This Oriel Noetic tradition was established by two dominant Oriel provosts, John Eveleigh, who was provost from 1789 to 1814, and Edward Copleston, who was provost from 1814 to 1828 and who figures prominently in the narrative that follows. These two dominant personalities were instrumental in promoting the pedagogical and institutional reforms to the exam statutes over 1800-1809 that in many ways anticipated the more famous university reforms of 1854 and which slowly transformed Oxford from the indolent institution of Edward Gibbon s day (with its idle monks ) to the more earnest institution of Matthew Arnold s day. Eveleigh s and Copleston s reformist zeal and careful recruitment processes also raised Oriel from a state of mediocrity to one of the most respected colleges of Oxford. Fellows were chosen less on the basis of connections and patronage and more on the basis of character and intellectual spark. The latter strategy meant that men with double second-class degrees, but with character and first-class minds, were often chosen as fellows over men with double firsts. The first batch of recruits became the core of the Oriel tradition: John Davison became a fellow in 1800, Richard Whately in 1811 (as one of the disappointed double-second men), John Keble in 1811, Edward Hawkins in 1813 and Renn Dickson Hampden in 1814. These fellows, in turn, recruited younger men of the calibre of Thomas Arnold, Robert Wilberforce, Robert Hurrell Froude, John Henry Newman (who did not even get a second class) and Edward Pusey, with the last few ultimately betraying the Oriel tradition by forming the Oxford movement. Finally, for reasons discussed below, Nassau Senior of Magdalen College should also be considered an honorary Oriel Noetic. It was, however, Copleston and Whately who were the real leaders, especially in the second decade of the century when it was said that Copleston and Whately ruled the college and, indeed, threatened to conquer Oxford (Mozley, 1882, p. 22).
|Pages (from-to)||199 - 241|
|Number of pages||43|
|Journal||Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology|
|Publication status||Published - 2010|