FOOTNOTES:

Plants, as well as other objects, engage more of my attention than they ever did before.... I wish I knew a little more botany; but old, as I am, I learn something new continually.

Now and then he mentions a considerable degree of deafness, and sent to Philadelphia for a speaking trumpet, but cheerily adds,

I am, however, thankful that my eyes do not fail me.

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) isinflammable... 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 theMedical Repositorywith 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 onlyphlogistonfrom 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 lifeconviva 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 onlyalmost, butaltogetherwhat 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 thatthe 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—

Philadelphia, March 2, 1803Sir: You are hereby invited to join the other members of the American Philosophical Society, in giving a testimony of respect, to their venerable associate Dr. Joseph Priestley, who dines with them on Saturday next at Francis' Hotel—Dinner on table at 3 o'clock.

Philadelphia, March 2, 1803

Sir: You are hereby invited to join the other members of the American Philosophical Society, in giving a testimony of respect, to their venerable associate Dr. Joseph Priestley, who dines with them on Saturday next at Francis' Hotel—Dinner on table at 3 o'clock.

C. WistarJ. WilliamsJ. R. SmithT. T. HewsonJ. VaughanCommitteeAn answer will be called for tomorrow morning.DR. RUSHIt was a very dignified and brilliant company. Law, medicine, theology, science, commerce represented by very worthy and excellent gentlemen. And, among them sat the modest, unassuming, versatile Priestley. That he was happy in his surroundings there is ample reason to believe. He loved to be among men. He, too, was appreciated and eagerly sought because of his winning ways, his tolerance and liberality. He was moderately convivial thoughHe said that one glass of wine at dinner was enough for an old man, but he did not prescribe his own practice as an universal rule.About eight weeks were spent in the City. On return to the dear country home the doctor took up his various duties and burdens, but the infirmities of age were often alluded to by him, and they no doubt delayed all of his work, which was further aggravated by a dangerous fall on his left hip and strain of the muscles of the thigh. He was extremely lame and for some time went about on crutches, which held him out of his laboratory. To him this was very trying. But he persisted. He was truly a splendid example for the younger aspirants for scientific honors. During the yearhe entered on a controversial article with his old friend Erasmus Darwin upon the subject ofspontaneous combustion, and subsequently communicated to theMedical Repositoryan account of the conversion of salt into nitre. He had positive knowledge of this fact for quite a little while, and upon the occasion of a visit by Dr. Wistar, told the latter concerning this with the request that no mention be made of it, evidently that he might have opportunity for additional confirmation. However, very unexpectedly, Dr. Mitchill published something of a similar character, therefore Priestley believing that he ought "to acquaint experimentalists in general with all that I know of the matter," announced that in 1799 when experimenting on the formation of air from water,having made use of the same salt, mixed with snow, in every experiment, always evaporating the mixture the salt was recovered dry. I collected the salt when I had done with it, and put it into a glass bottle, with a label expressing what it was, and what use had been made of it.Subsequently he treated this salt, after many applications of it, with sulphuric acid, when he remarked—I was soon surprized to observe thatred vapoursrose from it.An examination of another portion of the salt showed—that when it was thrown upon hot coals ... it burned exactly like nitre.So it was a conversion of sodium chloride into sodium nitrate. That this change must have come from thesnowwith which it had been dissolved, could not be doubted, and he further observed—Now in the upper regions of the atmosphere ... there may be a redundancy of inflammable air ... and a proportion of dephlogisticated air. In that region there are many electrical appearances, as theaurora borealis, falling stars &c; in the lower parts of it thunder and lightening, and by these means the two kinds of air may be decomposed, and a highly dephlogisticated nitrous acid, as mine always was, produced. This being formed, will of course, attach itself to anysnoworhailthat may be forming ... confirming in this unexpected manner, the vulgar opinion of nitre being contained in snow.This seems to be the last communication of this character which came from the Doctor's pen.He was in despair relative to the academy which had ever been his hope for the College which in his early years in Northumberland he prayed might arise and in which he would be at liberty to particularly impart his Unitarian doctrines.An interesting item relative to the Academy appeared in theAurorafor April 1st, 1803. It shows that State aid for education was sought in those early days. It is a report, and reads—A REPORT of the Committee to whom was referred the Petition of Thomas Cooper, on behalf of the Northumberland Academy, prayinglegislativeaid. The report states that Thomas Cooper appeared before the Committee and stated that upward of $4000 had been expended on the building appropriated to that institution. That the debts due thereon amounted in the whole to near $2000. That Dr. Joseph Priestley had the power of disposing of a very valuable library consisting of near4000 volumes of scarce and well chosen books in various branches of literature and science, to any public seminary of learning in the United States, which library, the said Dr. Priestley was desirous of procuring as a gift to the Northumberland Academy, provided that institution was likely to receive substantial assistance from the legislature, so as to be enabled to fulfil the purposes of its establishment,That the Trustees would have no occasion to ask of the legislature on behalf of that Academy, a subscription greater than a few individuals had expended, and were still ready and desirous of contributing thereto; and suggest it to your Committee, that if out of the monies due from the County of Northumberland to the State a sufficient sum was granted to exonerate the Academy from debt, no more would be wanted in the future to effect the purposes of that institution, than a sum equal in amount to the value of the library proposed to be furnished by Dr. Priestley; such value to be fixed by a person appointed for the purpose by the legislature.The Committee was of the opinion that it would be expedient for the legislature tocoincide with the suggestion of Thomas Cooper and so recommended to the Legislature. Their report was adopted, 39 to 31. It was strongly advocated by Jesse Moore, Esq., General Mitchell and N. Ferguson from the city. It was opposed by Jacob Alter from Cumberland, who declared that although there were a great many public schools and colleges and places of that kind scattered over the State, he never knew any good they did, except to breed up a set of idle and odious lawyers to plague the people!At this particular time there still existed confiscated land from the sale of which revenue was derived, and this income it had been agreed upon should be devoted to the erection and support of academies throughout the State. Later this scheme was discontinued. But, Dr. Priestley was not so enthusiastic as formerly. He was occupied with the Church History, three volumes of which were in print, and it was expected that the fourth volume would follow shortly thereafter. However, his health was precarious. He could not eat meats, and lived chiefly on broths and soups, saying,—The defect is in the stomach and liver, and of no common kind. If I hold out till I have finished what I have now on hand, I shall retire from the scene, satisfied and thankful.This was written in August, and the Doctor stuck bravely to his literary labors. A few months later he wrote Lindsey,—I really do not expect to survive you.Yet, he also entertained the thought that he might,—assist in the publication of a whole Bible, from the several translations of particular books, smoothing and correcting them where I can.January of 1804 brought him many interesting, splendid and valuable books from friends in London. He was overjoyed on their arrival. Promptly he gave himself to their perusal because his deafness confined him to home and his extreme weakness forbade any excursions. Then the winter kept him from his laboratory, and his sole occupation was reading and writing. He entertained a variety of plans, proceeding withsome but in the midst of these tasks of love—in the very act of correcting proof, he quietly breathed his last! It was Monday, February 6, 1804, that Thomas Cooper, the devoted friend of Priestley, wrote Benjamin Rush:—Dear Sir:Mr. Joseph Priestley is not at present in spirits to write to his friends, and it falls to my lot therefore to acquaint you that Dr. Priestley died this morning about 11 o'clock without the slightest degree of apparent pain. He had for some time previous foreseen his dissolution, but he kept up to the last his habitual composure, cheerfulness and kindness. He would have been 71 the 24th of next month. For about a fortnight there were symptoms of dropsy owing to general debility: about two days before his death, these symptoms disappeared, and a troublesome cough came on perhaps from a translation to the chest.Yesterday he had strength enough to look over a revise of theAnnotationshe was publishing on the Old and New Testament, and this morning he dictated in good language some notices which he wished his son Mr. Priestley to add to his unpublishedworks. I am sure you will sincerely regret the decease of a man so highly eminent and useful in the literary and philosophical world, and so much presumably your friend.Yes, the valiant old champion of a lost cause was no more. Two days before his death "he went to his laboratory"—but, finding his weakness too great, with difficulty returned to his room. Loyal to his science to the very end!To American chemists he appeals strongly because of his persistent efforts in research. His coming to this country aroused a real interest in the science which has not waned in theslightestsince his demise.When the sad news reached the Hall of the American Philosophical Society, Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton was chosen to eulogize Priestley. This notable event took place on January 3rd, 1805. TheAurorareported:Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton, one of the vice-presidents of the American Philosophical Society, having been previously appointed by the society to deliver an eulogium to the memory of their late associate, Dr. Joseph Priestley, the same was accordingly delivered in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, on Thursday the 3rd inst. before the society, who went in a body from their hall to the church, preceded by their patron, the governor of the state. Invitations were given on this occasion to the Revd. Clergy of the city; the college of Physicians; the Medical Society; the gentlemen of the Bar, with the students at Law; the trustees and faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, with their students in the Arts and in Medicine; the judges and officers of the federal and state Courts; the foreign ministers and other public characters then in the city; the mayor; aldermen and city councils: the trustees and session of the First Presbyterian Church; the directors of the City Library; the directors and Physicians of the Pennsylvania Hospital, of the Alms House, and of the Dispensary; the proprietor and Director of the Philadelphia Museum; and the contributors towards the Cabinet and Library of the Society. After the conclusion of a very interesting eulogium, the society returned their thanks to the orator, and requested a copy for the purpose of publication.One's curiosity is quickened on thinking what Barton said in his address. Search in many directions failed to bring forth the Eulogium. It had been ordered to be printed in the Transactions of the Society. This was never done. But there was a minute (seven years later) in the meeting of the Society (Nov. 6, 1812) to the effect thatDr. Barton's request for permission to withdraw it (Eulogium) to be enlarged and published separately was referred for consideration to the next meeting.The request was granted at the next meeting, but nowhere among Barton's literary remains was the precious document to be found. Lost very probably—when it might have revealed so much.Priestley's death was deeply mourned throughout the land. The public prints brought full and elaborate accounts of his life, and touching allusions to the fullness of his brilliant career. Such expressions as these were heard,—As a metaphysician he stands foremost among those who have attempted the investigation of its abstruse controversies.As a politician he assiduously and successfullylaboured to extend and illustrate those general principles of civil liberty which are happily the foundation of the Constitution of his adopted Country,—His profound attention to the belles-lettres, and to the other departments of general literature, has been successfully exemplified among his other writings, by his lectures on oratory and criticism, and on general history and policy,—Of the most important and fashionable study ofPneumatic Chemistryhe may fairly be said to be the father.He was a man of restless activity, but heuniformlydirected that activity to what seemed to him the public good, seeking neither emolument nor honour from men. Dr. Priestley was possessed of great ardour and vivacity of intellect.... His integrity was unimpeachable; and even malice itself could not fix a stain on his private character.And what a splendid tribute is contained in the following passages from Cuvier:Priestley, loaded with glory, was modest enough to be astonished at his good fortune, and at the multitude of beautiful facts, which nature seemed to have revealed to him alone. He forgot that her favours were not gratuitous, and if she had so well explained herself, it was because he had known how to oblige her to do so by his indefatigable perseverance in questioning her, and by the thousand ingenious means he had taken to snatch her answers from her.Others carefully hide that which they owe to chance; Priestley seemed to wish to ascribe all his merit to fortuitous circumstances, remarking, with unexampled candour, how many times he had profited by them, without knowing it, how many times he was in possession of new substances without having perceived them; and he never dissimulated the erroneous views which sometimes directed his efforts, and from which he was only undeceived by experience. These confessions did honour to his modesty, without disarming jealousy. Those to whom their own ways and methods had never discovered anything called him a simple worker of experiments, without method and without anobject "it is not astonishing," they added, "that among so many trials and combinations, he should find some that were fortunate." But real natural philosophers were not duped by these selfish criticisms.Many encomiums like the preceding—yes, a thousandfold—could easily be gathered if necessary to show the regard and confidence held for this remarkable man to whom America is truly very deeply indebted.Some years ago the writer paid a visit to the God's Acre of Northumberland. He arrived after dark and was conveyed to the sacred place in an automobile. Soon the car stopped. Its headlights illuminated the upright flat stone which marked the last resting place of the great chemist, and in that light not only was the name of the sleeper clearly read but the less distinct but legible epitaph:Return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. I will lay me down in peace and sleep till I wake in the morning of the resurrection.Pondering on these lines there slowly returned to mind the words of Franklin's epitaph,—Franklin, who, years before, had encouraged and aided the noble exile, who was ever mindful of the former's goodness to him:The BodyofBenjamin FranklinPrinter(Like the cover of an old bookIts contents torn outAnd stript of its lettering and gilding)Lies here food for WormsBut the work shall not be lostFor it will (as he believed) appearonce moreIn a new and more elegant EditionRevised and correctedbyThe AuthorAnd then, by some strange mental reaction, there floated before the writer the paragraph uttered by Professor Huxley, when in 1874 a statue to Priestley was unveiled in the City of Birmingham:Our purpose is to do honour ... to Priestley the peerless defender of nationalfreedom in thought and in action; to Priestley the philosophical thinker; to that Priestley who held a foremost place among the 'swift runners who hand over the lamp of life,' and transmit from one generation to another the fire kindled, in the childhood of the world, at the Promethean altar of science.FOOTNOTES:[1]Chemistry in Old Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Co., Phila., Pa.[2]Correspondence of Priestley by H. C. Bolton, New York, 1892.[3]Mr. Berthollet discovered that oxygenated muriatic gas, received in a ley of caustic potash, forms a chrystallizable neutral salt, which detonates more strongly than nitre.[4]Nine Famous Birmingham Men—Cornish Brothers, Publishers, 1909.[5]James Woodhouse—A Pioneer in Chemistry—J. C. Winston Co., Phila.—1918.[6]James Woodhouse—A pioneer in Chemistry—J. C.WinstonCo., Phila.—1918.[7]SeeChemistry in America, Appleton & Co. andChemistry in Old Philadelphia, The J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa.[8]The original of this letter is now the property of Dr. C. A. Browne, New York. He graciously permitted it to be inserted here.Transcriber's note:A few inconsistencies in the layout and formatting of the book have been corrected (an extra blank line in a quoted paragraph, for example). Most notably, the "Hints Concerning Public Education" is an essay by Priestley quoted verbatim in the text. The original layout did not make a clear distinction between Smith's text and this quoted essay; I have remedied this with an indent for that section.

C. WistarJ. WilliamsJ. R. SmithT. T. HewsonJ. VaughanCommittee

An answer will be called for tomorrow morning.DR. RUSH

An answer will be called for tomorrow morning.

DR. RUSH

It was a very dignified and brilliant company. Law, medicine, theology, science, commerce represented by very worthy and excellent gentlemen. And, among them sat the modest, unassuming, versatile Priestley. That he was happy in his surroundings there is ample reason to believe. He loved to be among men. He, too, was appreciated and eagerly sought because of his winning ways, his tolerance and liberality. He was moderately convivial though

He said that one glass of wine at dinner was enough for an old man, but he did not prescribe his own practice as an universal rule.

About eight weeks were spent in the City. On return to the dear country home the doctor took up his various duties and burdens, but the infirmities of age were often alluded to by him, and they no doubt delayed all of his work, which was further aggravated by a dangerous fall on his left hip and strain of the muscles of the thigh. He was extremely lame and for some time went about on crutches, which held him out of his laboratory. To him this was very trying. But he persisted. He was truly a splendid example for the younger aspirants for scientific honors. During the yearhe entered on a controversial article with his old friend Erasmus Darwin upon the subject ofspontaneous combustion, and subsequently communicated to theMedical Repositoryan account of the conversion of salt into nitre. He had positive knowledge of this fact for quite a little while, and upon the occasion of a visit by Dr. Wistar, told the latter concerning this with the request that no mention be made of it, evidently that he might have opportunity for additional confirmation. However, very unexpectedly, Dr. Mitchill published something of a similar character, therefore Priestley believing that he ought "to acquaint experimentalists in general with all that I know of the matter," announced that in 1799 when experimenting on the formation of air from water,

having made use of the same salt, mixed with snow, in every experiment, always evaporating the mixture the salt was recovered dry. I collected the salt when I had done with it, and put it into a glass bottle, with a label expressing what it was, and what use had been made of it.

Subsequently he treated this salt, after many applications of it, with sulphuric acid, when he remarked—

I was soon surprized to observe thatred vapoursrose from it.

An examination of another portion of the salt showed—

that when it was thrown upon hot coals ... it burned exactly like nitre.

So it was a conversion of sodium chloride into sodium nitrate. That this change must have come from thesnowwith which it had been dissolved, could not be doubted, and he further observed—

Now in the upper regions of the atmosphere ... there may be a redundancy of inflammable air ... and a proportion of dephlogisticated air. In that region there are many electrical appearances, as theaurora borealis, falling stars &c; in the lower parts of it thunder and lightening, and by these means the two kinds of air may be decomposed, and a highly dephlogisticated nitrous acid, as mine always was, produced. This being formed, will of course, attach itself to anysnoworhailthat may be forming ... confirming in this unexpected manner, the vulgar opinion of nitre being contained in snow.

This seems to be the last communication of this character which came from the Doctor's pen.

He was in despair relative to the academy which had ever been his hope for the College which in his early years in Northumberland he prayed might arise and in which he would be at liberty to particularly impart his Unitarian doctrines.

An interesting item relative to the Academy appeared in theAurorafor April 1st, 1803. It shows that State aid for education was sought in those early days. It is a report, and reads—

A REPORT of the Committee to whom was referred the Petition of Thomas Cooper, on behalf of the Northumberland Academy, prayinglegislativeaid. The report states that Thomas Cooper appeared before the Committee and stated that upward of $4000 had been expended on the building appropriated to that institution. That the debts due thereon amounted in the whole to near $2000. That Dr. Joseph Priestley had the power of disposing of a very valuable library consisting of near4000 volumes of scarce and well chosen books in various branches of literature and science, to any public seminary of learning in the United States, which library, the said Dr. Priestley was desirous of procuring as a gift to the Northumberland Academy, provided that institution was likely to receive substantial assistance from the legislature, so as to be enabled to fulfil the purposes of its establishment,That the Trustees would have no occasion to ask of the legislature on behalf of that Academy, a subscription greater than a few individuals had expended, and were still ready and desirous of contributing thereto; and suggest it to your Committee, that if out of the monies due from the County of Northumberland to the State a sufficient sum was granted to exonerate the Academy from debt, no more would be wanted in the future to effect the purposes of that institution, than a sum equal in amount to the value of the library proposed to be furnished by Dr. Priestley; such value to be fixed by a person appointed for the purpose by the legislature.The Committee was of the opinion that it would be expedient for the legislature tocoincide with the suggestion of Thomas Cooper and so recommended to the Legislature. Their report was adopted, 39 to 31. It was strongly advocated by Jesse Moore, Esq., General Mitchell and N. Ferguson from the city. It was opposed by Jacob Alter from Cumberland, who declared that although there were a great many public schools and colleges and places of that kind scattered over the State, he never knew any good they did, except to breed up a set of idle and odious lawyers to plague the people!

That the Trustees would have no occasion to ask of the legislature on behalf of that Academy, a subscription greater than a few individuals had expended, and were still ready and desirous of contributing thereto; and suggest it to your Committee, that if out of the monies due from the County of Northumberland to the State a sufficient sum was granted to exonerate the Academy from debt, no more would be wanted in the future to effect the purposes of that institution, than a sum equal in amount to the value of the library proposed to be furnished by Dr. Priestley; such value to be fixed by a person appointed for the purpose by the legislature.

The Committee was of the opinion that it would be expedient for the legislature tocoincide with the suggestion of Thomas Cooper and so recommended to the Legislature. Their report was adopted, 39 to 31. It was strongly advocated by Jesse Moore, Esq., General Mitchell and N. Ferguson from the city. It was opposed by Jacob Alter from Cumberland, who declared that although there were a great many public schools and colleges and places of that kind scattered over the State, he never knew any good they did, except to breed up a set of idle and odious lawyers to plague the people!

At this particular time there still existed confiscated land from the sale of which revenue was derived, and this income it had been agreed upon should be devoted to the erection and support of academies throughout the State. Later this scheme was discontinued. But, Dr. Priestley was not so enthusiastic as formerly. He was occupied with the Church History, three volumes of which were in print, and it was expected that the fourth volume would follow shortly thereafter. However, his health was precarious. He could not eat meats, and lived chiefly on broths and soups, saying,—

The defect is in the stomach and liver, and of no common kind. If I hold out till I have finished what I have now on hand, I shall retire from the scene, satisfied and thankful.

This was written in August, and the Doctor stuck bravely to his literary labors. A few months later he wrote Lindsey,—

I really do not expect to survive you.

Yet, he also entertained the thought that he might,—

assist in the publication of a whole Bible, from the several translations of particular books, smoothing and correcting them where I can.

January of 1804 brought him many interesting, splendid and valuable books from friends in London. He was overjoyed on their arrival. Promptly he gave himself to their perusal because his deafness confined him to home and his extreme weakness forbade any excursions. Then the winter kept him from his laboratory, and his sole occupation was reading and writing. He entertained a variety of plans, proceeding withsome but in the midst of these tasks of love—in the very act of correcting proof, he quietly breathed his last! It was Monday, February 6, 1804, that Thomas Cooper, the devoted friend of Priestley, wrote Benjamin Rush:—

Dear Sir:

Mr. Joseph Priestley is not at present in spirits to write to his friends, and it falls to my lot therefore to acquaint you that Dr. Priestley died this morning about 11 o'clock without the slightest degree of apparent pain. He had for some time previous foreseen his dissolution, but he kept up to the last his habitual composure, cheerfulness and kindness. He would have been 71 the 24th of next month. For about a fortnight there were symptoms of dropsy owing to general debility: about two days before his death, these symptoms disappeared, and a troublesome cough came on perhaps from a translation to the chest.Yesterday he had strength enough to look over a revise of theAnnotationshe was publishing on the Old and New Testament, and this morning he dictated in good language some notices which he wished his son Mr. Priestley to add to his unpublishedworks. I am sure you will sincerely regret the decease of a man so highly eminent and useful in the literary and philosophical world, and so much presumably your friend.

Yesterday he had strength enough to look over a revise of theAnnotationshe was publishing on the Old and New Testament, and this morning he dictated in good language some notices which he wished his son Mr. Priestley to add to his unpublishedworks. I am sure you will sincerely regret the decease of a man so highly eminent and useful in the literary and philosophical world, and so much presumably your friend.

Yes, the valiant old champion of a lost cause was no more. Two days before his death "he went to his laboratory"—but, finding his weakness too great, with difficulty returned to his room. Loyal to his science to the very end!

To American chemists he appeals strongly because of his persistent efforts in research. His coming to this country aroused a real interest in the science which has not waned in theslightestsince his demise.

When the sad news reached the Hall of the American Philosophical Society, Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton was chosen to eulogize Priestley. This notable event took place on January 3rd, 1805. TheAurorareported:

Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton, one of the vice-presidents of the American Philosophical Society, having been previously appointed by the society to deliver an eulogium to the memory of their late associate, Dr. Joseph Priestley, the same was accordingly delivered in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, on Thursday the 3rd inst. before the society, who went in a body from their hall to the church, preceded by their patron, the governor of the state. Invitations were given on this occasion to the Revd. Clergy of the city; the college of Physicians; the Medical Society; the gentlemen of the Bar, with the students at Law; the trustees and faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, with their students in the Arts and in Medicine; the judges and officers of the federal and state Courts; the foreign ministers and other public characters then in the city; the mayor; aldermen and city councils: the trustees and session of the First Presbyterian Church; the directors of the City Library; the directors and Physicians of the Pennsylvania Hospital, of the Alms House, and of the Dispensary; the proprietor and Director of the Philadelphia Museum; and the contributors towards the Cabinet and Library of the Society. After the conclusion of a very interesting eulogium, the society returned their thanks to the orator, and requested a copy for the purpose of publication.

One's curiosity is quickened on thinking what Barton said in his address. Search in many directions failed to bring forth the Eulogium. It had been ordered to be printed in the Transactions of the Society. This was never done. But there was a minute (seven years later) in the meeting of the Society (Nov. 6, 1812) to the effect that

Dr. Barton's request for permission to withdraw it (Eulogium) to be enlarged and published separately was referred for consideration to the next meeting.

The request was granted at the next meeting, but nowhere among Barton's literary remains was the precious document to be found. Lost very probably—when it might have revealed so much.

Priestley's death was deeply mourned throughout the land. The public prints brought full and elaborate accounts of his life, and touching allusions to the fullness of his brilliant career. Such expressions as these were heard,—

As a metaphysician he stands foremost among those who have attempted the investigation of its abstruse controversies.

As a politician he assiduously and successfullylaboured to extend and illustrate those general principles of civil liberty which are happily the foundation of the Constitution of his adopted Country,—

His profound attention to the belles-lettres, and to the other departments of general literature, has been successfully exemplified among his other writings, by his lectures on oratory and criticism, and on general history and policy,—

Of the most important and fashionable study ofPneumatic Chemistryhe may fairly be said to be the father.

He was a man of restless activity, but heuniformlydirected that activity to what seemed to him the public good, seeking neither emolument nor honour from men. Dr. Priestley was possessed of great ardour and vivacity of intellect.... His integrity was unimpeachable; and even malice itself could not fix a stain on his private character.

And what a splendid tribute is contained in the following passages from Cuvier:

Priestley, loaded with glory, was modest enough to be astonished at his good fortune, and at the multitude of beautiful facts, which nature seemed to have revealed to him alone. He forgot that her favours were not gratuitous, and if she had so well explained herself, it was because he had known how to oblige her to do so by his indefatigable perseverance in questioning her, and by the thousand ingenious means he had taken to snatch her answers from her.Others carefully hide that which they owe to chance; Priestley seemed to wish to ascribe all his merit to fortuitous circumstances, remarking, with unexampled candour, how many times he had profited by them, without knowing it, how many times he was in possession of new substances without having perceived them; and he never dissimulated the erroneous views which sometimes directed his efforts, and from which he was only undeceived by experience. These confessions did honour to his modesty, without disarming jealousy. Those to whom their own ways and methods had never discovered anything called him a simple worker of experiments, without method and without anobject "it is not astonishing," they added, "that among so many trials and combinations, he should find some that were fortunate." But real natural philosophers were not duped by these selfish criticisms.

Others carefully hide that which they owe to chance; Priestley seemed to wish to ascribe all his merit to fortuitous circumstances, remarking, with unexampled candour, how many times he had profited by them, without knowing it, how many times he was in possession of new substances without having perceived them; and he never dissimulated the erroneous views which sometimes directed his efforts, and from which he was only undeceived by experience. These confessions did honour to his modesty, without disarming jealousy. Those to whom their own ways and methods had never discovered anything called him a simple worker of experiments, without method and without anobject "it is not astonishing," they added, "that among so many trials and combinations, he should find some that were fortunate." But real natural philosophers were not duped by these selfish criticisms.

Many encomiums like the preceding—yes, a thousandfold—could easily be gathered if necessary to show the regard and confidence held for this remarkable man to whom America is truly very deeply indebted.

Some years ago the writer paid a visit to the God's Acre of Northumberland. He arrived after dark and was conveyed to the sacred place in an automobile. Soon the car stopped. Its headlights illuminated the upright flat stone which marked the last resting place of the great chemist, and in that light not only was the name of the sleeper clearly read but the less distinct but legible epitaph:

Return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. I will lay me down in peace and sleep till I wake in the morning of the resurrection.

Pondering on these lines there slowly returned to mind the words of Franklin's epitaph,—Franklin, who, years before, had encouraged and aided the noble exile, who was ever mindful of the former's goodness to him:

The BodyofBenjamin FranklinPrinter(Like the cover of an old bookIts contents torn outAnd stript of its lettering and gilding)Lies here food for WormsBut the work shall not be lostFor it will (as he believed) appearonce moreIn a new and more elegant EditionRevised and correctedbyThe Author

And then, by some strange mental reaction, there floated before the writer the paragraph uttered by Professor Huxley, when in 1874 a statue to Priestley was unveiled in the City of Birmingham:

Our purpose is to do honour ... to Priestley the peerless defender of nationalfreedom in thought and in action; to Priestley the philosophical thinker; to that Priestley who held a foremost place among the 'swift runners who hand over the lamp of life,' and transmit from one generation to another the fire kindled, in the childhood of the world, at the Promethean altar of science.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Chemistry in Old Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Co., Phila., Pa.[2]Correspondence of Priestley by H. C. Bolton, New York, 1892.[3]Mr. Berthollet discovered that oxygenated muriatic gas, received in a ley of caustic potash, forms a chrystallizable neutral salt, which detonates more strongly than nitre.[4]Nine Famous Birmingham Men—Cornish Brothers, Publishers, 1909.[5]James Woodhouse—A Pioneer in Chemistry—J. C. Winston Co., Phila.—1918.[6]James Woodhouse—A pioneer in Chemistry—J. C.WinstonCo., Phila.—1918.[7]SeeChemistry in America, Appleton & Co. andChemistry in Old Philadelphia, The J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa.[8]The original of this letter is now the property of Dr. C. A. Browne, New York. He graciously permitted it to be inserted here.

[1]Chemistry in Old Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Co., Phila., Pa.

[2]Correspondence of Priestley by H. C. Bolton, New York, 1892.

[3]Mr. Berthollet discovered that oxygenated muriatic gas, received in a ley of caustic potash, forms a chrystallizable neutral salt, which detonates more strongly than nitre.

[4]Nine Famous Birmingham Men—Cornish Brothers, Publishers, 1909.

[5]James Woodhouse—A Pioneer in Chemistry—J. C. Winston Co., Phila.—1918.

[6]James Woodhouse—A pioneer in Chemistry—J. C.WinstonCo., Phila.—1918.

[7]SeeChemistry in America, Appleton & Co. andChemistry in Old Philadelphia, The J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

[8]The original of this letter is now the property of Dr. C. A. Browne, New York. He graciously permitted it to be inserted here.

Transcriber's note:A few inconsistencies in the layout and formatting of the book have been corrected (an extra blank line in a quoted paragraph, for example). Most notably, the "Hints Concerning Public Education" is an essay by Priestley quoted verbatim in the text. The original layout did not make a clear distinction between Smith's text and this quoted essay; I have remedied this with an indent for that section.

A few inconsistencies in the layout and formatting of the book have been corrected (an extra blank line in a quoted paragraph, for example). Most notably, the "Hints Concerning Public Education" is an essay by Priestley quoted verbatim in the text. The original layout did not make a clear distinction between Smith's text and this quoted essay; I have remedied this with an indent for that section.

Back to Index Next