was extensive, his reasoning close and accurate, and his faculty of observation extraordinary. With these were associated that intuitive power, that presentiment concerning things as yet untouched by experiment, which belong only to the higher class of minds. Throughout his essay a constant effort after quantitative accuracy reveals itself. He collects observations, makes experiments, and tries to obtain numerical results; always taking care, however, so to state his premises and qualify his conclusions that nobody shall be led to ascribe to his numbers a greater accuracy than they merit. It is impossible to read his work, and not feel that he was a man of essentially truthful mind, and that science missed an ornament when he was appropriated by the Church.

The essay above referred to is printed in the tenth volume of the Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Savoy, published in 1841, and is entitled, '_Theorie des Glaciers de la Savoie, par M. le Chanoine Rendu, Chevalier du Merite Civil et Secretaire perpetuel_.' The paper had been written for nearly two years, and might have remained unprinted, had not another publication on the same subject called it forth.

I will place a few of the leading points of this remarkable production before the reader; commencing with a generalization which is highly suggestive of the character of the author's mind.

[Sidenote: "THEORIE DES GLACIERS DE LA SAVOIE."]

He reflects on the accumulation of the mountain-snows, each year adding fifty-eight inches of ice to a glacier. This would make Mont Blanc four hundred feet higher in a century, and four thousand feet higher in a thousand years. "It is evident," he says, "that nothing like this occurs in nature." The escape of the ice then leads him to make some general remarks on what he calls the "law of circulation." "The conserving will of the Creator has employed for the permanence of His work the great law of _circulation_, which, strictly examined, is found to reproduce itself in all parts of nature. The waters circulate from the ocean to the air, from the air to the earth, and from the earth to the ocean.... The elements of organic substances circulate, passing from the solid to the liquid or aeriform condition, and thence again to the state of solidity or of organisation. That universal agent which we designate by the names of fire, light, electricity, and magnetism, has probably also a _circulation_ as wide as the universe." The italics here are Rendu's own. This was published in 1841, but written, we are informed, nearly two years before. In 1842 Mr. Grove wrote thus:--"Light, heat, magnetism, motion, and chemical affinity, are all convertible material affections." More recently Helmholtz, speaking of the "circuit" formed by "heat, light, electricity, magnetism, and chemical affinity," writes thus:--"Starting from each of these different manifestations of natural forces, we can set every other in action." I quote these passages because they refer to the same agents as those named by M. Rendu, and to which he ascribes "_circulation_." Can it be doubted that this Savoyard priest had a premonition of the Conservation of Force? I do not want to lay more stress than it deserves upon a conjecture of this kind; but its harmony with an essay remarkable for its originality gives it a significance which, if isolated, it might not possess.

[Sidenote: GLACIERS RIGHTLY DIVIDED.]

With regard to the glaciers, Rendu commences by dividing them into two kinds, or rather the selfsame glacier into two parts, one of which he calls the "_glacier reservoir_," the other the "_glacier d'ecoulement_,"--two terms highly suggestive of the physical relationship of the _neve_ and the glacier proper. He feeds the reservoirs from three sources, the principal one of which is the snow, to which he adds the rain, and the vapours which are condensed upon the heights without passing into the state of either rain or snow. The conversion of the snow into ice he supposes to be effected by four different causes, the most efficacious of which is _pressure_.[B] It is needless to remark that this quite agrees with the views now generally entertained.

In page 60 of the volume referred to there is a passage which shows that the "veined structure" of the glacier had not escaped him, though it would seem that he ascribed it to stratification. "When," he writes, "we perceive the profile of a glacier on the walls of a crevasse, we see different layers distinct in colour, but more particularly in density; some seem to have the hardness, as they have the greenish colour, of glass; others preserve the whiteness and porosity of the snow." There is also a very close resemblance between his views of the influence of "time and cohesion" and those of Prof. Forbes. "We may conclude," he writes, "that _time_, favouring the action of _affinity_, and the pressure of the layers one upon the other, causes the little crystals of which snow is composed to approach each other, bring them into contact, and convert them into ice."[C] Regelation also appears to have attracted his notice.[D] "When we fill an ice-house," he writes, "we break the ice into very small fragments; afterwards we wet it with water 8 or 10 degrees above zero (Cent.) in temperature; but, notwithstanding this, the whole is converted into a compact mass of ice." He moreover maintains, in almost the same language as Prof. Forbes,[E] the opinion, that ice has always an inner temperature lower than zero (Cent.). He believed this to be a property "inherent to ice." "Never," he says, "can a calorific ray pass the first surface of ice to raise the temperature of the interior."[F]

[Sidenote: OBSERVATIONS AND HYPOTHESES.]

He notices the direction of the glacier as influencing the wasting of its ridges by the sun's heat; ascribing to it the effect to which I have referred in explaining the wave-like forms upon the surface of the Mer de Glace. His explanation of the Moulins, too, though insufficient, assigns a true cause, and is an excellent specimen of physical reasoning.

With regard to the diminution of the _glaciers reservoirs_, or, in other words, to the manner in which the ice disappears, notwithstanding the continual additions made to it, we have the following remarkable passage:--"In seeking the cause of the diminution of glaciers, it has occurred to my mind that the ice, notwithstanding its hardness and its rigidity, can only support a given pressure without breaking or being squeezed out. According to this supposition, whenever the pressure exceeds that force, there will be rupture of the ice, and a flow in consequence. Let us take, at the summit of Mont Blanc, a column of ice reposing on a horizontal base. The ice which forms the first layer of that column is compressed by the weight of all the layers above it; but if the solidity of the said first layer can only support a weight equal to 100, when the weight exceeds this amount there will be rupture and spreading out of the ice of the base. Now, something very similar occurs in the immense crust of ice which covers the summits of Mont Blanc. This crust appears to augment at the upper surface and to diminish by the sides. To assure oneself that the movement is due to the force of pressure, it would be necessary to make a series of experiments upon the solidity of ice, such as have not yet been attempted."[G] I may remark that such experiments substantially verify M. Rendu's notion.

But it is his observations and reasoning upon the _glaciers d'ecoulement_ that chiefly interest us. The passages in his writings where he insists upon the power of the glaciers to mould themselves to their localities, and compares them to a soft paste, to lava at once ductile and liquid, are well known from the frequent and flattering references of Professor Forbes; but there are others of much greater importance, which have hitherto remained unknown in this country. Regarding the motion of the Mer de Glace, Rendu writes as follows:--

[Sidenote: MEASUREMENT OF MOTION.]

[Sidenote: THE SIDES OF THE GLACIER RETARDED.]

"I sought to appreciate the quantity of its motion; but I could only collect rather vague data. I questioned my guides regarding the position of an enormous rock at the edge of the glacier, but still upon the ice, and consequently partaking of its motion. The guides showed me the place where it stood the preceding year, and where it had stood two, three, four, and five years previously; they showed me the place where it would be found in a year, in two years, &c.; _so certain are they of the regularity of the motion_. Their reports, however, did not always agree precisely with each other, and their indications of time and distance lack the precision without which we proceed obscurely in the physical sciences. In reducing these different indications to a mean, I found the total advance of the glacier to be about 40 feet a year. During my last journey I obtained more certain data, which I have stated in the preceding chapter. _The enormous difference between the two results arises from the fact that the latter observations were made at the centre of the glacier_, WHICH MOVES MORE RAPIDLY, _while the former were made at the side, where the ice_ IS RETAINED BY THE FRICTION AGAINST ITS ROCKY WALLS."[H]

An opinion, founded on a grave misapprehension which Rendu enables us to correct, is now prevalent in this country, not only among the general public, but also among those of the first rank in science. The nature of the mistake will be immediately apparent. At page 128 of the 'Travels in the Alps' its distinguished author gives a sketch of the state of our knowledge of glacier-motion previous to the commencement of his inquiries. He cites Ebel, Hugi, Agassiz, Bakewell, De la Beche, Shirwell, Rendu, and places them in open contradiction to each other. Rendu, he says, gives the motion of the Mer de Glace to be "242 feet per annum; 442 feet per annum; a foot a day; 400 feet per annum, and 40 feet per annum, or _one-tenth_ of the last!" ... and he adds, "I was not therefore wrong in supposing that the actual progress of a glacier was yet a new problem when I commenced my observations on the Mer de Glace in 1842."[I]

In the 'North British Review' for August, 1859, a writer equally celebrated for the brilliancy of his discoveries and the vigour of his pen, collected the data furnished by the above paragraph into a table, which he introduced to his readers in the following words:--"It is to Professor Forbes alone that we owe the first and most correct researches respecting the motion of glaciers; and in proof of this, we have only to give the following list of observations which had been previously made.

Observers. Name of glacier. Annual rate of motion.

Ebel Chamouni 14 feet Ebel Grindelwald 25 " Hugi Aar 240 " Agassiz Aar 200 " Bakewell Mer de Glace 540 " De la Beche Mer de Glace 600 " Shirwell Mer de Glace 300 " M. Rendu Mer de Glace 365 " Saussure's Ladder Mer de Glace 375 "

... Such was the state of our knowledge when Professor Forbes undertook the investigation of the subject."

I am persuaded that the writer of this article will be the first to applaud any attempt to remove an error which, advanced on his great authority, must necessarily be widely disseminated. The numbers in the above table certainly differ widely, and it is perhaps natural to conclude that such discordant results can be of no value; but the fact really is that _every one of them may be perfectly correct_. This fact, though overlooked by Professor Forbes, was clearly seen by Rendu, who pointed out with perfect distinctness the sources from which the discrepancies were derived.

[Sidenote: DISCREPANCIES EXPLAINED.]

"It is easy," he says, "to comprehend that it is impossible to obtain a general measure,--that there ought to be one for each particular glacier. The nature of the slope, the number of changes to which it is subjected, the depth of the ice, the width of the couloir, the form of its sides, and a thousand other circumstances, must produce variations in the velocity of the glacier, and these circumstances cannot be everywhere absolutely the same. Much more, it is not easy to obtain this velocity for a single glacier, and for this reason. In those portions where the inclination is steep, the layer of ice is thin, and its velocity is great; in those where the slope is almost nothing, the glacier swells and accumulates; the mass in motion being double, triple, &c., the motion is only the half, the third, &c.

[Sidenote: LIQUID MOTION ASCRIBED TO GLACIER.]

"But this is not all," adds M. Rendu: "_Between the Mer de Glace and a river, there is a resemblance so complete that it is impossible to find in the latter a circumstance which does not exist in the former._ In currents of water the motion is not uniform, neither throughout their width nor throughout their depth; _the friction of the bottom, that of the sides_, the action of obstacles, cause the motion to vary, _and only towards the middle of the surface is this entire...._"[J]

In 1845 Professor Forbes appears to have come to the same conclusion as M. Rendu; for after it had been proved that the centre of the Aar glacier moved quicker than the side in the ratio of fourteen to one, he accepted the result in these words:--"The movement of the centre of the glacier is to that of a point five metres from the edge as FOURTEEN to ONE: such is the effect of plasticity!"[K] Indeed, if the differences exhibited in the table were a proof of error, the observations of Professor Forbes himself would fare very ill. The measurements of glacier-motion made with his own hands vary from less than 42 feet a year to 848 feet a year, the minimum being less than _one-twentieth_ of the maximum; and if we include the observations made by Balmat, the fidelity of which has been certified by Professor Forbes, the minimum is only _one-thirty-seventh_ of the maximum.

[Sidenote: NORTH BRITISH REVIEW.]

There is another point connected with Rendu's theory which needs clearing up:--"The idea," writes the eminent reviewer, "that a glacier is a semifluid body is no doubt startling, especially to those who have seen the apparently rigid ice of which it is composed. M. Rendu himself shrank from the idea, and did not scruple to say that 'the rigidity of a mass of ice was in direct opposition to it;' and we think that Professor Forbes himself must have stood aghast when his fancy first associated the notion of imperfect fluidity with the solid or even the fissured ice of the glacier, and when he saw in his mind's eye the glaciers of the Alps flowing like a river along their rugged bed. A truth like this was above the comprehension and beyond the sympathy of the age; and it required a moral power of no common intensity to submit it to the ordeal of a shallow philosophy, and the sneers of a presumptuous criticism."

These are strong words; but the fact is that, so far from "shrinking" from the idea, Rendu affirmed, with a clearness and an emphasis which have not been exceeded since, that all the phenomena of a river were reproduced upon the Mer de Glace; its deeps, its shallows, its widenings, its narrowings, its rapids, its places of slow motion, and the quicker flow of its centre than of its sides. He did not shrink from accepting a difference between the central and lateral motion amounting to a ratio of ten to one--a ratio so large that Professor Forbes at one time regarded the acceptance of it as a simple absurdity. In this he was perhaps justified; for his own first observations, which, however valuable, were hasty and incomplete, gave him a maximum ratio of about one and a half to one, while the ratio in some cases was nearly one of _equality_. The observations of Agassiz however show that the ratio, instead of being ten to one, may be _infinity_ to one; for the lateral ice may be so held back by a local obstacle that in the course of a year it shall make no sensible advance at all.

[Sidenote: THE ICE AND THE GLACIER.]

From one thing only did M. Rendu shrink; and it is _the_ thing regarding which we are still disunited. He shrank from stating the physical quality of the ice in virtue of which a glacier moved like a river. He demands experiments upon snow and ice to elucidate this subject. The very observations which Professor Forbes regards as proofs are those of which we require the physical explanation. It is not the viscous flow, if you please to call it such, of the glacier as a whole that here concerns us; but it is the quality of the _ice_ in virtue of which this kind of motion is accomplished. Professor Forbes sees this difference clearly enough: he speaks of "fissured ice" being "flexible" in hand specimens; he compares the glacier to a mixture of ice and sand; and finally, in a more matured paper, falls back for an explanation upon the observations of Agassiz regarding the capillaries of the glacier.[L]

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Expressions such as "last summer," "last autumn," "recently," will be taken throughout in the sense which they had in the early half of 1860, when this book was first published.--L. C. T.

[B] 'Memoir,' p. 77.

[C] P. 75.

[D] P. 71.

[E] 'Philosophical Magazine,' 1859.

[F] 'Memoir,' p. 69.

[G] Page 80.

[H] Page 95.

[I] At page 38 of the 'Travels' the following passage also occurs:--"I believe that I may safely affirm that not one observation of the rate of motion of a glacier, either on the average or at any particular season of the year, existed when I commenced my experiments in 1842."

[J] 'Theorie,' p. 96.

[K] 'Occ. Pap.,' p. 74.

[L] In all that has been written upon glaciers in this country the above passages from the writings of Rendu are unquoted; and many who mingled very warmly in the discussions of the subject were, until quite recently, ignorant of their existence. I was long in this condition myself, for I never supposed that passages which bear so directly upon a point so much discussed, and of such cardinal import, could have been overlooked; or that the task of calling attention to them should devolve upon myself nearly twenty years after their publication. Now that they are discovered, I conceive no difference of opinion can exist as to the propriety of placing them in their true position.

(15.)

The measurements of Agassiz and Forbes completely verify the anticipations of Rendu; but no writer with whom I am acquainted has added anything essential to the Bishop's statements as to the identity of glacier and liquid motion. He laid down the conditions of the problem with perfect clearness, and, as regards the distribution of merit, the point to be decided is the relative importance of his idea, and of the measurements which were subsequently made.

[Sidenote: OBSERVATIONS OF FORBES.]

The observations on which Professor Forbes based the analogy between a glacier and a river are the following:--In 1842 he fixed four marks upon the Mer de Glace a little below the Montanvert, the first of which was 100 yards distant from the side of the glacier, while the last was at the centre "or a little beyond it." The relative velocity of these four points was found to be

1.000 1.332 1.356 1.367.

The first observations were made upon two of these points, two others being subsequently added. Professor Forbes also determined the velocity of two points on the Glacier du Geant, and found the ratio of motion, in the first instance, to be as 14 to 32. Subsequent measurements, however, showed the ratio to be as 14 to 18, the larger motion belonging to the station nearest to the centre of the glacier. These are the only measurements which I can find in his large work that establish the swifter motion of the centre of the glacier; and in these cases the velocity of the centre is compared with that of _one side_ only. In no instance that I am aware of, either in 1842 or subsequent years, did Professor Forbes extend his measurements quite across a glacier; and as regards completeness in this respect, no observations hitherto made can at all compare with those executed at the instance of Agassiz upon the glacier of the Aar.

In 1844 Professor Forbes made a series of interesting experiments on a portion of the Mer de Glace near l'Angle. He divided a length of 90 feet into 45 equal spaces, and fixed pins at the end of each. His theodolite was placed upon the ice, and in seventeen days he found that the ice 90 feet nearer the centre than the theodolite had moved 26 inches past the latter. These measurements were undertaken for a special object, and completely answered the end for which they were intended.

In 1846 Professor Forbes made another important observation. Fixing three stakes at the heights of 8, 54, and 143 feet above the bed of the glacier, he found that in five days they moved respectively 2.87, 4.18, and 4.66 feet. The stake nearest the bed moved most slowly, thus showing that the ice is retarded by friction. This result was subsequently verified by the measurements of M. Martins, and by my own.

If we add to the above an observation made during a short visit to the Aletsch glacier in 1844, which showed its lateral retardation, I believe we have before us the whole of the measurements executed by Professor Forbes, which show the analogy between the motion of a glacier and that of a viscous body.

[Sidenote: MEASUREMENTS OF AGASSIZ.]

Illustrative of the same point, we have the elaborate and extensive series of measurements executed by M. Wild under the direction of M. Agassiz upon the glacier of the Aar in 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, which exhibit on a grand scale, and in the most conclusive manner, the character of the motion of this glacier; and also show, on close examination, an analogy with fluid motion which neither M. Agassiz nor Professor Forbes suspected. The former philosopher publishes a section in his 'Systeme Glaciaire,' entitled 'Migrations of the Centre;' in which he shows that the middle of the glacier is not always the point of swiftest motion. The detection of this fact demonstrates the attention devoted by M. Agassiz to the discussion of his observations, but he gives no clue to the cause of the variation. On inspecting the shape of the valley through which the Aar glacier moves, I find that these "migrations" follow the law established in 1857 upon the Mer de Glace, and enunciated at page 286.

To sum up this part of the question:--The _idea_ of semi-fluid motion belongs entirely to Rendu; the _proof_ of the quicker central flow belongs in part to Rendu, but almost wholly to Agassiz and Forbes; the proof of the retardation of the bed belongs to Forbes alone; while the discovery of the locus of the point of maximum motion belongs, I suppose, to me.

FORBES'S THEORY.

(16.)

The formal statement of this theory is given in the following words:--"A glacier is an imperfect fluid, or viscous body, which is urged down slopes of a certain inclination by the mutual pressure of its parts." The consistency of the glacier is illustrated by reference to treacle, honey, and tar, and the theory thus enunciated and exemplified is called the 'Viscous Theory.'

It has been the subject of much discussion, and great differences of opinion are still entertained regarding it. Able and sincere men take opposite sides; and the extraordinary number of Reviews which have appeared upon the subject during the last two years show the interest which the intellectual public of England take in the question. The chief differences of opinion turn upon the inquiry as to what Professor Forbes really meant when he propounded the viscous theory; some affirm one thing, some another, and, singularly enough, these differences continue, though the author of the theory has at various times published expositions of his views.

[Sidenote: "FACTS AND PRINCIPLES."]

The differences referred to arise from the circumstances that a sufficient distinction has not been observed between _facts_ and _principles_, and that the viscous theory has assumed various forms since its first promulgation. It has been stated to me that the theory of Professor Forbes is "the congeries of facts" which he has discovered. But it is quite evident that no recognition, however ample, of these facts would be altogether satisfactory to Professor Forbes himself. He claims recognition of his _theory_,[A] and no writer with whom I am acquainted makes such frequent use of the term. What then can the viscous theory mean apart from the facts? I interpret it as furnishing the principle from which the facts follow as physical consequences--that the glacier moves as a river because the ice is viscous. In this sense only can Professor Forbes's views be called a theory; in any other, his experiments are mere illustrations of the facts of glacier motion, which do not carry us a hair's breadth towards their physical cause.

[Sidenote: VISCOUS THEORY;--WHAT IS IT?]

What then is the meaning of viscosity or viscidity? I have heard it defined by men of high culture as "gluey tenacity;" and such tenacity they once supposed a glacier to possess. If we dip a spoon into treacle, honey, or tar, we can draw the substance out into filaments, and the same may be done with melted caoutchouc or lava. All these substances are viscous, and all of them have been chosen to illustrate the physical property in virtue of which a glacier moves. Viscosity then consists in the power of being drawn out when subjected to a force of tension, the substance, after stretching, being in a state of molecular equilibrium, or, in other words, devoid of that elasticity which would restore it to its original form. This certainly was the idea attached to Professor Forbes's words by some of his most strenuous supporters, and also by eminent men who have never taken part in any controversy on the subject. Mr. Darwin, for example, speaks of felspathic rocks being "stretched" while flowing slowly onwards in a pasty condition, in precisely the same manner as Professor Forbes believes that the ice of moving glaciers is stretched and fissured; and Professor Forbes himself quotes these words of Mr. Darwin as illustrative of his theory.[B]

The question now before us is,--Does a glacier exhibit that power of yielding to a force of tension which would entitle its ice to be regarded as a viscous substance?

[Sidenote: THEORY TESTED.]

With a view to the solution of this question Mr. Hirst took for me the inclinations of the Mer de Glace and all its tributaries in 1857; the effect of a change of inclination being always noted. I will select from those measurements a few which bear more specially upon the subject now under consideration, commencing with the Glacier des Bois, down which the ice moves in that state of wild dislocation already described. The inclination of the glacier above this cascade is 5 deg. 10', and that of the cascade itself is 22 deg. 20', the change of inclination being therefore 17 deg. 10'.

[Illustration: Fig. 22. Inclinations of ice cascasde of the Glacier des Bois.]

In Fig. 22 I have protracted the inclination of the cascade and of the glacier above it; the line A B representing the former and B C the latter. Now a stream of molten lava, of treacle, or tar, would, in virtue of its viscosity, be able to flow over the brow at B without breaking across; but this is not the case with the glacier; it is so smashed and riven in crossing this brow, that, to use the words of Professor Forbes himself, "it pours into the valley beneath in a cascade of icy fragments."

[Sidenote: INCLINATIONS OF THE MER DE GLACE.]

But this reasoning will appear much stronger when we revert to other slopes upon the Mer de Glace. For example, its inclination above l'Angle is 4 deg., and it afterwards descends a slope of 9 deg. 25', the change of inclination being 5 deg. 25'. If we protract these inclinations to scale, we have the line A B, Fig. 23, representing the steeper slope, and B C that of the glacier above it. One would surely think that a viscous body could cross the brow B without transverse fracture, but this the glacier cannot do, and Professor Forbes himself pronounces this portion of the Mer de Glace impassable. Indeed it was the profound crevasses here formed which placed me in a difficulty already referred to. Higher up again, the glacier is broken on passing from a slope of 3 deg. 10' to one of 5 deg. Such observations show how differently constituted a glacier is from a stream of lava in a "pasty condition," or of treacle, honey, tar, or melted caoutchouc, to all which it has been compared. In the next section I shall endeavour to explain the origin of the crevasses, and shall afterwards make a few additional remarks on the alleged viscosity of ice.

[Illustration: Fig. 23. Inclinations of Mer de Glace above l'Angle.]

FOOTNOTES:

[A] "Mr. Hopkins," writes Professor Forbes, "has done me the honour, in the memoirs before alluded to, to mention with approbation my observations and experiments on the subject of glaciers. He has been more sparing either in praise or criticism of the theory which I have founded upon them. Had Mr. Hopkins," &c.--_Eighth Letter_; 'Occ. Papers,' p. 66.

[B] 'Occ. Papers,' p. 92.

THE CREVASSES.

(17.)

[Sidenote: CREVASSES CAUSED BY THE MOTION.]

Having made ourselves acquainted with the motion of the glacier, we are prepared to examine those rents, fissures, chasms, or, as they are most usually called, _Crevasses_, by which all glaciers are more or less intersected. They result from the motion of the glacier, and the laws of their formation are deduced immediately from those of the motion. The crevasses are sometimes very deep and numerous, and apparently without law or order in their distribution. They cut the ice into long ridges, and break these ridges transversely into prisms; these prisms gradually waste away, assuming, according to the accidents of their melting, the most fantastic forms. I have seen them like the mutilated statuary of an ancient temple, like the crescent moon, like huge birds with outstretched wings, like the claws of lobsters, and like antlered deer. Such fantastic sculpture is often to be found on the ice cascades, where the riven glacier has piled vast blocks on vaster pedestals, and presented them to the wasting action of sun and air. In Fig. 24 I have given a sketch of a mass of ice of this character, which stood in 1859 on the dislocated slope of the Glacier des Bois.

[Sidenote: FANTASTIC ICE-MASSES.]

[Illustration: Fig. 24. Fantastic Mass of ice.]

It is usual for visitors to the Montanvert to descend to the glacier, and to be led by their guides to the edges of the crevasses, where, being firmly held, they look down into them; but those who have only made their acquaintance in this way know but little of their magnitude and beauty in the more disturbed portions of glaciers. As might be expected, they have been the graves of many a mountaineer; and the skeletons found upon the glacier prove that even the chamois itself, with its elastic muscles and admirable sureness of foot, is not always safe among the crevasses. They are grandest in the higher ice-regions, where the snow hangs like a coping over their edges, and the water trickling from these into the gloom forms splendid icicles. The Goerner Glacier, as we ascend it towards the old Weissthor, presents many fine examples of such crevasses; the ice being often torn in a most curious and irregular manner. You enter a porch, pillared by icicles, and look into a cavern in the very body of the glacier, encumbered with vast frozen bosses which are fringed all round by dependent icicles. At the peril of your life from slipping, or from the yielding of the stalactites, you may enter these caverns, and find yourself steeped in the blue illumination of the place. Their beauty is beyond description; but you cannot deliver yourself up, heart and soul, to its enjoyment. There is a strangeness about the place which repels you, and not without anxiety do you look from your ledge into the darkness below, through which the sound of subglacial water sometimes rises like the tolling of distant bells. You feel that, however the cold splendours of the place might suit a purely spiritual essence, they are not congenial to flesh and blood, and you gladly escape from its magnificence to the sunshine of the world above.

[Sidenote: BIRTH OF A CREVASSE.]

From their numbers it might be inferred that the formation of crevasses is a thing of frequent occurrence and easy to observe; but in reality it is very rarely observed. Simond was a man of considerable experience upon the ice, but the first crevasse he ever saw formed was during the setting out of one of our lines, when a narrow rent opened beneath his feet, and propagated itself through the ice with loud cracking for a distance of 50 or 60 yards. Crevasses always commence in this way as mere narrow cracks, which open very slowly afterwards. I will here describe the only case of crevasse-forming which has come under my direct observation.

On the 31st of July, 1857, Mr. Hirst and myself, having completed our day's work, were standing together upon the Glacier du Geant, when a loud dull sound, like that produced by a heavy blow, seemed to issue from the body of the ice underneath the spot on which we stood. This was succeeded by a series of sharp reports, which were heard sometimes above us, sometimes below us, sometimes apparently close under our feet, the intervals between the louder reports being filled by a low singing noise. We turned hither and thither as the direction of the sounds varied; for the glacier was evidently breaking beneath our feet, though we could discern no trace of rupture. For an hour the sounds continued without our being able to discover their source; this at length revealed itself by a rush of air-bubbles from one of the little pools upon the surface of the glacier, which was intersected by the newly-formed crevasse. We then traced it for some distance up and down, but hardly at any place was it sufficiently wide to permit the blade of my penknife to enter it. M. Agassiz has given an animated description of the terror of his guides upon a similar occasion, and there was an element of awe in our own feelings as we heard the evening stillness of the glacier thus disturbed.

[Sidenote: MECHANICAL ORIGIN.]

With regard to the mechanical origin of the crevasses the most vague and untenable notions had been entertained until Mr. Hopkins published his extremely valuable papers. To him, indeed, we are almost wholly indebted for our present knowledge of the subject, my own experiments upon this portion of the glacier-question being for the most part illustrations of the truth of his reasoning. To understand the fissures in their more complex aspects it is necessary that we should commence with their elements. I shall deal with the question in my own way, adhering, however, to the mechanical principles upon which Mr. Hopkins has based his exposition.

[Illustration: Fig. 25. Diagram explanatory of the mechanical origin of Crevasses.]

Let A B, C D, be the bounding sides of a glacier moving in the direction of the arrow; let _m_, _n_ be two points upon the ice, one, _m_, close to the retarding side of the valley, and the other, _n_, at some distance from it. After a certain time, the point _m_ will have moved downwards to _m'_, but in consequence of the swifter movement of the parts at a distance from the sides, _n_ will have moved in the same time to _n'_. Thus the line _m n_, instead of being at right angles to the glacier, takes up the oblique position _m' n'_; but to reach from _m'_ to _n'_ the line _m n_ would have to stretch itself considerably; every other line that we can draw upon the ice parallel to _m' n'_ is in a similar state of tension; or, in other words, the sides of the glacier are acted upon by an oblique pull towards the centre. Now, Mr. Hopkins has shown that the direction in which this oblique pull is strongest encloses an angle of 45 deg. with the side of the glacier.

[Sidenote: LINE OF GREATEST STRAIN.]

[Illustration: Fig. 26. Diagram showing the line of Greatest Strain.]

What is the consequence of this? Let A B, C D, Fig. 26, represent, as before, the sides of the glacier, moving in the direction of the arrow; let the shading lines enclose an angle of 45 deg. with the sides. _Along_ these lines the marginal ice suffers the greatest strain, and, consequently _across_ these lines and at right angles to them, the ice tends to break and to form _marginal crevasses_. The lines, _o p_, _o p_, mark the direction of these crevasses; they are at right angles to the line of greatest strain, and hence also enclose an angle of 45 deg. with the side of the valley, _being obliquely pointed upwards_.

[Sidenote: MARGINAL AND TRANSVERSE CREVASSES.]

This latter result is noteworthy; it follows from the mechanical data that the swifter motion of the centre tends to produce marginal crevasses which are inclined from the side of the glacier towards its source, and not towards its lower extremity. But when we look down upon a glacier thus crevassed, the first impression is that the sides have been dragged down, and have left the central portions behind them; indeed, it was this very appearance that led M. de Charpentier and M. Agassiz into the error of supposing that the sides of a glacier moved more quickly than its middle portions; and it was also the delusive aspect of the crevasses which led Professor Forbes to infer the slower motion of the eastern side of the Mer de Glace.

The retardation of the ice is most evident near the sides; in most cases, the ice for a considerable distance right and left of the central line moves with a sensibly uniform velocity; there is no dragging of the

## particles asunder by a difference of motion, and, consequently, a

compact centre is perfectly compatible with fissured sides. Nothing is more common than to see a glacier with its sides deeply cut, and its central portions compact; this, indeed, is always the case where the glacier moves down a bed of uniform inclination.

But supposing that the bed is not uniform--that the valley through which the glacier moves changes its inclination abruptly, so as to compel the ice to pass over a brow; the glacier is then circumstanced like a stick which we try to break by holding its two ends and pressing it against the knee. The brow, where the bed changes its inclination, represents the knee in the case of the stick, while the weight of the glacier itself is the force that tends to break it. It breaks; and fissures are formed across the glacier, which are hence called _transverse crevasses_.

[Sidenote: GRINDELWALD GLACIER.]

No glacier with which I am acquainted illustrates the mechanical laws just developed more clearly and fully than the Lower glacier of Grindelwald. Proceeding along the ordinary track beside the glacier, at about an hour's distance from the village the traveller reaches a point whence a view of the glacier is obtained from the heights above it. The marginal fissures are very cleanly cut, and point nearly in the direction already indicated; the glacier also changes its inclination several times along the distance within the observer's view. On crossing each brow the glacier is broken across, and a series of transverse crevasses is formed, which follow each other down the slope. At the bottom of the slope tension gives place to pressure, the walls of the crevasses are squeezed together, and the chasms closed up. They remain closed along the comparatively level space which stretches between the base of one slope and the brow of the next; but here the glacier is again transversely broken, and continues so until the base of the second slope is reached, where longitudinal pressure instead of longitudinal strain begins to act, and the fissures are closed as before. In Fig. 27A I have given a sketchy section of a portion of the glacier, illustrating the formation of the crevasses at the top of a slope, and their subsequent obliteration at its base.

[Sidenote: COMPRESSION AND TENSION.]

[Illustration: Fig. 27A, B. Section and Plan of a portion of the Lower Grindelwald Glacier.]

Another effect is here beautifully shown, namely, the union of the transverse and marginal crevasses to form continuous fissures which stretch quite across the glacier. Fig. 27B will illustrate my meaning, though very imperfectly; it represents a plan of a portion of the Lower Grindelwald glacier, with both marginal and transverse fissures drawn upon it. I have placed it under the section so that each part of it may show in plan the portion of the glacier which is shown in section immediately above it. It shows how the marginal crevasses remain after the compression of the centre has obliterated the transverse ones; and how the latter join on to the former, so as to form continuous fissures, which sweep across the glacier in vast curves, with their convexities turned upwards. The illusion before referred to is here strengthened; the crevasses turn, so to say, _against_ the direction of motion, instead of forming loops, with their convexities pointing downwards, and thus would impress a person unacquainted with the mechanical data with the idea that the glacier margins moved more quickly than the centre. The figures are intended to convey the idea merely; on the actual slopes of the glacier between twenty and thirty chasms may be counted: also the word "compression" ought to have been limited to the level portions of the sketch.

[Sidenote: LONGITUDINAL CREVASSES.]

Besides the two classes of fissures mentioned we often find others, which are neither marginal nor transverse. The terminal portions of many glaciers, for example, are in a state of compression; the snout of the glacier abuts against the ground, and having to bear the thrust of the mass behind it, if it have room to expand laterally, the ice will yield, and _longitudinal crevasses_ will be formed. They are of very common occurrence, but the finest example of the kind is perhaps exhibited by the glacier of the Rhone. After escaping from the steep gorge which holds the cascade, this glacier encounters the bottom of a comparatively wide and level valley; the resistance to its forward motion is augmented, while its ability to expand laterally is increased; it has to bear a longitudinal thrust, and it splits at right angles to the pressure [strain?]. A series of fissures is thus formed, the central ones of which are truly longitudinal; but on each side of the central line the crevasses diverge, and exhibit a fan-like arrangement. This disposition of the fissures is beautifully seen from the summit of the Mayenwand on the Grimsel Pass.

[Illustration: Fig. 28. Diagram illustrating the crevassing of Convex Sides of glacier.]

Here then we have the elements, so to speak, of glacier-crevassing, and through their separate or combined action the most fantastic cutting up of a glacier may be effected. And see how beautifully these simple principles enable us to account for the remarkable crevassing of the eastern side of the Mer de Glace. Let A B, C D, be the opposite sides of a portion of the glacier, near the Montanvert; C D being east, and A B west, the glacier moving in the direction of the arrow; let the points _m n_ represent the extremities of our line of stakes, and let us suppose an elastic string stretched across the glacier from one to the other. We have proved that the point of maximum motion here lies much nearer to the side C D than to A B. Let _o_ be this point, and, seizing the string at _o_, let it be drawn in the direction of motion until it assumes the position, _m_, _o'_, _n_. It is quite evident that _o' n_ is in a state greater tension than _o' m_, and the ice at the eastern side of the Mer de Glace is in a precisely similar mechanical condition. It suffers a greater strain than the ice at the opposite side of the valley, and hence is more fissured and broken. Thus we see that the crevassing of the eastern side of the glacier is a simple consequence of the quicker motion of that side, and does not, as hitherto supposed, demonstrate its slower motion. The reason why the eastern side of the glacier, as a whole, is much more fissured than the western side is, that there are two long segments which turn their convex curvature eastward, and only one segment of the glacier which turns its convexity westward.

[Sidenote: CREVASSING OF CONVEX SIDE.]

The lower portion of the Rhone glacier sweeps round the side of the valley next the Furca, and turns throughout a convex curve to this side: the crevasses here are wide and frequent, while they are almost totally absent at the opposite side of the glacier. The lower Grindelwald glacier turns at one place a convex curve towards the Eiger, and is much more fissured at that side than at the opposite one; indeed, the fantastic ice-splinters, columns, and minarets, which are so finely exhibited upon this glacier, are mainly due to the deep crevassing of the convex side. Numerous other illustrations of the law might, I doubt not, be discovered, and it would be a pleasant and useful occupation to one who takes an interest in the subject, to determine, by strict measurements upon other glaciers, the locus of the point of maximum motion, and to observe the associated mechanical effects.

[Sidenote: BERGSCHRUNDS.]

The appearance of crevasses is often determined by circumstances more local and limited than those above indicated; a boss of rock, a protuberance on the side of the flanking mountain, anything, in short, which checks the motion of one part of the ice and permits an adjacent portion to be pushed away from it, produces crevasses. Some valleys are terminated by a kind of mountain-circus with steep sides, against which the snow rises to a considerable height. As the mass is urged downwards, the lower portion of the snow-slope is often torn away from its higher portion, and a chasm is formed, which usually extends round the head of the valley. To such a crevasse the specific name _Bergschrund_ is applied in the Bernese Alps; I have referred to one of them in the account of the "Passage of the Strahleck."

(18.)

The phenomena described and accounted for in the last chapter have a direct bearing upon the question of viscosity. In virtue of the quicker central flow the lateral ice is subject to an oblique strain; but, instead of stretching, it breaks, and marginal crevasses are formed. We also see that a slight curvature in the valley, by throwing an additional strain upon one half of the glacier, produces an augmented crevassing of that side.

But it is known that a substance confessedly viscous may be broken by a sudden shock or strain. Professor Forbes justly observes that sealing-wax at moderate temperatures will mould itself (with time) to the most delicate inequalities of the surface on which it rests, but may at the same time be shivered to atoms by the blow of a hammer. Hence, in order to estimate the weight of the objection that a glacier breaks when subjected to strain, we must know the conditions under which the force is applied.

The Mer de Glace has been shown (p. 287) to move through the neck of the valley at Trelaporte at the rate of twenty inches a day. Let the sides of this page represent the boundaries of the glacier at Trelaporte, and any one of its lines of print a transverse slice of ice. Supposing the line to move down the page as the slice of ice moves down the valley, then the bending of the ice in twenty-four hours, shown on such a scale, would only be sufficient to push forward the centre in advance of the sides by a very small fraction of the width of the line of print. To such an extremely gradual strain the ice is unable to accommodate itself without fracture.

[Sidenote: NUMERICAL TEST OF VISCOSITY.]

Or, referring to actual numbers:--the stake No. 15 on our 5th line, page 284, stood on the lateral moraine of the Mer de Glace; and between it and No. 14 a distance of 190 feet intervened. Let A B, Fig. 29, be the side of the glacier, moving in the direction of the arrow, and let _a b c d_ be a square upon the glacier with a side of 190 feet. The whole square moves with the ice, but the side _b d_ moves quickest; the point _a_ moving 10 inches, while _b_ moves 14.75 inches in 24 hours; the differential motion therefore amounts to an inch in five hours. Let _a b' d' c_ be the shape of the figure after five hours' motion; then the line _a b_ would be extended to _a b'_ and _c d_ to _c d'_.

[Illustration: Fig. 29. Diagram illustrating test of viscosity.]

The extension of _these_ lines does not however express the _maximum_ strain to which the ice is subjected. Mr. Hopkins has shown that this takes place along the line _a d_; in five hours then this line, if capable of stretching, would be stretched to _a d'_. From the data given every boy who has mastered the 47th Proposition of the First Book of Euclid can find the length both of _a d_ and _a d'_; the former is 3224.4 inches, and the latter is 3225.1, the difference between them being seven-tenths of an inch.

This is the amount of yielding required from the ice in five hours, but it cannot grant this; the glacier breaks, and numerous marginal crevasses are formed. It must not be forgotten that the evidence here adduced merely shows what ice cannot do; what it _can_ do in the way of viscous yielding we do not know: there exists as yet no single experiment on great masses or small to show that ice possesses in any sensible degree that power of being drawn out which seems to be the very essence of viscosity.

I have already stated that the crevasses, on their first formation, are exceedingly narrow rents, which widen very slowly. The new crevasse observed by our guide required several days to attain a width of three inches; while that observed by Mr. Hirst and myself did not widen a single inch in three days. This, I believe, is the general character of the crevasses; they form suddenly and open slowly. Both facts are at variance with the idea that ice is viscous; for were this substance capable of stretching at the slow rate at which the fissures widen, there would be no necessity for their formation.

[Sidenote: STRETCHING OF ICE NOT PROVED.]

It cannot be too clearly and emphatically stated that the _proved_ fact of a glacier conforming to the law of semi-fluid motion is a thing totally different from the _alleged_ fact of its being viscous. Nobody since its first enunciation disputed the former. I had no doubt of it when I repaired to the glaciers in 1856; and none of the eminent men who have discussed this question with Professor Forbes have thrown any doubt upon his measurements. It is the assertion that small pieces of ice are proved to be viscous[A] by the experiments made upon glaciers, and the consequent impression left upon the public mind--that ice possesses the "gluey tenacity" which the term viscous suggests--to which these observations are meant to apply.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] "The viscosity, though it cannot be traced in the parts _if very minute_ nevertheless _exists_ there, as unequivocally proved by experiments on the large scale."--Forbes in 'Phil. Mag.,' vol. x., p. 301.

HEAT AND WORK.

(19.)

[Sidenote: CONNEXION OF NATURAL FORCES.]

Great scientific principles, though usually announced by individuals, are often merely the distinct expression of thoughts and convictions which had long been entertained by all advanced investigators. Thus the more profound philosophic thinkers had long suspected a certain equivalence and connexion between the various forces of nature; experiment had shown the direct connexion and mutual convertibility of many of them, and the spiritual insight, which, in the case of the true experimenter, always surrounds and often precedes the work of his hands, revealed more or less plainly that natural forces either had a common root, or that they formed a circle, whose links were so connected that by starting from any one of them we could go through the circuit, and arrive at the point from which we set out. For the last eighteen years this subject has occupied the attention of some of the ablest natural philosophers, both in this country and on the Continent. The connexion, however, which has most occupied their minds is that between _heat_ and _work_; the absolute numerical equivalence of the two having, I believe, been first announced by a German physician named Mayer, and experimentally proved in this country by Mr. Joule.

[Sidenote: MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT OF HEAT.]

A lead bullet may be made hot enough to burn the hand, by striking it with a hammer, or by rubbing it against a board; a clever blacksmith can make a nail red-hot by hammering it; Count Rumford boiled water by the heat developed in the boring of cannon, and inferred from the experiment that heat was not what it was generally supposed to be, an imponderable fluid, but a kind of motion generated by the friction. Now Mr. Joule's experiments enable us to state the exact amount of heat which a definite expenditure of mechanical force can originate. I say _originate_, not drag from any hiding-place in which it had concealed itself, but actually bring into existence, so that the total amount of heat in the universe is thereby augmented. If a mass of iron fall from a tower 770 feet in height, we can state the precise amount of heat developed by its collision with the earth. Supposing all the heat thus generated to be concentrated in the iron itself, its temperature would thereby be raised nearly 10 deg. Fahr. Gravity in this case has expended a certain amount of force in pulling the iron to the earth, and this force is the _mechanical equivalent_ of the heat generated. Furthermore, if we had a machine so perfect as to enable us to apply all the heat thus produced to the raising of a weight, we should be able, by it, to lift the mass of iron to the precise point from which it fell.

But the heat cannot lift the weight and still continue heat; this is the peculiarity of the modern view of the matter. The heat is consumed, used up, it is no longer heat; but instead of it we have a certain amount of gravitating force stored up, which is ready to act again, and to regenerate the heat when the weight is let loose. In fact, when the falling weight is stopped by the earth, the motion of its mass is converted into a motion of its molecules; when the weight is lifted by heat, molecular motion is converted into ordinary mechanical motion, but for every portion of either of them brought into existence an equivalent portion of the other must be consumed.

What is true for masses is also true for atoms. As the earth and the piece of iron mutually attract each other, and produce heat by their collision, so the carbon of a burning candle and the oxygen of the surrounding air mutually attract each other; they rush together, and on collision the arrested motion becomes heat. In the former case we have the conversion of gravity into heat, in the latter the conversion of chemical affinity into heat; but in each case the process consists in the generation of motion by attraction, and the subsequent change of that motion into motion of another kind. Mechanically considered, the attraction of the atoms and its results is precisely the same as the attraction of the earth and weight and _its_ results.

[Sidenote: HEAT PRODUCED IF THE EARTH STRUCK THE SUN.]

But what is true for an atom is also true for a planet or a sun. Supposing our earth to be brought to rest in her orbit by a sudden shock, we are able to state the exact amount of heat which would be thereby generated. The consequence of the earth's being thus brought to rest would be that it would fall into the sun, and the amount of heat which would be generated by this second collision is also calculable. Helmholtz has calculated that in the former case the heat generated would be equal to that produced by the combustion of fourteen earths of solid coal, and in the latter case the amount would be 400 times greater.

[Sidenote: SHIFTING OF ATOMS.]

Whenever a weight is lifted by a steam-engine in opposition to the force of gravity an amount of heat is consumed equivalent to the work done; and whenever the molecules of a body are shifted in opposition to their mutual attractions work is also performed, and an equivalent amount of heat is consumed. Indeed the amount of work done in the shifting of the molecules of a body by heat, when expressed in ordinary mechanical work, is perfectly enormous. The lifting of a heavy weight to the height of 1000 feet may be as nothing compared with the shifting of the atoms of a body by an amount so small that our finest means of measurement hardly enable us to determine it. Different bodies give heat different degrees of trouble, if I may use the term, in shifting their atoms and putting them in new places. Iron gives more trouble than lead; and water gives far more trouble than either. The heat expended in this molecular work is lost as heat; it does not show itself as temperature. Suppose the heat produced by the combustion of an ounce of candle to be concentrated in a pound of iron, a certain portion of that heat would go to perform the molecular work to which I have referred, and the remainder would be expended in raising the temperature of the body; and if the same amount of heat were communicated to a pound of iron and to a pound of lead, the balance in favour of temperature would be greater in the latter case than in the former, because the heat would have less molecular work to do; the lead would become more heated than the iron. To raise a pound of iron a certain number of degrees in temperature would, in fact, require more than three times the absolute quantity of heat which would be required to raise a pound of lead the same number of degrees. Conversely, if we place the pound of iron and the pound of lead, heated to the same temperature, into ice, we shall find that the quantity of ice melted by the iron will be more than three times that melted by the lead. In fact, the greater amount of molecular work invested in the iron now comes into play, the atoms again obey their own powerful forces, and an amount of heat corresponding to the energy of these forces is generated.

This molecular work is that which has usually been called _specific heat_, or _capacity for heat_. According to the _materialistic_ view of heat, bodies are figured as sponges, and heat as a kind of fluid absorbed by them, different bodies possessing different powers of absorption. According to the _dynamic_ view, as already explained, heat is regarded as a motion, and capacity for heat indicates the quantity of that motion consumed in internal changes.

The greatest of these changes occurs when a body passes from one state of aggregation to another, from the solid to the liquid, or from the liquid to the aeriform state; and the quantity of heat required for such changes is often enormous. To convert a pound of ice at 32 deg. Fahr. into water _at the same temperature_ would require an amount of heat competent, if applied as mechanical force, to lift the same pound of ice to a height of 110,000 feet; it would raise a ton of ice nearly 50 feet, or it would lift between 49 and 50 tons to a height of one foot above the earth's surface. To convert a pound of water at 212 deg. into a pound of steam at the same temperature would require an amount of heat which would perform nearly seven times the amount of mechanical work just mentioned.

[Sidenote: HEAT CONSUMED IN MOLECULAR WORK.]

This heat is entirely expended in _interior work_,[A] and does nothing towards augmenting the temperature; the water is at the temperature of the ice which produced it, both are 32 deg.; and the steam is at the temperature of the water which produced it, both are 212 deg. The whole of the heat is consumed in producing the change of aggregation; I say "_consumed_," not hidden or "latent" in either the water or the steam, but absolutely non-existent as heat. The molecular forces, however, which the heat has sacrificed itself to overcome are able to reproduce it; the water in freezing and the steam in condensing give out the exact amount of heat which they consumed when the change of aggregation was in the opposite direction.

At a temperature of several degrees below its freezing point ice is much harder than at 32 deg. I have more than once cooled a sphere of the substance in a bath of solid carbonic acid and ether to a temperature of 100 deg. below the freezing point. During the time of cooling the ice crackled audibly from its contraction, and afterwards it quite resisted the edge of a knife; while at 32 deg. it may be cut or crushed with extreme facility. The cold sphere was subjected to pressure; it broke with the detonation of a vitreous body, and was taken from the press a white opaque powder; which, on being subsequently raised to 32 deg. and again compressed, was converted into a pellucid slab of ice.

[Sidenote: ICE NEAR THE MELTING POINT.]

But before the temperature of 32 deg. is quite attained, ice gives evidence of a loosening of its crystalline texture. Indeed the unsoundness of ice at and near its melting point has been long known. Sir John Leslie, for example, states that ice at 32 deg. is _friable_; and every skater knows how rotten ice becomes before it thaws. M. Person has further shown that the latent heat of ice, that is to say, the quantity of heat necessary for its liquefaction, is not quite expressed by the quantity consumed in reducing ice at 32 deg. to the liquid state. The heat begins to be rendered latent, or in other words the change of aggregation commences, a little before the substance reaches 32 deg.,--a conclusion which is illustrated and confirmed by the deportment of melting ice under pressure.

[Sidenote: ROTTEN ICE AND SOFTENED WAX.]

In reference to the above result Professor Forbes writes as follows:--"I have now to refer to a fact ... established by a French experimenter, M. Person, who appears not to have had even remotely in his mind the theory of glaciers, when he announced the following facts, viz.--'That ice does not pass abruptly from the solid to the fluid state; that it begins to _soften_ at a temperature of 2 deg. Centigrade below its thawing point; that, consequently, between 28 deg. 4' and 32 deg. of Fahr. ice is actually passing through various degrees of plasticity within narrower limits, but in the same manner that wax, for example, softens before it melts.'" The "_softening_" here referred to is the "friability," of Sir J. Leslie, and what I have called a "loosening of the texture." Let us suppose the Serpentine covered by a sheet of pitch so smooth and hard as to enable a skater to glide over it; and which is afterwards gradually warmed until it begins to bend under his weight, and finally lets him through. A comparison of this deportment with that of a sheet of ice under the same circumstances enables us to decide whether ice "passes through various degrees of plasticity in the same manner as wax softens before it melts." M. Person concerned himself solely with the heat absorbed, and no doubt in both wax and ice that heat is expended in "interior work." In the one case, however, the body is so constituted that the absorbed heat is expended in rendering the substance viscous; and the question simply is, whether the heat absorbed by the ice gives its molecules a freedom of play which would entitle it also to be called viscous; whether, in short, "rotten ice" and softened wax present the same physical qualities?

FOOTNOTES:

[A] I borrow this term from Professor Clausius's excellent papers on the Dynamical Theory of Heat.

(20.)

There is one other point in connexion with the viscous theory which claims our attention. The announcement of that theory startled scientific men, and for two or three years after its first publication it formed the subject of keen discussion. This finally subsided, and afterwards Professor Forbes drew up an elaborate paper, which was presented in three parts to the Royal Society in 1845 and 1846, and subsequently published in the 'Philosophical Transactions.'

In the concluding portion of