Priestley's experiments were admirable, but his perception of
their theoretical relations was entirely inadequate and, as we
now think, quite erroneous.... In theory he had no instinct for
guessing right ... he may almost be said to have had a
predilection for the wrong end.
At present the French thought is so evident that it seems
incomprehensible that Priestley failed to grasp it, for he continues--
In every case of the diminution of atmospherical air in which this
is the result, there appears to me to be something emitted from
the substance, which the antiphlogistians suppose to act by simple
absorption, and therefore that it is more probable that there is
some substance, and the same that has been called _philogiston_,
or the _principle of inflammability_ ... emitted, and that this
phlogiston uniting with part of the dephlogisticated air forms
with it part of the phlogisticated air, which is found after the
process.
Subsequently (1798), he advised the Society that he had executed other
experiments which corroborated those outlined in his first two papers,
adding--
Had the publication of your _Transactions_ been more frequent, I
should with much pleasure have submitted to the Society a full
account of these and other experiments which appear to me to
prove, that metals are compound substances, and that water has not
yet been decomposed by any process that we are acquainted with.
Still, however, I would not be very positive, as the contrary is
maintained by almost all the chemists of the age....
And thus he proceeds, ever doing interesting things, but blind to the
patent results because he had phlogiston constantly before him. He
looked everywhere for it, followed it blindly, and consequently
overlooked the facts regarded as most significant by his opponents,
which in the end led them to correct conclusions.
The experimental results in the second paper also admit of an
interpretation quite the opposite of that deduced by Priestley. He
confidently maintained that air was invariably generated from water,
because he discovered it and liberated it from water which he was
certain did not contain it in solution. He was conscientious in his
inferences. Deeply did his friends deplore his inability to see more
than a single interpretation of his results!
The papers were read before the American Philosophical Society on the
19th of February, 1796. Their author as they appear in print, is the
Rev. Dr. J. Priestley. It is doubtful whether he affixed this signature.
More probable is it that the Secretary of the Society was responsible,
and, because he thought of Priestley in the rôle of a Reverend gentleman
rather than as a scientific investigator.
Here, perhaps, it may be mentioned that the first, the very first
communication from Priestley's pen to the venerable Philosophical
Society, was read in 1784. It was presented by a friend--a Mr. W.
Vaughan, whose family in England were always the staunchest of
Priestley's supporters. And it is not too much to assume that it was the
same influence which one year later (1785) brought about Priestley's
election to membership in the Society, for he was one of "28 new
members" chosen in January of that year.
There are evidences of marked friendliness to Priestley all about the
Hall of the Society, for example his profile in Plaster of Paris,
"particularly valuable for the resemblance" to the Doctor, which was
presented in 1791; a second "profile in black leather" given by Robert
Patterson, a President of the Society, and an oil portrait of him from
Mrs. Dr. Caspar Wistar.
His appearance in person, when for the first time he sat among his
colleagues of the Society, was on the evening of February 19, 1796--the
night upon which the two papers, commented upon in the last few
paragraphs were presented, although he probably did not read them
himself, this being done by a friend or by the secretary. Sixteen
members were present. Among these were some whose names have become
familiar elsewhere, such as Barton, Woodhouse and others. Today, the
presence in the same old Hall of a renowned scientist, from beyond the
seas, would literally attract crowds. Then it was not the fashion. But
probably he had come unannounced and unheralded. Further, he was
speaking at other hours on other topics in the city.
It is not recorded that he spoke before the philosophers. Perhaps he
quietly absorbed their remarks and studied them, although he no doubt
was agreeably aroused when Mr. Peale presented
to the Society a young son of four months and four days old, being
the first child born in the Philosophical Hall, and requested that
the Society would give him a name. On which the Society
unanimously agreed that, after the name of the chief founder and
late President of the Society, he should be called Franklin.
In anticipation of any later allusion to Priestley's sojourn in
Philadelphia be it observed that he attended meetings of the American
Philosophical Society three times in 1796, twice in 1797, three times in
1801 and once in 1803, and that on February 3rd, 1797, he was chosen to
deliver the annual oration before the Society, but the Committee
reported that
they waited on Dr. Priestley last Monday afternoon, who received
the information with great politeness, but declined accepting of
the appointment.
This lengthy digression must now be interrupted. It has gone almost too
far, yet it was necessary in order that an account of the early
experimental contributions of the exile might be introduced
chronologically. As already remarked, Americans are most deeply
interested in everything Priestley did during his life in this country
and particularly in his scientific activities.
On resuming the story of the routine at Northumberland in the closing
months of the year 1795, there comes the cry from an agonized heart,--
We have lost poor Harry!
This was the message to a Philadelphia resident--a friend from old
England. The loss, for such it emphatically was, affected the Doctor and
Mrs. Priestley very deeply. This particular son was a pride to them and
though only eighteen years old had conducted his farm as if he had been
bred a farmer.
He was uncommonly beloved by all that worked under him.
His home was just outside of the borough of Northumberland. It was the
gift of his father. His interment in "a plot of ground" belonging to the
Society of Friends is thus described by Mr Bakewell:
I attended the funeral to the lonely spot, and there I saw the
good old father perform the service over the grave of his son. It
was an affecting sight, but he went through it with fortitude, and
after praying, addressed the attendants in a few words, assuring
them that though death had separated them here, they should meet
again in another and a better life.
The correspondence to friends in England was replete with accounts of
lectures which were in process of preparation. They were discourses on
the Evidences of Revelation and their author was most desirous of
getting to Philadelphia that he might there deliver them. At that time
this City was full of atheism and agnosticism. Then, too, the hope of
establishing a Unitarian Church was ever in Priestley's thoughts. How
delightful it is to read, February 12th, 1796--