H. Thomas Esq.1 | Llwyn Madoc2 | Builth Wells | S. Wales. | Oct 18. 60
My dear Sir,
Possibly you may and probably you may not have heard of the very serious accident I have recently met with. While staying with my friend Mr Thomas at this place, I slipped in descending a steep bank down which I fell with such violence as to dislocate the joint of the left knee which was only reduced after three painful efforts. It is now upwards of three weeks ago, and ever since I have been tied by this unhappy leg to the bed in which I am now lying, and where I must probably lie for three weeks longer. However the knee is progressing I believe to the satisfaction of the surgeon, though its progress seems to me at least very slow. I am with friends too who have ample wills as well as ample means of affording me every comfort and I have my wife and daughter with me, so that there is much to counteract all grumbling tendencies. Since the first few days also I have not suffered so much pain as to prevent my being able to think sufficiently to do some work which of course has been my best resource. I have chiefly occupied myself with the review of your ‘Alpine Glaciers’,3 but I am unfortunately without the slightest means of reference on the subject, having nothing but your book and the pamphlet which Forbes has just put forth.4 Of course I discuss the questions between you not as a personal question, but in reference to Rendu’s claims.5 I don’t think however that you have said a word in the whole book to give Forbes any ground of personal complaint. One question is, how far Forbes gave as much of Rendu’s views as the public had any right to expect of him in his ‘Travels’;6 I don’t know that we have a right to hold him responsible for not giving more, and you have not said that he is so. But the real question is, as regards justice to Rendu, whether the scientific public did or did not possess sufficient means of duly comparing his claims with Forbes’s. Now it is manifest that Rendu’s views were far too little known for this purpose, and you have only rendered him an act of common justice in the more ample view you have given of them. But I must see Rendu’s original memoir.7 Can’t you send it to me here by post? Forbes’s insulated extracts evidently give a very imperfect notion of it. Can you also send me a copy of Forbes’s memoir in the ‘Transactions’ of the Royal Society?8 I can’t get here at my own. I suspect that the notion he has put forth there, of the internal pressure of a glacier arising from the hydrostatic pressure of the water contained in the capillary tubes of the ice, to involve an absolute hydrostatical blunder. In fact I believe that all his statics, hydrostatics and dynamics are nothing but a demonstrable series of blunders. Send me those two memoirs as soon as you can. I like your book exceedingly.
My review will form, I believe, at least an attempt at a far more complete discussion of glacier theories than has yet appeared, and I hope too a more impartial one. I confess to you that I rather regret not having reserved the first offer of it to the Quarterly, in which I don’t recollect any decent article on the subject. Do you think Parker9 would like its being offered to the Quarterly? If not, I should of course not think of it. It would thus constitute a higher notice of your book, and would probably be of more use to it than any notice in Fraser.10 Is this a question which you can suggest to Parker and discuss with him. He is said to be rather peppery and it may require some delicacy. However I will leave it in your hands. I should have no objection, either, to write a shorter article for Fraser, expressly as a review (comparatively short and popular) of your book, and reserve a more general Essay to offer to the Quarterly. I could have the former ready for Fraser Dec. number.11 The Essay would make a long article for Fraser, but not a long one for the Quarterly. Let me know your thoughts about all this.
I have no means here of hearing any scientific gossip. What do they say of Forbes’s pamphlet? I think it was utterly uncalled for; but people always prick up their ears at the prospect of little fightings, whether it be Sayers and Heenan12 or Forbes and Tyndall.
Yours truly | W. Hopkins.
Further thoughts—my more general Essay will be, I find, too long for Fraser. It would have to be divided which is a great evil. Whatever may become of it; I must write a shorter review for Fraser.
RI MS JT/1/TYP/2/620–2
LT Typescript Only
H. Thomas Esq.: Henry Thomas (1808–63), landowner and magistrate (from Burke’s Landed Gentry 1846, vol. 2, p. 1386).
Llywn Madoc : Llywn Madoc was an estate belonging to Henry Thomas, near Builth Wells.
your ‘Alpine Glaciers’: Glaciers of the Alps, see also letter 1595, n. 4.
the pamphlet which Forbes has just put forth: Following Tyndall’s section ‘Rendu’s Theory’ in Glaciers of the Alps, pp. 299–308, Forbes published a separate pamphlet to supplement the ‘Prefatory Note’ in Forbes (1860), pp. xiii–xxix: J. D. Forbes, Reply to Professor Tyndall's Remarks, in His Work “On the Glaciers of the Alps,” Relating to Rendu’s “Théorie Des Glaciers” (Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1860).
Rendu’s claims: see letters 1619, n. 13 and 1708, n. 5.
his ‘Travels’: see letter 1594, n. 13.
Rendu’s original memoir: see letter 1619, n. 13.
Forbes’s memoir in the ‘Transactions’ of the Royal Society: In 1846, Forbes had published his memoir in three parts: ‘Illustrations of the Viscous Theory of Glacier Motion’, Phil. Trans., 136 (1846), pp. 143–210.
Parker: see letter 1707.
Fraser: Fraser’s Magazine, edited by John Parker.
ready for Fraser Dec. number: Hopkins produced this article (anonymously): ‘The Glaciers of the Alps’, Fraser’s Magazine, 62 (December 1860), pp. 793–809. Much later he produced, again anonymously, an article for the Quarterly Review: ‘Voyages dans les Alpes…’, Quarterly Review, 114 (1863), pp. 76–125.
Sayers and Heenan: on 17th April 1860, the all-American boxing champion John Carmel Heenan came to England to fight ‘Brighton Titch’ Tom Sayers, the champion of England, in an illegal, bare-knuckle fight, perhaps the first ‘world-title’ contest. It was declared a draw after 42 rounds, when the fight was broken up by the police, and the contestants shared the £400 purse.
Please cite as “Tyndall1731,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on