JULY 2, 1897.] 
to his changed environment. Although he 
shortly became a prominent figure in social 
as well as scholarly circles he still retained 
his fondness for real, hard scientific work, 
and during his busiest life in Boston made 
many scientific investigations of great in- 
terest and importance. 
His personal acquaintance with eminent 
men of science on both sides of the At- 
lantic was extensive and his occasional ref- 
erences to them in his letters add greatly to 
their value.. It was in the earlier years of 
his connection with the University of Vir- 
ginia that Professor Sylvester came from 
England to succeed Bonnyeastle as profes- 
sor of mathematics. Professor Rogers had 
for some time after the death of the latter car- 
ried on the work of the department and he 
was naturally much interested in the ar- 
rival of his relief. He wrote: ‘“ For several 
days we have been anxiously looking for 
the arrival of Professor Sylvester; we 
learn he lost all his baggage in Boston; this 
may have detained him ’’—which goes to 
show that some of the personal peculiar- 
ities of the distinguished mathematician 
were not confined in their exhibition to 
later periods of his life. Again, a few 
weeks later: ‘‘The faculty, students and 
others attached to the University are all 
greatly pleased with Mr. Sylvester. He 
was terribly embarrassed at his first lecture, 
indeed quite overwhelmed, but has been 
doing better since. He has a good deal of 
hesitation, is not fluent, but is very enthu- 
siastic and commands the attention and in- 
terest of his class.’”? His brother, Robert 
E. Rogers, who had for some time filled the 
chair of chemistry in the University of 
Virginia, was appointed in 1852 to the pro- 
fessorship of chemistry in the University 
of Pennsylvania, made vacant by the death 
of his brother James.. He was succeeded 
in Virginia by Professor J. Lawrence Smith, 
of Kentucky, already a chemist of distinc- 
tion. He brought with him two young men 
SCIENCE. 7 
as assistants, George J. Brush and Ogden 
N. Rood, both of whom were to achieve 
distinction in later years. Of the first Pro- 
fessor Rogers wrote in 1852: ‘ Young 
Brush is a zealous mineralogist of the Yale 
School, and seems to be familiar with all 
parts of chemical analysis. He talks a 
great deal and very admirably of young 
Silliman and Dana, and I find that he sup- 
poses New Haven to be the great center of 
American science.” In 1853, after having 
resigned his professorship in the University 
of Virginia, he wrote concerning the well- 
known professor of physics in that institu- 
tion : “‘My successor is young Mr. Smith, the 
mathematical tutor, and a favorite pupil of 
mine.” 
In 1857 Henry D. Rogers was. appointed 
to a professorship in the University of Glas- 
gow, Scotland, and the correspondence of 
the brothers became more interesting on ac- 
count of the wider range of personal ac- 
quaintance and association which naturally 
resulted. In 1859 William wrote to Henry : 
“T read William Thomson’s speech with 
great interest, and should be glad to see him 
operate with his ingeniousinstruments. It 
is rare to’ see such profound mathematical 
knowledge united to such skill in its appli- 
cation to physical questions, and such in- 
genuity in mechanical contrivance.” It 
would be difficult to find a better descrip- 
tion of Lord Kelvin than this. Henry 
had lectured at the Royal Institution, and 
on March 11, 1856, William wrote : “‘ Tell 
me in your next what sort of an audience 
you had at the Royal Institution. Whatis 
Faraday about just now? and Wheatstone ? 
Tyndall seems to be taking a leading part 
at the Royal Institution. He has fine 
talents and I hope he is a good fellow; but 
where is there another Faraday ?” 
An interesting letter dated August 1, 
1860, from James Russell Lowell, who was 
then editor of the Atlantic Monthly, reveals 
_ the fact that Professor Rogers had sent him 
