Here and there occur plaints like these:
Though my philosophical labours are nearly over, I am glad to hear
what is passing in that region in which I once moved, though what
I then did seems for the present to be overlooked and forgotten. I
am confident, however, as much as I can be of anything, that
notwithstanding the almost universal reception of the new theory,
which is the cause of it, it is purely chimerical, and cannot keep
its ground after a sufficient scrutiny, which may be deferred, but
which must take place in time. I am glad to find that Mr.
Cruikshank in England, as well as chemists in France, begin to
attend to my objections, though the principal of them have been
published many years; but, as you say, many will not read, and
therefore they cannot know anything that makes against the
opinions they have once adopted. Bigotry is not confined to
theology.
The experimental work for the year was not very great. Probably this was
the result of his general physical weakness and in part it was due to
his preoccupation with literary labours. However, he did write out his
results, obtained on heating "finery cinders and charcoal" and thus
emphasized the gaseous product of which he observes--
It cannot be denied, however, that this gaseous oxyd of carbon
(CO) is _inflammable_ ... and is essentially different from all
other oxyds, none of which are combustible.
Along in the month of November he wrote a vigorous protest against
Cruikshank's explanation of the mode of formation of carbon monoxide. In
this polemic he of course threw into prominence his precious phlogiston,
the presence of which seemed unnecessary--but this was not so thought by
the Doctor, who also favored the _Medical Repository_ with observations
on the conversion of iron into steel, in which there is but a single
reference to phlogiston, but unfortunately this single reference spoils
the general argument and the correct and evident interpretation of the
reaction. It reads as follows:
Iron is convertible into steel by imbibing only _phlogiston_ from
the charcoal with which it is cemented.
There are abundant correct observations. Their interpretation sadly
enough is very false, all because of the persistent introduction of
phlogiston where it was not essential.
Priestley advised Rush that because of an unhealthy season he had
suffered very much from ague, and said,--
Tho' I was never robust, I hardly knew what sickness was before my
seizure in Philadelphia, but the old building has since that had
so many shocks, that I am apprehensive it will ere long give way.
But I have abundant reason to be satisfied, and shall retire from
life _conviva satur_.
Devotion to work was on the part of Priestley, something marvelous. As
his son and daughter-in-law were drawn to Philadelphia in February,
1803, they carried their father with them. He was rather indisposed to
this, yet he disliked remaining alone at home notwithstanding the
printing of the Church History required considerable personal attention.
The marvelous part of it all was that while in Philadelphia, on this his
fourth and last visit, while he fraternized with congenial souls and
even presented himself at various social functions, he yet found leisure
to print his little volume entitled "Socrates and Jesus Compared,"
which gave much pleasure to President Jefferson, so much indeed that he
hoped Priestley would,--
take up the subject on a more extended scale, and show that Jesus
was truly the most innocent, most benevolent, the most eloquent
and sublime character that has ever been exhibited to man.
Jefferson's genuine approval of his effort was balm to Priestley's soul.
He, of course, wrote Lindsey and Belsham about it; yes, copied the
letter of Jefferson and sent the same to them with the comment,--
He is generally considered as an unbeliever. If so, however, he
cannot be far from us, and I hope in the way to be not only
_almost_, but _altogether_ what we are.
It was February 28, 1803, that the august members of the American
Philosophical Society resolved:
That this Society will dine together on Saturday next, and that J.
B. Smith, Wistar, Williams, Hewson & Vaughan be a Committee to
make the necessary arrangements for that purpose and to request
Dr. Priestley's company, informing him that the Society are
induced to make the request from their high respect for his
Philosophical Labours & discoveries, & to enjoy the more
particular pleasure of a social meeting--The Dinner to be prepared
at the City Tavern or Farmer's Hotel.
It was this resolution which caused notices, such as the following to go
out to the distinguished membership of the venerable Society--