Part 12 (1/2)

Though my philosophical labours are nearly over, I am glad to hear what is pa.s.sing 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 princ.i.p.al 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 ent.i.tled ”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 Sat.u.r.day 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 members.h.i.+p of the venerable Society--

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 a.s.sociate Dr. Joseph Priestley, who dines with them on Sat.u.r.day next at Francis' Hotel--Dinner on table at 3 o'clock.

C. Wistar J. Williams J. R. Smith T. T. Hewson J. Vaughan Committee

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, una.s.suming, 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 gla.s.s of wine at dinner was enough for an old man, but he did not prescribe his own practice as an universal rule.