Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Joseph Priestley shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Joseph Priestley offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Joseph Priestley at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Joseph Priestley? Wrong! If the Joseph Priestley is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Joseph Priestley then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Joseph Priestley? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Joseph Priestley and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Joseph Priestley wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Joseph Priestley then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Joseph Priestley site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Joseph Priestley, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Joseph Priestley, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
(1794)McLachlan,
Iconography, 28-30.
Joseph Priestley (March 26,
1733 – February 8, 1804) was an
eighteenth-century British Natural philosophy, English Dissenters
clergyman,
Political philosophy, theologian, and educator. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen
gas, although
Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have such a claim.Kuhn, 53-60; Schofield, Vol. 2, 112-13. The difficulty in precisely defining the time and place of the "discovery" of oxygen, within the context of the developing
Chemical Revolution, is one of Thomas Kuhn's central illustrations of the gradual nature of paradigm shifts in
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A member of marginalized religious groups throughout his life, Priestley advocated religious toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters. He argued for the extension of civil rights, because he believed that individuals could bring about progress and eventually the Christian Millennialism.Tapper, 314. In his metaphysical works, Priestley attempted to combine
theism,
materialism, and
determinism, a project that has been called "audacious and original".Tapper, 314. The controversial nature of these works combined with Priestley's outspoken support of the French Revolution aroused public and governmental suspicion; he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after Priestley Riots in 1791.
Priestley made significant contributions to pedagogy, including the publication of a seminal work on grammar, the promotion of a
liberal arts curriculum, and the advocacy of the study of
Historiography#Modern historiography.
During his lifetime, Priestley's scientific reputation rested on his invention of
soda water, his writings on
electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen). However, Priestley's determination to reject Lavoisier's "Chemical Revolution" and to cling to the
phlogiston theory of heat eventually left him isolated within the scientific community. Priestley's science was never divorced from his theology, and he consistently tried to fuse
Age of Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism.Tapper, 10.
Early life and education (1733–55)
(about six miles southwest of Leeds)Schofield, Vol. 1, 2.
Priestley was born to an established Dissenting family (i.e., they did not conform to the Church of England) in West Yorkshire. He was the oldest of the six children born to Mary Swift and Jonas Priestley, a finisher of cloth. To ease his mother's burdens, Priestley was sent to live with his grandfather around the age of one; after his mother died five years later, he returned home. When his father remarried in 1741, Priestley was sent to live with his aunt and uncle, the wealthy and childless Sarah and John Keighley. Because Priestley was precocious—at the age of four he could perfectly recite all 107 questions and answers of the Westminster Shorter Catechism—she sought the best education for the boy, intending him for the ministry. During his youth, Priestley attended local schools where he learned Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.Schofield, Vol. 1, 2–12; Uglow, 72; Jackson, 19–25; Gibbs, 1–4; Thorpe, 1–11; Holt, 1-6.
Around 1749 Priestley became seriously ill and believed he was dying. Raised as a devout
Calvinist, he believed a Conversion to Christianity was necessary for salvation, but doubted he had had one. This emotional distress eventually led him to question his theological upbringing, causing him to reject
Unconditional election and to accept universal salvation. As a result, the elders of his home church refused him admission as a full member.Schofield, Vol. 1, 1, 7–8; Jackson, 25–30; Gibbs, 4; Priestley,
Autobiography, 71-73; 123.
Priestley's illness left him with a permanent stutter and he gave up any thoughts of entering the ministry. In preparation for joining a relative in trade in
Lisbon, he studied French, Italian, and German in addition to Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Syrian, and Arabic. He was tutored by the Rev. George Haggerstone, who first introduced him to higher mathematics,
natural philosophy, logic, and metaphysics through the works of Isaac Watts, Willem 's Gravesande, and John Locke.Schofield, Vol. 1, 14; 28–9; Uglow, 72; Gibbs, 5; Thorpe, 11–12; Holt, 7-9.
Daventry Academy
Priestley eventually decided to return to his theological studies, and in 1752 matriculated at Daventry, a Dissenting academies.Schofield, Vol. 1, 28–9; Jackson, 30; Gibbs, 5. Because he had already read widely, Priestley was allowed to skip the first two years of coursework. He continued his intense study; this, together with the liberal atmosphere of the school, shifted his theology further leftward and he became a
English Dissenters#Rational Dissenters. Abhorring dogma and religious mysticism, Rational Dissenters emphasized the rational analysis of the natural world and the Bible.McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 48-49.
Priestley later wrote that the book which influenced him the most, save the Bible, was
David Hartley (philosopher) Observations on Man (1749). Hartley's psychological, philosophical, and theological treatise postulated a material
Philosophy of mind. Hartley aimed to construct a Christian philosophy in which both religious and moral "facts" could be scientifically proven, a goal which would occupy Priestley for his entire life. In his third year at Daventry, Priestley committed himself to the ministry, what he described as "the noblest of all professions".Qtd. in Jackson, 33. See Schofield, Vol. 1, 40–57; Uglow, 73–4; Jackson, 30–34; Gibbs, 5–10; Thorpe, 17–22; Tapper, 314; Holt, 11-14; Garrett, 54.
Needham Market and Nantwich (1755–61)
(1791)
Priestley's major modern biographer, Robert Schofield, describes his first "call" in 1755 to the Dissenting parish in
Needham Market,
Suffolk as a "mistake" for both Priestley and the congregation. Priestley yearned for urban life and theological debate and Needham Market was a small, rural town with a congregation wedded to tradition. Attendance and donations dropped sharply when they discovered the extent of his heterodoxy. While Priestley's aunt had promised her support if he became a minister, she refused any further assistance when she realized he was no longer a
Calvinist. In order to earn extra money, Priestley proposed opening a school, but local families informed him that they would refuse to send their children. He also presented a series of scientific lectures titled "Use of the Globes", which was more successful.Schofield, Vol. 1, 62–9; Jackson, 44–47; Gibbs, 10–11; Thorpe, 22–29; Holt, 15-19.
Priestley's Daventry friends helped him obtain another position in
Nantwich,
Cheshire; his time there was happier. The congregation cared less about Priestley's heterodoxy and he opened a school. Unlike many schoolmasters of the time, Priestley taught his students
natural philosophy and even bought scientific instruments for them. Appalled at the quality of the available
Grammar#historys, Priestley wrote his own:
The Rudiments of English Grammar (1761).Priestley, Joseph.
The Rudiments of English Grammar; adapted to the use of schools. With observations on style. London: Printed for R. Griffiths, 1761. His innovations in the description of English grammar, particularly his efforts to disassociate it from
Grammar#history, have led twentieth-century scholars to describe him as "one of the great grammarians of his time".Qtd. in Schofield, Vol. 1, 79. After the publication of
Rudiments and the success of Priestley's school, Warrington Academy offered him a teaching position in 1761.Schofield, Vol. 1, 77–79; 83–5; Uglow, 72; Jackson 49–52; Gibbs, 13–16; Thorpe, 30–32; Holt, 19-23.
Warrington Academy (1761–67)
Isaac Wilkinson and sister of industrialist John Wilkinson (industrialist), in later life by Carl F. von Breda (1793)McLachlan,
Iconography, 24–6.
In 1761 Priestley moved to
Warrington and assumed the post of tutor of modern languages and rhetoric at Warrington Academy, although he would have preferred to teach mathematics and natural philosophy. He fit in well at Warrington and quickly made friends. On 23 June 1762 he married Mary Wilkinson of
Wrexham. Of his marriage, Priestley wrote:This proved a very suitable and happy connexion, my wife being a woman of an excellent understanding, much improved by reading, of great fortitude and strength of mind, and of a temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous; feeling strongly for others, and little for herself. Also, greatly excelling in every thing relating to household affairs, she entirely relieved me of all concern of that kind, which allowed me to give all my time to the prosecution of my studies, and the other duties of my station.Priestley,
Autobiography, 87.On
17 April 1763 they had a daughter, whom they named Sarah after Priestley's aunt.See Thorpe, 33–44 for a description of life at Warrington; Schofield, Vol. 1, 89–90; 93-94 Jackson, 54–58; Uglow, 73-75; Thorpe, 47–50; Holt, 27-28.
Educator and historian
All of the books Priestley published while at Warrington emphasized the study of history; Priestley considered it essential for worldly success as well as religious growth. He wrote histories of science and Christianity in an effort to reveal the progress of humanity and, paradoxically, the loss of a pure, "primitive Christianity".Sheps, 135; 149; Holt, 29-30.
(1765); Priestley believed his
Charts would "impress" upon students "a just image of the rise, progress, extent, duration, and contemporary state of all the considerable empires that have ever existed in the world".Qtd. in Sheps, 146.
In his
Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life (1765), Priestley argued that the education of the young should anticipate their future practical needs.Priestley, Joseph.
Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life. London: Printed for C. Henderson under the Royal Exchange; T. Becket and De Hondt in the Strand; and by J. Johnson and Davenport, in Pater-Noster-Row, 1765. This principle of utility guided his unconventional curricular choices for Warrington's aspiring middle-class students. He recommended modern languages instead of classical languages and modern rather than ancient history. Furthermore, because Priestley viewed education as one of the primary forces shaping a person's character and the basis of morality, he, unusually for the time, promoted the education of middle-class women.Thorpe, 52–54; Schofield, Vol. 1, 124–25; Watts, 89; 95–97; Sheps, 136. Some scholars of education have described Priestley as the most important English writer on education between the seventeenth-century John Locke and the nineteenth-century
Herbert Spencer.Schofield, Vol. 1, 121; see also Watts, 92.
In his
Lectures on History and General Policy (1788), Priestley encouraged the study of modern history, rarely studied at the time. The lectures cover a wide array of topics—everything from forms of government to commerce to manners. He narrated a providentialism and naturalist account of history, arguing that the study of history furthered the comprehension of God's natural laws. His millennialism perspective was closely tied to his optimism regarding scientific progress and the improvement of humanity. He believed that each age would improve upon the previous and the study of history allowed people to see and further this progress. Priestley also presented a new method for historical research that emphasized the primacy of original documents and material objects.
Lectures on History was well-received and was employed by many educational institutions, such as New College at Hackney,
Brown University, Princeton University,
Yale University, and University of Cambridge.Schofield, Vol. 2, 254–59; McLachlan, "History", 255–58; Sheps, 138; 141; Kramnick, 12; Holt, 29-33. Priestley also designed two
Charts to serve as visual study aides for his
Lectures on History.Priestley, Joseph.
A Chart of Biography. London: J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church Yard, 1765 and Joseph Priestley,
A Description of a Chart of Biography. Warrington: Printed by William Eyres, 1765 and Joseph Priestley,
A New Chart of History. London: Engraved and published for J. Johnson, 1769;
A Description of a New Chart of History. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1770. Both were popular for decades and the trustees of Warrington were so impressed with Priestley's lectures and charts that they arranged for the
University of Edinburgh to grant him a Doctor of Laws degree in 1764.Gibbs, 37; Schofield, Vol. 1, 118-19.
History of Electricity
The intellectually stimulating atmosphere of Warrington, dubbed the "Athens of the North", increased Priestley's interest in natural philosophy. He gave lectures on anatomy and, with his friend John Seddon, performed experiments regarding temperature.Schofield, Vol. 1, 136–37; Jackson, 57–61. Despite his busy teaching schedule, Priestley wrote a history of electricity. Friends introduced him to the major experimenters in the field in Britain—
John Canton,
William Watson (scientist), and Benjamin Franklin—who encouraged Priestley to perform the experiments he wanted to include in his history. In the process of replicating others' experiments, Priestley became intrigued by unanswered questions and was prompted to undertake his own.Schofield, Vol. 1, 141–42; 152; Jackson, 64; Uglow 75–77; Thorpe, 61–65. (Impressed with the manuscript of his history of electricity and his
Charts, Canton, Franklin, Watson, and
Richard Price nominated Priestley for a fellowship in the
Royal Society; he was accepted in 1766.)Schofield, Vol. 1, 143–44; Jackson, 65–66; see Schofield, Vol. 1, 152 and 231–32 for an analysis of the different editions.
In 1767, the 700-page
The History and Present State of Electricity was published to positive reviews.Priestley, Joseph.
The History and Present State of Electricity, with original experiments. London: Printed for J. Dodsley, J. Johnson and T. Cadell, 1767. The first half of the text is a history of the study of electricity to 1766; the second and more influential half is a description of contemporary theories about electricity and suggestions for future research. Priestley reported some of his own discoveries in the second section, such as the Electrical conductivity of
charcoal and other substances, and the continuum between conductors and non-conductors.Schofield, Vol. 1, 144ff and 155-56. This discovery overturned what he described as "one of the earliest and universally received maxims of electricity", that only water and metals could conduct electricity. Such experiments demonstrated Priestley's early and ongoing interest in the relationship between chemistry and electricity.Gibbs 28–31; see also Thorpe, 64. Based on experiments with charged spheres, Priestley was also the first to propose that electrical force followed an inverse-square law, although he did not generalize or elaborate on this.Schofield, Vol. 1, 150.
Priestley's strength as a natural philosopher was qualitative rather than quantitative and his observation of "a current of real air" between two electrified points would later interest
Michael Faraday and
James Clerk Maxwell as they investigated electromagnetism. Priestley's text became the standard history of electricity for over a century; Alessandro Volta (who later invented the battery), William Herschel (who discovered infrared radiation), and
Henry Cavendish (who discovered
hydrogen) all relied upon it. Priestley wrote a popular version of the
History of Electricity for the general public titled
A Familiar Introduction to the Study of Electricity (1768).Priestley, Joseph.
A familiar introduction to the study of electricity. London: Printed for J. Dodsley; T. Cadell; and J. Johnson, 1768.
Leeds (1767–73)
In 1767, the Priestleys moved from Warrington to
Leeds and Priestley became Mill Hill Chapel's minister. Two sons were born to the Priestleys in Leeds: Joseph, Jr. on
24 July 1768 and William three years later. Theophilus Lindsey, a rector at Catterick, North Yorkshire, became one of Priestley's few friends in Leeds: "I never chose to publish any thing of moment relating to theology, without consulting him".Priestley,
Autobiography, 98; see also Schofield, Vol. 1, 163. Although Priestley had extended family around Leeds, it does not appear that they communicated. Schofield conjectures that they considered him a Heresy.Schofield, Vol. 1, 162, note 7. Each year Priestley traveled to London to consult with his close friend and publisher,
Joseph Johnson (publisher), and to attend meetings of the Royal Society.Schofield, Vol. 1, 158; 164; Gibbs, 37; Uglow, 170.
Minister of Mill Hill Chapel
, a text he had been working on since his Daventry days.
When Priestley became its minister, Mill Hill Chapel was one of the oldest and most respected Dissenting congregations in England; however, during the early eighteenth century the congregation had fractured along doctrinal lines, and the
Methodism#The Wesleyan revival was luring away Dissenters.Schofield, Vol. 1, 165–69; Holt, 42-43. Priestley believed that by educating the youth of the congregation, he could strengthen its bonds.Schofield, Vol. 1, 170–71; Gibbs, 37; Watts, 93-94; Holt, 44.
While Priestley outlined these theories of religious education in his
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion (1772–74),Priestley, Joseph.
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. I. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1772; —.
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. II. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1773; —.
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. III. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1774. he more importantly outlined his belief in Socinianism. The doctrines he laid out would become the standards for Unitarians in Britain. This work marked an important change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his materialism and necessitarianism.Miller, "Introduction", xvi; Schofield, Vol. 1, 172.
Priestley's major argument in the
Institutes is that the only revealed religious truths that can be accepted are those that match one's experience of the natural world. Because his views of religion were deeply tied to his understanding of nature, the text's theism rests on the argument from design.Schofield, Vol. 1, 174; Uglow, 169; Tapper, 315; Holt, 44. The
Institutes shocked and appalled many readers, primarily because it challenged basic Christian orthodoxies, such as the Christ and the Virgin Birth. Methodists in Leeds penned a hymn asking God to "the Unitarian fiend expel / And chase his doctrine back to Hell."Qtd. in Jackson, 102. Priestley wanted to return Christianity to its "primitive" or "pure" form by eliminating the "corruptions" which had accumulated over the centuries. The fourth part of the
Institutes,
An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, became so long that he was forced to issue it separately. Priestley believed that the
Corruptions was "the most valuable" work he ever published. In demanding that his readers apply the logic of the emerging sciences and comparative history to the Bible and Christianity, he alienated religious and scientific readers alike—scientific readers did not appreciate seeing science used in the defense of religion and religious readers dismissed the application of science to religion.McLachlan, "History", 261; Gibbs, 38; Jackson, 102; Uglow, 169.
Religious controversialist
Priestley engaged in numerous political and religious
pamphlet wars. According to Schofield, "he entered each controversy with a cheerful conviction that he was right, while most of his opponents were convinced, from the outset, that he was willfully and maliciously wrong. He was able, then, to contrast his sweet reasonableness to their personal rancor."Schofield, Vol. 1, 181. However, as Schofield points out, Priestley rarely altered his opinion as a result of these debates.Schofield, Vol. 1, 181. While at Leeds he wrote controversial pamphlets on the Eucharist and on
Calvinist doctrine; thousands of copies were published, making them some of Priestley's most widely-read works.See Schofield, Vol. 1, 181–88 for analysis of these two controversies.
Priestley also founded the
Theological Repository in 1768, a journal committed to the open and rational inquiry of theological questions. Although he promised to print any contribution, only like-minded authors ever submitted articles. He was therefore obliged to provide much of the journal's content himself (this material became the basis for much of his later theological and metaphysical works). After only a few years, due to a lack of funds, he was forced to cease publishing the journal.See Schofield, Vol. 1, 193–201 for an analysis of the journal; Uglow, 169; Holt, 53-55. He revived it in 1784, with similar results.See Schofield, Vol. 2, 202–207 for an analysis of Priestley's contributions.
Defender of Dissenters and political philosopher
(1768); it influenced early nineteenth-century political philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham.Schofield, Vol. 1, 207.
Many of Priestley's political writings were aimed at supporting the repeal of the Test Act and Corporation Act 1661, which restricted the rights of Dissenters. They could not hold political office, serve in the armed forces, or attend Oxford and Cambridge unless they subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Dissenters repeatedly petitioned Parliament to repeal the Acts, arguing that they were being treated as second-class citizens.Schofield, Vol. 1, 202–205; Holt, 56-64.
Priestley's friends, particularly other Rational Dissenters, urged him to publish a work on the injustices experienced by Dissenters; the result was his
Essay on the First Principles of Government (1768).Priestley, Joseph.
Essay on the First Principles of Government; and on the nature of political, civil, and religious liberty. London: Printed for J. Dodsley; T. Cadell; and J. Johnson, 1768. An early work of Liberalism#Development of liberal thought and Priestley's most thorough treatment of political theory, it—unusually for the time—precisely distinguishes between political and civil rights and argues for expansive civil rights. Priestley identifies separate private and public spheres, contending that the government should only have control over the public sphere. Education and religion, in particular, he maintains, are matters of private conscience and should not be administered by the state. Priestley's later radicalism emerged from his belief that the British government was infringing upon these individual freedoms.
Essay on Government went through three English editions and was translated into Dutch.Gibbs, 39–43; Uglow, 169; Garrett, 17; Tapper, 315; Holt, 34-37; Philip, "Rational Religion and Political Radicalism"; Miller, "Introduction", xiv.
In another attempt to champion the rights of Dissenters, Priestley defended their rights against the attacks of William Blackstone, an eminent legal theorist. Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, fast becoming the standard legal guide, stated that dissent from the Church of England was a crime and that Dissenters could not be loyal subjects. Furious, Priestley lashed out with his
Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's grammar, his history, and his interpretation of the law.Priestley, Joseph.
Remarks on some paragraphs in the fourth volume of Dr. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the laws of England, relating to the Dissenters. London: Printed for J. Johnson and J. Payne, 1769. Blackstone, chastened, replied in a pamphlet and altered subsequent editions of his
Commentaries: he rephrased the offending passages and removed the sections claiming that Dissenters could not be loyal subjects, but he retained his description of Dissent as a crime.Schofield, Vol. 1, 214–16; Gibbs, 43; Holt, 48-49.
Natural philosopher: electricity,
Optics, and soda water
Although Priestley claimed that
natural philosophy was only a hobby for him, it was clearly one that he took seriously, for he believed that science could further human happiness. In his
History of Electricity he describes the scientist as promoting the "security and happiness of mankind" and as one who is "a good citizen and a useful member of society".Qtd. in Kramnick, 8. Priestley's science was always eminently practical and he rarely concerned himself with theoretical questions—his model was Benjamin Franklin. When he moved to Leeds, Priestley continued his electrical and chemical experiments (the latter aided by a steady supply of carbon dioxide from a neighboring brewery). Between 1767 and 1770, he presented five papers to the Royal Society out of these initial experiments; the first four papers explored coronal discharges and other phenomena related to
electrical discharge, while the fifth reported on the conductivity of charcoals from different sources. His subsequent experimental work increasingly focused on chemistry and pneumatics.Schofield, Vol. 1, 227; 232–38; see also Gibbs, 47; Kramnick, 9–10.
Priestley published the first volume of his projected history of experimental philosophy,
The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light and Colours (referred to as his
Optics), in 1772.Priestley, Joseph.
Proposals for printing by subscription, The history and present state of discoveries relating to vision, light, and colours. Leeds: n.p., 1771. Unlike his
History of Electricity, it was not popular and had only one edition, although it was the only English book on the topic for 150 years. Priestley paid careful attention to the history of optics and presented excellent explanations of early optics experiments, but his mathematical deficiencies caused him to dismiss several important contemporary theories. Furthermore, he did not include any of the practical sections that had made his
History of Electricity so useful to practicing natural philosophers. The text was hastily written and it sold poorly; the cost of researching, writing, and publishing the
Optics convinced Priestley to abandon his history of experimental philosophy.Schofield, Vol. 1, 240–49; Gibbs, 50–55; Uglow, 134.
After the dual financial disasters of the
Optics and the
Theological Repository, Priestley was looking for ways to improve his finances. When offered the position of astronomer for James Cook
James Cook#Second voyage (1772–75), he eagerly accepted and even informed his congregation at Mill Hill that he would be absent for several years; however, the offer was suddenly rescinded. Priestley claimed that he was denied the position because he was a Dissenter, but as Schofield explains, the organizing committee replaced him with a more qualified candidate. Schofield attributes the debacle to
Joseph Banks high-handedness in nominating Priestley in the first place.Schofield, Vol. 1, 251–55; see Holt, 64; Gibbs 55–56; and Thorpe, 80–81, for the traditional account of this story.
Priestley contributed in a small way to the Cook voyage: he provided the crew with a method for making soda water, which he speculated might be a cure for scurvy (it is not). He then published a pamphlet with
Directions for Impregnating Water with Fixed Air (1772).Priestley, Joseph.
Directions for impregnating water with fixed air; in order to communicate to it the peculiar spirit and virtues of Pyrmont water, and other mineral waters of a similar nature. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1772. Priestley did not bother to exploit the commercial potential of soda water, but others such as
Cadbury Schweppes made fortunes from it.Schofield, Vol. 1, 256–57; Gibbs, 57–59; Thorpe, 76–79; Uglow, 134–36; 232–34. In 1773, the Royal Society recognized Priestley's achievements in natural philosophy by awarding him the
Copley Medal.
Priestley's friends wanted to find him a more financially secure position, and in 1772, prompted by
Richard Price and Benjamin Franklin, William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne wrote to Priestley asking him to direct the education of his children and to act as his general assistant. Priestley debated whether to sacrifice his ministry and accept the position; after intense soul-searching, he resigned from Mill Hill Chapel on
20 December 1772 and preached his last sermon on 16 May
1773.Schofield, Vol. 1, 270–71; Jackson, 120–22; Gibbs, 84–86: Uglow, 239–40; Holt, 64-65.
Calne (1773–80)
from
Henry Fuseli (c. 1783)McLachlan,
Iconography, 19–20.
In 1773 the Priestleys moved to
Calne and a year later
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne and Priestley took a tour of Europe. According to Priestley's close friend Theophilus Lindsey, Priestley was "much improved by this view of mankind at large".Qtd. in Gibbs, 91. Upon their return, Priestley easily fulfilled his duties as librarian and tutor. The workload was intentionally light, allowing him time to pursue his scientific investigations and theological interests (Shelburne even equipped a laboratory for him in
Bowood House). Priestley also became a political adviser to Shelburne, gathering information on parliamentary issues and serving as a liaison between Shelburne and the Dissenting and American interests. When the Priestleys' third son was born on
24 May 1777, they named him Henry at the Lord's request. Schofield, Vol. 2, 4–11; 406; Gibbs, 91–94; Jackson, 122; 124; 143–52; 158–62; Thorpe, 80–85; Watts, 96; Holt, 70-94 (includes large quotations from Priestley's letters sent from Europe to Shelburne's sons).
Materialist philosopher
(1777); at least a dozen hostile refutations were published to it by 1782 and Priestley was branded an
atheist.Schofield, Vol. 2, 72.
Priestley wrote his most important philosophical works during his years with Lord Shelburne. In a series of major Metaphysics works published between 1774 and 1780—
An Examination of Dr. Reid's Inquiry into the Human Mind (1774),
Hartley's Theory of the Human Mind on the Principle of the Association of Ideas (1775),
Philosophical Necessity (1775),
Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit (1777),
The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity Illustrated (1777), and
Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever (1780)—he argues for a philosophy which foregrounds four concepts: determinism, materialism,
causality, and necessity. By studying the natural world, he argued, people would learn how to become more compassionate, happy, and prosperous.McEvoy and McGuire, 326-27; Tapper, 316.
Strongly suggesting that there is no Dualism (philosophy of mind), Priestley puts forth a materialist philosophy in these works, that is, one founded on the principle that everything in the universe is made of matter that we can perceive. However, he simultaneously contends that discussing the soul is impossible because it is made of a divine substance, and humanity cannot access the divine. Despite his separation of the divine from the mortal, this position shocked and angered many of his readers, who believed that such a duality was necessary for the
soul to exist.Schofield, Vol. 2, 59–76; Gibbs, 99–100; Holt, 112-24; McEvoy and McGuire, 333-34.
Responding to Baron d'Holbach
The System of Nature and
David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) as well as the French
philosophes, Priestley maintained that materialism and determinism could be reconciled with a belief in God. He criticizes those whose faith is shaped by books and fashion, drawing an analogy between the skepticism of educated men and the credulity of the masses.Tapper, 320; Priestley,
Autobiography, 111; Schofield, Vol. 2, 37–42; Holt, 93-94; 139-42.
Maintaining that humans had no free will, Priestley was the first to claim that what he called "philosophical necessity" (a position akin to
determinism) is consonant with Christianity, a position based on his understanding of the natural world. Like the rest of nature, man's mind is subject to the laws of causation, Priestley contends, but because a benevolent God created these laws, the world and the men in it will eventually be perfected. Evil is therefore only an imperfect understanding of the world. Priestley believed that mankind could be perfected through a study of nature.Schofield, Vol. 2, 77–91; Garrett, 55; Tapper, 319; Sheps, 138; McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 50; McEvoy and McGuire, 338-40.
Founder of Unitarianism
When Priestley's friend from Leeds,
Theophilus Lindsey, decided to establish a new Christian denomination that would not restrict its members' beliefs, Priestley and others such as publisher
Joseph Johnson (publisher)#Religious publications and advocate of Unitarianism hurried to his aid. On
17 April 1774, Lindsey held the first
Unitarian service in Britain; he had even designed his own liturgy, of which many were critical. Priestley rushed to his defense with
Letter to a Layman, on the Subject of the Rev. Mr. Lindsey's Proposal for a Reformed English Church (1774),Priestley, Joseph.
Letter to a Layman, on the Subject of the Rev. Mr. Lindsey's Proposal for a Reformed English Church. London: Printed for J. Wilkie, 1774. claiming that only the form of worship had been altered, not its substance, and attacking those who only followed religion as a fashion. Priestley attended the church regularly in the 1770s and occasionally preached there.Schofield, Vol. 2, 26–28; Jackson, 124; Gibbs, 88–89; Holt, 56-64. He continued to support institutionalized Unitarianism for the rest of his life, writing several
Defenses of Unitarianism and encouraging the foundation of new Unitarian chapels throughout Britain and the United States.Schofield, Vol. 2, 225; 236–38.
Natural philosopher of air
. Priestley used a modified version of Hales' device to perform the nitrous air test and other experiments.
Priestley's years in Calne were the only ones in his life dominated by scientific investigations, and the most scientifically fruitful. His experiments were almost entirely confined to "airs", and out of this work emerged his most important scientific texts: the six volumes of
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air (1774–86).Priestley, Joseph.
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. London W. Bowyer and J. Nichols, 1774; —.
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. Vol. 2. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1775; —.
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1777. There are several different editions of these volumes, each important.See Gibbs 67–83 for a description of all of his experiments during this time; Thorpe, 170ff. These experiments helped repudiate the last vestiges of the
four elements, which Priestley attempted to replace with his own variation of
phlogiston theory.Thorne, 167–68l Schofield, Vol. 2, 98-101. Priestley's work on "airs" is not easily classified. As historian of science
Simon Schaffer points out, it "has been seen as a branch of physics, or chemistry, or natural philosophy, or some highly idiosyncratic version of Priestley's own invention".Schaffer, 152. Also, the volumes were both a scientific and a political enterprise for Priestley; he argues in them that science could destroy "undue and usurped authority", writing that the government has "reason to tremble even at an air pump or an electrical machine".Qtd. in Kramnick, 11–12; see also Schofield, Vol. 2, 121–124.
Priestley's first volume of
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air outlined several important discoveries, namely, experiments that would eventually lead to the discovery of
photosynthesis and the discovery of several airs: "nitrous air" (
nitric oxide, NO), "vapor of spirit of salt" (later called "acid air" or "marine acid air";
anhydrous hydrochloric acid, HCl), "alkaline air" (
ammonia, NH3), "diminished" or "dephlogisticated nitrous air" (
nitrous oxide, N2O), and "deplogisticated air" (
oxygen, O2). Priestley also developed the "nitrous air test", which tested for the "goodness of air". Using a pneumatic trough, he would mix nitrous air with a test sample, over water or mercury, and measure the decrease in volume—the principle of
eudiometry.Fruton, 20; 29 After a small history of the study of airs, he explained his own experiments in an open and sincere style; as Thorpe writes, "whatever he knows or thinks he tells: doubts, perplexities, blunders are set down with the most refreshing candour."Schofield, Vol. 2, 98; Thorpe, 171. Priestley also invented and described cheap and easy-to-assemble experimental apparatus. His colleagues therefore believed that they could easily reproduce his experiments in order to verify them or to answer the questions that had puzzled him.Schofield, Vol. 1, 259–69; Jackson, 110–14; Thorpe, 76–77; 178–79; Uglow, 229–39.
Although many of his results puzzled him, Priestley used phlogiston theory to resolve the difficulties. This, however, led him to conclude that that there were only three types of "air": "fixed", "alkaline", and "acid". Priestley ignored the burgeoning
History of chemistry#Early European chemists of his day, indeed dismissing it in these volumes. Instead, he focused on gases and the "changes in their sensible properties", as had natural philosophers before him. He isolated carbon monoxide (CO) but seems not to have realized that it was a separate "air" from the others that he had discovered.Schofield, Vol. 2, 103; 93–105; Uglow, 240–41; see Gibbs 105–116 for a description of these experiments.
Discovery of oxygen
After the publication of the first volume of
Experiments and Observations, Priestley undertook another set of experiments. In August 1774 he isolated an "air" that appeared to be completely new, but he did not have an opportunity to pursue the matter because he was about to tour Europe with Shelburne. While in Paris, however, Priestley managed to replicate the experiment for others, including
Antoine Lavoisier. After returning to Britain in January 1775, he continued his experiments and discovered "vitriolic acid air" (sulfur dioxide, SO2). In March he wrote to several people regarding the new "air" that he had discovered in August. One of these letters was read aloud to the
Royal Society, and a paper outlining the discovery, titled "An Account of further Discoveries in Air", was published in
Philosophical Transactions. Priestley called the new substance "dephlogisticated air" and described it as "five or six times better than common air for the purpose of respiration, inflammation, and, I believe, every other use of common atmospherical air".Qtd. in Schofield, Vol. 2, 107. He had discovered oxygen gas (O2).
Priestley assembled his oxygen paper and several others into a second volume of
Experiments and Observations on Air, published in 1776. He does not emphasize his discovery of "dephlogisticated air" (leaving it to Part III of the volume) but instead argues in the preface how important such discoveries are to rational religion. His paper narrates the discovery chronologically, relating the long delays between experiments and his initial puzzlements; thus, it is difficult to determine when exactly Priestley "discovered" oxygen.Schofield, Vol. 2, 105–119; see also Jackson, 126–27; 163–64; 166–174; Gibbs, 118–123; Uglow, 229–231; 241; Holt, 93. Such dating is significant as both Lavoisier and Swedish pharmacist Carl Wilhelm Scheele have strong claims to the discovery of oxygen as well, Scheele having been the first to isolate the gas (although he published after Priestley) and Lavoisier having been the first to describe it as purified "air itself entire without alteration" (not "dephlogisticated air").Kuhn, 53-55.
Priestley also connected oxygen to
Respiration (physiology). In his paper "Observations on Respiration and the Use of the Blood", he was the first to suggest a connection between blood and air, although he did so using phlogiston theory. In typical Priestley fashion, he prefaced the paper with a history of the study of respiration. A year later, clearly influenced by Priestley, Lavoisier was also discussing respiration at the
French Academy of Sciences. His work began the long train of discovery that produced papers on oxygen respiration and culminated in the overthrow of phlogiston theory.Schofield, Vol. 2, 129–30; Gibbs, 124–25.
Around 1779 Priestley and Shelburne had a rupture, the reasons for which remain unclear. Shelburne blamed Priestley's health, and Priestley claimed Shelburne had no further use for him. Some contemporaries speculated that Priestley's outspokenness had hurt Shelburne's political career. Schofield argues that the most likely reason was Shelburne's recent marriage to Louisa Fitzpatrick—apparently, she did not like the Priestleys. Although Priestley considered moving to America, he eventually accepted
Birmingham New Meeting's offer to be their minister.Schofield, Vol. 2, 141–43; see also Jackson, 198–99; Holt, 81-82.
Birmingham (1780–91)
In 1780 the Priestleys moved to Birmingham and spent a happy decade surrounded by old friends, until they were forced to flee in 1791 by Priestley Riots. Priestley accepted the ministerial position at New Meeting on the condition that he be required to preach and teach only on Sundays, so that he would have time for his writing and scientific experiments. As in Leeds, Priestley established classes for the youth of his parish and by 1781, he was teaching 150 students. Although New Meeting supplied Priestley with an annual salary of 100
guineas, such a sum would never have supported his experimental interests. Happily, friends and patrons frequently offered him money and goods that allowed him to continue his scientific investigations.Schofield, Vol. 2, 147–50; 196–99; 242–46. Gibbs, 134–40; 169; Uglow, 310-20; 407; Jackson, 227–28; Holt, 132-33.
Chemical revolution
Many of the friends that Priestley made in Birmingham were members of the
Lunar Society, a group of manufacturers, inventors, and natural philosophers who assembled monthly to discuss their work. Matthew Boulton (manufacturer), Erasmus Darwin (naturalist, physician, poet, and grandfather to
Charles Darwin), James Keir (chemist and geologist), James Watt (inventor and engineer),
Josiah Wedgwood (manufacturer) and
William Withering (botanist, chemist, and geologist) formed the core of the group. Priestley was asked to join this unique society and contributed much to the work of its members.Schofield, Vol. 2, 151–52; for an analysis of Priestley's contributions to each man's work, see Schofield's chapter "Science and the Lunar Society"; see also Jackson, 200–201; Gibbs, 141–47; Thorpe, 93–102; Holt, 127-32; Uglow, 349–50; for a history of the Lunar Society, see Uglow. In this stimulating intellectual environment, he published several important scientific papers. One of the most significant was "Experiments relating to Phlogiston, and the seeming Conversion of Water into Air" (1783). The first part of the paper attempts to refute Lavoisier's challenges to his work on oxygen; the second part describes how the steam that results from heated water is "converted" into air. After several variations of the experiment, with different substances as the fuel for the fire and several different collecting apparatuses which produced different results, he concluded that air could travel through more substances than previously surmised, a conclusion "contrary to all the known principles of hydrostatics".Qtd. in Schofield, Vol. 2, 167 This discovery, along with his earlier work on what would later be recognized as gaseous diffusion, would eventually lead John Dalton and Thomas Graham to formulate the kinetic theory of gases.Schofield, Vol. 2, 168; see also, Jackson 203–208; Gibbs, 154–161; Uglow, 358–61.
and his wife by
Jacques-Louis David; Lavoisier's "new chemistry", introduced many of the fundamental concepts of chemistry.
In 1777,
Antoine Lavoisier had published
Réflexions sur le Phlogistique pour servir de Développement à la Théorie de la Combustion et de la Respiration, the first of what proved to be a series of attacks on phlogiston theory; it was against these attacks that Priestley responded in 1783. While Priestley accepted parts of Lavoisier's theory, he was unprepared to assent to the major revolutions Lavoisier proposed—the overthrow of phlogiston, a chemistry conceptualized around
Chemical elements and
Chemical compounds, and a new chemical nomenclature. It was Priestley's original experiments on "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen), combustion, and water that provided Lavoisier with the data he needed to construct much of his system, but Priestley never accepted Lavoisier's new theories and continued to cling to phlogiston theory for the rest of his life. Lavoisier's system was based largely on the weight of substances and Priestley was less interested in these measurements; he preferred to observe changes in heat, color, and particularly volume. His experiments tested "airs" for "their solubility in water, their power of supporting or extinguishing flame, whether they were respirable, how they behaved with acid and alkaline air, and with nitric oxide and inflammable air, and lastly how they were affected by the electric spark."Thorpe, 210; see also Schofield, Vol. 2, 169–194; Jackson 216–224.
By 1789, when Lavoisier published his
Traité élémentaire de chimie and founded the
Annales de Chimie, the new chemistry had come into its own. Priestley published several more scientific papers in Birmingham, the majority attempting to refute Lavoisier; Priestley and other Lunar Society members argued that the new French system was too expensive, too difficult to test, and unnecessarily complex. Priestley in particular rejected its "establishment" aura.Schaffer, 164; Uglow, 356; McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 56-57. Priestley's refusal to accept Lavoisier's "new chemistry" and his determination to adhere to a less satisfactory theory has confused many scholars.See Schaffer, 162–170 for a historiographic analysis. Schofield explains it thus: "Priestley was never a chemist; in a modern, and even a Lavoisian, sense, he was never a scientist. He was a natural philosopher, concerned with the economy of nature and obsessed with an idea of unity, in theology and in nature. He attempted, prematurely, to conflate phenomena and give reasons for the reactions he observed."Schofield, Vol. 2, 194 Historian of science John McEvoy largely agrees, writing that Priestley's view that nature was coextensive with God and thus infinite, a view which encouraged him to focus on facts over hypotheses and theories, prompted him to reject Lavoisier's system.McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 51ff. Moreover, he argues that "Priestley's isolated and lonely opposition to the oxygen theory was a measure of his passionate concern for the principles of intellectual freedom, epistemic equality and critical inquiry."McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 57; see also McEvoy and MeGuire 395ff. Priestley himself claimed in the last volume of
Experiments and Observations that his most valuable works were his theological ones because they were "superior dignity and importance".Qtd. in Thorpe, 213. Priestley, unlike his friends in the Lunar Society, would continue the war over phlogiston until he died.Schofield, Vol. 2, 169–194; Jackson 216–224.
Defender of Dissenters and French Revolutionaries
Although Priestley was busy defending phlogiston theory from the "new chemists", most of what he published in Birmingham was theological. In 1782 he published the fourth volume of his
Institutes,
An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, describing how he thought the teachings of the early Christian church had been "corrupted" or distorted.Priestley, Joseph.
An History of the Corruptions of Christianity. 2 vols. Birmingham: Printed by Piercy and Jones; London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1782. Schofield describes the work as "derivative, disorganized, wordy, and repetitive, detailed, exhaustive, and devastatingly argued".Schofield, Vol. 2, 216. The text addresses issues from the divinity of Christ to the proper form for the Lord's Supper. Thomas Jefferson would later write of the profound effect that
Corruptions had on him: "I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them … as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered."Qtd. in Gibbs, 249. Although a few readers such as Jefferson and other Rational Dissenters approved of the work, it was generally harshly reviewed because of its extreme theological positions, particularly its rejection of the Trinity.Schofield, Vol. 2, 216–223; Thorpe, 106–108; Holt, 133-39; Philip, "Rational Religion and Political Radicalism".
In 1785, while Priestley was engaged in a pamphlet war over his
Corruptions, he also published
The Importance and Extent of Free Enquiry, claiming that the
Reformation had not really ref
(1794)McLachlan,
Iconography, 28-30.
Joseph Priestley (March 26,1733 –
February 8,
1804) was an eighteenth-century British Natural philosophy,
English Dissenters clergyman, Political philosophy, theologian, and educator. He is usually credited with the discovery of
oxygen gas, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have such a claim.Kuhn, 53-60; Schofield, Vol. 2, 112-13. The difficulty in precisely defining the time and place of the "discovery" of oxygen, within the context of the developing Chemical Revolution, is one of
Thomas Kuhn's central illustrations of the gradual nature of paradigm shifts in
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A member of marginalized religious groups throughout his life, Priestley advocated religious toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters. He argued for the extension of civil rights, because he believed that individuals could bring about progress and eventually the Christian
Millennialism.Tapper, 314. In his metaphysical works, Priestley attempted to combine
theism, materialism, and
determinism, a project that has been called "audacious and original".Tapper, 314. The controversial nature of these works combined with Priestley's outspoken support of the
French Revolution aroused public and governmental suspicion; he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after Priestley Riots in 1791.
Priestley made significant contributions to pedagogy, including the publication of a seminal work on grammar, the promotion of a
liberal arts curriculum, and the advocacy of the study of
Historiography#Modern historiography.
During his lifetime, Priestley's scientific reputation rested on his invention of
soda water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen). However, Priestley's determination to reject Lavoisier's "Chemical Revolution" and to cling to the phlogiston theory of heat eventually left him isolated within the scientific community. Priestley's science was never divorced from his theology, and he consistently tried to fuse
Age of Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism.Tapper, 10.
Early life and education (1733–55)
(about six miles southwest of
Leeds)Schofield, Vol. 1, 2.
Priestley was born to an established Dissenting family (i.e., they did not conform to the Church of England) in West Yorkshire. He was the oldest of the six children born to Mary Swift and Jonas Priestley, a finisher of cloth. To ease his mother's burdens, Priestley was sent to live with his grandfather around the age of one; after his mother died five years later, he returned home. When his father remarried in 1741, Priestley was sent to live with his aunt and uncle, the wealthy and childless Sarah and John Keighley. Because Priestley was precocious—at the age of four he could perfectly recite all 107 questions and answers of the
Westminster Shorter Catechism—she sought the best education for the boy, intending him for the ministry. During his youth, Priestley attended local schools where he learned Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.Schofield, Vol. 1, 2–12; Uglow, 72; Jackson, 19–25; Gibbs, 1–4; Thorpe, 1–11; Holt, 1-6.
Around 1749 Priestley became seriously ill and believed he was dying. Raised as a devout Calvinist, he believed a
Conversion to Christianity was necessary for salvation, but doubted he had had one. This emotional distress eventually led him to question his theological upbringing, causing him to reject
Unconditional election and to accept universal salvation. As a result, the elders of his home church refused him admission as a full member.Schofield, Vol. 1, 1, 7–8; Jackson, 25–30; Gibbs, 4; Priestley,
Autobiography, 71-73; 123.
Priestley's illness left him with a permanent stutter and he gave up any thoughts of entering the ministry. In preparation for joining a relative in trade in Lisbon, he studied French, Italian, and German in addition to Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Syrian, and Arabic. He was tutored by the Rev. George Haggerstone, who first introduced him to higher mathematics,
natural philosophy, logic, and metaphysics through the works of Isaac Watts, Willem 's Gravesande, and John Locke.Schofield, Vol. 1, 14; 28–9; Uglow, 72; Gibbs, 5; Thorpe, 11–12; Holt, 7-9.
Daventry Academy
Priestley eventually decided to return to his theological studies, and in 1752 matriculated at Daventry, a Dissenting academies.Schofield, Vol. 1, 28–9; Jackson, 30; Gibbs, 5. Because he had already read widely, Priestley was allowed to skip the first two years of coursework. He continued his intense study; this, together with the liberal atmosphere of the school, shifted his theology further leftward and he became a English Dissenters#Rational Dissenters. Abhorring dogma and religious mysticism, Rational Dissenters emphasized the rational analysis of the natural world and the Bible.McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 48-49.
Priestley later wrote that the book which influenced him the most, save the Bible, was
David Hartley (philosopher) Observations on Man (1749). Hartley's psychological, philosophical, and theological treatise postulated a material
Philosophy of mind. Hartley aimed to construct a Christian philosophy in which both religious and moral "facts" could be scientifically proven, a goal which would occupy Priestley for his entire life. In his third year at Daventry, Priestley committed himself to the ministry, what he described as "the noblest of all professions".Qtd. in Jackson, 33. See Schofield, Vol. 1, 40–57; Uglow, 73–4; Jackson, 30–34; Gibbs, 5–10; Thorpe, 17–22; Tapper, 314; Holt, 11-14; Garrett, 54.
Needham Market and Nantwich (1755–61)
(1791)
Priestley's major modern biographer, Robert Schofield, describes his first "call" in 1755 to the Dissenting parish in
Needham Market, Suffolk as a "mistake" for both Priestley and the congregation. Priestley yearned for urban life and theological debate and Needham Market was a small, rural town with a congregation wedded to tradition. Attendance and donations dropped sharply when they discovered the extent of his
heterodoxy. While Priestley's aunt had promised her support if he became a minister, she refused any further assistance when she realized he was no longer a Calvinist. In order to earn extra money, Priestley proposed opening a school, but local families informed him that they would refuse to send their children. He also presented a series of scientific lectures titled "Use of the Globes", which was more successful.Schofield, Vol. 1, 62–9; Jackson, 44–47; Gibbs, 10–11; Thorpe, 22–29; Holt, 15-19.
Priestley's Daventry friends helped him obtain another position in Nantwich,
Cheshire; his time there was happier. The congregation cared less about Priestley's heterodoxy and he opened a school. Unlike many schoolmasters of the time, Priestley taught his students natural philosophy and even bought scientific instruments for them. Appalled at the quality of the available Grammar#historys, Priestley wrote his own:
The Rudiments of English Grammar (1761).Priestley, Joseph.
The Rudiments of English Grammar; adapted to the use of schools. With observations on style. London: Printed for R. Griffiths, 1761. His innovations in the description of English grammar, particularly his efforts to disassociate it from Grammar#history, have led twentieth-century scholars to describe him as "one of the great grammarians of his time".Qtd. in Schofield, Vol. 1, 79. After the publication of
Rudiments and the success of Priestley's school, Warrington Academy offered him a teaching position in 1761.Schofield, Vol. 1, 77–79; 83–5; Uglow, 72; Jackson 49–52; Gibbs, 13–16; Thorpe, 30–32; Holt, 19-23.
Warrington Academy (1761–67)
Isaac Wilkinson and sister of industrialist
John Wilkinson (industrialist), in later life by
Carl F. von Breda (1793)McLachlan,
Iconography, 24–6.
In 1761 Priestley moved to Warrington and assumed the post of tutor of modern languages and rhetoric at Warrington Academy, although he would have preferred to teach mathematics and natural philosophy. He fit in well at Warrington and quickly made friends. On
23 June 1762 he married Mary Wilkinson of Wrexham. Of his marriage, Priestley wrote:This proved a very suitable and happy connexion, my wife being a woman of an excellent understanding, much improved by reading, of great fortitude and strength of mind, and of a temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous; feeling strongly for others, and little for herself. Also, greatly excelling in every thing relating to household affairs, she entirely relieved me of all concern of that kind, which allowed me to give all my time to the prosecution of my studies, and the other duties of my station.Priestley,
Autobiography, 87.On 17 April 1763 they had a daughter, whom they named Sarah after Priestley's aunt.See Thorpe, 33–44 for a description of life at Warrington; Schofield, Vol. 1, 89–90; 93-94 Jackson, 54–58; Uglow, 73-75; Thorpe, 47–50; Holt, 27-28.
Educator and historian
All of the books Priestley published while at Warrington emphasized the study of history; Priestley considered it essential for worldly success as well as religious growth. He wrote histories of science and Christianity in an effort to reveal the progress of humanity and, paradoxically, the loss of a pure, "primitive Christianity".Sheps, 135; 149; Holt, 29-30.
(1765); Priestley believed his
Charts would "impress" upon students "a just image of the rise, progress, extent, duration, and contemporary state of all the considerable empires that have ever existed in the world".Qtd. in Sheps, 146.
In his
Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life (1765), Priestley argued that the education of the young should anticipate their future practical needs.Priestley, Joseph.
Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life. London: Printed for C. Henderson under the Royal Exchange; T. Becket and De Hondt in the Strand; and by J. Johnson and Davenport, in Pater-Noster-Row, 1765. This principle of utility guided his unconventional curricular choices for Warrington's aspiring middle-class students. He recommended modern languages instead of classical languages and modern rather than ancient history. Furthermore, because Priestley viewed education as one of the primary forces shaping a person's character and the basis of morality, he, unusually for the time, promoted the education of middle-class women.Thorpe, 52–54; Schofield, Vol. 1, 124–25; Watts, 89; 95–97; Sheps, 136. Some scholars of education have described Priestley as the most important English writer on education between the seventeenth-century John Locke and the nineteenth-century
Herbert Spencer.Schofield, Vol. 1, 121; see also Watts, 92.
In his
Lectures on History and General Policy (1788), Priestley encouraged the study of modern history, rarely studied at the time. The lectures cover a wide array of topics—everything from forms of government to commerce to manners. He narrated a providentialism and naturalist account of history, arguing that the study of history furthered the comprehension of God's natural laws. His millennialism perspective was closely tied to his optimism regarding scientific progress and the improvement of humanity. He believed that each age would improve upon the previous and the study of history allowed people to see and further this progress. Priestley also presented a new method for historical research that emphasized the primacy of original documents and material objects.
Lectures on History was well-received and was employed by many educational institutions, such as New College at Hackney, Brown University,
Princeton University, Yale University, and University of Cambridge.Schofield, Vol. 2, 254–59; McLachlan, "History", 255–58; Sheps, 138; 141; Kramnick, 12; Holt, 29-33. Priestley also designed two
Charts to serve as visual study aides for his
Lectures on History.Priestley, Joseph.
A Chart of Biography. London: J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church Yard, 1765 and Joseph Priestley,
A Description of a Chart of Biography. Warrington: Printed by William Eyres, 1765 and Joseph Priestley,
A New Chart of History. London: Engraved and published for J. Johnson, 1769;
A Description of a New Chart of History. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1770. Both were popular for decades and the trustees of Warrington were so impressed with Priestley's lectures and charts that they arranged for the University of Edinburgh to grant him a Doctor of Laws degree in 1764.Gibbs, 37; Schofield, Vol. 1, 118-19.
History of Electricity
The intellectually stimulating atmosphere of Warrington, dubbed the "Athens of the North", increased Priestley's interest in natural philosophy. He gave lectures on anatomy and, with his friend John Seddon, performed experiments regarding temperature.Schofield, Vol. 1, 136–37; Jackson, 57–61. Despite his busy teaching schedule, Priestley wrote a history of electricity. Friends introduced him to the major experimenters in the field in Britain—John Canton,
William Watson (scientist), and
Benjamin Franklin—who encouraged Priestley to perform the experiments he wanted to include in his history. In the process of replicating others' experiments, Priestley became intrigued by unanswered questions and was prompted to undertake his own.Schofield, Vol. 1, 141–42; 152; Jackson, 64; Uglow 75–77; Thorpe, 61–65. (Impressed with the manuscript of his history of electricity and his
Charts, Canton, Franklin, Watson, and Richard Price nominated Priestley for a fellowship in the
Royal Society; he was accepted in 1766.)Schofield, Vol. 1, 143–44; Jackson, 65–66; see Schofield, Vol. 1, 152 and 231–32 for an analysis of the different editions.
In 1767, the 700-page
The History and Present State of Electricity was published to positive reviews.Priestley, Joseph.
The History and Present State of Electricity, with original experiments. London: Printed for J. Dodsley, J. Johnson and T. Cadell, 1767. The first half of the text is a history of the study of electricity to 1766; the second and more influential half is a description of contemporary theories about electricity and suggestions for future research. Priestley reported some of his own discoveries in the second section, such as the
Electrical conductivity of
charcoal and other substances, and the continuum between conductors and non-conductors.Schofield, Vol. 1, 144ff and 155-56. This discovery overturned what he described as "one of the earliest and universally received maxims of electricity", that only water and metals could conduct electricity. Such experiments demonstrated Priestley's early and ongoing interest in the relationship between chemistry and electricity.Gibbs 28–31; see also Thorpe, 64. Based on experiments with charged spheres, Priestley was also the first to propose that electrical force followed an inverse-square law, although he did not generalize or elaborate on this.Schofield, Vol. 1, 150.
Priestley's strength as a natural philosopher was qualitative rather than quantitative and his observation of "a current of real air" between two electrified points would later interest Michael Faraday and
James Clerk Maxwell as they investigated
electromagnetism. Priestley's text became the standard history of electricity for over a century;
Alessandro Volta (who later invented the battery), William Herschel (who discovered infrared radiation), and Henry Cavendish (who discovered
hydrogen) all relied upon it. Priestley wrote a popular version of the
History of Electricity for the general public titled
A Familiar Introduction to the Study of Electricity (1768).Priestley, Joseph.
A familiar introduction to the study of electricity. London: Printed for J. Dodsley; T. Cadell; and J. Johnson, 1768.
Leeds (1767–73)
In 1767, the Priestleys moved from Warrington to Leeds and Priestley became Mill Hill Chapel's minister. Two sons were born to the Priestleys in Leeds: Joseph, Jr. on 24 July 1768 and William three years later. Theophilus Lindsey, a rector at Catterick, North Yorkshire, became one of Priestley's few friends in Leeds: "I never chose to publish any thing of moment relating to theology, without consulting him".Priestley,
Autobiography, 98; see also Schofield, Vol. 1, 163. Although Priestley had extended family around Leeds, it does not appear that they communicated. Schofield conjectures that they considered him a Heresy.Schofield, Vol. 1, 162, note 7. Each year Priestley traveled to London to consult with his close friend and publisher,
Joseph Johnson (publisher), and to attend meetings of the Royal Society.Schofield, Vol. 1, 158; 164; Gibbs, 37; Uglow, 170.
Minister of Mill Hill Chapel
, a text he had been working on since his Daventry days.
When Priestley became its minister, Mill Hill Chapel was one of the oldest and most respected Dissenting congregations in England; however, during the early eighteenth century the congregation had fractured along doctrinal lines, and the
Methodism#The Wesleyan revival was luring away Dissenters.Schofield, Vol. 1, 165–69; Holt, 42-43. Priestley believed that by educating the youth of the congregation, he could strengthen its bonds.Schofield, Vol. 1, 170–71; Gibbs, 37; Watts, 93-94; Holt, 44.
While Priestley outlined these theories of religious education in his
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion (1772–74),Priestley, Joseph.
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. I. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1772; —.
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. II. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1773; —.
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. III. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1774. he more importantly outlined his belief in Socinianism. The doctrines he laid out would become the standards for
Unitarians in Britain. This work marked an important change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his materialism and necessitarianism.Miller, "Introduction", xvi; Schofield, Vol. 1, 172.
Priestley's major argument in the
Institutes is that the only revealed religious truths that can be accepted are those that match one's experience of the natural world. Because his views of religion were deeply tied to his understanding of nature, the text's theism rests on the argument from design.Schofield, Vol. 1, 174; Uglow, 169; Tapper, 315; Holt, 44. The
Institutes shocked and appalled many readers, primarily because it challenged basic Christian orthodoxies, such as the Christ and the
Virgin Birth. Methodists in Leeds penned a hymn asking God to "the Unitarian fiend expel / And chase his doctrine back to Hell."Qtd. in Jackson, 102. Priestley wanted to return Christianity to its "primitive" or "pure" form by eliminating the "corruptions" which had accumulated over the centuries. The fourth part of the
Institutes,
An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, became so long that he was forced to issue it separately. Priestley believed that the
Corruptions was "the most valuable" work he ever published. In demanding that his readers apply the logic of the emerging sciences and comparative history to the Bible and Christianity, he alienated religious and scientific readers alike—scientific readers did not appreciate seeing science used in the defense of religion and religious readers dismissed the application of science to religion.McLachlan, "History", 261; Gibbs, 38; Jackson, 102; Uglow, 169.
Religious controversialist
Priestley engaged in numerous political and religious pamphlet wars. According to Schofield, "he entered each controversy with a cheerful conviction that he was right, while most of his opponents were convinced, from the outset, that he was willfully and maliciously wrong. He was able, then, to contrast his sweet reasonableness to their personal rancor."Schofield, Vol. 1, 181. However, as Schofield points out, Priestley rarely altered his opinion as a result of these debates.Schofield, Vol. 1, 181. While at Leeds he wrote controversial pamphlets on the Eucharist and on Calvinist doctrine; thousands of copies were published, making them some of Priestley's most widely-read works.See Schofield, Vol. 1, 181–88 for analysis of these two controversies.
Priestley also founded the
Theological Repository in 1768, a journal committed to the open and rational inquiry of theological questions. Although he promised to print any contribution, only like-minded authors ever submitted articles. He was therefore obliged to provide much of the journal's content himself (this material became the basis for much of his later theological and metaphysical works). After only a few years, due to a lack of funds, he was forced to cease publishing the journal.See Schofield, Vol. 1, 193–201 for an analysis of the journal; Uglow, 169; Holt, 53-55. He revived it in 1784, with similar results.See Schofield, Vol. 2, 202–207 for an analysis of Priestley's contributions.
Defender of Dissenters and political philosopher
(1768); it influenced early nineteenth-century political philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham.Schofield, Vol. 1, 207.
Many of Priestley's political writings were aimed at supporting the repeal of the Test Act and Corporation Act 1661, which restricted the rights of Dissenters. They could not hold political office, serve in the armed forces, or attend Oxford and Cambridge unless they subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England. Dissenters repeatedly petitioned Parliament to repeal the Acts, arguing that they were being treated as second-class citizens.Schofield, Vol. 1, 202–205; Holt, 56-64.
Priestley's friends, particularly other Rational Dissenters, urged him to publish a work on the injustices experienced by Dissenters; the result was his
Essay on the First Principles of Government (1768).Priestley, Joseph.
Essay on the First Principles of Government; and on the nature of political, civil, and religious liberty. London: Printed for J. Dodsley; T. Cadell; and J. Johnson, 1768. An early work of
Liberalism#Development of liberal thought and Priestley's most thorough treatment of political theory, it—unusually for the time—precisely distinguishes between political and civil rights and argues for expansive civil rights. Priestley identifies separate private and public spheres, contending that the government should only have control over the public sphere. Education and religion, in particular, he maintains, are matters of private conscience and should not be administered by the state. Priestley's later radicalism emerged from his belief that the British government was infringing upon these individual freedoms.
Essay on Government went through three English editions and was translated into Dutch.Gibbs, 39–43; Uglow, 169; Garrett, 17; Tapper, 315; Holt, 34-37; Philip, "Rational Religion and Political Radicalism"; Miller, "Introduction", xiv.
In another attempt to champion the rights of Dissenters, Priestley defended their rights against the attacks of
William Blackstone, an eminent legal theorist. Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, fast becoming the standard legal guide, stated that dissent from the Church of England was a crime and that Dissenters could not be loyal subjects. Furious, Priestley lashed out with his
Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's grammar, his history, and his interpretation of the law.Priestley, Joseph.
Remarks on some paragraphs in the fourth volume of Dr. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the laws of England, relating to the Dissenters. London: Printed for J. Johnson and J. Payne, 1769. Blackstone, chastened, replied in a pamphlet and altered subsequent editions of his
Commentaries: he rephrased the offending passages and removed the sections claiming that Dissenters could not be loyal subjects, but he retained his description of Dissent as a crime.Schofield, Vol. 1, 214–16; Gibbs, 43; Holt, 48-49.
Natural philosopher: electricity,
Optics, and soda water
Although Priestley claimed that natural philosophy was only a hobby for him, it was clearly one that he took seriously, for he believed that science could further human happiness. In his
History of Electricity he describes the scientist as promoting the "security and happiness of mankind" and as one who is "a good citizen and a useful member of society".Qtd. in Kramnick, 8. Priestley's science was always eminently practical and he rarely concerned himself with theoretical questions—his model was Benjamin Franklin. When he moved to Leeds, Priestley continued his electrical and chemical experiments (the latter aided by a steady supply of carbon dioxide from a neighboring brewery). Between 1767 and 1770, he presented five papers to the Royal Society out of these initial experiments; the first four papers explored coronal discharges and other phenomena related to electrical discharge, while the fifth reported on the conductivity of charcoals from different sources. His subsequent experimental work increasingly focused on chemistry and
pneumatics.Schofield, Vol. 1, 227; 232–38; see also Gibbs, 47; Kramnick, 9–10.
Priestley published the first volume of his projected history of experimental philosophy,
The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light and Colours (referred to as his
Optics), in 1772.Priestley, Joseph.
Proposals for printing by subscription, The history and present state of discoveries relating to vision, light, and colours. Leeds: n.p., 1771. Unlike his
History of Electricity, it was not popular and had only one edition, although it was the only English book on the topic for 150 years. Priestley paid careful attention to the history of optics and presented excellent explanations of early optics experiments, but his mathematical deficiencies caused him to dismiss several important contemporary theories. Furthermore, he did not include any of the practical sections that had made his
History of Electricity so useful to practicing natural philosophers. The text was hastily written and it sold poorly; the cost of researching, writing, and publishing the
Optics convinced Priestley to abandon his history of experimental philosophy.Schofield, Vol. 1, 240–49; Gibbs, 50–55; Uglow, 134.
After the dual financial disasters of the
Optics and the
Theological Repository, Priestley was looking for ways to improve his finances. When offered the position of astronomer for James Cook
James Cook#Second voyage (1772–75), he eagerly accepted and even informed his congregation at Mill Hill that he would be absent for several years; however, the offer was suddenly rescinded. Priestley claimed that he was denied the position because he was a Dissenter, but as Schofield explains, the organizing committee replaced him with a more qualified candidate. Schofield attributes the debacle to Joseph Banks high-handedness in nominating Priestley in the first place.Schofield, Vol. 1, 251–55; see Holt, 64; Gibbs 55–56; and Thorpe, 80–81, for the traditional account of this story.
Priestley contributed in a small way to the Cook voyage: he provided the crew with a method for making soda water, which he speculated might be a cure for scurvy (it is not). He then published a pamphlet with
Directions for Impregnating Water with Fixed Air (1772).Priestley, Joseph.
Directions for impregnating water with fixed air; in order to communicate to it the peculiar spirit and virtues of Pyrmont water, and other mineral waters of a similar nature. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1772. Priestley did not bother to exploit the commercial potential of soda water, but others such as Cadbury Schweppes made fortunes from it.Schofield, Vol. 1, 256–57; Gibbs, 57–59; Thorpe, 76–79; Uglow, 134–36; 232–34. In 1773, the Royal Society recognized Priestley's achievements in natural philosophy by awarding him the
Copley Medal.
Priestley's friends wanted to find him a more financially secure position, and in 1772, prompted by Richard Price and Benjamin Franklin,
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne wrote to Priestley asking him to direct the education of his children and to act as his general assistant. Priestley debated whether to sacrifice his ministry and accept the position; after intense soul-searching, he resigned from Mill Hill Chapel on
20 December 1772 and preached his last sermon on 16 May
1773.Schofield, Vol. 1, 270–71; Jackson, 120–22; Gibbs, 84–86: Uglow, 239–40; Holt, 64-65.
Calne (1773–80)
from Henry Fuseli (c. 1783)McLachlan,
Iconography, 19–20.
In 1773 the Priestleys moved to Calne and a year later William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne and Priestley took a tour of Europe. According to Priestley's close friend
Theophilus Lindsey, Priestley was "much improved by this view of mankind at large".Qtd. in Gibbs, 91. Upon their return, Priestley easily fulfilled his duties as librarian and tutor. The workload was intentionally light, allowing him time to pursue his scientific investigations and theological interests (Shelburne even equipped a laboratory for him in Bowood House). Priestley also became a political adviser to Shelburne, gathering information on parliamentary issues and serving as a liaison between Shelburne and the Dissenting and American interests. When the Priestleys' third son was born on 24 May 1777, they named him Henry at the Lord's request. Schofield, Vol. 2, 4–11; 406; Gibbs, 91–94; Jackson, 122; 124; 143–52; 158–62; Thorpe, 80–85; Watts, 96; Holt, 70-94 (includes large quotations from Priestley's letters sent from Europe to Shelburne's sons).
Materialist philosopher
(1777); at least a dozen hostile refutations were published to it by 1782 and Priestley was branded an
atheist.Schofield, Vol. 2, 72.
Priestley wrote his most important philosophical works during his years with Lord Shelburne. In a series of major Metaphysics works published between 1774 and 1780—
An Examination of Dr. Reid's Inquiry into the Human Mind (1774),
Hartley's Theory of the Human Mind on the Principle of the Association of Ideas (1775),
Philosophical Necessity (1775),
Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit (1777),
The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity Illustrated (1777), and
Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever (1780)—he argues for a philosophy which foregrounds four concepts:
determinism, materialism, causality, and necessity. By studying the natural world, he argued, people would learn how to become more compassionate, happy, and prosperous.McEvoy and McGuire, 326-27; Tapper, 316.
Strongly suggesting that there is no
Dualism (philosophy of mind), Priestley puts forth a materialist philosophy in these works, that is, one founded on the principle that everything in the universe is made of matter that we can perceive. However, he simultaneously contends that discussing the soul is impossible because it is made of a divine substance, and humanity cannot access the divine. Despite his separation of the divine from the mortal, this position shocked and angered many of his readers, who believed that such a duality was necessary for the
soul to exist.Schofield, Vol. 2, 59–76; Gibbs, 99–100; Holt, 112-24; McEvoy and McGuire, 333-34.
Responding to Baron d'Holbach
The System of Nature and David Hume
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) as well as the French
philosophes, Priestley maintained that materialism and determinism could be reconciled with a belief in God. He criticizes those whose faith is shaped by books and fashion, drawing an analogy between the skepticism of educated men and the credulity of the masses.Tapper, 320; Priestley,
Autobiography, 111; Schofield, Vol. 2, 37–42; Holt, 93-94; 139-42.
Maintaining that humans had no
free will, Priestley was the first to claim that what he called "philosophical necessity" (a position akin to
determinism) is consonant with Christianity, a position based on his understanding of the natural world. Like the rest of nature, man's mind is subject to the laws of causation, Priestley contends, but because a benevolent God created these laws, the world and the men in it will eventually be perfected. Evil is therefore only an imperfect understanding of the world. Priestley believed that mankind could be perfected through a study of nature.Schofield, Vol. 2, 77–91; Garrett, 55; Tapper, 319; Sheps, 138; McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 50; McEvoy and McGuire, 338-40.
Founder of Unitarianism
When Priestley's friend from Leeds, Theophilus Lindsey, decided to establish a new Christian denomination that would not restrict its members' beliefs, Priestley and others such as publisher
Joseph Johnson (publisher)#Religious publications and advocate of Unitarianism hurried to his aid. On
17 April 1774, Lindsey held the first Unitarian service in Britain; he had even designed his own liturgy, of which many were critical. Priestley rushed to his defense with
Letter to a Layman, on the Subject of the Rev. Mr. Lindsey's Proposal for a Reformed English Church (1774),Priestley, Joseph.
Letter to a Layman, on the Subject of the Rev. Mr. Lindsey's Proposal for a Reformed English Church. London: Printed for J. Wilkie, 1774. claiming that only the form of worship had been altered, not its substance, and attacking those who only followed religion as a fashion. Priestley attended the church regularly in the 1770s and occasionally preached there.Schofield, Vol. 2, 26–28; Jackson, 124; Gibbs, 88–89; Holt, 56-64. He continued to support institutionalized Unitarianism for the rest of his life, writing several
Defenses of Unitarianism and encouraging the foundation of new Unitarian chapels throughout Britain and the United States.Schofield, Vol. 2, 225; 236–38.
Natural philosopher of air
. Priestley used a modified version of Hales' device to perform the nitrous air test and other experiments.
Priestley's years in Calne were the only ones in his life dominated by scientific investigations, and the most scientifically fruitful. His experiments were almost entirely confined to "airs", and out of this work emerged his most important scientific texts: the six volumes of
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air (1774–86).Priestley, Joseph.
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. London W. Bowyer and J. Nichols, 1774; —.
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. Vol. 2. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1775; —.
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1777. There are several different editions of these volumes, each important.See Gibbs 67–83 for a description of all of his experiments during this time; Thorpe, 170ff. These experiments helped repudiate the last vestiges of the
four elements, which Priestley attempted to replace with his own variation of
phlogiston theory.Thorne, 167–68l Schofield, Vol. 2, 98-101. Priestley's work on "airs" is not easily classified. As historian of science Simon Schaffer points out, it "has been seen as a branch of physics, or chemistry, or natural philosophy, or some highly idiosyncratic version of Priestley's own invention".Schaffer, 152. Also, the volumes were both a scientific and a political enterprise for Priestley; he argues in them that science could destroy "undue and usurped authority", writing that the government has "reason to tremble even at an air pump or an electrical machine".Qtd. in Kramnick, 11–12; see also Schofield, Vol. 2, 121–124.
Priestley's first volume of
Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air outlined several important discoveries, namely, experiments that would eventually lead to the discovery of photosynthesis and the discovery of several airs: "nitrous air" (nitric oxide, NO), "vapor of spirit of salt" (later called "acid air" or "marine acid air"; anhydrous hydrochloric acid, HCl), "alkaline air" (
ammonia, NH3), "diminished" or "dephlogisticated nitrous air" (nitrous oxide, N2O), and "deplogisticated air" (oxygen, O2). Priestley also developed the "nitrous air test", which tested for the "goodness of air". Using a pneumatic trough, he would mix nitrous air with a test sample, over water or mercury, and measure the decrease in volume—the principle of eudiometry.Fruton, 20; 29 After a small history of the study of airs, he explained his own experiments in an open and sincere style; as Thorpe writes, "whatever he knows or thinks he tells: doubts, perplexities, blunders are set down with the most refreshing candour."Schofield, Vol. 2, 98; Thorpe, 171. Priestley also invented and described cheap and easy-to-assemble experimental apparatus. His colleagues therefore believed that they could easily reproduce his experiments in order to verify them or to answer the questions that had puzzled him.Schofield, Vol. 1, 259–69; Jackson, 110–14; Thorpe, 76–77; 178–79; Uglow, 229–39.
Although many of his results puzzled him, Priestley used phlogiston theory to resolve the difficulties. This, however, led him to conclude that that there were only three types of "air": "fixed", "alkaline", and "acid". Priestley ignored the burgeoning
History of chemistry#Early European chemists of his day, indeed dismissing it in these volumes. Instead, he focused on gases and the "changes in their sensible properties", as had natural philosophers before him. He isolated carbon monoxide (CO) but seems not to have realized that it was a separate "air" from the others that he had discovered.Schofield, Vol. 2, 103; 93–105; Uglow, 240–41; see Gibbs 105–116 for a description of these experiments.
Discovery of oxygen
After the publication of the first volume of
Experiments and Observations, Priestley undertook another set of experiments. In August 1774 he isolated an "air" that appeared to be completely new, but he did not have an opportunity to pursue the matter because he was about to tour Europe with Shelburne. While in Paris, however, Priestley managed to replicate the experiment for others, including
Antoine Lavoisier. After returning to Britain in January 1775, he continued his experiments and discovered "vitriolic acid air" (sulfur dioxide, SO2). In March he wrote to several people regarding the new "air" that he had discovered in August. One of these letters was read aloud to the
Royal Society, and a paper outlining the discovery, titled "An Account of further Discoveries in Air", was published in
Philosophical Transactions. Priestley called the new substance "dephlogisticated air" and described it as "five or six times better than common air for the purpose of respiration, inflammation, and, I believe, every other use of common atmospherical air".Qtd. in Schofield, Vol. 2, 107. He had discovered
oxygen gas (O2).
Priestley assembled his oxygen paper and several others into a second volume of
Experiments and Observations on Air, published in 1776. He does not emphasize his discovery of "dephlogisticated air" (leaving it to Part III of the volume) but instead argues in the preface how important such discoveries are to rational religion. His paper narrates the discovery chronologically, relating the long delays between experiments and his initial puzzlements; thus, it is difficult to determine when exactly Priestley "discovered" oxygen.Schofield, Vol. 2, 105–119; see also Jackson, 126–27; 163–64; 166–174; Gibbs, 118–123; Uglow, 229–231; 241; Holt, 93. Such dating is significant as both Lavoisier and Swedish pharmacist Carl Wilhelm Scheele have strong claims to the discovery of oxygen as well, Scheele having been the first to isolate the gas (although he published after Priestley) and Lavoisier having been the first to describe it as purified "air itself entire without alteration" (not "dephlogisticated air").Kuhn, 53-55.
Priestley also connected oxygen to Respiration (physiology). In his paper "Observations on Respiration and the Use of the Blood", he was the first to suggest a connection between blood and air, although he did so using phlogiston theory. In typical Priestley fashion, he prefaced the paper with a history of the study of respiration. A year later, clearly influenced by Priestley, Lavoisier was also discussing respiration at the
French Academy of Sciences. His work began the long train of discovery that produced papers on oxygen respiration and culminated in the overthrow of phlogiston theory.Schofield, Vol. 2, 129–30; Gibbs, 124–25.
Around 1779 Priestley and Shelburne had a rupture, the reasons for which remain unclear. Shelburne blamed Priestley's health, and Priestley claimed Shelburne had no further use for him. Some contemporaries speculated that Priestley's outspokenness had hurt Shelburne's political career. Schofield argues that the most likely reason was Shelburne's recent marriage to Louisa Fitzpatrick—apparently, she did not like the Priestleys. Although Priestley considered moving to America, he eventually accepted
Birmingham New Meeting's offer to be their minister.Schofield, Vol. 2, 141–43; see also Jackson, 198–99; Holt, 81-82.
Birmingham (1780–91)
In 1780 the Priestleys moved to
Birmingham and spent a happy decade surrounded by old friends, until they were forced to flee in 1791 by
Priestley Riots. Priestley accepted the ministerial position at New Meeting on the condition that he be required to preach and teach only on Sundays, so that he would have time for his writing and scientific experiments. As in Leeds, Priestley established classes for the youth of his parish and by 1781, he was teaching 150 students. Although New Meeting supplied Priestley with an annual salary of 100
guineas, such a sum would never have supported his experimental interests. Happily, friends and patrons frequently offered him money and goods that allowed him to continue his scientific investigations.Schofield, Vol. 2, 147–50; 196–99; 242–46. Gibbs, 134–40; 169; Uglow, 310-20; 407; Jackson, 227–28; Holt, 132-33.
Chemical revolution
Many of the friends that Priestley made in Birmingham were members of the Lunar Society, a group of manufacturers, inventors, and natural philosophers who assembled monthly to discuss their work. Matthew Boulton (manufacturer), Erasmus Darwin (naturalist, physician, poet, and grandfather to
Charles Darwin), James Keir (chemist and geologist), James Watt (inventor and engineer), Josiah Wedgwood (manufacturer) and
William Withering (botanist, chemist, and geologist) formed the core of the group. Priestley was asked to join this unique society and contributed much to the work of its members.Schofield, Vol. 2, 151–52; for an analysis of Priestley's contributions to each man's work, see Schofield's chapter "Science and the Lunar Society"; see also Jackson, 200–201; Gibbs, 141–47; Thorpe, 93–102; Holt, 127-32; Uglow, 349–50; for a history of the Lunar Society, see Uglow. In this stimulating intellectual environment, he published several important scientific papers. One of the most significant was "Experiments relating to Phlogiston, and the seeming Conversion of Water into Air" (1783). The first part of the paper attempts to refute Lavoisier's challenges to his work on oxygen; the second part describes how the steam that results from heated water is "converted" into air. After several variations of the experiment, with different substances as the fuel for the fire and several different collecting apparatuses which produced different results, he concluded that air could travel through more substances than previously surmised, a conclusion "contrary to all the known principles of hydrostatics".Qtd. in Schofield, Vol. 2, 167 This discovery, along with his earlier work on what would later be recognized as gaseous diffusion, would eventually lead John Dalton and
Thomas Graham to formulate the kinetic theory of gases.Schofield, Vol. 2, 168; see also, Jackson 203–208; Gibbs, 154–161; Uglow, 358–61.
and his wife by Jacques-Louis David; Lavoisier's "new chemistry", introduced many of the fundamental concepts of
chemistry.
In 1777, Antoine Lavoisier had published
Réflexions sur le Phlogistique pour servir de Développement à la Théorie de la Combustion et de la Respiration, the first of what proved to be a series of attacks on
phlogiston theory; it was against these attacks that Priestley responded in 1783. While Priestley accepted parts of Lavoisier's theory, he was unprepared to assent to the major revolutions Lavoisier proposed—the overthrow of phlogiston, a chemistry conceptualized around
Chemical elements and Chemical compounds, and a new chemical nomenclature. It was Priestley's original experiments on "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen), combustion, and water that provided Lavoisier with the data he needed to construct much of his system, but Priestley never accepted Lavoisier's new theories and continued to cling to phlogiston theory for the rest of his life. Lavoisier's system was based largely on the weight of substances and Priestley was less interested in these measurements; he preferred to observe changes in heat, color, and particularly volume. His experiments tested "airs" for "their solubility in water, their power of supporting or extinguishing flame, whether they were respirable, how they behaved with acid and alkaline air, and with nitric oxide and inflammable air, and lastly how they were affected by the electric spark."Thorpe, 210; see also Schofield, Vol. 2, 169–194; Jackson 216–224.
By 1789, when Lavoisier published his
Traité élémentaire de chimie and founded the
Annales de Chimie, the new chemistry had come into its own. Priestley published several more scientific papers in Birmingham, the majority attempting to refute Lavoisier; Priestley and other Lunar Society members argued that the new French system was too expensive, too difficult to test, and unnecessarily complex. Priestley in particular rejected its "establishment" aura.Schaffer, 164; Uglow, 356; McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 56-57. Priestley's refusal to accept Lavoisier's "new chemistry" and his determination to adhere to a less satisfactory theory has confused many scholars.See Schaffer, 162–170 for a historiographic analysis. Schofield explains it thus: "Priestley was never a chemist; in a modern, and even a Lavoisian, sense, he was never a scientist. He was a natural philosopher, concerned with the economy of nature and obsessed with an idea of unity, in theology and in nature. He attempted, prematurely, to conflate phenomena and give reasons for the reactions he observed."Schofield, Vol. 2, 194 Historian of science John McEvoy largely agrees, writing that Priestley's view that nature was coextensive with God and thus infinite, a view which encouraged him to focus on facts over hypotheses and theories, prompted him to reject Lavoisier's system.McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 51ff. Moreover, he argues that "Priestley's isolated and lonely opposition to the oxygen theory was a measure of his passionate concern for the principles of intellectual freedom, epistemic equality and critical inquiry."McEvoy, "Enlightenment and Dissent", 57; see also McEvoy and MeGuire 395ff. Priestley himself claimed in the last volume of
Experiments and Observations that his most valuable works were his theological ones because they were "superior dignity and importance".Qtd. in Thorpe, 213. Priestley, unlike his friends in the Lunar Society, would continue the war over phlogiston until he died.Schofield, Vol. 2, 169–194; Jackson 216–224.
Defender of Dissenters and French Revolutionaries
Although Priestley was busy defending phlogiston theory from the "new chemists", most of what he published in Birmingham was theological. In 1782 he published the fourth volume of his
Institutes,
An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, describing how he thought the teachings of the early Christian church had been "corrupted" or distorted.Priestley, Joseph.
An History of the Corruptions of Christianity. 2 vols. Birmingham: Printed by Piercy and Jones; London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1782. Schofield describes the work as "derivative, disorganized, wordy, and repetitive, detailed, exhaustive, and devastatingly argued".Schofield, Vol. 2, 216. The text addresses issues from the divinity of Christ to the proper form for the Lord's Supper.
Thomas Jefferson would later write of the profound effect that
Corruptions had on him: "I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them … as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered."Qtd. in Gibbs, 249. Although a few readers such as Jefferson and other Rational Dissenters approved of the work, it was generally harshly reviewed because of its extreme theological positions, particularly its rejection of the
Trinity.Schofield, Vol. 2, 216–223; Thorpe, 106–108; Holt, 133-39; Philip, "Rational Religion and Political Radicalism".
In 1785, while Priestley was engaged in a pamphlet war over his
Corruptions, he also published
The Importance and Extent of Free Enquiry, claiming that the
Reformation had not really ref
Joseph Priestley
Joseph Priestley. Joseph Priestley College is named after the man who discovered the existence of oxygen. Joseph Priestley was a great character who was described as a 'scientific ...
Joseph Priestley College
LATEST NEWS... Course guide for 2008-09. now available on . our ' Find A Course ' section . Check out details on our. enrolment sessions for 2008 . Course Enquiries:
Joseph Priestley
Joseph Priestley, the son of a cloth-dresser from Leeds, was born in 1733. After the death of his mother in 1740, Joseph lived with his aunt, a person with strong nonconformist ...
Joseph Priestley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an 18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist ...
Joseph Priestley
Forerunners Theory and Production of Gases Electrochemistry and Electrochemical Industries The Path to the Periodic Table Atomic and Nuclear Structure Chemical Synthesis,
Joseph Priestley Online
Joseph Priestley Online is a web site dedicated to assisting anyone interested in learning more about Joseph Priestley. Especially those who are doing research on a Priestley ...
Joseph Priestley ( 1733 - 1803 )
Joseph Priestley (1733 - 1803) Nitrous oxide ("laughing gas") was first synthesized by English chemist and natural philosopher Joseph Priestley. Priestley describes the preparation ...
Joseph Priestley (1733 - 1804) and the greatest happiness
Joseph Priestley (1733 - 1804) Jeremy Bentham was extremely generous in his attributions of credit for the expression with which he is most associated.
JOSEPH PRIESTLEY
JOSEPH PRIESTLEY The great men of science of today stand on the shoulders of giants. Joseph Priestley was one such intellectual "giant" whose works laid the foundation for that ...
Joseph Priestley, 1733-1804
A lecture treating Priestley's life and work.
