My youngest son, Harry, works as hard as any farmer in the country
and is as attentive to his farm, though he is only eighteen....
Two or three hours I always work in the fields along with my
son....
And, then as a supplement, for it was resting heavily on his mind, he
added--
What I chiefly attend to now is my Church History ... but I make
some experiments every day (July 12, 1795), and shall soon draw up
a paper for the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia.
Early in December of 1795 he entrusted a paper, intended for the
American Philosophical Society to the keeping of Dr. Young, a gentleman
from Northumberland en route for Europe. Acquainting his friend Lindsey
of this fact, he took occasion to add--
I have much more to do in my laboratory, but I am under the
necessity of shutting up for the winter, as the frost will make it
impossible to keep my water fit for use, without such provision as
I cannot make, till I get my own laboratory prepared on purpose,
when I hope to be able to work alike, winter and summer.
Dr. Young carried two papers to Philadelphia. The first article treated
of "Experiments and Observations relating to the Analysis of
Atmospherical Air," and the second "Further Experiments relating to the
Generation of Air from Water." They filled 20 quarto pages of Volume 4
of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. On reading
them the thought lingers that these are the first contributions of the
eminent philosopher from his American home. Hence, without reference to
their value, they are precious. They represent the results of inquiries
performed under unusual surroundings. It is very probable that
Priestley's English correspondents desired him to concentrate his
efforts upon experimental science. They were indeed pleased to be
informed of his Church History, and his vital interest in religion, but
they cherished the hope that science would in largest measure displace
these literary endeavors. Priestley himself never admitted this, but
must have penetrated their designs, and, recognizing the point of their
urging, worked at much disadvantage to get the results presented in
these two pioneer studies. Present day students would grow impatient in
their perusal, because of the persistent emphasis placed on phlogiston,
dephlogisticated air, phlogisticated air, and so forth. In the very
first paper, the opening lines show this:
It is an essential part of the antiphlogistic theory, that in all
the cases of what I have called _phlogistication_ of _air_, there
is simply an absorption of the dephlogisticated air, or, as the
advocates of that theory term it, the oxygen contained in it,
leaving the _phlogisticated_ part, which they call _azote_, as it
originally existed in the atmosphere. Also, according to this
system, _azote_ is a simple substance, at least not hitherto
analyzed into any other.
No matter how deeply one venerates Priestley, or how great honor is
ascribed to him, the question continues why the simpler French view was
not adopted by this honest student. Further, as an ardent admirer one
asks why should Priestley pen the next sentence:
They, therefore, suppose that there is a determinate proportion
between the quantities of oxygen, and azote in every portion of
atmospherical air, and that all that has hitherto been done has
been to separate them from one another. This proportion they state
to be 27 parts of oxygen and 73 parts of azote, in 100 of
atmospherical air.
Priestley knew that there was a "determinate proportion." He was not,
however, influenced by quantitative data.