BULLETIN FOR THE HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY Division of the History of Chemistry of the American Chemical Society VOLUME 30, Number 2 2005 BULLETIN FOR THE HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY VOLUME 30, CONTENTS NUMBER 1 THE DEEP HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY Joseph B. Lambert, Northwestern University 1 GRANVILLE PERKINS AND LEPROSY CHEMOTHERAPY IN THE PHILIPPINES Ian D. Rae, University of Melbourne 10 KARL ELBS, 1858-1933 E. J. Behrman, Department of Biochemistry, The Ohio State University 19 THE HEART OF STEEL: A METALLURGICAL INTERPRETATION OF IRON IN HOMER Ruth Russo, Whitman College 23 FRIEDLIEB RUNGE AND HIS CAPILLARY DESIGNS Ernst F. Schwenk, Wiesbaden, Germany 30 JOHN HUGHES DAVIES. THE EFFECT OF THE SILENT ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE ON THE AMMONIA SYSTEM John T. Stock, University of Connecticut 35 THE HISTORY OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION AT LAFAYETTE COLLEGE Roger A. Egolf, Pennsylvania State University 41 BOOK REVIEWS 51 NUMBER 2 JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, NATURAL PHILOSOPHER Robert E. Schofield 57 PHLOGISTON THEORY AND CHEMICAL REVOLUTIONS Leslie V. Woodcock, University of Manchester, UK 63 PANTISOCRACY AND PENNSYLVANIA: PLANS OF COLERIDGE AND SOUTHEY AND OF COOPER AND PRIESTLEY J. Edmund White 70 ESTEEM, REGARD, AND RESPECT FOR RATIONALITY: JOSEPH PRIESTLEY’S FEMALE CONNECTIONS Kathleen L. Neeley, University of Kansas and M. Andrea Bashore, Joseph Priestley House 77 PRIESTLEY, JEFFERSON, AND ADAMS: THE ÉMIGRE AND AMERICAN POLITICS Judah B. Ginsberg, American Chemical Society 91 BERNARD COURTOIS (1777-1838), FAMED FOR DISCOVERING IODINE (1811), AND HIS LIFE IN PARIS FROM 1798 Patricia A. Swain 103 THE DECOMPOSITION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE BY BLOOD. GEORGE SENTER’S DISCOVERY OF THE ENZYME INVOLVED John T. Stock† and James D. Stuart,* University of Connecticut 113 BOOK REVIEWS 118 AUTHOR INDEX, 1-30 125 SUBJECT INDEX, 1-30 126 The Cover…Copy of oil painting of Joseph Priestley by Ellen Wallace Sharples, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 30, Number 2 (2005) 57 JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, NATURAL PHILOSOPHER* Robert E. Schofield In this two hundredth anniversary year of his death, we chemistry and the denigration of its major defender (3). are met to celebrate the life and career of Joseph It was the Lavoisians who created the caricature slav- Priestley—and most of us celebrate the wrong man, for ishly adopted for nearly two centuries by chemists and the wrong reasons. We celebrate the pneumatic chem- historians of chemistry. ist who, in a flurry of random experiments made over a period of five years, isolated and partially identified nine Douglas McKie, the popular biographer of new gases, including oxygen—and the man who spent Lavoisier, has summarized their version (4): roughly five times as long perversely fighting the new As an experimenter, Priestley has been represented chemistry based on his own discoveries. This man, as as an amateur and dilettante chemist, capriciously flit- Georges Cuvier was to put it in the éloge written for the ting from one haphazard experiment to another, and despite the scientific absurdity of his method, hav- Académie Nationale des Sciences, was a father of mod- ing the good fortune to make classic discoveries; and ern chemistry but refused to recognize his own daugh- as a theorist, he has been described as ingenuously ter (1). weaving these discoveries into the tattered fabric of Now some small part of that picture is true: Priestley the phlogiston theory, to which he was so blindly devoted that no amount of hostile evidence could con- did isolate and partially describe nine new gases, and vince him of its falsity. .Both these views are inex- that does justify some celebration (2). But the major act; the first entirely so . and the second requires and false part of the picture is the continuing conse- qualification. quence of a scenario created for us by that master of Now the Lavoisians were not entirely to blame. They rhetoric and public relations, Antoine Lavoisier, and his were justly elated at their quite remarkable achievement followers. Their campaign for personal recognition and and dismayed at Priestley’s continued opposition—an the new chemistry required the destruction of the old NOTE FROM THE EDITOR Most of this issue of the Bulletin is devoted to papers presented at the symposium held at the 228th national American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia in August, 2004. Organized by Dr. James J. Bohning and Dr. R. A. Olofson and titled “Joseph Priestley, Universal Catalyst: A Bicentennial Celebration of his Life,” the program provided a broad perspective of Priestley the ‘whole man.’ As the symposium partici- pants demonstrated, Priestley was only secondarily a practicing scientist whose concerns and scholarly pursuits spanned the fields of religion, education, social change, and, inevitably, political life. 58 Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 30, Number 2 (2005) opposition, moreover, in the apparent framework of con- denial that there was any essential difference between fusing appeals to contradictory applications of body and spirit (or soul). He was a monist. phlogiston theory. Frederic Holmes has suggested, how- It was not his primary concern to discuss the fun- ever, that Priestley differed from Lavoisier, not because damental nature of matter, but to prove the uniform com- he was defending Georg Stahl’s discredited chemical position of man. He wished to demonstrate that mind, theory of phlogiston, but because he was defending his or the principle of perception and thought, is not a sub- own collection of phlogistic explanations for a number stance distinct from the body, but the result of corporeal of phenomena never considered by Stahl. Holmes was organization. This monistic assumption was, he claimed, certainly on the right track here but could have gone independent of any consideration of the internal struc- much further, as John McEvoy did in declaring (5): ture of matter, “about which we know very little, hav- So long as ‘science’ is viewed in isolation from its ing few data to argue from.” (8) But, like Isaac New- cultural content . will Priestley’s scientific thought ton, who followed his declaration: Hypothesis non fingo, be found wanting. For the order, unity, and aim of with hypotheses on the nature of the aether, Priestley his natural philosophy does not derive from any nar- rowly defined chemical principles or problems . could not resist speculations on the nature of matter. When placed in a wider intellectual context, In fact, Priestley had been intrigued by the ultimate Priestley’s scientific thought takes on a very differ- nature of matter long before he articulated his monism. ent complexion. [He] subjects his scientific His History and Present State of Electricity (1767) was conceptualizations to the dictates and demands of intellectual principles that are far wider in scope than prefaced by the statement (9): eighteenth-century chemistry and that seek to encom- Hitherto philosophy has been chiefly conversant pass the totality of reality . Order informs appar- about the more sensible properties of bodies; elec- ent chaos when this methodology is located in the tricity, together with chymistry, and the doctrine of overall programme of an earnest study of nature that light and colors, seems to be giving us an inlet into promised to reveal the greater glory of God . their internal structure on which all their sensible In short, Priestley was not a scientist nor—you will, I properties depend. trust excuse his lapse—a chemist, something which he Later in the same work, his first scientific publication, several times explicitly denied being (6). Priestley was Priestley wrote (9): a Natural Philosopher, which he defined as an investi- …chymistry and electricity are both conversant about gator of the Wisdom of God in the Works and Laws of the latent and less obvious properties of bodies; and Nature (7). It is well to keep in mind that Priestley was, yet their relation to one another has been little con- by profession, a minister—for an aberrant, Unitarian, sidered . Among other branches of Natural Phi- Christianity, if you will, but nonetheless a calling which losophy, let the doctrine of LIGHT AND COLOURS he thought the most important and most satisfying of be also particularly attended to. It was this that New- any that existed. He chiefly valued his work in natural ton thought would be the key to other, at present oc- cult properties of bodies. philosophy for the discoveries which lent authority to his religious opinions. He perhaps never quite realized It should then come as no surprise that Priestley’s next the extent to which that work informed his religious major scientific book was The History and Present State opinions; or was it vice versa? of Discoveries relating to Vision, Light, and Colours, for short, History of Optics (1772), nor that this work Priestley’s denial of the Trinity was partly based should contain speculations on the nature of matter. on the conviction that primitive Christianity had been These speculations took something of the form of the corrupted by a mixture of Eastern religions (notably elaborate matter theory of the Jugo-Slavian astronomer Hinduism), Platonism, and Gnosticism, all of which held and philosopher, Roger Joseph Boscovich, whose that the body was an imperfect container for Divine Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis of 1758 was to capture Spirit. There was, he thought, no historical justification the imagination of physicists, such as Michael Faraday, for a belief in the existence of the spirit of Christ prior James Clerk Maxwell, and J. J. Thomson into the twen- to the creation of the world. The philosophical justifi- tieth century. Because that theory contained no provi- cation for that belief was based upon the false principle sions for quantification or verification, it has also earned of duality, which held that substances could be divided the scorn of philosophers and historians, for whom into the material and the spiritual, each totally and ab- Priestley’s “Boscovicheanism” is yet another excuse for solutely different from the other.