602 REPORT— 1894. 



'An. Dom. 1663. 



* Began a course of chemistry under the noted chemist and rosicrucian, 

 Peter Sthael, of Strasburgh, brought to Oxon. by the hon. Mr, Rob. Boyle, 

 an. 1659. He took to him scholars in the house of John Cross next on the 

 w. side to University CoUe. The club consisted of 10 at least, whereof Francis 

 Turner of New Coll. was one, Ben WoodrofF of Ch. Ch. another, and John Lock 

 of the same house, afterwards a noted writer. This John Lock was a man of 

 turbulent spirit, clamorous and never contented. The club wrote and took notes 

 from the mouth of their master, who sat at the upper end of the table, but the 

 said J. Lock scorned to do it ; so that while every man besides were writing, he 

 would be prating and troublesome. After the beginning of the year 1663 

 Mr. Sthael removed his elaboratory to a draper's house, called John Bowell, after- 

 wards mayor of the city, situate in the parish of All Saints. He built his 

 elaboratory in an old hall in the back, for the house itself had been an ancient 

 hostle ; therein A. W. and his fellows were instructed. The chemical club con- 

 cluded, A. W. paid Mr. Sthael 30 shill : having paid 30 shill : beforehand. A. W. 

 got some knowledge and experience, but his mind still hung after antiquities and 

 musick.' 



In spite of Boyle's private position, his blameless life, his devoutness, and his 

 charity, his work aroused bitter animosity in Oxford. He was attacked in the 

 University pulpit, in public orations, in private squibs ; his theories were described 

 as destructive of religion, his experiments as undermining the University. But 

 what chiefly drew the indignation of his opponents was that he, a gentleman by 

 birth and fortune, should concern himself with low mechanical arts. Against 

 these attacks Boyle replied with iiTesistible logic. His vindication of the nobility 

 of scientific work constitutes one of his greatest claims on our gratitude. 



Boyle left Oxford in 1668. Mayow died in 1679. In 1683 Anthony Wood 

 informs us that ' the Oxford elaboratory was quite finished ; ' but the impulse given 

 to the study of Chemistry in Oxford gradually died out. I do not know the 

 history of the Chair of Chemistry in Oxford (if there was one) in the eighteenth 

 century. Richard Frewin, of Christ Church, is described as Professor of Chemistry in 

 1708. He does not seem to have taken himself too seriously in this capacity. 

 Uftenbach, who visited Oxford in 1710, says he found the stoves in fair condition, 

 but everything else in the laboratory in dirt and disorder. Fre\vin himself was 

 elected Camden Professor of Ancient History in 1727. He seems to have thrown 

 himself into his new work with greater ardour ; for Hearne relates that, on his 

 election, he at once bought one hundred pounds' worth of books in chronology and 

 history to fit himself for his duties. For a companion picture to this we may 

 glance at the appointment in 1764 of Richard Watson (afterwards Bishop of 

 Llandaff") to the Chair of Chemistry at Cambridge, which had been founded in 

 1702. Dr. Watson, we are told, knew nothing at all of chemistry ; had never 

 read a syllable nor seen a single experiment on the subject. On his election he 

 sent to Paris for an ' operator,' and set to work in his laboratory. In fourteen 

 months he began to lecture to a large audience. 



But Watson at Cambridge was succeeded by Wollaston. We had to wait till 

 Brodie for a successor to Boyle. 



II. 



We have seen what a vigorous effort Chemistry made to plant itself in Oxford 

 in the seventeenth century. If the soil had been prepared the roots must have 

 struck deep. But the University paid little heed, and after a few years of prodigal 

 growth the plant withered and died out. It would seem that the positions are 

 reversed at the present day. The University spends large sums for supervision 

 and appliances ; the young plants are brought here and nurtured at great expense, 

 but the fair blossoms produce little fruit. Even our best friends admit that the 

 results are somewhat disappointing. If these are the facts — and I speak as one 

 who shares the responsibility for the present condition of chemistry here — it is the 

 duty of those concerned to speak out ; and I can conceive no more fitting oppor- 



