In preparing this essay, I consulted notes written by the late Rt. Hon. Richard H. S. Crossman, the official biographer of Chaim Weizmann. I have greatly benefited from his insights and formulations. 1 would also like to thank the late Professor Philip J. Elving of the University of Michigan and Professor Saul G. Cohen of Brandeis University for commenting on those parts of the paper dealing with chemistry.

1. See Arthur Hantke to Weizmann, February 13, 1912. Central Zionist Archives (hereafter CZA) Z3/524. Weizmann was not always welcome as a Zionist propagandist. In some Zionist circles he apparently had the reputation of initiating sharp and unpleasant controversies. See, e.g., letter from the Comité Central de la Fédération Zioniste Beige of December 2, 1912, in which the Belgian Zionists specifically asked the Central Zionist Office in Berlin to refrain from sending Weizmann on propaganda tours. CZA, Z3/772.

2. The tour was very successful. In Vienna and Prague his lectures on “Zionismus und Staatsbuergertum” were very well received. See Die Welt, no. 15, April 12, 1912, p. 451. Robert Weltsch, who led the “Bar Kochba” group in Prague at the time, also recalled Weizmann's visit, some sixty-three years later. See Haaretz, January 22, 1975.

3. Weizmann to Arthur Hantke, February 25, 1912, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann (23 vols., London, 1968–1980), V, p. 276.Google Scholar

4. The contract with Bayer was signed on January 30, 1901. See document in Weizmann Archives (W.A.).

5. See Michaelis, Anthony, Chaim Weizmann, (London, 1974) pp. 57–58, and Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 3, nos. 1–2 (June-September 1953): 22.Google Scholar

6. The camphor patent was sold in 1907 to Leon Givaudan, who owned a plant producing perfumes and aromatics in Vernier, near Geneva. Weizmann owed his interest in camphor to William Perkin, who had encouraged him to investigate the field as soon as Weizmann arrived in Manchester in 1904. Arthur Lapworth, Perkin's brother-in-law, who came to Manchester University in 1909 and taught in the same department, was also interested in camphor and, in fact, was the one to point the way out of the labyrinth of camphor chemistry.

7. According to Weizmann £700 per year. See Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, January 17, 1912. WL V, p. 270. This is clearly an exaggerated figure for this period, intended probably to boost his salary at the Technicum in Haifa, should he get a job at that institution. Weizmann ceased working for the Clayton Aniline Company in 1910.

8. See Senate Committee Minutes of April 23, 1912, John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4, vol. V, p. 27. See also Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, April 28, 1912. WL V, p. 291. It seems that in light of his new university obligations and salary, Weizmann invented for himself the title of “independent lecturer.” In fact he was still a senior lecturer, but his teaching duties were apparently reduced in the spring of 1912. His new salary and responsibilites became effective in October 1912. See list of appointments of faculty members of the University of Manchester, John Rylands Archives, UA/18/16R.

9. The loans from Ahad Ha'Am continued throughout 1914, i.e., after Weizmann had been promoted to the position of reader which carried with it the considerable salary of £600. At that point Vera was also earning a salary. Their combined income just prior to World War I must have been close to £1,000.

10. See Vera's extensive communications to Weizmann on these matters between 1902 and 1905, e.g., September 17, 21, 25, 1905. W.A.

11. See Weizmann, Vera, The Impossible Takes Longer, (London, 1967) p. 35. Vera maintains that she did learn how to cook. Nevertheless, Weizmann's constant references to the cook indicate that Vera's contributions in the kitchen were minimal.Google Scholar

12. See interview with T. R. Fyvel (W.A.), who describes their life-style in London later on, but one can assume that these inclinations and tastes were not cultivated overnight. See also Israel Sieff, Memoirs (London, 1970), p. 77, who writes of Vera: “She took with her a bourgeois background, gaiety and a taste for the good life.”

13. Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 37.

14. Ibid, pp. 31, 35.

15. Israel Sieff records that during the 1913–1914 period “I often gave lunch to [Chaim], and to Vera…not only for their company but because I thought it helped them out.” Israel Sieff, Memoirs, (London, 1970) p. 79.

16. See Lichtheim, Richard, Rueckkehr, Lebenserrinerungen aus der Fruehzeit des deulschen Zionismus (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 17–26.Google Scholar

17. Weizmann to Vera, March 22, 1912. WL V, p. 283.

18. Weizmann to Vera, March 29, 1912. WL V, p. 287.

19. Weizmann to Vera, April 1, 1912. WL V, p. 288.

20. The immigrants concentrated in and around the lower part of Cheetham Hill; as their economic condition improved, they moved up the hill. Weizmann always lived a few miles away from this area, in close proximity to, or south of, the university.

21. Sieff, Israel M., “The Manchester Period,” in Chaim Weizmann: A Biography by Several Hands, ed. Weisgal, Meyer W. and Carmichael, Joel (New York, 1963), p. 90. When Weizmann spoke on Zionist affairs in the center of the immigrant community, he frequently did so at the Jewish Working Men's Club. The club was established by well-to-do Jews for workers, to help “protect” them from socialist influences.Google Scholar

22. See Weizmann to Vera, May 30, 1912. WL V, p. 309.

23. In her memoirs Vera recorded that while Weizmann visited Massel “I would sit in silence, sniffing the smell of print, waiting for us to go home.” Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 32.

24. Vera's ignorance of Judaism was such that she was often unaware of the date of the High Holidays and needed to be reminded by Weizmann. See, e.g., Vera to Weizmann, September 17, 1905. W.A.

25. Sieff, Memoirs, p. 66.

26. Weizmann, Vera, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 32.Google Scholar

27. Charles Dreyfus hailed from Alsace. He moved to England in 1869 and in 1876 founded the Clayton Aniline Company, of which he was managing director until his retirement in 1913. Weizmann had worked for the Clayton Aniline Company on a part-time basis since March 1905, a few months after his arrival in England.

28. See Weizmann to Moses Gaster, January 15, 1907. WL V, p. 6.Google Scholar

29. See Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 16, 1912. WL V, p. 329.

30. The Manchester School for Mothers. Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 40. See also Weizmann to Berthold Feiwel, May 16, 1913. WL VI, p. 73.

31. Weizmann, Chaim, Trial and Error, (New York, 1949) p. 133.Google Scholar

32. See Delaunay, Albert, L'Institut Pasteur, des Origines a Aujourd'hui (Paris, 1962), pp. 114ff. At the Pasteur Institue Fernbach ahd become known in 1910 for his researches in which he-along with others-anticipated Buchner's classic grinding of yeast cells with fine quartz or sand to yield cell contents for examination. See Maurice Schofield, “Weizmann's Success as Manchester Biochemist.” W.A.Google Scholar

33. Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 133.

34. At the time, the price of natural rubber in England had soared to 12 shillings per pound and was still rising. See Harold Davies, “A Review of the Development of the Butyl Alcohol- Acetone Fermentation and Early Work on Synthetic Rubber,” Papers Collected to Commemorate the 70th Anniversary of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, p. 5. W.A.

35. Bergmann, Ernst D., “Bergmann on Weizmann”, Rehovot 8, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 54.Google Scholar

36. Probably in January 1910.

37. There are two main sources from which I have drawn the information in this chapter dealing with Weizmann's research during 1910–1912 and his connections with William Perkin, Auguste Fernbach, and Strange and Graham Ltd. The first is the court proceedings dealing with a suit brought by Weizmann and Commercial Solvents Corporation-a U.S.-based company-against Strange and Graham and Synthetic Products Company Ltd. in 1926. The proceedings are contained in a report called “Reports of Patent, Design, and Trade Mark Cases,” vol. XLIII, no. 7 (London, 1926), hereafter cited as Reports of Patent. The second source is the letters and memoranda which were presumably used as evidence during the court proceedings. These are collected in a container labeled “In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Mr. Justice Romer. Commerical Solvents Corporation v. Synthetic Products Company Limited. Correspondence, Agreed Bundle No. 1 from 10th May 1909 to 31st May 1919 and Correspondence, Agreed Bundle No. 2 from June 12 [to 1925]. Plaintiff's Solicitors” Hereafter cited as Court of Justice. The entire documentation is housed in the Weizmann Archives.

38. See Court of Justice, Agreement signed by W. H. Perkin and Ch. Weizmann, February 8, 1910. A month later, on March 14, 1910, Perkin hired another research assistant–Harold Davies–who worked closely with Weizmann on all experiments. See Davies, “Review…on Synthetic Rubber,” p. 5.

39. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, April 16, 1910.

40. See Court of Justice, Weizmann to Fernbach, August 8, 1910; Strange to Fernbach, September 22, 1910; and Fernbach to Strange, November 11, 1910.

41. Concerning Schoen's expertise and work, see Delaunay, L'Institut Pasteur, pp. 114 and passim.

42. Court of Justice, WeizOiann to Fernbach, August 8, 1910: “The questions which we want to study at once are: 1st. Rice Albumin 2ndly Amyl and iso-butyl alcohols.”

43. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, February 10, 1911, and Weizmann to Strange, March 14, 1911; Reports of Patent, p. 211. Weizmann isolated this bacillus from garden soil taken from the “Vice Chancellor's garden,” while Fernbach had isolated his bacillus from a water source in or near Paris. See Davies, “Review… on Synthetic Rubber,” p. 7.

44. Reports of Patent, p. 211.

45. See, e.g., Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, January 23, 1912.

46. As it turned out, he was wrong. An interesting and rather unexpected property of the minute rodlike bacterium, subsequently given the systemalic name “Clostridium acetobutylicum Weizmann” (nicknamed B-Y), was its ability to ferment starch directly, i.e., without prior treatment, since it contains maltase, which can split starch to “fermentable” sugars. See Bergmann, Ernst D, “The Example of Weizmann's Science”, Jerusalem Post, November 2, 1969, p. 3, and Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 134.Google Scholar

47. Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 2, 1911. WL V, p. 264.

48. See Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, February 24, 1912; Weizmann to Strange, February 27, 1912; Strange to Weizmann, February 28, 1912; and Weizmann to Strange, March 3, 1912.

49. See, e.g., Court of Justice, document by E. Moore Mumford, an assistant to Weizmann, dated April 30, 1912.

50. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, March 29, 1912. Kane also experimented with the isolation of other butyl-producing bacteria and on May 1, 1912, isolated one which he called “160” from barley. Reports of Patent, p. 186.

51. The power of producing acetone in the fermentation of carbohydrates was not peculiar to the bacillus BF. It is the property of all butylic ferments of starch.

52. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, March 29, 1912.

53. Bergmann, “Bergmann on Weizmann,” p. 54. See also Court of Justice, Strange to Fembach, May 10, 1912: “I had a further interview with two of the Nobel Dynamite Trust people yesterday and they admitted that the diminishing supply of acetone and the increasing demand for it by several countries for explosive manufacture is a matter of great concern to the British Government and particularly the Admiralty.”Google Scholar

54. See, e.g., Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, November 17, 1911.

55. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912. A more modest name was finally chosen for the company. “Synthetic Products Company, Ltd.”

56. Reports of Patent, p. 214.

57. See Ibid: “the report states that it was 43 per cent of the dry substance of the potato, but this must have been a clerical error. No such yield has been observed with any bacterium discovered hitherto.” The court proceedings do not make it clear what the true yields from potatoes were at Rainham.

58. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912.

59. Early on in their collaborative research, when Strange published a prospectus that used Weizmann's and Perkin's names, the latter wrote to Strange–perhaps at Weizmann's insistence–that “the prospectus has the appearance at least, of being an attempt to raise money on our names and reputations and it was widely enough circulated to create a a very unfavorable impression in scientific circles. We have every reason to object strongly to such a document being sent out without our knowledge or sanction.” Court of Justice, Perkin to Strange, July 27, 1910. Clearly, Perkin's qualms about the use of his name had in the meantime been allayed by the prospect of making his fortune.

60. See Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912, and Reports of Patent, p. 214. In a letter to Fernbach of May 8, 1912, Strange wrote: “Perkin is to read a paper to the Society of Chemical Industry on June 17 setting out such portions of our position as we deem wise We are anxious to get our statement ahead of the big German boom which is being engineered for September at the Congress of Applied Chemistry in Washington I am writing up the paper for Perkin and I will send you an advanced copy for your criticisms.” Court of Justice, p. 391.

61. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, May 9, 1912, and Fernbach to Weizmann, May 9, 1912.

62. See Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, June 11, 1912, and Reports of Patent, p. 232. Fernbach stated clearly: “Our large fermentation experiment on Maize has been going on with very great speed for ten days when it stopped suddenly. The result is about the same as what you have yourself obtained at Rainham the fermentation of maize is far from being so easy as the fermentation of potatoes.”

63. Reports of Patent, p. 232. Fernbach wrote the following: “I have discovered fermentation processes which by employing starchy substances, namely, cereal grains such as maize, as raw materials produce higher alcohols and acetone In addition to working on the laboratory scale I have conducted the process successfully in large size vessels and under certain conditions obtained over 42 per cent of the starch employed converted into mixed higher alcohols.”

64. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, July 3, 1912: “We were only asking for the £450,000 on the off chance that the public might like to give it to us.”

65. See, e.g., Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, May 9, 1912, and Moses Schoen to Weizmann, June 14, 1912.

66. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, May 9, 1912.

67. Court of Justice, Weizmann to Fernbach, May 12, 1912, and May 13, 1912.

68. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912.

69. Weizmann to Vera, May 18, 1912. WL V, p. 299.

70. Court of Justice, Weizmann to Strange, May 22, 1912.

71. See Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, July 19, 1912. In this letter Strange reviewed developments in Manchester after Weizmann returned from Paris in May. Weizmann had, no doubt, also indicated to Fernbach that he would walk out on the team, which is why Fernbach sought to bind him to the group through a more forceful contract.

72. Weizmann to Vera, May 21, 1912. WL V, p. 302.

73. Court of Justice, Weizmann to Strange, May 22, 1912. Perkin seems to have been right in this case, though the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. In its meeting of 1912 the senate of the university resolved “that Dr. Weizmann's stipend be raised to £450 per annum, it being understood that his position as to external work be the same as that of other members of the staff.” Senate Committee Minutes of April 23, 1912. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4, vol. V, p. 27. The council of the university had monitored Weizmann's work outside the university all along. See, e.g., “At a Meeting of the Council Held on November 13th, 1907,” John Rylands Archives, RA/29/1, vol. Ill, p. 85, which regulated Weizmann's work for the Clayton Aniline Company.Google Scholar

74. Court of Justice, Strange and Graham to Weizmann, May 23, 1912.

75. Court of Justice, Perkin to Strange, May 30, 1912. Perkin may have actually meant the Technicum in Haifa, where Weizmann had long sought to be appointed chairman of a department of chemistry.

76. See Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, August 1, 1911; Weizmann to Strange, September 1, 1911. On September 6 Strange wrote to Matthews: “You will note that behind what 1 have stated is the feeling that if we are not careful Weizmann will endeavor to secure credit for himself which only belongs to him as a unit of the Research Organization. 1 am beginning to think that our association with Weizmann may have to come to an end unless he is prepared to accept the position as part of the machine.”

77. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, June 3, 1912.

78. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, June 1, 1912.

79. See Weizmann to Vera, May 30, 1912. WL V, p. 307.

80. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, June 1, 1912.

81. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, June 3, 1912: “My private opinion is that Perkin is not such a robber and blackguard as Weizmann makes out I think an arrangement something on the lines you indicate can probably be put through.”

82. See Court of Justice, Weizmann to Perkin, June 5, 1912.

83. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, no date indicated.

84. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, July 3, 1912. See also Fernbach to Strange, July 11, 1912.

85. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, July 19, 1912. Though the source for this information is Strange, it is borne out by subsequent developments. See also Weizmann's letter to Vera of May 18, 1912. WL V, p. 299.

86. Reports of Patent, p. 214, and Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, June 25, 1912. WL V, pp. 311–312.

87. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, July 19, 1912.

88. Ibid

89. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, August 16, 1912; Weizmann to Fernbach, August 22, 1912; Fernbach to Weizmann, August 24, 1912; Weizmann to Fernbach, October 28, 1912; Fernbach to Weizmann, October 29, 1912; Strange to Fernbach, November 13, 1912; Strange to Weizmann, December 9, 1912; and Fernbach to Weizmann, December 17, 1912.

90. See Court of Justice, Addleshaw Sons and Latham to Clapham, Fraser, Cook and Co. [Strange's solicitors], December 23, 1912, and January 7, 1913.

91. See Weizmann to Caroline Schuster, July 13, 1912, WL V, pp. 313–314.

92. See Weizmann to Nahum Sokolow, August 2, 1912, WL V, p. 315.

93. Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, September 26, 1912, WL V, pp. 316–317. Weirmann sent Ahad Ha'Am a formal request, to be forwarded to the Hilfsverein, in which he declared his readiness to come to the Haifa Technicum in two years' time as professor of chemistry, at an annual salary of 10,000 marks, with sufficient facilities to conduct research and a guaranteed budget for five years. He himself undertook to raise 100,000 marks.

94. The professorship was offered to Perkin on November 23, 1912. Perkin accepted on December 10, 1912. See Oxford University Archives, “Minutes of meetings of electoral boards and other meetings chaired by the Vice Chancellor, 1898–1937,” pp. 113 and 118. Perkin officially resigned from Manchester University on December 18, 1912. See Minutes of Council, 1912–1914. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/1, p. 49.

95. For the widespread publicity connected with Perkin's work for Strange and Graham, see Henry Roscoe Record Notebook, John Rylands Archives (Deansgate).

96. Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 8, 1912. WL V, p. 328.

97. Perkin's last patent with Weizmann was registered on October 4, 1912.

98. In tracing materials related to the appointment of Perkin's successor, searches were conducted in Manchester in the University Archives, the records of the Organic Chemistry Department, the records of the Faculty of Science, and the University Registrar's Office. The full files of the committee which dealt with the appointment to Perkin's chair are missing. Yet the record shows that at its first meeting the committee heard the views of Perkin and Dixon as to how to proceed in filling the vacancy. See “Arrangements in Consequence of Professor Perkin's resignation” (hereafter cited as “Arrangements”), January 28, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/3. Council Committees' Book, February 1909-January 1916.

99. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, December 9, 1912.

100. See “Arrangements,” January 28, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/3.

101. See list of appointments of faculty members of the University of Manchester, John Rylands Archives, UA/18/16h. See also Senate minutes of April 23, 1912. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4, 1912–1913.

102. See minutes of February 14, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4. Senate Committee Book. This decision was reaffirmed after the committee met on April 17, 1913, and read the letter received from Professor Theodore William Richards of Harvard University.

103. See minutes of March 11, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4. Senate Committee Book.

104. Report of Committee on Arrangements consequent to Professor Perkin's resignation. John Ryland's Archives, RA/3/5. Senate Minutes, vol. 4 (1912–1914), p. 68.

105. See Minutes of the Senate of the Victoria University of Manchester, May 1913, John Rylands Archives, RA/3/1 (25.9.1912–10.6.1914), MS pp. 123–125: “That Dr. Charles Weizmann be appointed Reader in Bio-Chemistry at a stipend of £600 per annum, his duties being to give such instruction in Bio-Chemistry and the Chemistry of Colouring Matters as may be required. That the appointment be made in the first instance for three years, as from 29th September 1913.” See also John Rylands Archives, RA/29/1.

106. When Dixon informed Weizmann of the committee's deliberations, he must have offered Weizmann the position of reader, though in January 1913 it had not yet been decided that Lapworth would get the chair. Thus, it seems that from the outset Weizmann was ruled out as the incumbent of the chair in organic chemistry.

107. See Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 27, 1912. WL V, p. 332.

108. Weizmann to Vera, January 28, 1913. WL V, p. 362.

109. See, e.g., Weizmann to Norah Schuster, May 12, 1913, WL VI, p. 64; Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, May 25, 1913, WL VI, p. 78; and Weizmann to Isaac Straus, May 25, 1913, WL VI, p. 82. Weizmann was so angered by the fact that he did not receive the professorship that he delayed signing his new contract as long as possible. He was the last of the entire faculty to do so–on November 13, 1913. See John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4.

110. Weizmann to Vera, January 28, 1913. WL V, p. 362.

111. See, e.g., Weizmann to Vera, July 2, 1909, WL V, pp. 140–141; January 23, 1913, WL V, p. 357; and H. B. Speakman, “Dr. Weizmann's, Contributions to Microbiology,” in Chaim Weizmann (see note 21), pp. 265–266.Google Scholar

112. In 1913 both had roughly the same status in the department. Weizmann had slight seniority, since he had been appointed senior lecturer in 1907, while Lapworth was appointed in 1909. See Senate minutes of April 23, 1912. RA/3/4, 1912–1913.

113. See Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1981), vol. 8, p. 32. There is, of course, no agreement on who deserved the professorship. Lapworth's student-George Norman Burkhardt- has a different view on the merits of the case. According to Burkhardt, Weizmann's choice of topics for research was determined more “by commercial rather than scientific considerations. In 1913 he was only beginning to establish himself in biochemistry. Lapworth, on the other hand, ”had done notable work in the structural organic chemistry of camphor and related compounds. His general report was regarded as a classic. But it was his work on the formation and decomposition of cyanohydrins of ketones and on the bromination of acetone that was recognized as one of the foundations of a new branch of chemistry (physical organic).“ Yet even Burkhardt admits that much of Lapworth's work could not-by 1913-be thought of as being relevant to a chair of organic chemistry. Information provided by G. N. Burkhardt in November 1982. See also Burkhardt, G. N., “Prof. A. Lapworth, F.R.S.,” Nature 147 (June 21, 1941): 769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114. Weizmann was unable to become an FRS despite the fact that Arthur Schuster was the secretary of the society from 1912 to 1919. It is more than likely that Perkin withdrew his backing for Weizmann for an FRS.

115. See Weizmann to Vera, February 1, 1913, WL V, p. 369, and Weizmann, Trial and Error, pp. 134–135.

116. Weizmann to Vera, February 11, 1913. WL V, p. 381.

117. Weizmann to Vera, February 13, 1913. WL V, p. 383.

118. See, e.g., Alfred Hopkinson to Norman Collie, February 18, 1913. John Rylands Archives, VCA, no. 5.

119. See “Minutes of Council, September 25, 1912-June 10, 1914,” John Rylands Archives, RA/3/1.

120. Richards was one of the most eminent chemists in the United States. In 1914 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry, the first chemist in the United States to be so honored. See Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 11, pp. 416–417.Google Scholar

121. Alfred Hopkinson to T. W. Richards, February 18, 1913. Harvard University Archives, HUG/1743/1/6 (1912–1913), Box 1. Hopkinson wrote in a similar vein to the other chemists consulted by the committee. It should be pointed out that not all the potential candidates held the title of FRS.

122. Theodore William Richards to Alfred Hopkinson, March 7, 1913. Harvard University Archives, HUG/1743/1/6 (1912–1913), Box 1. On May 22, 1913, Hopkinson informed Richards of the decisions concerning Lapworth and Weizmann. See Harvard University Archives, HUG/1743/1/5 (1911–1913), Box 5; a copy of Hopkinson's reply is also contained in the Vice-Chancellor's Letter Book, John Rylands Archives, VCA, no. 5.

123. See Kelly's Directory of Manchester, 1908. Central Library, Manchester.

124. See my forthcoming article “Science in the Service of Politics: The Case of Chaim Weizmann,” English Historical Review (Spring 1985).Google Scholar

125. See Reinharz, Jehuda, “Chaim Weizmann: The Shaping of a Zionist Leader before the First World War,” Journal of Contemporary History 18 (1983): 205–231. 0Earlier versions of this paper were prepared for the International Seminar on Judaism and Secular Society and the International Seminar on East and West in Israel, held at Bar-Ilan University in the summers of 1980 and 1982 respectively. I am grateful to Shlomo Deshen, Jacob Katz, Robert Chazan, and Menachem Friedman for their helpful comments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar