archives throughout the world. The mejority of them have never been previously published, or have appeared scattered in the published correspondence of other A Scientific Autobiography of men, in historical journals, or the pages of Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) Unitarian periodicals. Two collections of Priestley letters have appeared but are Edited with commentary by Robert E. now almost ss hard to find as the original Schofield, Case Institute of Technology, letters themselves." . . . "The letters in Cleveland, Ohio. M. I. T. Press, C a m this volume have been selected from a to415 pp. 16 x 24 bridge, 1967. xiv tal of more than four times their number, cm. $13.50. covering the period from 1762 to PriestSchofield's previous public&ms dealing ley's death in 1804. Most of the Priestley with Priestley testify to his competence in letters are principally concerned with thethis field, in other words he is thoroughly ological subjeots, although many of these versed in what Priestley wrote and did and also mention or discuss scientific probwhet has been published by others about lems. . The letters chosen for repubthe English divine and amateur natural lication are those of greatest scientific and philosopher. In the present volume Sehoautobiographical interest, which repeat field has elected to present an idea of the neither themselves nor the content of other development of Priestley's scientific idem The letters previously published.. (especially chemical) as revealed in his bulk of the correspondence to Priestley vast correspondence. "These letters give wes burned in the Birmingham Churchan insight into Priestley's private specuand-King riots of 1791; the remainder lative thinking that his puhlished writings, wrts burned by Joseph Priestley, Jr. on his however discursive, do not give. They refather's death in what seems now an exveal more of his relationships with contemcessive regard for the privacy of the writporary scicnl~ir~. more 01 I& i ~ ~ f l ~ ~on c n c c ers." ard his debli ro rhr wierltifiv thinking uf A great debt is owing to the author for rhr day ttnn cqn by nhraiwd withotlt the carrying out the immense labor expended most &arching analysis of his books and in making these letters available. Though papers. They constitute a continuous many of them have little or no scientific firsthand account of Priestley's scientific significance now they give a glimpse of career, which for the most part has yet to what was going on in the minds of Priestbe d r a m upon to any significant degree. ley and his correspondents and they preThe failure adequstely to use these letters sent a valuable behind-the-scenes view. is primarily the result of their inaccessiThey dsorevealinterestingfscts regarding bility. Most of the letters that have surPriestley's disregard for punctuation, vived are scattered in orivate hands and spelling, etc. Schofield has msessed Priest-
BOOK REVIEWS
+
..
..
ley's contributions t o chemistry s t its true value; he admires Priestley's experimental skill but prefers to regard him as a n a b ural philosopher rather than as a chemist. "It is only in retrospect to the revolution won by Lavoisier's new-model chemistry that it becomes clear that Pririestley was not only not a. good chemist, but may not have been a ohemist at all," I t must be remembered that Priestley began his chemical work a t the age of around forty; he wm essentidly self-taught in this field, and alwaysvdued observed factsfar above theoretical explanations. His chemical discoveries were cornmessed within s fen yews aral rhouyh ltr wc.tiuu+d to dnhhlr nnd puhliih i v . thi< m e n np 11, the time of hi
