Item 46 - Letter from Joseph Dalton Hooker to Brian Houghton Hodgson

1 letter

Singtam November 1 [18]49

My dear Brian
Thanks many for yours of the 24th now received from [Sleeman/Sherman?] which is very kind and leaves no room to doubt of my Nepal reception on the British [Resid.] account. What Lord D has to say remains to be [read?] we are delayed a day or two here with rain and my plants but move tomorrow [Tumloong?] wards whither the Rajah denies us not to come and sends us to his [congees?] and directions to go hence as we came, insufferable impudence I call it. The Lama has been awfully threatened and punished dismally but we have bolstered up his courage successfully and he is up to [?] scratch. Meepo too appears to be on our side and in the Lama's confidence. I think Campbell will do it this time and meanwhile we are at loggerheads on the question of Capt. Baines and the Austrians which I upheld through thick and thing and [glory?] in the 2 headed Eagle having to receive a Middy's [crew?] with a salute and its own band playing God save the queen nay I would have held out for Rule Brittania I tell Campbell and he will get it out of the Rajah yet. Jubilate for your improved health. We shall be in about 12th I hope. For God's sake send that black [?] off [incontinent?] [Hoffman/Hopman?] wants no bad examples and I fear may want to do down with [Gomes?] Let Bhaggui give him what he likes remembering that as he coluntarily demands dismissal on Oct 6th his wages cease Sept 6th (so says Campbell) I think he cheated En Route up to [Bhaupilpure?] but cannot tell without reference to Calcutta. I have just read [Queen Koock Dhimal?] and with great admiration. The religious bit extremely interested me and it is written with [?] [?] clearness and good style - true or no n'importe to me. I doubt not it is as accurate as good. What a miserable affair is [Andrew Fleming's?] (son of the Zoologist of ?] bad English and miserably poor in details - Cunningham's paper is very clear and good but I still cannot clearly see my way about the atmosphere being varied at all - You may be quite right but I do not penetrate it on these grounds.
1/ The density is no different at special elevations on an isolated Peak rising from the [sea?] and on a plateau,
2/ The constitution does not differ in these elevations nor in either from that of level of [sea?]
3/ The mean temp of the year is not greater in one that the other Any one of these postulates granted I do not see how we can talk of the "atmosphere being carried up" - We cannot exaggerate the amount and rapidity of evaporation. Even I could hardly believe as I saw the thick hoar frost of night go by magic.
The height of P S is not a mere element of mean Temp - The reverberated heat of the Thibetan plateau which is very great does not imply and increased Mean Temp for the cold by [?] radiation is equally great in [?]. I appears to me that the diminished fall of snow, and the rapid evaporation of what does fall and powers enough to raise the snow line - If you raise the atmosphere with the elevation i.e. place on the plateau an atmosphere where normal [position?] related to the surface of the [globe?] is elsewhere beneath the level of the plateau - that much betrays itself in one or all of the three attributes. Density, Composition and Temperature, of these the Density is the most conspicuous and the most accurately and easily measured but I can positively affirm that the density of the atmosphere [?] [?] on 10,000 in Thibet is within 100ft of what prevails over all equal elevations in that Latitude - and as the mean temp. of the said for 3 days was below 30o we cannot suppose the second attribute (Temperature) that of an inferior level, as referred either to the general state of the atmosphere or to that floating round an isolated peak of said elevation placed in the ocean. I hope that I mean is clear to you, if not I can explain it i.e. demonstrate it (right or wrong) on paper when we meet. Thibet is certainly a huge plateau but not [?], it is truly awfully rugged and mountainous and very many of the mountains in sight from where we were much reach 20,000ft and not a few 22,000 how very curious that none should be higher materially whilst the mean level is so great and peaks so high. Cunningham uses the same Expression that I did "Douses" for the [?] [?] and these I learn are very confined few and far between in this quarter. Cholamoo is the great one and perhaps 10 miles every way, but on it the quantity of surface 1000ft above the mean is very great. Old Muller has quite against my orders sent a Barometer out to me - A new one and it arrives smashed. I told him that I did not want it and on no account to send it out - 2nd to accept it himself as he asked me for a Barometer - this is not all he forgot to send me the sheath and case with the tube sent before and so entailed the smashing of another Barom. the original one I brought from England - Five broken Bars. in one year is a [?] allowance - not one being my fault in any way! worst of all I have now to buy a new one again for old Muller. Cunningham's paper on the Embankments is highly philosophical and good, he must be a man of great attainments. What he says [illustrates?] my noticed of the river bed between the Ganges and Terai exactly. He does not apply the word "table land" to Thibet probably from restricting it's meaning in a [?] I do not - but we had better look up the [?] if it means a surface on the whole [?] plain or [?] than mountainous I cannot admit it for this part of Thibet but if as I suppose the term implies a mass of land greatly elevated and continuously so above the mean level of the [?] - however rugged a surface - then that will do for their part of the world. Humboldt applied the term to the centre of Spain which is no plain if I remember right. Campbell denies [?] [?] [?]
from
Yr ever affectionate
J.D. Hooker