Showing 24 results

Two letters, one concerning portraits of pupils of William Hopkins [possibly portraits by Thomas Charles Wageman, shelfmark 307.bb.85.98], the other concerning the donation of her husband [H. M. Butler]'s books to the Library.

John Stevens Henslow thinks WH should succeed him in the office of Secretary to the Philosophical Society. Henslow says he has spoken to WW and Robert Willis about the subject: 'He asks me to consult with you about it' - although there is not really much to say on the subject.

Edinburgh - JDF has received notice from the Home Office that he has been appointed Principal at St. Andrews. He has heard that William Hopkins has had a lecture printed on glaciers 'which seems to have been industriously circulated in London. Can you tell me anything of it?'

Edinburgh - JDF has 'frittered away' the summer and has now returned to St. Andrew's for the winter. He read 'Arago's posthumous writings on Photometry and I do not think highly of them'. His chief reason for writing 'is to ask whether I can find anywhere in print the formalities used in your University' ceremonies. He was not at the BAAS meeting at Manchester: 'It seems to have been organized on too gigantic a scale'. George Airy's lecture on the ecliptic was presumably the 'chief novelty: but so far as one can judge from abstracts the results are just what we already knew'. William Hopkins '(who is now to be general secretary) could not let glacier theories alone; but has carefully abstained from printing forth any abstract'. JDF 'visited William Thomson at his place in Arran. He is still fearfullly lame'.

Pitlochry, Perthshire - JDF declines WW's invitation to the BAAS meeting at Cambridge: 'In addition to the fatigue of the journey and the bustle of the occasion I should have to meet in the section with persons who look at me with unfriendly eyes, and with whom I have not now nerve personally to contend...I have withdrawn from the struggle, though I can defend by the pen what I believe to be true. At the Association, General Sabine, Mr Hopkins and Dr Tyndall will be in the ascendant, and I should feel uncomfortable; - possibly they might also'. JDF sends the letter [still attached] he had intended to send to the Athenaeum as a reply to Tyndall's recent book [see JDF to WW, 29 June 1862].

Pitlochry, Perthshire - JDF gives his answers to WW's questions. Firstly, 'crevasses' - 'it is now generally allowed...to have a very secondary importance in the theory of glacier motion'. The 'zig zag form of the glacier complicates matters very much by superimposing different systems'. JDF has always maintained that the direction of crevasses is perpendicular to the veined structure, which is often almost the same as perpendicular to the curves of motion. JDF gives an historical overview of the views of the principal scholars involved in glacier theory, and their views on glacier motion. Secondly, 'veined structure' - 'From the very first I affirmed that the veined structure 'appears' to be perpendicular to the lines of greatest pressure'. John Tyndall and William Hopkins simply reiterate this. 'Nor can I for the life of me make out that Tyndall has found or stated any physical reason why pressure produces the effect, beyond William Thomson's explanation of the fact, which I fear is too subtle to be true'. JDF has 'never pretended to be able to define with precision forms which on my theory of differential motion of a semifluid or plastic mass, the vents, producing by reattachment the veined structure, would assume'. He does not think anybody in this country - except perhaps William Thomson, George Stokes and maybe George Airy - 'could grapple with the problem. The quasi fluid pressure of a plastic mass and its comparatively small tangential resistance, cannot be left out of account'. JDF's mechanical principles are generally adequate to the explanation. Above all he relies on 'Plastic models, to the results of which (on this subject) my adversaries have never dared to allude'. The models show the forms of fluid motion and were reproduced by Tyndall in the Philosophical Transactions 'with an almost illusory acknowledgement to me'. However, his most impressive model in which powdered surfaces are 'broken up by tangential motion' and realigned into 'thread like bands' corresponding to those on glaciers, as well as possessing partial crevasses exactly perpendicular to them, 'have been kept studiously out of sight'. Tyndall and Hopkins no longer send him 'copies of papers or books in which I am most deeply interested, and in which my name is most freely used'.

Writes on philosophy in Cambridge. States that the correspondence of Hare and Whewell gives him the impression 'that there was very little mental philosophy read at Cambridge in their younger days'. Whewell's lectures were very well attended in the early years after he was appointed professor, but the numbers attending declined after he began to develop his new system. Refers to the paper set on philosophy for the Trinity Fellowships, and to Trinity lecturers Thompson and Cope. Refers to his own undergraduate days from 1844 to 1848, and mentions the works on philosophy which were influential at that time: an article of ancient philosophy by [Maurice], and Lewes' Biographical History of Philosophy. Believes that Lewes led him and many of his contemporaries to read J.S. Mill.

States that in St. John's College in his time 'a meagre abridgement of Locke used to be read in the first year, which 'finally disappeared under Roby's zealous efforts to reform [the students].' In relation to mental philosophy in those days, remarks that there 'must have been persons who were fond of [it]', and reports that he say a copy of the French translation of some of Sir W. Hamilton's essays in the private room of the mathematical tutor Mr Hopkins. Relates that Herschel's [Preliminary Discourse on [the Study of] Natural Philosophy 'was a book much read at Cambridge'. Mentions the absence of any account of the Greek Philosophy in Thirlwall's History [of Greece], and the political activity in England consequent on the Reform Bill and its results, as possible causes of the lack of interest in [mental philosophy].

Refers to a perceived 'taste for philosophy' arising in the previous thirty years at Cambridge, and cites theological influences as the possible cause, e.g., Butler's Analogy [of Religion], the sermons of Harvey Goodwin, and Dr Mill's contact with Hare and his Christian Advocate publications. Relates having, with others, admired the Sermons of Archer Butler, and having encouraged Macmillan to buy Butler's manuscripts, and publish the Lectures on Ancient Philosophy. Thinks that they appeared in 1856. Refers to Sir W. Hamilton, who 'became first known to most Cambridge men for his attacks on mathematics and on the Universities', and to W. Walton 'of Trinity Hall formerly of Trin. Coll.'. Adds that in 1834 'Sterling and J.C. Hare and others wanted to found a prize for Essays on the Philosophy of Christianity in honour of Coleridge', but the H[eads] would not allow it. Announces that he shall publish two letters from Whewell to Hare on the subject.

Edinburgh - JDF's experiments with his subterranean thermometers have been so successful he has printed an early circular giving a first approximation of the results [attached to this letter - Discussion of One Year's Observations of Thermometers Sunk to Different Depths in Different Localities in the Neighbourhood of Edinburgh, private circulation, 1838: The aim of the experiments was to ascertain the progress of solar heat in the crust of the globe - see JDF to WW, 21 Sept. 1836]. JDF notes that Hopkins [William Hopkins] has been giving his views respecting the interior of the earth to the Royal Society: 'Are his results wholly dynamical or partly theoretical'. A pupil of JDF's has been investigating the temperature of the interior of the globe in the manner of S.D. Poisson but with P.L. Dulong and A.T. Petit's law. JDF came to Newcastle shortly after the BAAS meeting hoping to find WW. He saw Babbage [Charles Babbage]: 'as miserable as a man could well be after all his wanton mischief at Newcastle. He wished to make me a convert to his cause, but even by his own shewing he was so utterly in the wrong that there was no hope for him'. JDF has been at work on heat: 'trying to get the law of reflection at surfaces'.

Edinburgh - JDF is 'surprised with your astronomers [James Challis] speculations about the comet'. JDF is convinced it is a comet - especially since so many astronomers independently around Europe saw it more-or-less in the same orbit: 'But it is like Challis's old crotchet on the undulatory theory'. JDF is going to write up his European travels [Travels through the Alps of Savoy and other parts of the Pennine Chain with Observations on the Phenomena of Glaciers, 1843]. Adam Sedgwick expressed himself favourably to JDF regarding the glacier priority dispute between JDF and Louis Agassiz [see JDF to WW, 23 May 1842]. JDF thinks Hopkins [William Hopkins] comments may be interesting, but no more than the idea 'that the heat of the earth keeps the ice constantly detached from the sides and bottom except at the surface in winter'. All this will not move glaciers: 'it is essentially plastic and semi fluid, and this semifluidity is I am persuaded the main and almost the sole cause of its motion as I shall attempt to demonstrate in my book'.

Avignon - JDF is determined to spend the winter in the south: 'I had a serious, even alarming pulmonary inflammation at Bonn in July and August', although he is quite well now. JDF and Mrs Forbes are now on their way to Naples and Sicily, and intend to spend the spring in Rome. He is grateful for WW's 'approbation' of his book and would appreciate any comments he has concerning difficulties with his theory [Travels through the Alps of Savoy and other parts of the Pennine Chain with Observations on the Formation of Glaciers, 1843]: 'It is very odd that Hopkins [William Hopkins] seems to persist in considering my theory to be in opposition to his experiment whereas I have always admitted that his experiment, so far as the excessively minute gravity which the earth's heat can melt (1/25 inch per annum) can be of any avail, is very ingenious and to the point, and that it will help my Glacier down, but it is neither the cause of its moving, nor can it very materially affect the manner of it'. He would like WW to look at the models of viscous fluids which he has sent Heath [John M. Heath?], since they help in understanding its structure. He has had positive reactions to his book from Bischoff, Studer and Elie de Beaumont, 'all of whom adopt my views'.

Concerning the changes to exams.

The Rhine - They are returning home from the continent. JDF hopes to see WW at the BAAS meeting in York. He has carried out some experiments 'which I consider important as establishing directly the flexibility and viscosity of the ice, i.e. that the form of a transverse line even in the compactest part of the glacier does not become zig zag, thus [gives a picture], as it ought to be if the ice was jostled down in fragments but forms a sensibly continuous curve with slight inflections'. William Hopkins's glacier papers suggested these experiments: 'I cannot say I think much of his theory, in so far as it differs from that of viscous motion, and I think he has exaggerated the differences and suppressed the coincidences. I think too that the papers afford an unfortunate specimen of the application of analysis where the ABC of gravity and mechanics would be much better. In this respect they afford I think a very bad example in philosophizing. Several of these so called demonstrations merely repeat what has been formerly plainly said in words'.

Edinburgh - Thanks WW for his letter. JDF is waiting for William Hopkins' article in the Philosophical Magazine to appear before he gives a reply.

Edinburgh - William Hopkin's paper in the Philosophical Magazine is hardly worth noticing: 'It is an abstract of his former memoirs in which some of the weaker parts are omitted; although the investigation of the Temp. of the interior of a glacier is really too absurd a misapplication of mathematical powers not to make those who see that it really proves absolutely nothing, feel a little hurt at an attempt to put symbols for arguments, and facts to boot, so evidently intended to overawe the uninitiated. His attempt too to shew that I have confounded flexibility with fluidity or plasticity is an unhandsome one , and I believe unfounded'. JDF goes on to show why it is unfounded. He would appreciate WW writing a few words to the Philosophical Magazine in answer to Hopkins's criticisms: 'Mr Airy who kindly made a very careful study of the mechanical part of my theory, rates him even lower than I do. It is not therefore from the worth of the arguments themselves that I think they want refutation, nor am I afraid of their gaining any general acceptance beyond what the array of symbols produces in the mind of the ignorant: but I am chary of my reputation at Cambridge...and I know the great, the too great weight with which Hopkins's opinion impresses the younger men'. A word in support from WW would really help him: 'The public, always swayed by names , would think better of me if sustained by you'. JDF has written a paper about the focal adjustment of the eye to distances: 'I shall shew that the correction of spherical by the variable density of the crystalline is a mere dream of optical writers' [On a Possible Explanation of the Adaption of the Eye to Distinct Vision at Different Distances, Trans. of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1845].

Edinburgh - JDF is very pleased with WW's published letter on the glacier question [see JDF to WW, 8 Jan. 1845]: 'the observations are excellent and I think unanswerable'. He received a 'pretty rude shock from looking over Hopkins's voluminous paper', in which he has developed a 'set of truths stolen from me which he formerly utterly repudiated, and yet professes to find them as mere corollaries from or [un]important concomitants of, his x and y process'. JDF brings other aspects of Hopkins's argument to WW's attention which he feels are suspect and injurious to his reputation: 'may I hope that you will again put in a word in my defence...a competent judge like yourself would not only set me straight with a majority, but would act as an antidote abroad, where Hopkins's pretended demonstrations will be received as law by those ill disposed to me already, and unable to either understand or refute anything expressed in mathematical language'.

Edinburgh - Thanks WW for the letter he wrote in support of JDF's glacier theory: 'which has relieved more than anything else could possibly have done the annoyance which I have felt about Hopkins [William Hopkins]'. He encloses a paper he has written on a theory of adaptation and the 'infactuation which optical writers have had to insist on a Density connection of spherical aberration - when there was not the least reason to imagine that there was one spherical surface in the eye' [On a Possible Explanation of the Adaption of the Eye to Distinct Vision at Different Distances, Trans. of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1845, see JDF to WW, 8 Jan. 1845].

Edinburgh - JDF encloses the ninth letter he has written on glaciers [not present]: it 'contains conclusive evidence in favour of the facts and results maintained by me deduced from the observations of Agassiz's [Louis Agassiz] friends'. WW will shortly be receiving an article by him intended partly as a reply to William Hopkins, and secondly to state his reluctance engaging in 'an endless and unconvincing controversy'. JDF will act upon anything WW says: 'even should it be your decided opinion that I ought not to take any notice of Mr Hopkins'.

Edinburgh - Thanks WW for his letter. William Hopkins 'has certainly thrown away his temper' in his reply to WW [see JDF to WW, 5 Feb. 1845]. JDF would not have understood WH's accusation of sarcasm, but for 'the glossary which you have given me to make it intelligible; for nothing could be more discreetly worded than your last letter...Altogether Mr Hopkins's powers of sticking to his point, or making out any definite point to stick to, appear to me to be shewn to very little advantage in this controversy; there is a confusion of ideas which runs through the whole thing which seems to shew that he is not capable of grappling with any subject requiring either force or delicacy'. JDF notes in the April number of the Philosophical Magazine that he has Darwin as a supporter. He has re-read WW's Indications of the Creator, 'intended as an antidote I presume to that very dangerous book Vestiges of Creation Pray who is the author?' JDF trusts that WW has received the proofs of his article from the printers [see JDF to WW, 2 Apr. 1845]. 'I don't know how Hopkins will look when he finds that the author of the term "viscous" applied to my glacier theory was, - Sir John Herschel'.

Brodick, Arran - Thanks WW for his suggestions regarding the proofs to his forthcoming article defending his glacier theory against William Hopkins criticisms [see JDF to WW, 2 Apr. 1845], and has consequently 'not only adopted these, but softened the expressions throughout almost every part of the article...I added a P.S...on the subject of his remarks on my models and experiments with his own. As usual he simply denies whatever does not suit him, such as the striated structure being produced by the Differential motions. His own experiments were made by moving the centre of his glacier mechanically not by gravity or the reaction of the parts of the model upon one another; and he states that in comparing the Results with his Theory, it is immaterial in what manner the movement was produced. Am I not thus perfectly justified in affirming that such experiments being irrespective of the cause of motion cannot affirm one cause rather than another'.

Written from Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge.

29 Eaton Place - Mr Hopkins' [William Hopkins] paper on cracks in the crust of the Earth's surface is a big disappointment: 'With respect to the hypothesis of a crust, in contact with an interior fluid it appears to me a state of things which could not subsist. Unless they be in contact and continue so, the fluid would exert no pressure against the crust. If they were once in contact the slightest irregularity in their expansibilities by heat would make this condition cease, and the higher tides, which would never amount to above a few feet, would never reach the crust'. JWL hopes WW will write something upon the tides as a whole.