Discovering the Ice Ages International

Reception and Consequences for a

Historical Understanding of Climate 1st
Edition Krüger
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/discovering-the-ice-ages-international-reception-and-
consequences-for-a-historical-understanding-of-climate-1st-edition-kruger/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Solar Magnetic Cause of Climate Changes and Origin

of the Ice Ages 1st Edition Don Easterbrook

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-solar-magnetic-cause-of-
climate-changes-and-origin-of-the-ice-ages-1st-edition-don-
easterbrook/

Brexit and the Consequences for International

Competitiveness Arkadiusz Micha■ Kowalski

https://textbookfull.com/product/brexit-and-the-consequences-for-
international-competitiveness-arkadiusz-michal-kowalski/

Social Policy in a Cold Climate: Policies and Their

Consequences since the Crisis 1st Edition Ruth Lupton
(Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-policy-in-a-cold-climate-
policies-and-their-consequences-since-the-crisis-1st-edition-
ruth-lupton-editor/

Fire and Ice 02 A King for the Sorceress 1st Edition

Amelia Shaw

https://textbookfull.com/product/fire-and-ice-02-a-king-for-the-
sorceress-1st-edition-amelia-shaw/
The Little Ice Age How Climate Made History 1300 1850
Brian Fagan

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-little-ice-age-how-climate-
made-history-1300-1850-brian-fagan/

Glaciers and Ice Sheets in the Climate System The

Karthaus Summer School Lecture Notes 1st Edition Andrew
Fowler

https://textbookfull.com/product/glaciers-and-ice-sheets-in-the-
climate-system-the-karthaus-summer-school-lecture-notes-1st-
edition-andrew-fowler/

Political rationale and international consequences of

the war in Libya 1st Edition Henriksen

https://textbookfull.com/product/political-rationale-and-
international-consequences-of-the-war-in-libya-1st-edition-
henriksen/

The Two Degrees Dangerous Limit for Climate Change:

Public Understanding and Decision Making 1st Edition
Shaw

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-two-degrees-dangerous-limit-
for-climate-change-public-understanding-and-decision-making-1st-
edition-shaw/

River Ice Processes and Ice Flood Forecasting A Guide

for Practitioners and Students Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt

https://textbookfull.com/product/river-ice-processes-and-ice-
flood-forecasting-a-guide-for-practitioners-and-students-karl-
erich-lindenschmidt/
Discovering the Ice Ages
 History of Science
and Medicine Library

VOLUME 37

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/hsml

 Discovering the Ice Ages
International Reception and Consequences for a
Historical Understanding of Climate

By

Tobias Krüger

Translated by
Ann M. Hentschel

Leiden • boston
2013
Cover illustration: Nagelfluh (molasse conglomerate) Findling, near Knonau, Canton Zurich,
© Tobias Krüger.

Translated with generous grants from the Berne University Research Foundation and the Mercator
Foundation Switzerland.

Tobias Krüger is supported by the Swiss NCCR Climate Programme.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Krüger, Tobias, 1976-

[Entdeckung der Eiszeiten. English]
Discovering the ice ages : international reception and consequences for a historical
­understanding of climate / by Tobias Krüger ; translated by Ann M. Hentschel.
pages cm. — (History of science and medicine library, ISSN 1872-0684 ; volume 37)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-90-04-24169-5 (hardback : acid-free paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-24170-1
(e-book) 1. Geology, Stratigraphic—Pleistocene. 2. Glacial epoch. 3. Geology—History.
4. Climatology—History. I. Title.

QE697.K7813 2013
551.7’92—dc23
2013016827

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1872-0684
ISBN 978-90-04-24169-5 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-24170-1 (e-book)

Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Dedicated to the persons to whom I owe the most in life:
My parents
 Contents

List of Figures . .................................................................................................. xi

Preface and Acknowledgments ................................................................... xvii

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Basic Preliminary Thoughts ........................................................ 1
1.2 The Issues ......................................................................................... 3
1.3 Relevance .......................................................................................... 4
1.4 Method .............................................................................................. 5
1.5 Structure . .......................................................................................... 7
1.6 Sources . ............................................................................................. 7
1.7 State of the Art in the Literature . ............................................. 10

2 How Erratic Blocks Caught the Eye of Science . ............................. 23

2.1 Giants, Trolls, and the Devil: Early Explanations ................. 23
2.2 Theoretical Diversity in Geology’s Heroic Age . .................... 24
2.3 Volcanic Bombs and Mudflows . ................................................ 26
2.4 Monstrous, Horrific Floods . ........................................................ 30
2.5 Ice and Debris ................................................................................. 38
2.6 “Nature’s Most Powerful Engines” . ........................................... 46
2.6.1 A Genevan Geographer’s Excursion .......................... 46
2.6.2 Gruner’s Ice Mountains of Switzerland .................... 47
2.6.3 The First Glaciological Research Project . ................ 48
2.6.4 De Saussure’s Trip through the Alps ......................... 55
2.6.5 Plastic Flow ....................................................................... 55
2.6.6 Ice as Tenacious as Pitch .............................................. 56
2.6.7 Reflections by the Scottish Private Scholar
James Hutton .................................................................... 57
2.6.8 One Mathematician Draws His Conclusions .......... 63
2.6.9 A Scot Tours the Alps .................................................... 66
2.6.10 Erratic Blocks in the New World ................................ 68
2.6.11 Glaciers at the Antipodes ............................................. 70
2.6.12 Of Erratic Chunks and Extraterrestrials:
A Bavarian Professor’s Unconventional Ideas ........ 71
2.6.13 Huge Piles of Granite ..................................................... 78
2.6.14 Thoughts by Savvy Alpines . ......................................... 78
2.7 Preliminary Conclusions .............................................................. 83
viii contents

3 Glacier Advances and Icy Theories: 1810–1830 ................................ 85

3.1 No Climate Determinism—Preamble about the Influence
of Climate on Societal Behavior ................................................ 85
3.2 Wahlenberg’s Pre-Adamite Springtime Flood ....................... 88
3.3 Ice-Age Traces in Norway ............................................................ 91
3.4 The Engineer and the Ice Age .................................................... 97
3.5 Minister of Mining Goethe Has His Own Ideas . .................. 109
3.6 Jameson’s Discovery of Moraines in Scotland . ..................... 130
3.7 Cometary Impact, Deluge, and Ice Age: A Scottish Scholar
Is Magnanimous ............................................................................. 132
3.8 How Esmark’s Theory Reached the German-Speaking
Realm ................................................................................................. 137
3.9 Preliminary Conclusions about Ice-Age Theories of the
1820s ................................................................................................. 138

4 Glacier and Ice-Age Theories in the First Half of the 1830s . ...... 141
4.1 Professor Bernhardi’s Polar Caps . ............................................. 141
4.2 The Systematist ............................................................................... 148
4.3 Periods of Activation and Stagnation ...................................... 155
4.4 Conclusion on Ice-Age and Glacier Theories 1830–1836 .... 162

5 The Grand Synthesis . .............................................................................. 165

5.1 Ode to the Ice Age or the End of a Friendship . ................... 165
5.2 Preliminary Conclusions on the Agassiz/Schimper
Synthesis . .......................................................................................... 186
5.3 Excursus—between Popularization and Nationalism:
“La théorie suisse des glaciers” . ................................................. 188

6 International Reception of Glacial Theory . ..................................... 191

6.1 France ................................................................................................ 191
6.1.1 Apprehension and Development of the Ice-Age
Theory .................................................................................. 191
6.1.2 Preliminary Conclusions: Passive Opposition and
Innovative Progress .......................................................... 239
6.2 The Theory’s Path to Great Britain ........................................... 244
6.2.1 A Scottish Journal Editor and Other Pathfinders ... 244
6.2.2 Agassiz’s 2,000-Mile Tour ............................................... 249
6.2.3 Three Papers before the Geological Society ............. 256
6.2.4 Objections and Criticisms .............................................. 259
6.2.5 Research on Glacial Geology Continues . .................. 262
 contents ix

6.2.6 The Two Most Influential Critics ............................... 266

6.2.7 The Submergence Theory or the Ice-Age
Inundation ........................................................................ 272
6.2.8 The Beginnings of Glacial Research Overseas
within the British Empire . ........................................... 283
6.2.9 First Evidence of Older Ice Ages ................................ 286
6.2.10 Preliminary Conclusions about the Beginnings
of Glacial Geology on the British Isles ..................... 290
6.3 Ice-Age Research in Sweden ....................................................... 295
6.3.1 Between Fiery Furnaces and Icy Hypotheses . ....... 295
6.3.2 Slideways to Errors and Misadventures ................... 298
6.3.3 Arctic Shells in Temperate Latitudes . ...................... 305
6.3.4 The Ice Age Becomes Presentable Again ................ 307
6.3.5 Between Conditional Acceptance and
Breakthrough . .................................................................. 310
6.3.6 A Grade-School Inspector Makes the Ice Age
Popular ............................................................................... 314
6.3.7 Scandinavian Inland Ice ............................................... 320
6.3.8 Preliminary Conclusion about Ice-Age Research
in Sweden .......................................................................... 329
6.4 The Ice of the East: Ice-Age Theory in Finland and
Russia ................................................................................................. 331
6.4.1 Flood of Stones to Age of Ice ...................................... 331
6.4.2 A Russian Anarchist Lends Wings to Glacial
Geology .............................................................................. 335
6.4.3 Preliminary Conclusions about Ice-Age Research
in the Russian Empire ................................................... 352
6.5 The Arduous Path to Acceptance of a New Theory ............ 354
6.5.1 Early Attempts to Establish the Ice-Age Theory in
the German States .......................................................... 354
6.5.2 The Breakthrough of Ice-Age Theory in
Germany ............................................................................ 367
6.5.3 Reasons for the Tardy Acceptance of the
Ice-Age Theory in Germany . ....................................... 382
6.6 Remarkable Blocks in North America . .................................... 387
6.6.1 The Reaction to the Ice-Age Theory in the
United States and Canada . .......................................... 387
6.6.2 Preliminary Conclusion: The Reception of the
Glacial Theory in North America . ............................. 396
x contents

7 The Search for Causes of the Ice Ages . ............................................. 399

7.1 A Tumbling Earth ......................................................................... 399
7.2 A First Glance at CO2 .................................................................. 416
7.3 Experiments on Heat Absorption by Gases ......................... 418
7.4 Thoughts among the Stockholm Society of Physicists . .... 422
7.5 Anthropogenic Global Warming: From Optimism to
Pessimism ....................................................................................... 434

8 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 441

8.1 Stumbling Blocks .......................................................................... 441
8.2 An Era of Extreme Cold . ............................................................ 444
8.3 The Grand Synthesis Revisited . ............................................... 447
8.4 Resistance to the Ice-Age Theory ............................................ 451
8.5 Differing Conceptions of Scale and Type of Glacial
Period ............................................................................................... 456
8.6 The 1870s: Final Breakthrough of the Ice-Age Theory ...... 458
8.7 Other Lands, Other Debates . .................................................... 460
8.8 Forms and Forums of Scientific Exchange ........................... 468
8.9 The Beginnings of Popularization ........................................... 469
8.10 Characteristics of the Contemporary Discussion ............... 472
8.11 Looking Ahead .............................................................................. 474

Sources ................................................................................................................ 477

Archives ......................................................................................................... 477
References ..................................................................................................... 477
Editions ..................................................................................................... 477
Primary Literature ................................................................................. 478
Secondary Literature ............................................................................ 497
Internet Publications ................................................................................. 508
Signed Webpages ................................................................................... 508
Unsigned Webpages . ............................................................................ 508
Journals and Newspapers ......................................................................... 509
Index of Places . ................................................................................................ 513
Index of Names ................................................................................................ 517
Index of Subjects . ............................................................................................ 530
 List of Figures

1. Daniel Tilas (1712–1772) .......................................................................... 38

2. Johann Carl Wilhelm Voigt (1752–1821) ............................................. 40
3. A drift block, transported by an iceberg, deposited in marine
sediment . .................................................................................................... 42
4. Jakob Samuel Wyttenbach (1748–1830). Painting by Franz
Nicolaus König (1756–1832) from 1785. Posing with his
collection of natural specimens and his preacher’s hat,
Wyttenbach presents himself as cleric and scientist .................... 50
5. Bernhard Friedrich Kuhn (1762–1825). Oil painting by
Franz Nikolaus König (1756–1832) . ..................................................... 51
6. James Hutton (1726–1797). Painting by the portrait artist
Henry Raeburn (1756–1823) from around 1780. With various
rock and mineral samples placed on the table on his left,
Hutton presents himself as a scientifically interested scholar .... 58
7. John Playfair (1748–1819) ........................................................................ 63
8. Franz von Paula Gruithuisen (1774–1852). Lithograph by
Roman Leitner (Leiter) (1805–1834) after the painting by
Joseph Anton Rhomberg (1786–1855) . ............................................... 76
9. Jean-Pierre Perraudin (1767–1858) on a photograph probably
taken in the 1850s. The identification is not quite certain . ........ 80
10. Perraudin’s entry in Gilliéron’s travel diary ..................................... 82
11. Jens Esmark (1763–1839). Drawing probably by Carl Ludvig
von Pløtz (1803–1849) . ............................................................................ 93
12. The Haukelivann in southwestern Norway with the terminal
moraine that Esmark examined in 1823 ............................................ 95
13. Old-age portrait of Ignaz Venetz (1788–1859) . ................................ 106
14. Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817) ............................................... 112
15. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832). This portrait was
drawn by Joseph Stieler (1781–1851) in 1828 by commission of
King Ludwig I of Bavaria. It depicts Goethe in the year he
formulated his ice-age theory . ............................................................. 115
16. Robert Jameson (1774–1854). Davies 1969, plate I. Originally
from The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, LVII, 1854 . ........ 131
17. Jean de Charpentier (1786–1855). Lithograph . ................................ 151
xii list of figures

18. De Charpentier’s reconstruction of the extension of the ice-age

Rhône Glacier, dated 1841. The blue area represents the region
covered by the glacier ............................................................................ 152
19. Karl Friedrich Schimper. Steel engraving by C. Geyer 1866 in
Munich after a photographic portrait taken in 1854/55
in Jena ......................................................................................................... 156
20. De Charpentier’s villa Solitaire built in the classicist style in
1825 in Devens near Bex . ...................................................................... 161
21. Louis Agassiz in 1844. Lithograph by Antoine Sonrel († 1879)
From Hercule Nicolet’s (1801–1872) lithographic workshop in
Neuchâtel ................................................................................................... 166
22. With this diagram Agassiz illustrated in his Études how he
understood the development of temperatures over the course
of Earth history. He had already included a very similar sketch
in the printed version of his Discours (Agassiz 1837b, XXX).
According to Carozzi (1966, 65), he was indebted to Schimper
for this sketch ........................................................................................... 180
23. Glacial striae of Le Landeron by Lake Biel that the
excursionists of the Société Géologique viewed in 1838, in an
illustration from 1840 ............................................................................. 194
24. Polished rock surface on the Hälen Platte along Säumerweg,
the old path leading from the Haslital valley over the Grimsel
Pass into Valais. Most probably it was this rock surface that
Renoir mentioned ................................................................................... 197
25. Cross-section through a ground moraine by the roadside on
the north shore of Loch Torridon in the northwestern Scottish
Highlands. The unsorted till is clearly visible, ranging in size
from clay particles to large pieces of rock. The reddish color
of this ground moraine comes from the sandstone common
to that region ............................................................................................ 204
26. Portrait of Édouard Collomb (1801–1875) drawn by an
unknown artist in 1839 .......................................................................... 218
27. Map of the Valley of Saint-Amarin in the southern Vosges
indicating the glacial traces identified by Éduard Collomb in
1847. Note how Wesserling, the town in which Collomb lived,
is situated on one of the large moraines traversing the valley.
North of there is the knoll Hasenbühl which he had studied
more closely .............................................................................................. 220
28. Scatched stone from the moraine of Wesserling. Compared
with illustrations of striated drift in Agassiz’s “Studies” this
depiction is considerably coarser and more schematic .............. 221
 list of figures xiii

29. Cross-section through the Hasenbühl knoll overlooking

Collomb’s town of Wesserling ............................................................. 221
30. The ice-age glacier in the valley of Saint-Amarin, depicted by
Collomb. This is presumably the first reconstructed image of
a glacier from the glacial age ............................................................... 222
31. Élie Beaumont (1798–1874) . ................................................................. 242
32. According to Figuier, after the Scandinavian Mountains rose
up, a giant wave deluged northern Europe. It carried icebergs
loaded with debris. Drawing by Édouard Rioux (1833–1900) .... 243
33. The illustration Agassiz presented in Glasgow permitted
comparison between current and ice-age glacier striations.
Actual drift is depicted from Zermatt (1 and 2) and from
Rosenlaui Glacier (3 and 4). A sample piece with glacial-age
striae from the area of Le Landeron on Lake Biel in western
Switzerland (5) is juxtaposed for comparison. Agassiz showed
this illustration in Glasgow before it was published in the
plate section of his “Studies” . .............................................................. 251
34. William Buckland (1784–1856). Painting by Thomas Phillips
(1770–1845) dated 1832 ........................................................................... 255
35. Roderick Impey Murchison (1792–1871) in 1836 from a sketch
by William Drummond (floruit 1800–1850). Original among
the holdings of the British Museum .................................................. 267
36. A map by Jamieson from 1862 depicting the glacier traces in
Inverness-shire in western Scotland. Different from Collomb’s
map of the Vosges from 1847, here the distribution of erratic
rock types is indicated ........................................................................... 276
37. General map of Scotland showing the distribution of glacial
striae known to Jamieson in 1862 and indicating his deduced
directions of flow of the ancient glaciers . ....................................... 277
38. Andrew Crombie Ramsay (1814–1891) ............................................... 279
39. Archibald Geikie (1835–1924) . ............................................................. 279
40. Exposed rock with glacial striations in Inman Valley, South
Australia. Photograph taken by W. Howchin around 1900 ........ 288
41. Glacial striae discovered by Sutherland near Noitgedacht in
South Africa . ............................................................................................. 289
42. Otto Martin Torell (1828–1900). A map of southern
Scandinavia is visible in the background, on which arrows
indicate the direction of motion of ice-age glaciers. This
portrait was painted by Axel Wallert (1890–1962) in 1939 from
a photograph from 1888. Today the painting is owned by the
Swedish Geological Survey, which Torell once headed . ............. 327
xiv list of figures

43. A typical sheepback in southern Norway, about 180 kilometers

away from the nearest glacier. Boehtlingk also encountered
similar rocky humps in Finland. The smoothed thrust side
seen on the right indicates the direction from which the
glacier came. The lee side on the left drops steeply and has
weathered and jointed faces ................................................................ 332
44. Adolph von Morlot (1820–1867) .......................................................... 362
45. The glacial traces of Rüdersdorf, photographed in 1899 ............. 378
46. James Croll (1821–1890) . ........................................................................ 410
47. Superimposed changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt.
Calculated oscillations of the separate factors over the last
500,000 years and their effects on the solar radiation between
60° and 70° northern latitude ............................................................. 412
48 Milutin Milanković (1879–1958) in 1943, portrayed by Pavle
(Paja) Jovanović (1859–1957) ................................................................ 415
49. The experimental apparatus John Tyndall used to determine
the heat absorptance of different gases ........................................... 421
50. Arvid Gustav Högbom (1857–1940) .................................................... 424
51. Svante August Arrhenius (1859–1927). Copy painted by
Richard Berg (1858–1919) of a portrait painted by David
Tägtström (1894–1981) in 1910, now owned by the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences ............................................................. 427
52. This diagram presents the most important advocates of
glacial theories between 1815 and 1845. No distinction is made
between conceptions of true Ice Ages and more local
glaciations. The lower a name appears in this diagram, the
more staunchly Neptunistic is that individual’s conception;
the higher up, the more Vulcanistic or Plutonian it is rated.
The time line runs from left to right. The connecting lines
do not necessarily represent simple conveyance of ideas
between individuals. They are merely symbolic of
documentable links of substance and argument, irrespective
of whether one-sided or reciprocal. This depiction reveals the
central position Agassiz held in the propagation of the
new theory . ............................................................................................... 450
53. The life spans of central pioneers, advocates, and opponents
of early ice-age theory. Design by Laurent Rengarten 2001 ....... 451
 list of figures xv

54. The giant Pierre des Marmettes in Monthey as depicted in

de Charpentier’s Essai. The successful campaign to save it
from being dynamited for construction purposes motivated
the founding of Switzerland’s nature conservation league
in 1909 ......................................................................................................... 467
55. The success of Figuier’s book inspired the British cartoonist
George du Maurier (1834–1896) to publish this caricature in
1868 in the satirical magazine Punch. A boy, clutching what is
surely his Christmas present—a copy of Figuier’s book—is
being pursued by a prehistoric monster. Farther down the
street an English bobby, totally oblivious of this nightmarish
struggle to escape in shoes heavily weighed down by clods of
snow, is nonchalantly inspecting the beast, which somewhat
resembles an ice-age mammoth ......................................................... 471
 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preface to the First Edition

In autumn 2002 I initially began to work on my dissertation with the

vague goal of examining the historical development of our current under-
standing of climate. This thesis project was set within the Swiss National
Science Foundation’s national research focus on climate. A preparatory
stage of some months ending in spring 2003 narrowed down the topic to
the Ice Ages. My interest eventually focused more sharply on their discov-
ery and the beginning inquiries. This topic suited the research location
Berne in many respects: Swiss authors have been studying not only gla-
ciers but also erratic blocks since the 17th century. Also, from the 18th cen-
tury on, Switzerland became a center for the first scientific investigations
on glaciers, thanks to the relative ease with which its “icy mountains”—
Eisgebirge—are accessed. The development of glacial geology in the 19th
century into an important field of research was based on the discovery
of the Glacial Era. Various scientists, such as the Valaisian cantonal engi-
neer Ignaz Venetz, the geologist Jean de Charpentier (originally from
Saxony), and the dynamic paleontologist Louis Agassiz attracted atten-
tion internationally to the field with their publications since the 1830s.
The numerous contemporary publications, easily accessible in the librar-
ies of the University of Berne, afford good insight into the glacial research
of the 19th century, within Switzerland as well as abroad. Another reason
why this topic appeared worthwhile to me was that it has been overshad-
owed by other great scientific discoveries of its time. There lacked a more
sweeping account of the beginnings of ice-age research worldwide. Last
but not least, the discovery of the Glacial Era and the insights connected
with the way climate works form a bridge to the current debate about
climate change.
First, I thank my colleagues, with whom I shared not only office S224 in
the Unitobler building for three years, but also many a conversation about
every aspect of my dissertation. Likewise, I am indebted to the rest of the
staff at the Section for Economic, Social, and Environmental History for
creating such a friendly, collegial, and constructive working atmosphere.
I would especially like to thank Prof. Dr. Christian Pfister, who made this
thesis possible and was ever ready to discuss it with me. For kind and
xviii preface and acknowledgments

competent information I furthermore thank PD Dr. Jürg Luterbacher and

Erich Fischer of the Geographical Institute at the University of Berne.
Special thanks are due to Samuel Nussbaumer, who translated the Swedish
literature for me. Finally, I thank the Swiss National Science Foundation
for funding and administratively attending this research within the frame-
work of the program: Nationaler Forschungsschwerpunkt Klima and thus
assured suitable conditions for my research activities. In this connection
I particularly thank Prof. Dr. Heinz Wanner, Director of the Oeschger
Center for Research on Climate Change at the University of Berne and
head of the National Centre of Competence in Research, Climate (NCCR-
Climate) for his interest and support of my research.
For critical perusal of individual sections of the present work, I owe
thanks to André Kirchhofer, Marliese Krüger, Eckard Krüger, Christian
Mack, Guido Nicolaus Poliwoda, Margit Rüttinger, Doris Therburg, and
Thomas Weber. Julia Grütter Binkert actively and competently copyedited
the publication as reader of the original German edition by Schwabe
publishers.
The present work could not have been printed without in part sub-
stantial contributions by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the
Hochschulstiftung of the Burgergemeinde Bern, the Oeschger Center for
Research on Climate Change at the University of Berne, the F. A. Forel
Legacy of the Swiss Academy of Sciences, the Karl-Jaberg-Stiftung, the
Chair for Economic, Social, and Environmental History in the History
Institute at the University of Berne, as well as the Stiftung Marchese
Francesco Medici del Vascello.

Berne/Uettligen, 15 December 2006

Preface to the English Edition

The discovery of the ice ages over the course of the nineteenth cen-
tury has been overshadowed by other major scientific discoveries of the
period. Consequently a broader, internationally comparative account of
the beginnings of research on the glacial ages has been lacking. Such
a work is especially beneficial, as the discovery of the glacial ages and
the insights into how climate works casts a bridge over to the present
debate on current issues of climate change. It is no coincidence that the
present book was written under the hospices of the National Centre of
Competence in Research, Climate (NCCR-Climate) at the University of
Berne, Switzerland.
 preface and acknowledgments xix

For the original German edition of this work I am gratefully obliged

to Prof. Dr. Christian Pfister on the Chair for Economic, Social and
Environmental History at the University of Berne. He made possible the
underlying research and was ever accessible for discussions. My acknowl-
edgments of the numerous other persons and institutions who contrib-
uted toward the publication of the German manuscript appear in the
foregoing preface to the original edition.
I would explicitly like to thank here the founding president of the
Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, Prof. Dr. Heinz Wanner,
who supported the work on the German as well as English versions of
this book with his interest and counsel. My gratitude also goes to Prof.
Dr. Jean-Paul Schaer, Centre d’hydrogéologie et de géothermie, Université
de Neuchâtel, for his pointers.
Margret Möhl, at NCCR-Climate, as well as Kaspar Meuli, likewise at
NCCR-Climate and Prof. Dr. André Holenstein of the History Institute at
the University of Berne, must also be mentioned in appreciation for their
administrative assistance in the materialization of this book.
Moreover I owe thanks to Sabine Steenbeek and Ellen Girmscheid at
Brill who guided me through the production process of this book.
The present, expanded translation could not have been realized with-
out the funding by the Forschungsstiftung of the University of Berne and
the Mercator Stiftung Schweiz.
At this place I would particularly like to thank Ann M. Hentschel for
her dedicated and competent translation into American English.

Grafenried, 4 July 2012

 chapter one

INTRODUCTION

The concept of ice ages is one of the great scientific discoveries of the 19th
century. The path which scientists had been following up to that point was
forced to turn as abruptly as the one at the foot of the Findling depicted on
the front cover. As in the photo, it pointed toward new horizons, opening
up new perspectives and novel explanations for hitherto incomprehen-
sible phenomena, with numerous points of departure for further inquiry.
Too often this discovery has been overshadowed, surely unjustifiably, by
other great scientific achievements of that century. Consider, for instance,
the foundations of organic chemistry, or the development of modern his-
toriography, or the theory of evolution. This book intends to put an end to
this shadowy existence. It presents the exciting and multilayered history
of the discovery of the ice ages seen from an international perspective and
casts light on its consequences.

1.1 Basic Preliminary Thoughts

In his Concluding Unscientific Postscript the Danish Philosopher Søren

Aabye Kierkegaard (1813–1855) probed the nature of historical knowl-
edge. He arrived at the view that all historical knowledge and all scien-
tific inquiry was at best an approximation. Kierkegaard saw the reason
for this, on one hand, in the impossibility for an investigator to identify
perfectly with the object of his or her interest. On the other hand, histori-
cal knowledge always relates to past events and therefore to the nature
of recollection.
As concerns history, all knowledge of it or all apprehension is at most an
approximation, even as concerns the individual’s own knowledge about his
own historical exterior. The reason is partly the impossibility of fully iden-
tifying with objectivity, partly that all history, by having to be known, is
eo ipso past and has the ideality of memory.1

1 Kierkegaard [1846] 1959, 781f.

2 chapter one

The theologian, philosopher, and historian Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923)

came to a similar assessment. In his study Historismus und seine Probleme,2
published in 1922, he distinguished four principles of the then prevailing
understanding on history: the assumption that humans are the subject
of history; furthermore, the orientation toward analogy, correlation, and
probability. The last Troetsch understood as that historical research can
always only arrive at judgments on likelihood. Historical knowledge never
leads to philosophically existential certainties. Latest by the 1950s and
1960s, the historicism advocated by Troeltsch and many of his contempo-
raries stood under increasing fire and now largely counts as superceded.
Growing awareness of ecological relationships also raises doubts about
the assumption that people be the only subject of history. Almost neces-
sarily this anthropocentricity must come at the cost of nature. History is
also about civilizations interacting with nature.
It is intrinsic to historiography that history never be its sole subject
matter. It itself is embedded within the historical events and hence is his-
torical, too. Consequently there is no historical knowledge independent of
the interests and issues of its day. Nevertheless it would be problematic
to regard this temporal dependence of historical understanding only as a
predicament. For, if the past is set within the horizon of the now, it can
be made fruitful for the present.
Strictly speaking, the writer of history would even have to try to look
beyond the field of view of the present. The exercise thus is to weigh the
relevance of transmitted facts also for the future. The future alone reveals
the full importance of an event. It is the dilemma of the historical sci-
ences, however, that the significance a past event will gain for a given
aspect is mostly unpredictable. That is why the historiographer actually
first ought to wait until the end of a story in order to be able to ascertain
the full significance of its elements. In the meantime, the historian—as
do humans generally, as historical beings—always lives in anticipation of
the future. Historical accounts are thus always preliminary. Any social or
political change—in short, any historical change—sheds new light on the
past. This means that history constantly has to be revised and rewritten
under different statements of the problem.3 The philosopher Hans-Georg
Gadamer (1900–2002) formulated this situation in his work Wahrheit und
Methode thus: “In view of the finitude of our historical existence, there is,

2 Troeltsch 1922.
3 Zimmer 1995, 53f.
 introduction 3

it seems, generally something preposterous about the idea of a uniquely

correct description.”4

1.2 The Issues

The discovery of glacial epochs joined much earlier insights into the
Earth’s great age and correlative depositional stratifications as another
great upheaval within 19th-century geology. The present work pursues the
question of when and how the ice ages were discovered and examines the
reception of this new conception from a comparative international per-
spective. Thus it follows an interdisciplinary agenda within the history of
science, also touching the disciplines of geology (more specifically, glacial
geology), biology, paleoclimatology, and atmospheric physics, as well as
astronomy. Within the range of the social sciences and humanities, our
main focus is on the history of society and communications.
From this general range of interests derive four groups of issues: The
first deals with the history per se of the discovery of glacial ages. The most
immediate issue is: Which geological phenomena gave the initial impetus
for concerted research on the ice ages? Connected to this is the question:
Since when were the geographically distributed traces of an ice age in
Europe and North America known? Of no lesser interest is: Why did con-
temporary researchers conclude that ice played a part in their formation?
And when was wide-ranging glaciation first concluded from these various
observations? We need to find out how this thought was connected with
the notion of a colder climate and who first propounded an ice-age theory
in the sense of a global drop in temperature with large areas covered by
glaciers or masses of continental ice. When was this theory formulated,
and where?
The second set of questions likewise concerns the discovery of the
glacial ages. At center stage are the premises in philosophy and natu-
ral history upheld by the first ice-age researchers. Knowing about their
assumptions and motivations is important for a deeper understanding of
contemporary theory formation. A glance will be cast at the training that
pioneers in the study of glaciers underwent and an inquiry will be made
into anything they may have shared in common. The basic assumptions
and theories about the history of the Earth promoted by contesters of the

4 “Die Idee einer allein richtigen Darstellung hat angesichts der Endlichkeit unseres
historischen Daseins, wie es scheint, überhaupt etwas Widersinniges.” Gadamer 1972, 114.
4 chapter one

developing glacial theory are equally revealing. What objections did they
raise? Why did these objections hold true for so long? What weakened
them, and how were they ultimately refuted? Similarities in training and
professional socialization will be sought among the adversaries of the new
theory as well. Heavily centralized France is particularly suitable here for
closer consideration. In this connection it would be generally interesting
to know whether particular groups can be made out from among the sup-
porters and opponents of the new theory.
The third aspect of the present study is the history of the reception
of ice-age theory. How contemporary scientists found out details about
the new theory is a connected issue. Which societies, conferences, and
periodicals played a key role in the exchange of such information? What
functions did contemporary scientific societies have? In addition, when
in each of the most important countries was a local majority of geologists
found in favor of the glacial theory? Are national peculiarities identifiable
in its reception? Although a popularization of the history of glacial theory
is not the intention of this book, wherever possible an attempt is made to
convey the basics to a more general audience.
The fourth issue, finally, is a prospective inquiry into the consequences
of the discovery of the ice ages for the affected scientific disciplines and
how this discovery influenced our understanding of climate. In this con-
nection, particular attention is paid to the on-going search for possible
causes of the glacial periods. Of primary interest here is what ideas were
formed then that now serve as a scientific basis in the current debates
about climate change?

1.3 Relevance

The point of the present work rests on four pillars: First, the reception and
dissemination of the theory of ice ages is sketched here from a broader
international perspective. This approach, applied to the present topic
for the first time, permits scientists not only from German and English-
speaking regions to be considered but also from Belgium, Denmark,
France, Norwey, Russia, Finland, Italy, the Baltics, and Sweden. This selec-
tion of nations reflects those most important in the science during the
19th century and thereby specifically intends to break with the generally
more patriotic approaches to recounting the beginnings of glacial geology.
A comparative account of various countries calls for a more sweeping
purview, however, so only decisive events can be granted closer scrutiny.
 introduction 5

Second, the emerging ice-age theory is embedded within its contempo-

rary context in the history of science. The geological, natural historic, and
philosophical assumptions by its creators are presented no less than those
harbored by its opponents. Third, how very long it took for the initial
hypothesis to become generally acknowledged as an acceptable theory is
explored. This gives us an idea of the argumentational dodges and forms
of resistance employed against the theory along its trajectory as well as
the personal animosities and preferences involved. And finally, the rel-
evance of the discovery of the glacial ages on the debates about climate
change is indicated.5

1.4 Method

According to the classification of historical comparisons developed by

Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka, the present volume may be regarded,
with certain qualifications, as an analysis in the history of relationships.
The emphasis is on the interrelations between the countries under study,
with the exchange of scientific ideas under scrutiny.6 The orientation of
the present analysis is otherwise strongly tuned toward history of science
because it examines the history of the discovery of glacial periods, the
implied theory formation, and the contemporary debates within the indi-
vidual countries.
As a historical analysis the present work primarily follows an empirical
approach. It consequently does not adhere to any overarching sociologi-
cal or historical theory of science. This has pragmatic reasons: The period
examined spans over three centuries. A stringent sociological or historio-
graphic argument would run the risk of bypassing the evolving state of
real life. In the mid-18th century when the debate about the origin and
manner of transport of erratic blocks started, modern geology was still
in its infancy. The societies in Europe were organized more or less by
social station. Absolutism was the prevailing political form in its king-
doms and principalities, and patrician oligarchy in its republics and city
states. At the same time this was the period of the European Enlighten-
ment. 100 years later, geology—or geognosy, as it was occasionally also
called—was established as a science at universities. A growing number of

5 On the development of the debate about man-made climate change since the mid-
1970s, with a focus on Germany, see Weingart and Engels 2002.
6 Haupt and Kocka 1996, 10.
6 chapter one

states were organizing geological surveys. Nationalism was increasingly

becoming a leitmotif for European politics, culture, and science. Inde-
pendence movements, such as in Poland, were consolidating; and coun-
tries like Italy and Germany were pioneering efforts to create a modern
nation-state. Within the field of music, composers such as Edvard Grieg or
Bedřich Smetana were collecting folk tunes in order to be able to formu-
late a national Norwegian or Czech style of music. Linguists such as the
Grimm brothers were beginning to work on a dictionary of the German
language and collecting folk tales deemed to be typically German. At the
same time, researchers in the Earth sciences were primarily exploring the
geology and special features of their home countries. By the beginning of
the 20th century, ice-age theory was a generally acknowledged fact. Uni-
versities had adopted modern scientific operations as we now understand
them and were already relatively internationally oriented. Nation-states,
bureaucratization, and industry now set the scene. Such an enormous
social, political, and scientific transformation within a matter of 200 years
virtually prohibits following a comprehensive theoretically backed ansatz
that would have any historical cogency, both on a micro level and on a
macro level.
On the other hand, it would be possible to raise a methodological
charge against what are usually sociological approaches to writing his-
tory guided by theory: that they are merely quarrying historical events
to illustrate preconceived schemes. To prevent such a charge, this study
dispenses with any a-priori fixed overarching theoretical methodology.
An interdisciplinary approach in the history of science does not neces-
sarily exclude a sociological one, though. Where insights can be antici-
pated from this approach, individual events, episodes, or constellations
are analyzed also under such a perspective. No particular approach is
favored, however. Instead, the approach offering the greatest explanatory
power to interpret past events will be chosen in each case for the given
situation. For example, the thesis that a national orientation exists in sci-
entific debates during the 19th century, as argued by the British historian
of science Maurice Crossland, can explain—in part quite convincingly—
the special character of debates about the ice ages specific to a particular
country.7 But Crossland’s thesis cannot meaningfully explain the hefty
opposition to the ice-age theory expressed at the annual convention of
the Swiss Scientific Society, Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft

7 Crossland 1977.
 introduction 7

in 1837. For that, Jan Golinski’s constructivist reading of Thomas Kuhn

offers one interpretational possibility.8

1.5 Structure

This book’s structure is essentially guided by the historical course of the

debate surrounding the erratics phenomenon in Europe and North Amer-
ica. Starting with the first discussions about the origin of Findlinge in the
18th century, the study follows the development of an ice-age theory up to
its establishment in the final quarter of the 19th century. Discoveries and
theories of significance in the revelation of glacial theory and its conse-
quences are selected; others that rather belong to the history of glaciology
are not treated more closely. Within the individual chapters the narrative
is largely arranged according to the historical sequence of contemporary
observations and their interpretations. Chapter six deviates slightly from
this outline because it discusses the situations in the nations of great-
est importance to the 19th-century science. Accordingly, despite the par-
tial restriction and partial parallel course of developments in the various
countries, the analysis follows as far as possible the order in which the
glacial theory was taken up and developed further. The seventh chapter
discusses the search for possible causes of glacial epochs. As this com-
menced before the glacial theory had prevailed, or at least before it had
become fully accepted, this chapter does not fit seamlessly into the mainly
chronological account.

1.6 Sources

The available sources on the history of the development of glacial theory

are quite good. Various archives keep the papers of contemporary scien-
tists. Those of Louis Agassiz at the state archive in Neuchâtel, for example,
include a letter by Karl Friedrich Schimper that is reproduced in excerpt
in the Actes de la Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles from the year
1837. It presents the ice-age theory Schimper had developed together with
Agassiz plus other observations from the Black Forest and the Pyrenees.
Schimper’s own papers are preserved in the provincial archive of Baden-
Württemberg, the Generallandesarchiv in Karlsruhe. Notes taken during

8 For details see section 8.4.

8 chapter one

one of his talks from 1836, in which he presented his historical reflections
on climatology, can also be found there. The autograph collection of Rudolf
Wolf in the Burgerbibliothek Bern, with letters by Swiss and foreign scien-
tists, is also worth special mention.9 In frequent instances these letters are
reprinted in full or in excerpt in smaller biographical portraits or accounts
in the history of science. In some cases, a perusal of archival finding aids
suffices to identify less-well-known scientists if they happen to have corre-
sponded with more-famous scientists of their day. One example would be
the list of correspondence with Arnold Escher von der Linth in the archive
of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zürich. Archives of
scientific associations can also contain interesting files. The archive of the
Oekonomische Gesellschaft in Berne, for instance, has an advertisement
from 1781 for presumably the first glaciological research project in the
world. Contemporary articles in scholarly and scientific journals are by
far the most important and extensive source base for this book. The major
ones among these are briefly listed by country below, to give an idea of
the kind of publications used.
For Switzerland, A. Höpfner’s Magazin für die Naturkunde Helvetiens
from 1787 is notable. The proceedings of the Swiss Scientific Society,
the Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft,
appearing since 1815, were a central publishing organ for early contribu-
tions about ice-age theory. Its reach was particularly broad as it published
a parallel issue for its French-speaking membership: the Actes de la Société
Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles. Cantonal scientific associations played
an additional important role. For the 1840s and 1850s we mention the
Bulletin de la Société des Sciences naturelles de Neuchâtel and the Bulletin
des Séances de la Société vaudoise des Sciences naturelles. Scientific papers
published since the 1810s about glaciers and traces of formerly more exten-
sive glaciation are published in the Bibliothèque universelle, now located
in Geneva. These are often excerpts or reprints of studies published else-
where. After the Archives des Sciences physiques et naturelles branched off
from the Bibliothèque universelle, research articles on glacial geology from
Switzerland and abroad appeared there as well since 1845.10
In Germany, contributions on geological observations connected with
an earlier glaciation of northern Germany extend back to the 1760s. The

9 See here section 4.2.

10 For the history of the Bibliothèque universelle and the Archives des Sciences physique
et naturelles, see Maggetti 1998, 35.
 introduction 9

Gelehrten Beiträge Mecklenburgisch-Schwerinischer Nachrichten and Gester-

dings Pommersches Magazin have to be mentioned here. Similar in impor-
tance to the Swiss Scientific Society’s proceedings is the Neue Jahrbuch für
Mineralogie and its predecessor publications. It offers insights into nascent
glacial geology and contemporary perceptions of it since the beginning
of the 19th century. Periodicals of local and regional scientific associa-
tions, such as the Jahreshefte des Vereins für Vaterländische Naturkunde
in Württemberg, appearing in Stuttgart in the 1860s, contain important
articles on inquiries into the northerly glaciation in the alpine foothills.
A glance at the reluctant acceptance by Prussian and Saxon geologists in
the 1870s of the theory of continental ice sheets is offered in articles from
the Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft.
In France articles about glacial theory are to be found in the Annales
des Mines. The Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France is of greater
importance as a forum of discussion, however. Organs of regional asso-
ciations also sometimes published important articles. The Annales de la
Société d’Émulation du Département des Vosges is one good example. Some
articles appearing there were reprinted in other journals and were later
included in various omnibus volumes even outside France.
For Great Britain the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal was one of
the most important journals for early articles on glacial-age theory. Impor-
tant articles are to be found in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London from the middle of the 19th century onwards. Another
journal in which contributions repeatedly appeared in connection with
glacial theory is the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Maga-
zine. Svante Arrhenius’s famous analysis of a correlation between the CO2
content in the atmosphere and the average global temperature appeared
in 1896. As in other European countries, in Great Britain the notices by
regional associations, such as the Transactions of the Geological Society of
Glasgow, also occasionally transmitted important contributions.
For the beginning phase of glacial geology and beyond in the United
States of America, there is the American Journal. It is that country’s oldest
scientific journal, appearing since 1818; so it figures importantly there, as
would be expected.
Within the Russian Empire, the Bulletin as well as the Mémoire of the
Académie Impériale de St. Petersbourg contain reports about field observa-
tions and their interpretations by contemporary geologists.
As is still applicable today, contemporary book titles were surely fewer
in number than published articles. The present reconstruction of the sci-
entific discussions ranks books lower, owing to the slower publication
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
inspiration; a quintet by Ernst von Dohnányi. Sgambati has written a
quintet without distinction. Mr. Dunhill tells us in his book[83] on
chamber music that there is an excellent quintet by a young British
composer, James Friskin. Moreover the sextet for piano and strings
by Joseph Holbrooke, in which a double bass is added to the
quartet, deserves mention. And among American composers Arthur
Foote and George Chadwick should be mentioned, the one for his
quintet in A minor, opus 38, the other for his quintet in E-flat major,
without opus number.

Only a few piano quartets have been written since those of Brahms
and Dvořák which are significant of any development or even of a
freshness of life. Those of Fauré have already been mentioned as
being perfect in style, but on the whole they seem less original and
less interesting than the quintet by the same composer. Saint-Saëns’
quartet, opus 41, is remarkable for the brilliant treatment of the
pianoforte, and the fine sense of instrumental style which it reveals,
but is on the whole uninteresting and is certainly insignificant
compared with the quartets of Fauré or those of d’Indy and
Chausson. D’Indy’s quartet, opus 7, in A minor is no longer a new
work, nor does it show in any striking way those qualities in French
music which have more recently come to splendid blooming. But it is
carefully wrought and the three movements are moderately
interesting. The second is perhaps the best music, the third is
certainly the most spirited. There is more of the manner though
perhaps less of the spirit of César Franck in Chausson’s quartet in A
major, opus 30.

In the North we come across an early work by Richard Strauss, opus

13, in the form of a pianoforte quartet, which is exceedingly long, but
interesting to the student who wishes to trace the development of
Strauss’ art of self-expression. The pianoforte is not given undue
prominence and the scoring is worthier of more interesting material.
Still farther north one meets with Christian Sinding’s quartet in E
minor, which is chiefly a tour de force for the pianist.
Excepting sonatas for pianoforte and various other instruments, the
great amount of chamber music into which the piano enters consists
of trios, pianoforte quartets and pianoforte quintets. Mention must
not be omitted, however, of Schubert’s quintet for piano and strings
in which the cello is replaced by double bass. The employment of the
air of one of his songs (Die Forelle) as the subject for the variations
in the slow movement has given the work the name Forellen Quintet.
The treatment of the piano in the variations is exceedingly effective.

III
As to sonatas, those for violin and piano are treated elsewhere.
There are too many to be discussed in this chapter. There are fewer
for the cello and the best of these may here be mentioned. Skill in
playing the violoncello was slower to develop than that in playing the
violin. This was probably because the viola da gamba with its six
strings was easier to play and was more in favor as a solo
instrument. The baryton was a kind of viola da gamba with
sympathetic strings stretched under the fingerboard, and even as
late as the maturity of Haydn this instrument was in general favor.
But the tone of the viola da gamba was lighter than that of the
violoncello, and so by the beginning of the eighteenth century the
cello was preferred to the gamba for the bass parts of works like
Corelli’s in concerted style. Little by little it rose into prominence from
this humble position. Meanwhile the immortal suites for the
violoncello alone by Bach had been written. Bach was probably
advised in the handling of the instrument by Abel, who was a famous
gamba player; so that it seems likely that these suites were
conceived for the gamba as much as for the cello.[84] The last of
them, however, was written especially for the viola pomposa, an
instrument which Bach invented himself. This was a small cello with
an extra string tuned to E, a fifth above the A of the cello.

Among composers who wrote expressly for the cello were Giorgio
Antoniotti, who lived in Milan about 1740, and Lanzetti, who was
'cellist to the king of Sardinia between 1730 and 1750. Later the
Italians A. Canavasso and Carlo Ferrari (b. 1730) became famous as
players, and Boccherini also was a brilliant cellist.

However, the cello sprang into its present importance as a solo

instrument largely through the Frenchman Jean Louis Duport (1749-
1819), whose understanding of the instrument led him to a discovery
of those principles of fingering and bowing which have made modern
virtuosity possible. His Essai sur le doigter du violoncelle et la
conduite de l’archet was truly an epoch-making work. That a new
edition was issued as recently as 1902 proves the lasting worth and
stability of his theories.

Frederick William II, King of Prussia, to whom Mozart dedicated

three of his string quartets, was a pupil of Duport’s. Mozart’s
quartets, written with an eye to pleasing the monarch, give special
prominence to the cello. Hence through Duport we approach the
great masters and their works for the cello.

Beethoven wrote five sonatas for cello and piano. The first two, opus
5, were written in 1796, while Beethoven was staying in Berlin,
evidently with the intention of dedicating them to Frederick William II,
and for his own appearance in public with Duport. They are
noticeably finer, or more expressive works, than the early sonatas for
violin, opus 12; perhaps because the cello does not suggest a style
which, empty of meaning, is yet beautiful and effective by reason of
sheer brilliance. The violin sonatas, all of them except the last, are
largely virtuoso music. The cello sonatas are more serious and on
the whole more sober. This may be laid to thoroughly practical
reasons. The cello has not the variety of technical possibilities that
the violin has, nor even in such rapid passages as can be played
upon it can it give a brilliant or carrying tone. By reason of its low
register it can be all too easily overpowered by the piano. Only the
high notes on the A string can make themselves heard above a solid
or resonant accompaniment. Hence if the composer desires to write
a brilliant, showy sonata for pianoforte and cello, he can do so only
by sacrificing all but the topmost registers of the cello. Even at that
the piano is more than likely to put the cello wholly in the shade.

To write effectively for the combination, therefore, and in such a way

as to bring out the variety of resources of the cello, limited as they
may be, one must not write brilliantly, but clearly, in a transparent
and careful style. Of such a style these early sonatas of Beethoven
offer an excellent example, though the music itself sounds today old-
fashioned and formal.

The best of the first sonata, which consists of a long slow

introduction, an allegro, and an allegro vivace, all in F major, is the
last movement. This is in mood a little scherzo, in form a rondo.
Particularly the chief subject is delightfully scored for the two
instruments at the very opening. The second sonata, in G minor,
begins like the first with a long slow introduction, in which the piano
has some elaborate figuration. There follows an allegro molto, rather
a presto, in 3/4 time, the opening theme of which has almost the
spontaneous melodiousness of Schubert. The pianoforte has a great
deal of work in triplets, which are high on the keyboard when the
cello is playing in its lower registers, and only low when the cello is
high enough to escape being overpowered. This constant movement
in triplets will remind one of the first pianoforte sonata. The final
rondo is on the whole less effective than the rondo of the first sonata.
Toward the end, however, there is considerable animation in which
one finds cello and piano taking equal share. The piano has for
many measures groups of rapid accompaniment figures against
which the cello has saucy little phrases in staccato notes. Then the
cello takes up the rolling figures with great effect and the piano has a
capricious and brilliant melody in high registers.

The next sonata, opus 69, in A major, was not written until twelve
years later. A different Beethoven speaks in it. The first theme,
announced at once by the cello alone, gives the key to the spirit of
the work. It is gentle (dolce) in character, but full of a quiet and
moving strength. After giving the first phrase of it alone the cello
holds a long low E, over which the piano lightly completes it. There is
a cadenza for piano, and then, after the piano has given the whole
theme once again, there is a short cadenza for cello, leading to a
short transition at the end of which one finds the singing second
theme. This is first given out by the piano over smooth scales by the
cello, and then the cello takes it up and the piano plays the scales.
Nothing could be more exquisite than the combination of these two
instruments in this altogether lovely sonata, which without effort
permits each in turn or together to reveal its most musical qualities.
Sometimes the cello is low and impressive, strong and independent,
while the piano is lively and sparkling, as in the closing parts of the
first section of the first movement. Again the cello has vigorous
rolling figures that bring out the fullest sonority the instrument is
capable of, while the piano adds the theme against such a vibrant
background, with no fear of drowning the cello, as in the first portions
of the development section.

The scherzo is the second movement, and here again each

instrument is allowed a full expression of its musical powers. The
style is light, the rhythm syncopated. There is fascinating play at
imitations. And in the trio the cello plays in rich double-stops. There
is but a short adagio before the final allegro, only a brief but telling
expression of seriousness, and then the allegro brings to full flower
the quiet, concealed, so to speak, and tranquil happiness of the first
movement.

Finally there are two sonatas, opus 102, which are in every way
representative of the Beethoven of the last pianoforte sonatas and
even the last quartets. The first of these—in C major—Beethoven
himself entitled a ‘free sonata,’ and the form is indeed free, recalling
the form of the A major pianoforte sonata, opus 101, upon which
Beethoven was working at the same time. In spirit, too, it is very like
the A major sonata, but lacks the more obvious melodic charm. The
sonata begins with an andante, in that singing yet mystical style
which characterizes so much of Beethoven’s last work, and the
andante does not end but seems to lose itself, to become absorbed
in a mist of trills, out of which there springs a vigorous allegro vivace,
in the dotted march rhythm which one finds in the later pianoforte
sonatas. After this, a short rhapsodical adagio brings us back to a bit
of the opening andante, which once more trills itself away, seems to
be snuffed out, as it were, by a sudden little phrase which, all
unexpected, announces the beginning of the final rondo.

The second of the two, in D major, is more regular in structure. There

is an allegro con brio in clear form, an adagio, and a final fugue,
following the adagio without pause. In both these sonatas every
trace of the virtuoso has disappeared. Both are fantasies, or poems
of hidden meaning. Because of this mysteriousness, and also
because the lack of all virtuoso elements seems to leave the
combination a little dry, the sonatas are not quite so satisfactory as
the opus 69.

Besides the sonatas Beethoven wrote three sets of variations for

cello and piano, only one of which—on the air Ein Mädchen oder
Weibchen from Mozart’s ‘Magic Flute’—has an opus number. These
are early works and are without special interest or value.

It is remarkable how little chamber music has been written for

pianoforte and cello by subsequent composers. By Schumann there
is only a set of five short pieces, in Volkston, opus 102. Some of
these are charming, but all are, of course, slight. Schumann uses the
cello in very high registers, notably in the first, third, and fourth. In
the second part of the third he even writes sixths for the cello in such
high registers. The low registers are rather neglected, so that the set
is monotonous in color.

Mendelssohn wrote some Variations concertantes, opus 17, for

piano and cello, and two sonatas, opus 45 in B-flat, and opus 58 in
D. The piano predominates in the variations. The second and fourth
are hardly more than piano solos; but in others the cello is effectively
handled. The third, the fifth with its pizzicato, which, by the way
Mendelssohn stood in a fair way to overwhelm entirely by a noisy
piano, and the eighth, with its long held note, later its wide rolling
figures and powerful sixths, account in a measure for the wide
popularity which this work once enjoyed among cellists. But the life
has gone out of it. Of the sonatas little can be said but that they are
generally well scored, and that they display the qualities of the cello
in its various registers. The piano is less well treated, for
Mendelssohn had, after all, little instinct for a variety of pianoforte
effects. The theme in the last movement of the first sonata has
something of a vigorous swing. The chief theme of the first
movement of the second sonata, too, though it will irritate those to
whom Mendelssohn’s mannerisms have become distressing, has a
breadth of line, and rises up quite manfully to its high point. But the
second theme rather proves that there can be too much of a good
thing. The allegretto is not dangerously fascinating, but it has a sort
of charm. Mendelssohn’s treatment of the cello is generally suited to
the salon. He brings out many of its qualities, but in a way which
seems to accentuate the shortcomings of the instrument. In his
hands the cello is a sentimental singer with a small voice.

With Brahms the cello is more an instrument of mystery and gloom.

His fondness for low notes here causes him to write constantly for
the two lower strings, and his sonatas may suffer in the opinion of
some by the lack of a more vehement expression which is in some
measure possible to the upper strings. The first sonata, opus 38, is
in E minor and is more acceptable to the unfamiliar ear than the later
one in F major, opus 99. But the tone of the great part of the E minor
sonata is gloomy, though the second theme of the first movement
has warmth and the allegretto quasi menuetto a certain light
movement. The F major sonata was probably written with the playing
of Robert Hausmann (b. 1852) in mind. Mr. Fuller-Maitland finds in it
a ‘mood of wild energy such as is not frequent in Brahms’ later
works.’ For all the gloominess of the first and the sternness of the
second of these sonatas there is a splendid dignity in both which
must ever give them a firm place in the literature for the violoncello. It
may be that they lose in grace because Brahms has so carefully
shunned any brilliant display; but on the other hand what they lose in
grace is more than made up by what they gain in virility. The
sentimental qualities in the cello have been so much emphasized
that without these sonatas of Brahms, and those of Beethoven, one
might well believe that it had none other than a sugary voice.
Great Violoncellists: Jean Gerardi, David Popper, Pablo
Casals.
Among more modern sonatas only two stand out with any
prominence. One of these is by Grieg. It is in A minor, full of passion
and swing. No doubt it owes its prominence to the charm of the
Norwegian material out of which Grieg has made it. There are
incisive rhythms that make one aware of the strength of the cello.
The piano is a little too prominent in certain parts. Grieg has favored
its brilliance. But nevertheless the sonata is a manly and refreshing
work.

A sonata for cello and piano in F major, opus 6, by Richard Strauss

has been gratefully adopted by cellists. Musically it is neither
profound nor interesting, though there is no lack of technical skill, as
in the fugal parts of the first movement, and though there are some
passages of great beauty. The second theme of the first movement
is what one might call luscious; there is a glorious theme in the last
movement contrasting with the light motives which generally
predominate; and the climax of the slow movement is passionate.
The pianoforte is not well handled, and there is a sameness in
rhythms; but the balance between the two instruments is remarkably
well kept. In the development of second theme material in the first
movement there are passages in which the cello is made boldly and
passionately to sing, and the use of its very low notes in the climax
of the slow movement, as well as the light figures in the last, leave
no doubt as to the variety which is in spite of all possible to it.

There remains only to mention the sonata by Max Reger, opus 78,
two sonatas by Emanuel Moór, one by Guy Ropartz in G minor, two
by Camille Saint-Saëns, opus 32 and opus 123, as among those
which make a partial success of the extremely difficult combination.

If excellent music for cello and piano is so rare, music for the viola
and piano is almost entirely wanting. The two instruments do not go
well together. Practically the only example of the combination in the
works of the great masters is furnished by Schumann’s
Märchenbilder, which are but indifferent music. York Bowen, an
English composer, has considered it worthy of the sonata, and has
written two for it, one in C minor and one in F major. Mr. Benjamin
Dale has also written some agreeable pieces, including a suite and a
fantasy.

IV
There are relatively few works also in which the piano has been
combined with wind instruments. The wind instruments which have
been most employed in chamber music are the flute, oboe, clarinet,
and bassoon. Occasionally there is a short bit for horn, or for English
horn, and rarely something for trumpet or saxophone. No special
combination of these instruments either by themselves or with the
piano has obtained signal favor, and we may therefore confine
ourselves to mentioning with brief notice the various works of the
great masters in turn. We will include likewise here their chamber
works for wind instruments without pianoforte.

Of Haydn’s works we will only mention the two trios for flute and
violin and the octet for two oboes, two clarinets, two horns and two
bassoons. Most of Mozart’s works for wind instruments bear the
mark of some occasion. There are a great many Serenades and
Divertimenti, which can hardly be called representative of his best
and can hardly be distinguished from each other. Among the
interesting works are the concerto for flute and harp (K 299), the trio
for clarinet, viola and piano (K 498), the quintet for pianoforte, oboe,
clarinet, horn and bassoon (K 452), and the quintet for clarinet and
strings (K 581). The trio was composed in Vienna in August, 1786,
and is conspicuous for a fine handling of the viola. The clarinet is not
used at all in the lower registers, lest it interfere with the viola.
Mozart considered the quintet for piano and wind instruments at the
time he wrote it the best thing he had written. It was composed in
March, 1784, for a public concert and was received with great
applause. Jahn wrote of it that from beginning to end it was a true
triumph in the art of recognizing and adapting the peculiar
euphonious quality of each instrument. Doubtless it served as a
model for Beethoven’s composition in the same form.

Mozart was the first among composers to recognize the beauty of

the clarinet. Among his warmest friends was Anton Stadler, an
excellent clarinet player, and the great clarinet quintet was
composed for Stadler and is known as the Stadler quintet. The
clarinet, owing to the peculiar penetrating quality, is somewhat
necessarily treated as a solo instrument; but the background
supplied by the strings is no mere accompaniment. The whole work
shows the finest care and may well rank with the string quintets
among Mozart’s greatest and most pleasing works.

Beethoven’s works for wind instruments in chamber music are not

numerous. In the expression of his forceful and passionate ideas he
demanded a medium of far greater technical ability than he could
ask of the wind players of that day. There is an early trio for piano,
flute and bassoon, written before he left Bonn; an octet in E-flat for
two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, and two horns, written in
1792, but published as opus 103; and a few other early works
without value; a sextet for two violins, viola, cello, and two horns,
written in 1795 and not published till 1819, then as opus 81; another
early sextet, opus 71, for two clarinets, two bassoons, and two
horns; and finally the most considerable of his compositions for an
ensemble of wind instruments, the quintet in E-flat major, opus 16,
for piano, oboe, clarinet, horn, and bassoon, the septet in E-flat,
opus 20, for clarinet, horn, bassoon, violin, viola, cello, and double-
bass. The sonata in F, opus 17, for horn and piano was written in a
night, according to a well-known story, for the horn player Punto—
originally Stich—and can hardly be considered as more than a bit of
pot-boiling.

Most of these early works were written for an occasion. Prince

Maximilian Franz, in whose service Beethoven was for a time
employed before he left Bonn and came to Vienna, was especially
fond of wind instruments. His ‘Table-music’ was generally of this kind
and he had in his employ two oboists, two clarinetists, two horn
players, and two players of the bassoon. Beethoven’s early works
therefore may be considered to have been written with these players
in mind. He was sure of having them performed. In later years he
looked with no little scorn upon many of them. Even of the septet,
opus 20, he is reported to have said that there was some natural
feeling in it but little art. And of the early sextet which was published
in 1809 as opus 70 he wrote to his publishers that it was one of his
early pieces and was, moreover, written in a night, that there was
little further to say about it except that it was written by a composer
who had at least produced some better works—though many men
might still consider this the best. Yet it is to be observed that in nearly
all of them Beethoven made the best of the possibilities open to him,
possibilities which were greatly restricted by the general lack of
technical skill in playing wind instruments, and that all show at least
a clear and logical form.

The octet, opus 103, the sextet, opus 81, the sextet, opus 71, and
the quintet, opus 16, are all in the key of E-flat major, a key which is
favorable to all wood-wind instruments. The octet was written, as we
have said, in 1792. Beethoven rearranged it as a string quintet and
in that form it was published in 1796 as opus 4. In its original form
the chief rôle is taken by the oboe, especially in the slow second
movement, which has the touch of a pastoral idyl. The last
movement in rondo form offers the clarinets an opportunity in the first
episode. A Rondino for the same combination of instruments written
about the same time seems to forecast parts of Fidelio. The sextet
for two horns and string quartet is little more than a duet for the
horns with a string accompaniment.

We may pass over the trio for two oboes and English horn, published
as opus 87, and the flute duet written for his friend Degenhart on the
night of August 23, 1792. The sextet, opus 71, which Beethoven said
was written in a night, is none the less written with great care. The
prelude introduction and the cheerful style suggest some happy sort
of serenade music. The melody (bassoon) in the adagio is of great
beauty. There are, among its movements, a minuet and a lively
rondo in march rhythm.
The quintet, opus 16, in which the piano is joined with four
instruments may well have been suggested by Mozart’s quintet in
the same form; though Beethoven was a great pianist and had
already in an earlier trio and a sonata experimented in combining the
pianoforte with wind instruments. The wind instruments are here
treated as an independent group and the part for the piano is
brilliant. There is a richness of ideas throughout which raises the
work above the earlier compositions for wind.

The septet in E-flat, opus 20, for clarinet, horn, bassoon, violin, viola,
cello and double-bass, is undoubtedly the finest of Beethoven’s
works for combinations of wind instruments. It was written just before
1800 and was so full of joy and humor that those who had heard
Beethoven’s other works with a hostile ear were quite won over for
the time being by this. Technically it may be considered the result of
all his previous experiments. It is rather in the manner of a suite.
There is a slow prelude, an allegro con brio, an adagio cantabile, a
tempo di menuetto, which he later arranged for pianoforte and
incorporated in the little sonata, opus 49, No. 1, a theme and
variations, a scherzo, and a final presto, which is preceded by an
introductory andante of great beauty and of more seriousness than is
characteristic of the work as a whole. The success of the work is due
first to the freshness of the ideas, then to the skill with which they are
arranged for the difficult combination of instruments. For Beethoven
has made something of charm out of the very shortcomings of the
wind instruments. The short phrases, the straightforward character of
all the themes and motives, and the general simplicity all show these
necessarily restricted instruments at their very best.

Schubert’s octet for two violins, viola, cello, double-bass, clarinet,

horn, and bassoon is among the most beautiful pieces of chamber
music for the wind instruments. It is the first of Schubert’s
contributions to chamber music which fully reveals his genius.
Mention may also be made of the variations for flute and piano on
the melody of one of his songs Trockene Blumen.
None of the great composers was more appreciative of the clarinet
than Weber. It is made to sound beautifully in all his overtures,
notably in that to ‘Oberon.’
 Arnold Schönberg.

After a photo from life (1913)

He wrote two concertos for clarinet and orchestra, and a big sonata
in concerto style, opus 48, for clarinet and piano. Besides these
there is an Air and Variations, opus 33, for clarinet and piano, and a
quintet, opus 34, for clarinet and strings. Weber also wrote a
charming trio, opus 63, for flute, cello, and piano.

Spohr, too, showed a special favor towards the clarinet and he, like
Weber, wrote two concertos for it. Three of Spohr’s works which
were broadly famous in their day and much beloved are the nonet for
strings, flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, and bassoon, opus 31; the octet
for violin, two violas, cello, double-bass, clarinet, and two horns,
opus 32; and the quintet for flute, clarinet, horn, bassoon, and piano.
The two former are delicately scored, but the latter is marred by the
piano. Some idea of the fervor with which Spohr’s music was loved
may be gained from the fact that Chopin, the most selective and
fastidiously critical of all composers, conceived Spohr’s nonet to be
one of the greatest works of music. Doubtless the perfection of style
delighted him, a virtue for which he was willing to forgive many a
weakness. At present Spohr’s music is in danger of being totally
neglected.

Mendelssohn contributed nothing to this branch of chamber music,

and Schumann’s contributions were slight enough. There is a set of
Märchenerzählungen, opus 132, for clarinet, viola, and pianoforte,
which have some romantic charm but no distinction, and three
Romances for oboe. Brahms’ trio for clarinet, violoncello, and piano
has already been mentioned. Besides these he wrote two excellent
sonatas for clarinet and piano, and a quintet for clarinet and strings.
These works are almost unique among Brahms’ compositions for an
unveiled tenderness and sweetness. All three were probably in a
measure inspired by the playing of his friend Professor Mühlfeld,
who even from the orchestra made an impression with his clarinet
upon the memories of those who gathered at the epoch-making
performances at Bayreuth. The quintet, opus 115, is one of the most
poetic and moving of all Brahms’ compositions. The two clarinet
sonatas, one in F minor and one in E-flat major, were published
together in 1896 as opus 120. In these there is the same unusual
tenderness which appeals so directly to the heart in the quintet.

Since the time of Brahms most composers have written something in

small forms for the wind instruments with or without piano or strings.
Most of these have a charm, yet perhaps none is to be distinguished.
One of the most pleasing is Pierné’s Pastorale variée, for flute, oboe,
clarinet, trombone, horn, and two bassoons. But here we have in
truth a small wind orchestra. D’Indy’s Chanson et Danses, opus 50,
two short pieces for flute, two clarinets, horn, and two bassoons,
Fauré’s Nocturne, opus 33, for flute, two oboes, two clarinets, two
horns and two bassoons, and some of the smaller pieces of a
composer little known, J. Mouquet, are representative of the best
that the modern French composers have done in this kind of
chamber music. Debussy’s Rhapsodie, for clarinet and piano, is
evidently a pièce d’occasion. It was written for the Concours at the
Conservatoire. Max Reger’s sonata in A-flat, opus 49, No. 1, for
clarinet and piano, and a concerto for Waldhorn and piano by
Richard Strauss stand out conspicuously among the works of the
Germans. In this country Mr. Charles Martin Loeffler is to be
recognized as one with an unusually keen instinct for the effects of
wind instruments in chamber music. His two Rhapsodies for oboe,
viola, and piano show a delicacy of style that cannot be matched in
work for a similar combination by other composers.
 FOOTNOTES:
[82] A few measures after L in the edition published by J. Hamelle, Paris.

[83] ‘Chamber Music, a Treatise for Students,’ by Thomas F. Dunhill. London,

1913.

[84] See Spitta: ‘Johann Sebastian Bach.’