from his opponent. Being a conspicuous representative of that body which was most "obnoxious to the court" it is not surprising that Priestley should have been singled out for unwelcome honors. The feeling of intolerance was unusually strong. It was said--I don"t know how truly--that at a confirmation in Birmingham tracts were distributed against Socinianism in general and Priestley in particular. Very reputable men thought they did G.o.d service in inflaming the minds of the rabble against this liberal-minded gentleman. Priestley"s account of the riot in the Memoir is singularly temperate. It might even be called tame. He was quite incapable of posing, or of playing martyr to an audience of which a goodly part was sympathetic and ready to believe his sufferings as great as he chose to make them appear. One could forgive a slight outburst of indignation had the doctor chosen so to relieve himself. "On occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of the French revolution, on July 14, 1791, by several of my friends, but with which I had little to do, a mob, encouraged by some persons in power, first burned the meeting-house in which I preached, then another meeting-house in the town, and then my dwelling-house, demolishing my library, apparatus, and as far as they could everything belonging to me.... Being in some personal danger on this occasion I went to London."
A much livelier account from Priestley"s own hand and written the next day after the riot is found in a letter to Theophilus Lindsay. "The company were hardly gone from the inn before a drunken mob rushed into the house and broke all the windows. They then set fire to our meeting-house and it is burned to the ground. After that they gutted, and some say burned the old meeting. In the mean time some friends came to tell me that I and my house were threatened, and another brought a chaise to convey me and my wife away. I had not presence of mind to take even my MSS.; and after we were gone the mob came and demolished everything, household goods, library, and apparatus." The letter differs from the Memoir in saying that "happily no fire could be got." Priestley afterwards heard that "much pains was taken, but without effect, to get fire from my large electrical machine which stood in the Library."
It is rather a curious fact that Priestley was not at the inn where the anniversary was celebrating. While the company there were chanting the praises of liberty he was at home playing backgammon with his wife, a remarkably innocent and untreasonable occupation. Mr. Arthur Young visited the scene of the riot a few days later and had thoughts upon it. "Seeing, as I pa.s.sed, a house in ruins, on inquiry I found that it was Dr. Priestley"s. I alighted from my horse, and walked over the ruins of that laboratory which I had left home with the expectation of reaping instruction in; of that laboratory, the labours of which have not only illuminated mankind but enlarged the sphere of science itself; which has carried its master"s fame to the remotest corner of the civilized world; and will now with equal celerity convey the infamy of its destruction to the disgrace of the age and the scandal of the British name." It is not necessary to supplement Arthur Young"s burst of indignation with private bursts of our own. We can afford to be as philosophic over the matter as Priestley was. That feeling was hot against him even in London is manifest from the fact that the day after his arrival a hand-bill was distributed beginning with the words: "Dr. Priestley is a d.a.m.ned rascal, an enemy both to the religious and political const.i.tution of this country, a fellow of a treasonable mind, consequently a bad Christian." The "bad Christian"
thought it showed "no small degree of courage" in Mr. William Vaughan to receive him into his house. "But it showed more in Dr. Price"s congregation at Hackney to invite me to succeed him." The invitation was not unanimous, as Priestley with his characteristic pa.s.sion for exactness is at pains to tell the reader. Some of the members withdrew, "which was not undesirable."
People generally looked askance at him. If he was upon one side of the street the respectable part of the world made it convenient to pa.s.s by on the other side. He even found his relations with his philosophical acquaintance "much restricted." "Most of the members of the Royal Society shunned him," he says. This seems amusing and unfortunate.
Apparently one"s qualifications as a scientist were of little avail if one happened to hold heterodox views on the Trinity, or were of opinion that more liberty than Englishmen then had would be good for them. Priestley resigned his fellowship in the Royal Society.
One does not need even mildly to anathematize the instigators of that historic riot. They were unquestionably zealous for what they believed to be the truth. Moreover, as William Hutton observed at the time, "It"s the right of every Englishman to walk in darkness if he chooses." The method employed defeated its own end. Persecution is an unsafe investment and at best pays a low rate of interest. No dignified person can afford to indulge in it. There"s the danger of being held up to the laughter of posterity. It has happened so many times that the unpopular cause has become popular. This ought to teach zealots to be cautious. What would Madan have thought if he could have been told that within thirty years one of his own coadjutors in this affair would have publicly expressed regret for the share he had in it? Madan has his reward, three quarters of a column in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. But to-day Priestley"s statue stands in a public square of Birmingham opposite the Council House.
Thus do matters get themselves readjusted in this very interesting world.
Rutt"s Life of Priestley (that remarkable ill.u.s.tration of how to make a very poor book out of the best materials) contains a selection of the addresses and letters of condolence which were forthcoming at this time. Some of them are stilted and dull, but they are actual "doc.u.ments," and the words in them are alive with the pa.s.sion of that day. They make the transaction very real and close at hand.
Priestley was comparatively at ease in his new home. Yet he could not entirely escape punishment. There were "a few personal insults from the lowest of the rabble." Anxiety was felt lest he might again receive the attentions of a mob. He humorously remarked: "On the 14th of July, 1792, it was taken for granted by many of my neighbors that my house was to come down just as at Birmingham the year before." The house did not come down, but its occupant grew ill at ease, and within another two years he had found a new home in the new nation across the sea.
It is hardly exact to say that he was "driven" from England, as some accounts of his life have it. Mere personal unpopularity would not have sufficed for this. But at sixty-one a man hasn"t as much fight in him as at forty-five. He is not averse to quiet. Priestley"s three sons were going to America because their father thought that they could not be "placed" to advantage in a country so "bigoted" as their native land was then. "My own situation, if not hazardous, was become unpleasant, so that I thought my removal would be of more service to the cause of truth than my longer stay in England."
The sons went first and laid the foundations of the home in Northumberland, Pennsylvania. The word "Susquehanna" had a magic sound to Englishmen. On March 30, 1794, Priestley delivered his farewell discourse. April 6 he pa.s.sed with his friends the Lindsays in Ess.e.x Street, and a day later went to Gravesend. For the details of the journey one must go to his correspondence.
His last letters were written from Deal and Falmouth, April 9 and 11.
The vessel was six weeks in making the pa.s.sage. The weather was bad and the travelers experienced everything "but shipwreck and famine."
There was no lack of entertainment, for the ocean was fantastic and spectacular. Not alone were there the usual exhibitions of flying-fish, whales, porpoises, and sharks, but also "mountains of ice larger than the captain had ever seen before,"--for thus early had transatlantic captains learned the art of p.r.o.nouncing upon the exceptional character of a particular voyage for the benefit of the traveler who is making that voyage. They saw water-spouts, "four at one time." The billows were "mountain-high, and at night appeared to be all on fire." They had infinite leisure, and scarcely knew how to use it. Mrs. Priestley wrote "thirty-two large pages of paper." The doctor read "the whole of the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible as far as the first book of Samuel." He also read through Hartley"s second volume, and "for amus.e.m.e.nt several books of voyages and Ovid"s Metamorphoses." "If I had [had] a Virgil I should have read him through, too. I read a great deal of Buchanan"s poems, and some of Petrarch"s _de remediis_, and Erasmus"s Dialogues; also Peter Pindar"s poems, ... which pleased me much more than I expected. He is Paine in verse."
On June 1 the ship reached Sandy Hook. Three days later Dr. and Mrs.
Priestley "landed at the Battery in as private a manner as possible, and went immediately to Mrs. Loring"s lodging-house close by." The next morning the princ.i.p.al inhabitants of New York came to pay their respects and congratulations; among others Governor Clinton, Dr.
Prevoost, bishop of New York; Mr. Osgood, late envoy to Great Britain; the heads of the college; most of the princ.i.p.al merchants, and many others; for an account of which amenities one must read Henry Wansey"s _Excursion to the United States in the Summer of 1794_, published by Salisbury in 1796, a most amusing and delectable volume.
Priestley missed seeing Vice-president John Adams by one day. Adams had sailed for Boston on the third. But he left word that Boston was "better calculated" for Priestley than any other part of America, and that "he would find himself very well received if he should be inclined to settle there."
Mrs. Priestley in a letter home says: "Dr. P. is wonderfully pleased with everything, and indeed I think he has great reason from the attentions paid him." The good people became almost frivolous with their dinner-parties, receptions, calls, and so forth. Then there were the usual addresses from the various organizations,--one from the Tammany Society, who described themselves as "a numerous body of freemen, who a.s.sociate to cultivate among them the love of liberty, and the enjoyment of the happy republican government under which they live." There was an address from the "Democratic Society," one from the "a.s.sociated Teachers in the City of New York," one from the "Republican Natives of Great Britain and Ireland," one from the "Medical Society."
The pleasure was not unmixed. Dr. Priestley the theologian had a less cordial reception than Dr. Priestley the philosopher and martyr. The orthodox were considerably disturbed by his coming. "n.o.body asks me to preach, and I hear there is much jealousy and dread of me." In Philadelphia at a Baptist meeting the minister bade his people beware, for "a Priestley had entered the land." But the heretic was very patient and earnest to do what he might for the cause of "rational"
Christianity. The widespread infidelity distressed him. He mentioned it as a thing to be wondered at that in America the lawyers were almost universally unbelievers. He lost no time in getting to work. On August 27, when he had been settled in Northumberland only a month, he wrote to a friend that he had just got Paine"s _Age of Reason_, and thought to answer it. By September 14 he had done so. "I have transcribed for the press my answer to Mr. Paine, whose work is the weakest and most absurd as well as most arrogant of anything I have yet seen."
Priestley was fully conscious of the humor of his situation. He was trying to save the public, including lawyers, from the mentally debilitating effects of reading Paine"s _Age of Reason_, while at the same time all the orthodox divines were warning their flocks of the danger consequent upon having anything to do with _him_.
Honors and rumors of honors came to him. He was talked of for the presidency of colleges yet to be founded, and was invited to professorships in colleges that actually were. He went occasionally to Philadelphia, a frightful journey from Northumberland in those days.
Through his influence a Unitarian society was established. He gave public discourses, and there was considerable curiosity to see and hear so famous a man. "I have the use of Mr. Winchester"s pulpit every morning ... and yesterday preached my first sermon." He was told that "a great proportion of the members of Congress were present," and we know that "Mr. Vice-President Adams was a regular attendant."
In company with his friend Mr. Russell, Priestley went to take tea with President Washington. They stayed two hours "as in any private family," and at leavetaking were invited "to come at any time without ceremony."
About a year later Priestley saw again Washington, who had finished his second term of office. "I went to take leave of the late president. He seemed not to be in very good spirits. He invited me to Mt. Vernon, and said he thought he should hardly go from home twenty miles as long as he lived."
Priestley was not to have the full measure of the rest which he coveted. He had left England to escape persecution, and persecution followed him. Cobbett, who had a.s.sailed him in a scurrilous pamphlet at the time of his emigration, continued his attacks. Priestley was objectionable because he was a friend of France. Moreover he had opinions about things, some of which he freely expressed,--a habit he had contracted so early in life as to render it hopeless that he should ever break himself of it. Cobbett"s virulence was so great as to excite the astonishment of Mr. Adams, who said to Priestley, "I wonder why the man abuses you;" when a hint from Adams, Priestley thought, would have prevented it all. But it was not easy to control William Cobbett. Adams may have thought that Cobbett was a being created for the express purpose of being let alone. There are such beings. Every one knows, or can guess, to what sort of animal Churton Collins compared Dean Swift, when the Dean was in certain moods.
William Cobbett, too, had his moods.
Yet it is impossible to read Priestley"s letters between 1798 and 1801 without indignation against those who preyed upon his peace of mind.
He writes to Lindsay: "It is nothing but a firm faith in a good Providence that is my support at present: but it is an effectual one."
His "never failing resource" was the "daily study of the Scriptures."
In moments of depression he loved to read the introduction to Hartley"s second volume, those n.o.ble pa.s.sages beginning: "Whatever be our doubts, fears, or anxieties, whether selfish or social, whether for time or eternity, our only hope and refuge must be in the infinite power, knowledge and goodness of G.o.d."
Priestley was indeed a remarkable man. His services to science were very great. He laid the foundations of notable structures which, however, other men were to rear. He might have been a greater man had he been less versatile. And yet his versatility was one source of his greatness. He clung to old-fashioned notions, defending the doctrine of "philogiston" after it had been abandoned by nearly every other chemist of repute. For this he has been ridiculed. But he was not ridiculous, he was singularly open-minded. He knew that his reputation as a philosopher was under a cloud. "Though all the world is at present against me, I see no reason to despair of the old system; and yet, _if I should see reason to change my opinion, I think I should rather feel a pride in making the most public acknowledgment of it_."
These are words which Professor Huxley might well have quoted in his beautiful address on Priestley delivered at Birmingham, for they are the perfect expression and symbol of the fair-minded man.
He was as modest as he was fair-minded. When it was proposed that he should accompany Captain Cook"s expedition to the South Seas, and the arrangements were really completed, he was objected to because of his political and religious opinions. Dr. Reinhold Foster was appointed in his stead. He was a person "far better qualified," said Priestley.
Again when he was invited to take the chair of Chemistry at Philadelphia he refused. This for several reasons, the chief of which was that he did not believe himself fitted for it. One would naturally suppose that the inventor of soda-water and the discoverer of oxygen would have been able to give lectures to young men on chemistry. But Priestley believed that he "could not have acquitted himself in it to proper advantage." "Though I have made discoveries in some branches of chemistry, I never gave much attention to the common routine of it, and know but little of the common processes."
Priestley still awaits a biographer. The two thick volumes compiled by Rutt more than sixty-three years ago have not been reprinted, nor are they likely to be. But a life so precious in its lessons should be recorded in just terms. It would be an inspiring book, and its t.i.tle might well be "The Story of a Man of Character." Not the least of its virtues would consist in ample recognition of Joseph Priestley"s unwavering confidence that all things were ordered for the best; and then of his piety, which prompted him to say, as he looked back upon his life: "I am thankful to that good Providence which always took more care of me than ever I took of myself."
CONCERNING A RED WAISTCOAT
Hero-worship is appropriate only to youth. With age one becomes cynical, or indifferent, or perhaps too busy. Either the sense of the marvelous is dulled, or one"s boys are just entering college and life is agreeably practical. Marriage and family cares are good if only for the reason that they keep a man from getting bored. But they also stifle his yearnings after the ideal. They make hero-worship appear foolish. How can a man go mooning about when he has just had a good cup of coffee and a s.n.a.t.c.h of what purports to be the news, while an attractive and well-dressed woman sits opposite him at breakfast-table, and by her mere presence, to say nothing of her wit, compels him to be respectable and to carry a level head? The father of a family and husband of a federated club woman has no business with hero-worship. Let him leave such folly to beardless youth.
But if a man has never outgrown the boy that was in him, or has never married, then may he do this thing. He will be happy himself, and others will be happy as they consider him. Indeed, there is something altogether charming about the personality of him who proves faithful to his early loves in literature and art; who continues a graceful hero-worship through all the caprices of literary fortune; and who, even though his idol may have been dethroned, sets up a private shrine at which he pays his devotions, unmindful of the crowd which hurries by on its way to do homage to strange G.o.ds.
Some men are born to be hero-worshipers. Theophile Gautier is an example. If one did not love Gautier for his wit and his good-nature, one would certainly love him because he dared to be sentimental. He displayed an almost comic excess of emotion at his first meeting with Victor Hugo. Gautier smiles as he tells the story; but he tells it exactly, not being afraid of ridicule. He went to call upon Hugo with his friends Gerard de Nerval and Petrus Borel. Twice he mounted the staircase leading to the poet"s door. His feet dragged as if they had been shod with lead instead of leather. His heart throbbed; cold sweat moistened his brow. As he was on the point of ringing the bell, an idiotic terror seized him, and he fled down the stairs, four steps at a time, Gerard and Petrus after him, shouting with laughter. But the third attempt was successful. Gautier saw Victor Hugo--and lived. The author of _Odes et Ballades_ was just twenty-eight years old. Youth worshiped youth in those great days.
Gautier said little during that visit, but he stared at the poet with all his might. He explained afterwards that one may look at G.o.ds, kings, pretty women, and great poets rather more scrutinizingly than at other persons, and this too without annoying them. "We gazed at Hugo with admiring intensity, but he did not appear to be inconvenienced."
What brings Gautier especially to mind is the appearance within a few weeks of an amusing little volume ent.i.tled _Le Romantisme et l"editeur Renduel_. Its chief value consists, no doubt, in what the author, M.
Adolphe Jullien, has to say about Renduel. That noted publisher must have been a man of unusual gifts and unusual fortune. He was a fortunate man because he had the luck to publish some of the best works of Victor Hugo, Sainte-Beuve, Theophile Gautier, Alfred de Musset, Gerard de Nerval, Charles Nodier, and Paul Lacroix; and he was a gifted man because he was able successfully to manage his troop of geniuses, neither quarreling with them himself nor allowing them to quarrel overmuch with one another. Renduel"s portrait faces the t.i.tle-page of the volume, and there are two portraits of him besides.
There are fac-similes of agreements between the great publisher and his geniuses. There is a famous caricature of Victor Hugo with a brow truly monumental. There is a caricature of Alfred de Musset with a figure like a Regency dandy,--a figure which could have been acquired only by much patience and unremitted tight-lacing; also one of Balzac, which shows that that great novelist"s waist-line had long since disappeared, and that he had long since ceased to care. What was a figure to him in comparison with the flesh-pots of Paris!
One of the best of these pictorial satires is Roubaud"s sketch of Gautier. It has a teasing quality, it is diabolically fascinating. It shows how great an art caricature is in the hands of a master.
But the highest virtue of a good new book is that it usually sends the reader back to a good old book. One can hardly spend much time upon Renduel; he will remember that Gautier has described that period when hero-worship was in the air, when the sap of a new life circulated everywhere, and when he himself was one of many loyal and enthusiastic youths who bowed the head at mention of Victor Hugo"s name. The reader will remember, too, that Gautier was conspicuous in that band of Romanticists who helped to make _Hernani_ a success the night of its first presentation. Gautier believed that to be the great event of his life. He loved to talk about it, dream about it, write of it.
There was a world of good fellowship among the young artists, sculptors, and poets of that day. They took real pleasure in shouting Hosanna to Victor Hugo and to one another. Even Zola, the Unsentimental, speaks of _ma tristesse_ as he reviews that delightful past. He cannot remember it, to be sure, but he has read about it. He thinks ill of the present as he compares the present with "those dead years." Writers then belonged to a sort of heroic brotherhood. They went out like soldiers to conquer their literary liberties. They were kings of the Paris streets. "But we," says Zola in a pensive strain, "we live like wolves each in his hole." I do not know how true a description this is of modern French literary society, but it is not difficult to make one"s self think that those other days were the days of magnificent friendships between young men of genius. It certainly was a more brilliant time than ours. It was flamboyant, to use one of Gautier"s favorite words.
Youth was responsible for much of the enthusiasm which obtained among the champions of artistic liberty. These young men who did honor to the name of Hugo were actually young. They rejoiced in their youth.
They flaunted it, so to speak, in the faces of those who were without it. Gautier says that young men of that day differed in one respect from young men of this day; modern young men are generally in the neighborhood of fifty years of age.
Gautier has described his friends and comrades most felicitously. All were boys, and all were clever. They were poor and they were happy.
They swore by Scott and Shakespeare, and they planned great futures for themselves.
Take for an example Jules Vabre, who owed his reputation to a certain Essay on the Inconvenience of Conveniences. You will search the libraries in vain for this treatise. The author did not finish it. He did not even commence it,--only talked about it. Jules Vabre had a pa.s.sion for Shakespeare, and wanted to translate him. He thought of Shakespeare by day and dreamed of Shakespeare by night. He stopped people in the street to ask them if they had read Shakespeare.
He had a curious theory concerning language. Jules Vabre would not have said, As a man thinks so is he, but, As a man drinks so is he.
According to Gautier"s statement, Vabre maintained the paradox that the Latin languages needed to be "watered" (_arroser_) with wine, and the Anglo-Saxon languages with beer. Vabre found that he made extraordinary progress in English upon stout and extra stout. He went over to England to get the very atmosphere of Shakespeare. There he continued for some time regularly "watering" his language with English ale, and nourishing his body with English beef. He would not look at a French newspaper, nor would he even read a letter from home. Finally he came back to Paris, anglicized to his very galoshes. Gautier says that when they met, Vabre gave him a "shake hand" almost energetic enough to pull the arm from the shoulder. He spoke with so strong an English accent that it was difficult to understand him; Vabre had almost forgotten his mother tongue. Gautier congratulated the exile upon his return, and said, "My dear Jules Vabre, in order to translate Shakespeare it is now only necessary for you to learn French."
Gautier laid the foundations of his great fame by wearing a red waistcoat the first night of _Hernani_. All the young men were fantastic in those days, and the spirit of carnival was in the whole romantic movement. Gautier was more courageously fantastic than other young men. His costume was effective, and the public never forgot him.
He says with humorous resignation: "If you p.r.o.nounce the name of Theophile Gautier before a Philistine who has never read a line of our works, the Philistine knows us, and remarks with a satisfied air, "Oh yes, the young man with the red waistcoat and the long hair." ... Our poems are forgotten, but our red waistcoat is remembered." Gautier cheerfully grants that when everything about him has faded into oblivion this gleam of light will remain, to distinguish him from literary contemporaries whose waistcoats were of soberer hue.
The chapter in his _Histoire du Romantisme_ in which Gautier tells how he went to the tailor to arrange for the most spectacular feature of his costume is lively and amusing. He spread out the magnificent piece of cherry-colored satin, and then unfolded his design for a "pour-point," like a "Milan cuira.s.s." Says Gautier, using always his quaint editorial _we_, "It has been said that we know a great many words, but we don"t know words enough to express the astonishment of our tailor when we lay before him our plan for a waistcoat." The man of shears had doubts as to his customer"s sanity.