On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Priestley in March 1983, the author was invited to deliver a series of three historical lectures as Brotherton Visiting Professor in the Department of Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Leeds. The present text is an abbreviated version of the first lecture.

On specific points in the preparation of this lecture I am grateful for comments from Ted Caldin, Geoffrey Cantor, Grayson Ditchfield, David Knight and Crosbie Smith, none of whom, however, are to be blamed for the arguments presented.

¹ The theological and miscellaneous works of Joseph Priestley, ed. Rutt, J.T., 25 vols., in 26, London, 1817–1832.Google Scholar

² A detailed analysis of Priestley's work on gases is given in Partington, J. R., A history of chemistry, London, 1961–1970, vol. 3, chapter VIIGoogle Scholar. It is unfortunate that Partington saw ‘the discovery of oxygen’ as a simple event, reflecting credit on Priestley alone. Philosophical discussion of this point does not, however, detract from the major importance of Priestley in the history of the practical science of pneumatic chemistry.

³ The most recent and, therefore, probably the most accessible edition of Priestley's Memoirs is: Autobiography of Joseph Priestley, ed. Lindsay, Jack, Bath, Adams and Dart, 1970, p. 74.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid., p. 78.

⁵ Ibid., p. 76.

⁶ Ibid., p. 90.

⁷ The first edition was published in 1767 and the second (enlarged) in 1769. See Crook, Ronald E., A bibliography of Joseph Priestley, 1733–1804, London, 1966.Google Scholar

⁸ Autobiography, op. cit. (3) p. 69.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., p. 70. His father was still alive but ‘incumbered with a large family’. After the death of his wife the father married again.

¹⁰ Although, as an Arian, Priestley believed in the pre-existence of Christ, he denied his deity, but he did not believe either that Christ was an ordinary human being. For a brief guide to Priestley's religious position see articles ‘Arianism’ and ‘Unitarianism’ in Cross, F. L. (ed.) The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., London, 1974Google Scholar and especially Watts, Miachael R., The dissenters, London 1978 pp. 471–7.Google Scholar

¹¹ Autobiography, op. cit. (3)., p. 79.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., p. 84. (my italics)

¹³ Ibid., p. 85.

¹⁴ Preface to 1st ed., p. xi, reprinted in History and present state of electricity reprinted from 3rd edn., London, 1775Google Scholar, Johnson Reprint, New York and London, 1966.

¹⁵ Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 94.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Rutt, J. T., Life and correspondence of Joseph Priestley, 2 vols., 1831, Vol. 1. p. 118Google Scholar. (my italics) Priestley to Rev. Lindsey, T., Leeds, 30 07 1770.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Schofield, Robert E., A scientific autobiography of Joseph Priestley, (1733–1804), Cambridge, Mass, and London, p. 76.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., No. 44.

¹⁹ Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 92.Google Scholar

²⁰ Schofield, , op. cit. (17), No. 53.Google Scholar

²¹ Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 94.Google Scholar

²² Quoted by Mineka, F. E., The dissidence of Dissent, Chapel Hill, N. Carolina, 1944, p. 19Google Scholar, who refers to a review of Nightingale, Joseph's Portraiture of Methodism, in Monthly Respository, 1808, 3, 103Google Scholar, which quotes the 43 1st hymn in the ‘Large Hymn Book’. Mineka implies that the hymn referred to Priestley, an interpretation accepted by Passmore, John A., Priestley's writings on philosophy, science and politics, New York, 1965, p. 17.Google Scholar

²³ Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 95Google Scholar. (my italics)

²⁴ Ibid., p. 130. He was particularly upset by Cavendish's indifference to him.

²⁵ Priestley was particularly concerned about the rejection of his friend Thomas Cooper, apparently because he was a politically active Unitarian. For a recent comment on social and intellectual considerations in applications for membership of the Royal Society in the eighteenth century, see Crosland, Maurice, ‘Explicit qualifications as a criterion for membership of the Royal Society: A historical review’, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, 1982–1983, 37, 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Experiments on the generation of air from water, London, 1793, pp. iv–v. (my italics)Google Scholar

²⁷ See Jacob, Margaret, The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689–1720, Hassocks, Sussex 1976, p. 144.Google Scholar

²⁸ Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, Birmingham, 1790, i, p. xl.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid., i, p. x.

³⁰ Priestley, , op. cit. (14), p. xxiii.Google Scholar

³¹ Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 111.Google Scholar

³² Schofield, , op. cit. (17), Nos. 79, 80.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., No. 39.

³⁴ See ibid., No. 31. (23 Dec, 1770)) In 1772 Priestley told Price that he had lost £50 (half his annual salary; in the Theological repository, and was therefore obliged to abandon it. Rutt, J. T. (ed.) op. cit. (16) p. 184.Google Scholar

³⁵ Schofield, , op. cit. (17), pp. 73, 76.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., p. 78.

³⁷ Ibid., No. 30. In the Preface to his History and present state of discoveries relating to vision, light and colours, London 1772Google Scholar, he explained to the reader that the knowledge he was going to provide, being widely dispersed in the sources, would not only require a great deal of time to extract independently but would also cost ‘several hundred pounds in any one branch of science’ (op. cit. p. ii.).

³⁸ In his Memoirs Priestley described the writing of the book as ‘an undertaking of great expense’ (op. cit. (3), p. 95). He mentioned the expense three times in the Preface to History … of … vision, London, 1772, pp. ii–vGoogle Scholar. In his Memoirs Priestley several times related his increasing expenses in the 1770s and 1780s to the needs of his family, Autobiography, op. cit. (3), pp. 116, 120.Google Scholar

³⁹ Schofield, , op. cit. (17), No. 39.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 95.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Schofield, , op. cit. (17), No. 37Google Scholar. In his first book on pneumatic chemistry Priestley explained that he had been obliged to abandon his plan to write the history and present state of all the branches of natural philosophy ‘because I see no prospect of being reasonably indemnified for so much labour and expense’ Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, 3 vols., London, 1774, 75, 77, i, p. xix).Google Scholar

⁴² Priestley, to DrPrice, , Leeds, 27 09 1772Google Scholar, Rutt, , op. cit. (16), p. 183.Google Scholar

⁴³ It is interesting that in 1776, when Priestley had finally become fully an experimentalist, he defended himself against criticism that he had published a mistaken observation in his History … of … vision by saying that he had then been writing ‘as an historian’, Priestley, , op. cit. (41), Vol. 2, p. xvi.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Priestley, to DrPrice, , Leeds, 22 09 1772Google Scholar, Rutt, , op. cit. (16), p. 183. (my italics)Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Schofield, , op. cit. (17), p. 107.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ In the Preface to his History … of … vision, Priestley recalled that he had begun with a list of books which he owned and also some which he wanted. He then produced a second and larger catalogue of books. He finally printed a third catalogue of the books and journals he had used, presenting these as his credentials. See op. cit., 1772, p. vi. and Schofield, , op. cit., (17), p. 79.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The contrast with The History … of … vision is all the greater because his Yorkshire friend John Michell had helped him with several technical problems which Priestley might otherwise have checked himself.

⁴⁸ Although Priestley had included a number of original experiments in his History of electricity, Schofield points out that he was then thought of, even by Franklin, simply as an author. It was his work on airs which revealed, both to himself and to the world, his great talents as an experimentalist, Schofield, , op. cit. (17), p. 118.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Schofield has pointed out that Priestley, when at Warrington, had attended a course of lectures on chemistry by DrTurner, Mathew, Schofield, , op cit. (17), pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ McDonald, Donald and Hunt, Leslie B., A history of platinum and its allied metals, London, 1982.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Phil. Trans., 1772, 250Google Scholar. (my italics) In 1774 Priestley remarked ‘Phosphorus is too expensive for me to have much to do with’, Priestley, to Rev. Cappe, N., Calne, 28 08 1774Google Scholar. Rutt, , op. cit. (16), i, p. 275Google Scholar. Such considerations of thrift provide a marked contrast with the work of Lavoisier.

⁵² Autobiography, op. cit. (3), p. 95.Google Scholar

⁵³ Some of Priestley's earlier apparatus relating to his studies of natural philosophy, notably his air pump, were also put to good use in pneumatic chemistry.

⁵⁴ The history and present state of electricity, 1st edn., London, 1767, p. 607Google Scholar. Also in 3rd edn., 1775, ii, p. 199.

⁵⁵ Medawar, P. B., The art of the soluble, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1969, p. 11Google Scholar, ‘Good scientists study the most important problems they think they can solve’.

⁵⁶ Priestley, , op. cit. (41), ii, p. viii.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Schofield, , op. cit. (17), No. 49.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., No. 48.

⁵⁹ Priestley, , op. cit. (41), ii, p. ix.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Priestley, , op. cit. (28), i, p. vi.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The phase ‘pious utilitarianism’ is used by McEvoy, John, Ambix, 1978, 25, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² ‘The discovery of the provision in nature for restoring air, which has been injured by the respiration of animals, having long appeared to me to be one of the most important problems in natural philosophy …’ Phil. Trans., 1772, 183.Google Scholar

⁶³ Most recently in Schofield, Robert E., ‘Joseph Priestley and the physicalist tradition in British chemistry’, in Kieft, L. and Willeford, B. R. (eds.), Joseph Priestley, Scientist, theologian and metaphysician, Lewisburg, 1980, pp. 92–117.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Priestley confided to Keir in 1778 that he was ‘afraid of tripping on chemical ground’. He says: ‘My walk is between what is called chemistry and other branches of Natural Philosophy’. Schofield, , op. cit. (17), No. 77.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ McEvoy, John G., ‘Joseph Priestley, “Aerial Philosopher”: metaphysics and methodology in Priestley's chemical thought, from 1762 to 1781’, Ambix, 1978, 25, 1–55, 93–116, 153–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 1979, 26, 16–38. I have found pp. 154–155 in the third article in this series particularly instructive.

⁶⁶ ‘… a true inflammable air is first produced, and in the nascent state, as it may be called’, Priestley, , op. cit. (41), i, p. 187Google Scholar. The other terms quoted here are widely used and without apology or explanation.

⁶⁷ With the new air that he was to call ‘dephlogisticated air’, Priestley remarked that, on addition of ‘nitrous air’ (nitric oxide), ‘the redness was really deeper and the diminution somewhat greater than common air would have admitted’. Priestley, , op. cit. (41), ii, p. 41.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Priestley, , op. cit., (41), i. p. 170.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Priestley, , op. cit. (28), i, 383–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Priestley, , op. cit. (41), ii, p. 61.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Priestley, , op. cit. (41), ii, 102.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid., 98.

⁷³ Priestley, , op. cit. (28), ii, 406.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Priestley, , op. cit. (41), i, pp. 80–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Thus Priestley compared the weight of a bladder filled with different gases in turn, Priestley, , op cit. (41), ii. p. 94.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Phil. Trans., 1772, 166.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Priestley, , op. cit. (41), ii, p. 101.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ ‘No person has ever been more temperate or more cautious than I have been in the introduction of new terms …’, Priestley, , op. cit. (28), i, pp. 8–9Google Scholar. (cf. Priestley, , op. cit. (41), i, pp. 23–4.)Google Scholar

⁷⁹ E.g. Priestley, , op. cit. (41), i. pp. 62, 68, 77.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Rutt, , op. cit. (16), i, 129.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Although I would not wish to exaggerate the achievements of Priestley, I have a higher opinion of him than Huxley, T. H., who said that Priestley could not be said to stand on the level of Black or Cavendish, ‘Joseph Priestley’ (1874), Science and education essays, London, 1895, pp. 1–37 (15).Google Scholar

⁸² Crosland, Maurice, ‘Scientific credentials: Record of publications in the assessment of qualifications for election to the French Academy of Sciences’, Minerva, 1981, 19, 605–31 (published 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar