Page:Imperialdictiona03eadi Brandeis Vol3a.pdf/797

PRI common hangman—a summary, although comical method, of refuting heresy. This was followed by his "History of Early Opinions respecting Jesus Christ," 4 vols., 8vo, 1786. He now became involved in controversy with the able, but intolerant Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Horsley. And if in this controversy we must condemn the opinions of Priestley, we must much more severely condemn the spirit of Horsley, who "enlisted the bad passions of men, and the cruel prejudices of party politics," against his opponent. Christianity—truth—is always hurt by bad temper and violence on the side of its avowed friends. Priestley's well known liberal political views, in defence of which he had often and boldly written; his equally well known sympathy with the French revolution; and especially his familiar letters to the inhabitants of Birmingham—exasperated against him the ignorant and bigoted mob. His reply to Burke's Reflections on the French revolution having led to his being made a French citizen, increased their hostile feeling towards him; and, therefore, on the occasion of a dinner being given by one of his friends (at which he was not present), on the anniversary of the taking of the Bastile, the mob, having demolished the house in which the dinner was given, proceeded to his house, broke it open, and tore in pieces his books and MSS., and destroyed his philosophical apparatus to the value of several thousand pounds, for which he never received more than partial compensation. On the occurrence of this outrage he fled to London, and was chosen successor to Dr. Price at Hackney. Feeling, however, how intense was the prejudice cherished against him by many of his countrymen, he resolved to abandon his country and proceed to America (1794), where he settled for the remainder of his days at Northumberland in Pennsylvania. A little before his departure he was presented with a silver inkstand by a few members of the university of Cambridge, expressive of sympathy and esteem. Although uniformly treated with kindness and respect by the people of his adopted country, he discovered among them no sympathy with his religious opinions, and found it next to impossible to form a unitarian congregation. He was never able to bring together more than twenty or thirty persons. Before leaving England he had published his "General History of the Christian Church to the Fall of the Western Empire," 2 vols., 8vo, 1790; in his new home he followed it up by the "General History of the Christian Church from the Fall of the Western Empire to the present time," 4 vols., 1802-3. In 1801 his health began to give way. He suffered from indigestion and a difficulty of swallowing. In 1803 indications of his approaching end began to appear, and he died February 6, 1804. During his illness his pen was not idle, and he composed several works; among the rest a "Comparison of the doctrines of heathen philosophers with those of Revelation," and a pamphlet entitled "Jesus and Socrates Compared." Towards his end he comforted himself by reflecting on his useful life, and the prospect of awaking, after a long sleep, to a happy immortality. In his view death was a sleep, and any punishment to be endured not vindictive, but disciplinary, to "prepare us for our final happiness." His autobiography was published in America after his death; and with a continuation by his son. His whole works, including his correspondence and the above memoir, appeared in twenty-five volumes. Hackney, 1817, edited by Mr. John Towill Rutt. Dr. Priestley may he viewed as a man, as a theologian, as a politician, and as a natural philosopher. As a man, he was mild in disposition, urbane in manners, uniformly characterized by integrity, and possessed of a christian spirit. His character was spotless. As a theologian he ranks low; when he enters on historical theology, utterly worthless. No one now would think of looking, for instance, into his "History of Early Opinions," or "History of the Corruptions of Christianity," except through curiosity. They are "destitute of real research and scientific value." As a politician his views were, for the most part, sound, and his attachment to liberty sincere. He admired the British constitution as the best that the wisdom of man could devise, and was therefore sometimes pleasantly twitted by his friends as a unitarian in religion, and a trinitarian in politics. As a natural philosopher his claims to consideration are secure. On his researches in chemistry and electricity his fame rests. He is allowed to have been patient and observant, punctual in registering facts, and animated by a genuine love of truth. His experiments and observations are of real and abiding value. He was "one of the greatest chemists of the eighteenth century. His first memoir was published in 1772, and was on the method of impregnating water with carbonic acid gas. He next minutely examined nitric oxide. Priestley, Rutherford, and Hauksbee discovered nitrogen Independently of each other. Priestley's greatest discovery was that of oxygen, called by him dephlogisticated air, in 1774. . . . He showed the existence of sulphurous acid, fluosilicic acid, muriatic acid, and ammoniacal nitrous oxide, carbonic oxide, and carburetted hydrogen gases. He examined the action of electricity on various compound gases, and the action of vegetation on atmospheric air. Indeed scarcely any department of chemical research escaped his notice."—I. T.  PRIM,, Conde de Reus, a Spanish general and statesman, was born in 1811 and educated for the law, but abandoned his profession to take arms against the Carlist insurrection of Zumalacarregui in 1833, during which he acquired the surname of "the Cid of Catalonia," and rose rapidly through various grades till, on the conclusion of the war, he had reached the rank of general. After the deposition of the queen-regent in 1837, Prim joined the progresista party, and in 1842 was accused of participation in an attempt at insurrection in Saragossa, but escaped to France, and joined the councils of the ex-regent Maria Christina. In 1843, being elected deputy for Barcelona, he returned and joined the coalition between the moderados and progresistas which had then taken place, and the result of which was the fall of Espartero. Prim rendered important services to the victorious party by the vigour with which he put down the insurrection in his native province of Reus, which had been allowed to gain formidable proportions through the inactivity of the generals in command. But the alliance between the two political sections was of short duration, and the moderate party endeavoured to be rid of the associates by whose aid they had risen to power. Prim was arrested and convicted, on the most frivolous evidence, of a plot against the government, but was acquitted on another charge of being privy to an attempt to assassinate Narvaez. He was sentenced on the first-named count to six years' imprisonment, but released by the queen, through the intercession of his aged mother, at the expiration of six months. In 1848 he was appointed captain-general of Porto Rico, and carried out many useful reforms. In 1853 he joined the Turkish army on the Danube as a volunteer, and distinguished himself at Olteniza and Silistria. The results of his military experience were published at Madrid in the following year, with a historical and geographical description of the Turkish empire. He was elected in his absence deputy to the cortes, and voted with the liberal party, who followed the leadership of Espartero and Olozaga. In 1857 he was tried on a charge of using injurious expressions towards the government, and found guilty, but afterwards pardoned. In 1860 he commanded the division of reserve in the war against Morocco, and in the autumn of 1861 he was appointed to the command of the Spanish troops sent against Mexico, in conjunction with those of England and France. Finding, however, that the convention between the three countries was not likely to be adhered to, he withdrew the Spanish troops, and retired to New York, whence he returned to Spain, July, 1862. He was shot by an assassin, and died of his wounds on the 30th of December, 1870.—F. M. W.  PRIMATICCIO,, was born at Bologna in 1504, and after studying under Innocenzio da Imola and Bagnacavallo, he became the assistant of Giulio Romano at Mantua. He remained with Giulio six years, engaged chiefly on the works of the Palazzo del Tè for the duke of Mantua. In 1531 Francis I. of France invited Primaticcio to Fontainebleau to improve and embellish his palace there, where Il Rosso was already engaged. Primaticcio also made in 1543 a great collection of statues and other works of art for Francis in Italy; and in 1559 he was appointed superintendent of royal buildings, with a salary of twelve hundred francs per annum. Few of his works either in painting or sculpture now remain. He was an able master, but mannered, having founded his style upon Parmigiano, whose long-necked figures Primaticcio imported into France. He, however, greatly advanced the French school of art, being, with Il Rosso, the founder of the school at Fontainebleau, from which the national art of the French was originally developed. Francis had created him abbot of St. Martin de Troyes in 1544; he died at Paris in 1570.—(Vasari, Ed. Le Monnier; Gave, Carteggio d'Artisti.)—R. N. W.  PRINCE,. See.  PRINCE,, the author of a valuable and entertaining 