Part 23

391. Still this was not the notion expressed by the majority of writers upon glaciers. Scheuchzer of Zürich, a great naturalist, visited the glaciers in 1705, and propounded a theory of their motion. Water, he knew, expands in freezing, and the force of expansion is so great, that thick bombshells filled with water, and permitted to freeze, are, as we know (312), shattered to pieces by the ice within. Scheuchzer supposed that the water in the fissures of the glaciers, freezing there and expanding with resistless force, was the power which urged the glacier downwards. He added to this theory other notions of a less scientific kind.

392. Many years subsequently, De Charpentier of Bex renewed and developed this theory with such ability and completeness, that it was long known as Charpentier's Theory of Dilatation. M. Agassiz for a time espoused this theory, and it was also more or less distinctly held by other writers. The glacier, in fact, was considered to be a magazine of cold, capable of freezing all water percolating through it. The theory was abandoned when this notion of glacier cold was proved by M. Agassiz to be untenable.

393. In 1760, Altmann and Grüner propounded the view that glaciers moved by sliding over their beds. Nearly forty years subsequently, this notion was revived by De Saussure, and it has therefore been called "De Saussure's Theory," or the "Sliding Theory" of glacier motion.

394. There was, however, but little reason to connect the name of De Saussure with this or any other theory of glaciers. Incessantly occupied in observations of another kind, this celebrated man devoted very little time or thought to the question of glacier motion. What he has written upon the subject reads less like the elaboration of a theory than the expression of an opinion.

§ 59. Plastic Theory.

395. By none of these writers is the property of viscosity or plasticity ascribed to glacier ice; the appearances of many glaciers are, however, so suggestive of this idea that we may be sure it would have found more frequent expression, were it not in such apparent contradiction with our every-day experience of ice.

396. Still the idea found its advocates. In a little book, published in 1773, and entitled "Picturesque Journey to the Glaciers of Savoy," Bordier of Geneva wrote thus:--"It is now time to look at all these objects with the eyes of reason; to study, in the first place, the position and the progression of glaciers, and to seek the solution of their principal phenomena. At the first aspect of the ice-mountains an observation presents itself, which appears sufficient to explain all. It is that the entire mass of ice is connected together, and presses from above downwards after the manner of fluids. Let us then regard the ice, not as a mass entirely rigid and immobile, but as a heap of coagulated matter, or as softened wax, flexible and ductile to a certain point." Here probably for the first time the quality of plasticity is ascribed to the ice of glaciers.

I am indebted to my distinguished friend Prof. Studer of Berne for directing my attention to Bordier's book, and to my friends at the British Museum for the great trouble they have taken to find it for me.

397. To us, familiar with the aspect of the glaciers, it must seem strange that this idea once expressed did not at once receive recognition and development. But in those early days explorers were few, and the "Picturesque Journey" probably but little known, so that the notion of plasticity lay dormant for more than half a century. But Bordier was at length succeeded by a man of far greater scientific grasp and insight than himself. This was Rendu, a Catholic priest and canon when he wrote, and afterwards Bishop of Annecy. In 1841 Rendu laid before the Royal Academy of Sciences of Savoy his "Theory of the Glaciers of Savoy," a contribution for ever memorable in relation to this subject.

"Memoirs of the Academy," vol. x.

398. Rendu seized the idea of glacier plasticity with great power and clearness, and followed it resolutely to its consequences. It is not known that he had ever seen the work of Bordier; probably not, as he never mentions it. Let me quote for you some of Rendu's expressions, which, however, fail to give an adequate idea of his insight and precision of thought:--"Between the Mer de Glace and a river there is a resemblance so complete that it is impossible to find in the glacier a circumstance which does not exist in the river. In currents of water the motion is not uniform either throughout their width or throughout their depth. The friction of the bottom and of the sides, with the action of local hindrances, causes the motion to vary, and only towards the middle of the surface do we obtain the full motion."

399. This reads like a prediction of what has since been established by measurement. Looking at the glacier of Mont Dolent, which resembles a sheaf in form, wide at both ends and narrow in the middle, and reflecting that the upper wide part had become narrow, and the narrow middle part again wide, Rendu observes, "There is a multitude of facts which seem to necessitate the belief that glacier ice enjoys a kind of ductility which enables it to mould itself to its locality, to thin out, to swell, and to contract as if it were a soft paste."

400. To fully test his conclusions, Rendu required the accurate measurement of glacier motion. Had he added to his other endowments the practical skill of a land-surveyor, he would now be regarded as the prince of glacialists. As it was he was obliged to be content with imperfect measurements. In one of his excursions he examined the guides regarding the successive positions of a vast rock which he found upon the ice close to the side of the glacier. The mean of five years gave him a motion for this block of 40 feet a year.

401. Another block, the transport of which he subsequently measured more accurately, gave him a velocity of 400 feet a year. Note his explanation of this discrepancy:--"The enormous difference of these two observations arises from the fact that one block stood near the centre of the glacier, which moves most rapidly, while the other stood near the side, where the ice is held back by friction." So clear and definite were Rendu's ideas of the plastic motion of glaciers, that had the question of curvature occurred to him, I entertain no doubt that he would have enunciated beforehand the shifting of the point of maximum motion from side to side across the axis of the glacier (§ 25).

402. It is right that you should know that scientific men do not always agree in their estimates of the comparative value of facts and ideas; and it is especially right that you should know that your present tutor attaches a very high value to ideas when they spring from the profound and persistent pondering of superior minds, and are not, as is too often the case, thrown out without the warrant of either deep thought or natural capacity. It is because I believe Rendu's labours fulfil this condition, that I ascribe to them so high a value. But when you become older and better informed, you may differ from me; and I write these words lest you should too readily accept my opinion of Rendu. Judge me, if you care to do so, when your knowledge is matured. I certainly shall not fear your verdict.

403. But, much as I prize the prompting idea, and thoroughly as I believe that often in it the force of genius mainly lies, it would, in my opinion, be an error of omission of the gravest kind, and which, if habitual, would ensure the ultimate decay of natural knowledge, to neglect verifying our ideas, and giving them outward reality and substance when the means of doing so are at hand. In science thought, as far as possible, ought to be wedded to fact. This was attempted by Rendu, and in part accomplished by Agassiz and Forbes.

§ 60. Viscous Theory.

404. Here indeed the merits of the distinguished glacialist last named rise conspicuously to view. From the able and earnest advocacy of Professor Forbes, the public knowledge of this doctrine of glacial plasticity is almost wholly derived. He gave the doctrine a more distinctive form; he first applied the term viscous to glacier ice, and sought to found upon precise measurements a "Viscous Theory" of glacier motion.

405. I am here obliged to state facts in their historic sequence. Professor Forbes when he began his investigations was acquainted with the labours of Rendu. In his earliest work upon the Alps he refers to those labours in terms of flattering recognition. But though as a matter of fact Rendu's ideas were there to prompt him, it would be too much to say that he needed their inspiration. Had Rendu not preceded him, he might none the less have grasped the idea of viscosity, executing his measurements and applying his knowledge to maintain it. Be that as it may, the appearance of Professor Forbes on the Unteraar glacier in 1841, and on the Mer de Glace in 1842, and his labours then and subsequently, have given him a name not to be forgotten in the scientific history of glaciers.

406. The theory advocated by Professor Forbes was enunciated by himself in these words:--"A glacier is an imperfect fluid, or viscous body, which is urged down slopes of certain inclination by the natural pressure of its parts." In 1773 Bordier wrote thus:--"As the glaciers always advance upon the plain, and never disappear, it is absolutely essential that new ice shall perpetually take the place of that which is melted: it must therefore be pressed forward from above. One can hardly refuse then to accept the astonishing truth, that this vast extent of hard and solid ice moves as a single piece downwards." In the passage already quoted he speaks of the ice being pressed as a fluid from above. These constitute, I believe, Bordier's contributions to this subject. The quotations show his sagacity at an early date; but, in point of completeness, his views are not to be compared with those of Rendu and Forbes.

407. I must not omit to state here that though the idea of viscosity has not been espoused by M. Agassiz, his measurements, and maps of measurements, on the Unteraar glacier have been recently cited as the most clear and conclusive illustrations of a quality which, at all events, closely resembles viscosity.

408. But why, with proofs before him more copious and characteristic than those of any other observer, does M. Agassiz hesitate to accept the idea of viscosity as applied to ice? Doubtless because he believes the notion to be contradicted by our every-day experience of the substance.

409. Take a mass of ice ten or even fifteen cubic feet in volume; draw a saw across it to a depth of half an inch or an inch; and strike a pointed pricker, not thicker than a very small round file, into the groove; the substance will split from top to bottom with a clean crystalline fracture. How is this brittleness to be reconciled with the notion of viscosity?

410. We have, moreover, been upon the glacier and have witnessed the birth of crevasses. We have seen them beginning as narrow cracks suddenly formed, days being required to open them a single inch. In many glaciers fissures may be traced narrow and profound for hundreds of yards through the ice. What does this prove? Did the ice possess even a very small modicum of that power of stretching, which is characteristic of a viscous substance, such crevasses could not be formed.

411. Still it is undoubted that the glacier moves like a viscous body. The centre flows past the sides, the top flows over the bottom, and the motion through a curved valley corresponds to fluid motion. Mr. Mathews, Mr. Froude, and above all Signor Bianconi, have, moreover, recently made experiments on ice which strikingly illustrate the flexibility of the substance. These experiments merit, and will doubtless receive, full attention at a future time.

§ 61. Regelation Theory.

412. I will now describe to you an attempt that has been made of late years to reconcile the brittleness of ice with, its motion in glaciers. It is founded on the observation, made by Mr. Faraday in 1850, that when two pieces of thawing ice are placed together they freeze together at the place of contact.

413. This fact may not surprise you; still it surprised Mr. Faraday and others, and men of very great distinction in science have differed in their interpretation of the fact. The difficulty is to explain where, or how, in ice already thawing the cold is to be found requisite to freeze the film of water between the two touching surfaces.