Section 1.1: A Meeting with Joseph Priestley

In 1793, Elizabeth had the opportunity to meet chemist Joseph Priestley in London. She showcased her dyed fabrics and shared her observations with him. Priestley was impressed and encouraged her to publish her findings. Known for discovering carbonated water and possibly oxygen, Priestley faced his own challenges as he was exiled from England the following year due to his controversial political views.

In November 1794, Fulhame published a comprehensive account of nearly 15 years of her chemical research in her book titled An Essay on Combustion, with a View to a New Art of Dying and Painting, wherein the Phlogistic and Antiphlogistic Hypotheses are Proved Erroneous. In the introduction, she critiqued the theories of six notable chemists, clearly articulating her disagreements.

Her central thesis posited that only the hydrogen in water could restore oxygenated substances to a combustible state. She argued that water was the sole source of oxygen capable of oxygenating combustible materials. In contrast, Priestley and his contemporaries claimed that oxygen still contained water.

Elizabeth's significant contribution was her discovery that combustible substances like hydrogen and charcoal could reduce metals at room temperature, a process previously thought only possible at high temperatures in furnaces. She also became one of the first to discuss the dynamic aspects of oxidation and reduction, noting that some reduced metals vanished when exposed to air.

“Finding that existing theories could not explain my experiments, I formed my own opinions, regardless of the authority of renowned figures like M. Lavoisier. I believe that every theory must stand on its own merits,” she expressed. Her insights into combustion revealed how nature maintains equilibrium through the consistent recycling of air and water.

Though her book garnered attention, not all responses were positive. Male scientists were particularly resistant to her criticisms of established theories. Priestley himself dismissed her ideas as “fanciful and fabulous.”

Section 1.2: The Impact of Fulhame's Work

Elizabeth anticipated backlash, as she noted in her introduction: “Criticism is inevitable; some are so unaware that they become defensive at any hint of learning, particularly when that learning comes from a woman. Others fancy themselves dictators in science and react with anger when their perspectives are challenged.”

Despite the criticism, her work received acknowledgment. Count Rumford referred to her as “ingenious and lively,” and her findings sparked widespread discussion. A 1798 review of her book in the medical journal Annales de Chimie spanned 28 pages and was one of several French reviews; a German translation also surfaced that year.

When her book was published in America in 1810, Elizabeth was recognized as a corresponding member of the Chemical Society of Philadelphia. The Society noted that her contributions to chemistry could no longer be dismissed based on gender. An advertisement accompanying the American edition critiqued the scientific establishment for its sexism, stating: “The insightful work of Mrs. Fulhame deserves far more attention than it has received... Even if it is uncomfortable for some to accept a woman challenging established scientific beliefs, her insights undeniably present significant obstacles to long-held views.”

Although some of her experimental methods may seem outdated, they have allowed for consistent replication by modern scientists. While some approaches were deemed “flawed,” her insights were considered remarkably advanced for her time. Although she did not directly discover photography, her work laid the foundation for its chemical processes, occurring 50 years before Daguerre's innovations.

Elizabeth Fulhame exemplifies the remarkable achievements of determined women in science, advocating for women's rightful place in the scientific community.