| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Memoirs of the Life of David Rittenhouse, LLD. F.R.S. : Late President of the American Philosophical Society, &c. Interspersed with Various Notices of Many Distinguished Men: With an Appendix, Containing Sundry Philosophical and Other Papers, Most of Which Have Not Hitherto Been Published
Author: Barton, William E. (William Eleazar)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Memoirs of the Life of David Rittenhouse, LLD. F.R.S. : Late President of the American Philosophical Society, &c. Interspersed with Various Notices of Many Distinguished Men: With an Appendix, Containing Sundry Philosophical and Other Papers, Most of Which Have Not Hitherto Been Published" ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.
Please consult the end notes for a discussion of the handling of textual
notes, and any other issues that arose during the preparation of this
transcription.
MEMOIRS
OF THE LIFE
OF
DAVID RITTENHOUSE, LLD. F.R.S.
LATE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, &c.
INTERSPERSED WITH
VARIOUS NOTICES OF MANY DISTINGUISHED MEN:
WITH
AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING
SUNDRY PHILOSOPHICAL AND OTHER PAPERS,
MOST OF WHICH HAVE NOT HITHERTO BEEN PUBLISHED.
BY WILLIAM BARTON, M. A.
COUNSELLOR AT LAW;
Member of the American Philosophical Society, the Mass. Hist. Society,
and the Royal Economical Society of Valencia, in Spain.
--------------
_PHILADELPHIA_:
PUBLISHED BY EDWARD PARKER, NO. 178, MARKET-STREET.
W. Brown, Printer, Church-Alley.
1813.
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO WIT:
BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the ninth day of October, in the thirty-eighth
year of the independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1813,
William Barton of the said district, hath deposited in this office the
Title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Author, in the words
following, to wit:
“Memoirs of the Life of David Rittenhouse, L. L. D. F.R.S, late
President of the American Philosophical Society, &c. Interspersed with
various notices of many distinguished men: with an Appendix,
containing sundry philosophical and other papers, most of which have
not hitherto been published. By William Barton, M. A. Counsellor at
Law; Member of the American Philosophical Society, the Mass. Hist.
Society, and the Royal Economical Society of Valencia, in Spain.”
In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States,
intituled, “An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the
copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such
copies during the times therein mentioned.”—And also to the act
entitled, “An act supplementary to an act, entitled, “An act for the
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and
books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times
therein mentioned,” and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of
designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints.”
D. CALDWELL,
Clerk of the District of Pennsylvania.
[Illustration: Autograph notes]
PREFACE.
Agreeably to the plan on which the following memoirs have been
conducted, it will be perceived, that they contain a great variety of
matter; of which, some particulars have a remote, others merely an
incidental connexion, with the chief object of the work. There may
perhaps be some readers, to whom the introduction of such matters as the
_University of Pennsylvania_ and the _Medical School_ connected with it,
the _Pennsylvania Hospital_, the _Philadelphia Library_, and the like,
into the _Life of Rittenhouse_, will, on a cursory view, seem to have
little or no affinity to that object. But when it is considered, that
this work is designed to comprehend Memoirs, not only of Rittenhouse
personally, but of several literary, scientific, and other public
institutions, as well as of many eminent men, with which his individual
history and the annals of his time were in various ways associated, it
is presumed, that the slight sketches which have been taken of those
matters, in passing along, will neither prove foreign to the nature of
the present undertaking, nor uninteresting in themselves. As a citizen
of Pennsylvania; as an inestimable public and private character; as a
distinguished son of science, of great probity and extensive usefulness
in society; in all these points of view, the History of Dr. Rittenhouse
may be contemplated, as holding a relationship with almost every object
connected with science and the arts, in his day, that could in any wise
contribute to the well being of mankind in general, and his native
country in particular. Conspicuous and eminently meritorious as he was,
yet an insulated account of his talents, his virtues, and his personal
services,—a bare specification of such qualities and merits as he
possessed, abstracted from a due consideration of the state of society
and circumstances resulting from it, taken in connexion with them,
during the same period,—would not be equally intelligible and
instructive; and, consequently, must prove less useful. For these
reasons, the Memorialist has pursued that course which he conceives to
be perfectly congenial with the main design of his work; as best
calculated to promote its general usefulness, and most suitably adapted
to render it interesting, even to those who read for amusement solely.
In the adoption of this plan, the writer has been chiefly influenced by
a desire to illustrate the history, genius and character of the times,
which his Memoirs embrace; together with the progress and improvement of
literature, science and the arts, within the same compass, more
especially in this country; and this consideration has obviously led him
to introduce, in conjunction with those objects, as well as with the
Life of the great American Philosopher, various notices of many persons
distinguished for their talents and merit, not only in our own time, but
at different periods in the annals of science. He has thought it right
to rescue from oblivion—to commemorate in this way, if not to
consecrate, the names of some men in this country, more especially, who
deserve to be ranked among the worthies of America. All this the writer
has done, too, in conformity to the mode prosecuted by some of the most
judicious biographers and memorialists, together with other writers of
the same class: It is believed to be a manner of treating the
interesting subjects, on which the pens of such authors have been
employed, which, while it renders their works more pleasing, greatly
increases their usefulness.—If, therefore, some of the matter which has
been introduced into the present work should, at first sight, appear
irrelative, and even unimportant, the Memorialist nevertheless flatters
himself, that, on reflection, nothing will be deemed really so, how
remotely soever it may seem, on a transient view of the subject, to be
connected with the principal design of the undertaking; provided it has
a tendency to illustrate the great objects he was desirous of
accomplishing.[I1]
-----
Footnote I1:
The biographer of RITTENHOUSE entirely coincides with the compilers of
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, in opinion, respecting the utility and
propriety of giving an account, in such Memoirs as the present, of
_things_ as well as _persons_, connected in various ways with the main
object of the work.
In the preface to that useful dictionary of arts, sciences and
miscellaneous literature, are the following observations: the
consideration they merit; is submitted to the good sense of the
reader.
“While one part of our readers,” say the encyclopedists, when
referring to the _biographical_ department of their work, “will regret
that we have given no account of their favourite philosopher, hero, or
statesman, others may be disposed to remark, that we have dragged from
obscurity the names of many persons who were no proper objects of such
public regard. To these we can only reply, that, with the greatest
biographer of modern times, we have long thought that there has rarely
passed a life, of which a faithful narrative would not be useful; and
that in the lives of the most obscure persons, of whom we have given
any account, we saw something either connected with recent discoveries
and public affairs, or which we thought capable of affording a lesson
to great multitudes in similar circumstances.”—“Between eminent
achievements and the scenes where they were performed, there is a
natural and necessary connexion. The character of the warrior is
connected with the fields of his battles; that of the legislator, with
the countries which he civilized; and that of the traveller and
navigator, with the regions which they explored. Even when we read of
the _persons_ by whom, and the occasions on which, any particular
branch of knowledge has been improved, we naturally wish to know
something of the _places_ where such improvements were made.”
-----
The diversity of the materials which are, by these means, blended with
the biographical account of Dr. Rittenhouse, in the Memoirs now
presented to the world, made it expedient, in the opinion of the writer,
to have recourse to the free use of notes, for the purposes of
illustration, reference, and explanation. In a work of such a
complexion—constituting a book composed of very various materials,
designed to elucidate and inform, as well as to please—it became, in
fact, necessary to throw a large portion of that matter into the form of
notes; in order to avoid, by numerous digressions on subjects arising
out of the primary object of the work, too much disjointing of the text.
There are persons, no doubt, by whom this course will be disapproved.
The able and learned author of the _Pursuits of Literature_ has been
accused by _some critics_—while others, who have no pretensions to those
qualifications which entitle a man to exercise the functions of a
critic, have even affected to laugh at him—for the multiplicity, the
variety, and the length of the notes, which he has appended to that
poem. But its being a _satirical_ poem, is the circumstance to which may
be fairly attributed the censorious cavils which his work excited: his
satire was felt; and it roused the spleen of those who were its objects,
and their partizans. The present work, however, is far from being
intended to _satirise_ any one; its author has no such object in view:
for, although he has, in some instances, expressed his disapprobation of
certain principles, theories, and even measures, which he believes to be
not only repugnant to true science, but destructive of both private and
social happiness—he has refrained as far as possible from personal
censure;—he would much rather be engaged in the functions of an
eulogist, than those of a censor. The numerous notes the Memorialist has
employed—many of them, too, pretty long—will not therefore, he presumes,
be objected to, on the ground of personality or supposed ill-humour. He
has introduced them into his Memoirs, because he believed them to be not
only useful, but peculiarly well adapted to a work of this nature, and
suited to answer the general scope of its design. The author may then
say, in the words of the poetical writer just mentioned—as an apology
for the frequency and copiousness of the notes annexed to these
Memoirs;—“I have made no allusions which I did not mean to explain. But
I had something further in my intention. The notes are not always
explanatory; they are of a structure rather peculiar to themselves: many
of them are of a nature between an essay and an explanatory comment.
There is much in a little compass, suited to the exigency of the times.
I expatiated on the casual subject which presented itself; and when
ancient or modern writers expressed the thoughts better than I could
myself, I have given the original languages. No man has a greater
contempt for the parade of quotation (as such) than I have. My design is
not to quote words, but to enforce right sentiments in the manner which
I think best adapted to the purpose, after much reflection.”
The method of disposing of the notes, in this work, may be thought by
some to impair the symmetry of the page: but so trivial a defect as this
may be, in the typographical appearance of the book, will, it is
supposed, be amply compensated by the convenience the reader will
experience, in having the annotations, almost always, on the same pages
with their respective references.
In the arrangement of the Memoirs, the author has placed the incidents
and circumstances relating to the Life of Dr. Rittenhouse, in their
chronological order, as nearly as could be conveniently done.
An APPENDIX,—containing sundry letters and other papers, which could
neither be incorporated with propriety into the text, nor inserted in
marginal notes,—is placed after the conclusion of the Memoirs. In this
part of the work the reader will find, among other interesting
documents, Dr. Rittenhouse’s _Oration_ on the subject of Astronomy,
pronounced before the American Philosophical Society, in the year 1775.
The addition of this treatise to the Life of our Philosopher, was
rendered the more proper,—independently of the intrinsic merit of the
performance,—by reason of the pamphlet having had, originally, a very
limited circulation, and its being now out of print. The Notes, added to
this little tract, as well as to some other papers in the Appendix, by
the Memorialist, are designated by the initials of his name; in order to
distinguish the annotations from either the notes originally attached to
them,—or from other matter, in the Text, not written by himself.
The author has embellished his work with an elegantly engraved likeness
of Dr. Rittenhouse, executed by an able artist, from a portrait painted
by Mr. C. W. Peale, in-the year 1772,[I2] when our Philosopher was forty
years of age. At that time he wore a wig,—and was so represented in the
picture: but afterwards, when he resumed the wearing of his own hair,
(and which he continued to do during the remainder of his life,) the
portrait was altered accordingly, by Mr. Peale. The original picture
(now in the possession of Mrs. Sergeant,) bore a strong resemblance to
Dr. Rittenhouse, at that period of his life in which it was taken; and
the engraving, prefixed to these Memoirs, is an excellent copy.
-----
Footnote I2:
Mr. C. W. Peale painted at the same time another portrait of him, for
himself; which is likewise altered from the original painting. It has
a place in Mr. Peale’s Gallery of Portraits. There is a third, by the
same hand, in the possession of the American Philosophical Society.
Another good picture of Dr. Rittenhouse was also then made, by Mr.
James Peale, for the Rev. Mr. Barton. This (which represents him with
a wig) is now in the possession of John Moore White, Esq. of
New-Jersey, who married Mr. Barton’s youngest daughter.
A pretty good mezzotinto, in a large size,—done from Mr. C. W. Peale’s
painting of our Philosopher,—was executed by Mr. E. Savage, in the
winter of 1796: and since that time, some small engravings have been
made from different pictures of him; but these do not so well preserve
the likeness.
-----
To a portion of the readers of this work, some of the matter it contains
may be thought superfluous,—because already familiar to _them_: and, to
men of extensive learning and research, much of the information herein
collected may really be so. But to persons of less erudition and
science, the knowledge thus communicated it may be presumed, will prove
in some degree useful; and the writer indulges a confident belief, that
the greater number of his readers will derive both instruction and
gratification, from a perusal of the Memoirs now offered to their
attention.
The favours which the Memorialist has received, in the communication of
sundry papers and some information for this work, demand his thankful
acknowledgments to the contributors. Among these,—besides those
gentlemen occasionally mentioned in the Memoirs,—the writer returns his
thanks to his worthy relatives, Mrs. Sergeant, Mrs. Waters, and Dr.
Benjamin Smith Barton; and also to the Rt. Rev. Bishop White, Andrew
Ellicott, Esq. John Vaughan, Esq. the Rev. Dr. Samuel Stanhope Smith,
Charles Smith, Esq. and the Rev. Mr. Cathcart. To the friendship and
politeness of these very respectable characters, he holds himself
indebted, on this occasion.[I3]
-----
Footnote I3:
Some interesting information was likewise communicated by the late
Professor Rush. The death of that gentleman having occurred since the
completion of the present work, the author has inserted a concise
biographical notice of him, in the Appendix, in place of the mention
originally made of his name in this preface.
-----
It has been the earnest desire of the writer, to adhere strictly to
Truth, in every part of his narrative: he has not, therefore, introduced
into his work any thing, as a matter of Fact, which he did not believe
to be well founded. Wherever he has ventured to express an Opinion of
his own, on any subject of importance, it must be left to the judgment
and candour of others to determine, what weight it may be entitled
to.—In the various quotations which appear in his Memoirs, the writer
has endeavoured to observe the utmost fidelity, with respect to the
originals; and all his translations into the English, from other
languages, have been made with a like scrupulous attention to
correctness.—Some errors and inaccuracies have nevertheless, it may be
readily supposed, found their way into the following work; though the
writer trusts they are neither numerous nor very important: and, as they
are wholly unintentional, of whatever description they may be, he hopes
it will not be deemed presumptuous in him, to claim for them the
indulgence of a candid, liberal, and discerning public.
LANCASTER, in Pennsylvania,
April 11, 1813.
INTRODUCTION.
The individuals in society, who present to the view of their
cotemporaries, and transmit to posterity, Memorials of illustrious
men,—more especially those of their own country,—discharge thereby a
debt of gratitude: because every man is, directly or indirectly,
interested in the benefits conferred on his species, by those who
enlarge the sphere of human knowledge, or otherwise promote the
happiness of mankind.
But the biographer of an highly meritorious character aims at more than
the mere performance of that duty, which a grateful sense of obligation
exacts from him, in common with every member of the community, in
commemorating the beneficence of the wise and the good: he endeavours to
excite in great and liberal minds, by the example of such, an ambition
to emulate their talents and their virtues;—and it is these, that, by
their union, constitute true greatness of character.
The meed of applause which may be sometimes, and too often is, bestowed
on meretricious worth, is ever unsteady and fleeting. The pseudo-patriot
may happen to enjoy a transient popularity; false philosophy may, for a
while, delude, if not corrupt, the minds of an unthinking multitude; and
specious theories in every department of science,—unsupported by
experience and untenable on principles of sound reason,—may give to
their projectors a short-lived reputation: But the celebrity which is
coveted by the man of a noble and generous spirit,—that estimable
species of fame, which alone can survive such ephemera of error as are
often engendered by the vanity of the individual and nurtured by the
follies or vices of the many,—must ever rest on the permanent foundation
of truth, knowledge and beneficence.
Virtue is essentially necessary to the constitution of a truly great
character. For, although brilliant talents are sometimes found combined
with vicious propensities,[1]—the impulse given to men of this
description, often renders their great abilities baneful to society:
they can seldom, if ever, be productive of real public good. Should
eminent talents, possessed by a man destitute of virtue, even take a
right direction in their operation, by reason of some extraordinary
circumstance,—such an event ought never to be calculated on: It is not
the part of common sense,—much less of a cautious prudence, acquired by
a knowledge of mankind,—to expect praise-worthy conduct from any one,
whose predominating passions are bad, however great may be his
capability of doing good.
-----
Footnote 1:
Hence, in conformity to this sentiment, Mr. Pope says, when
animadverting on the insufficiency of talents, alone, for acquiring an
honourable fame and meriting a character truly great,—
“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shin’d,
The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind;
Or, ravish’d with the whistling of a name,
See Cromwell damn’d to everlasting fame.”
[ESSAY ON MAN.]
-----
While, therefore, the mind may view, with a sort of admiration, the
achievements of a magnanimous soldier, it turns with indignation from
the atrocities of a military tyrant: and at the same time that it may be
induced to contemplate even with complacency, at the first view, the
plausible, yet groundless speculations of ingenious theorists, in
matters of science,—still the fallacy of their systems, when developed
by experience, strips them of all their tinseled glare of merit. Thus,
too, the applause which the world justly attaches to the character of a
patriot-hero, deserts the unprincipled ruffian-warrior, however valiant
and successful he may prove: In like manner, reason and experience
expose to the censure of the good and the derision of the wise, the
deleterious doctrines of metaphysical statesmen and philosophers.[2]
Such estimable qualities as they may possess, in either character, are
merged in the mischievous or base ones, with which they are combined:
thus, infamy or contempt eventually become the merited portion of crime
or of folly, as either one or the other may prevail. A Cæsar,[3] a
Cromwell and a Robespierre, with other scourges of mankind, of like
character, will therefore be viewed as objects of execration by
posterity, while the memories of an Alfred, a Nassau, and a Washington—a
Chatham, a Burke, and an Ames,—will be venerated, to the latest
posterity.
-----
Footnote 2:
The miserable consequences which have resulted to the civilized world,
from the mode of reasoning _abstractly_, and from the mere
_synthetical_ plan of philosophising, are too apparent to need much
comment. Even some _geometricians_ of great name have been seduced, by
such means, into monstrous absurdities in physics; and into the
maintenance of doctrines, alike subversive of religion and morals, as
destructive of the foundations of civil society. Such were Descartes,
Leibnitz and Spinoza, of the seventeenth century: and such have been,
and even now are, too many of that class of modern philosophers, as
well in this country as on the continent of Europe,—whose metaphysical
notions of religion and government, (although some of them may,
perhaps, be pretty correct on the subject of physics, alone,) have
been the means of inundating the world with scepticism; and, after
overturning regular, orderly, and peaceable states, of establishing
despotism and misery on the ruins of rational government, in many of
the fairest portions of the old world.
Even Voltaire, who had, himself, been instrumental in corrupting the
mind of the great Frederick of Prussia, and, thus, of furnishing the
means for the subsequent overthrow of that once powerful monarchy;
even _this infidel_ could not help exclaiming, in a moment of sober
reflection, “Who could have believed, that _geometricians_ have been
wild enough to imagine, that, in the exaltation of the soul, we may
possess the gift of divination; yet more than one philosopher took it
into their heads, by the example of _Descartes_, to put themselves
into God’s place, and create a world with a word! But now, all _these
philosophical follies_ are reproved by the wise; and even their
fantastical edifices, overthrown by reason, have left in their ruins,
materials, of which reason has made some use.—A like extravagance has
infected the _moral_ world: there have been some understandings so
blind as to undermine the very foundation of society, at the time they
thought to reform it. They have been mad enough to maintain that the
distinctions of _meum & tuum_ are criminal, and that one ought not to
enjoy the fruits of one’s own labour; that not only all mankind are
upon a level, but that they have perverted the order of nature, in
forming societies; that men are born to be separated from each other,
like wild beasts; and that amphibious animals, with bees and ants,
confound the eternal laws, by living in common! These impertinences,
worthy of an hospital of madmen,” continues Mr. de Voltaire,
sarcastically, “have been for some time in fashion, just as it is
customary to lead apes to dance, at fairs.” [See THE AGE OF LOUIS XV.
ch. 39.]
But although it cannot be doubted; that the society of Voltaire
contributed to support, if not to generate, the deistical principles
of Frederick II. other foreigners, whom he had patronized and
cherished in his own capital, and with whom he associated, most of
them Frenchmen, did much towards debauching his mind, in regard to
religion. The Prince de Ligne, a distinguished Austrian field-marshal,
has verified this remark. In a letter written to the king of Poland,
in the year 1785, the prince narrates some particulars of a
conversation which took place between the Prussian monarch and
himself, in the year 1770; and observes, that the king expressed his
libertine sentiments too freely, even making a boast of his
irreligion. The prince de Ligne, on this occasion, charges
freethinkers with a want of candour, in promulgating opinions fraught
with infidelity, while many of them heartily dread the consequences of
what they affect to renounce. But this, he remarks, is not their only
fault: “they are also apt,” says he, “to make a parade of
free-thinking; which betrays, at least, a want of taste. It was,”
continues the prince, “from having been surrounded by men of bad
taste, such as D’Argens, Maupertuis, La Beaumelle, La Mettrie, the
Abbé de Brades, and some clumsy infidels of his academy, that the king
had contracted the habit of abusing religion, and talking of dogmas,
Spinozism, the court of Rome, &c.”
LETTERS AND REFLEXIONS OF THE PRINCE DE LIGNE.
Footnote 3:
However Cæsar may be admired as an accomplished gentleman and
scholar,—or even as a great and gallant soldier,—he ought ever to be
reprobated as an usurper and a tyrant.—Dr. Adam Ferguson remarks, that
“Julius Cæsar possessed the talent of influencing, of gaining, and
employing men to his purpose, beyond any other person that is known in
the history of the world: but it is surely not for the good of
mankind,” continues this able writer, “that he should be admired in
other respects. To admire even his clemency, is to mistake for it
policy and cunning.” [See Ferguson’s _Hist. of the Progress and
Termination of the Roman Republic_, vol. 5. ch. 36.]
Indeed our admiration of the great _military_ talents of such a man as
Cæsar, may carry us too far. Mr. Hume, in his History of England (ch.
47.) very justly observes—that “The unhappy prepossession which men
commonly entertain in favour of ambition, courage, enterprise, and
other warlike virtues, engages generous natures,—who always love
fame,—into such pursuits as destroy their own peace, and that of the
rest of mankind.”
-----
Much of the glory of a nation results from the renown of illustrious
men, among its citizens: a country which has produced many great men,
may justly pride itself on the fame which those individuals had
acquired. The community to which we belong is entitled to such services
as we can render to it: these the patriot will cheerfully bestow; and,
in promoting the honour and prosperity of his country, a large portion
of the lustre which the exertion of his talents shall have shed upon it,
are again reflected on himself.[4]
-----
Footnote 4:
Mr. Fontenelle in his _Eloge_ on Sir Isaac Newton (published by the
Royal Academy of Sciences, at Paris,) mentions particularly the great
honours that were paid him, by his countrymen, as well during his life
as after his decease. “The English,” says he, “are not apt to pay the
less regard to great abilities, for being of their native growth; but
instead of endeavouring to lessen them by injurious reflexions, or
approving the envy which attacks them, they all join together in
striving to advocate them,”—“They are sensible that a great genius
must reflect honour upon the state; and whoever is able to procure it
to their country, is upon that account infinitely dear to
them.”—“Tacitus,” says he, “who has reproached the Romans with their
extreme indifference towards the great men of their own nation, would
have given the English quite a different character.”—And, after
describing the almost princely magnificence, in the manner of Newton’s
interment in Westminster Abbey, Mr. Fontenelle remarks, that we must
almost go back to the ancient Greeks, if we would find a like instance
of so great a veneration paid to learning.
The following epitaph, in classical Latin, is inscribed on the noble
monument erected to the memory of Newton, in the Abbey Church of
Westminster:
H. S. E.
Isaacus Newton, Eques Auratus,
Qui vi animi prope divinâ
Planetarum motus, figuras,
Cometarum semitas, Oceanique æstus,
Sua mathesi facem præferente,
Primus demonstravit.
Radiorum lucis dissimilitudines,
Colorumque inde nascentium proprietates
Quas nemo antea vel suspicatus erat, prevestigavit,
Naturæ, Antiquitatis, S. Scripturæ,
Sedulus, sagax, fidus interpres,
Dei Opt. Max. majestatem philosophiâ asseruit,
Evangelii simplicitatem moribus expressit,
Sibi gratulentur mortales, tale tantumque exstitisse,
Humani Generis Decus.
Natus XXV. Decemb. MDCXLII. Obiit XX. Mart.
MDCCXXVI.
-----
The cultivator of those branches of natural science which constitute
practical and experimental philosophy;—equally with the teacher of
religion and morals,—extends the beneficial effects of his researches
and knowledge beyond the bounds of his particular country. Truth is
every where the same; and the promulgation of it tends, at all times and
in all places, to elevate to its proper station the dignity of man. The
more extensively, then, true science can be diffused, the greater will
be the means—the fairer will be the rational prospect, of enlarging the
sphere of human happiness. The philosopher may, pre-eminently, be
considered as a citizen of the world; yet without detracting in any
degree from that spirit of patriotism, which ever stimulates a good man
to contribute his primary and most important services to his own
country. There are, indeed, some species of aids, which are exclusively
due to a community, by all its citizens; and, consequently, such as they
are bound to withhold from other national communities, in certain
contingencies and under peculiar circumstances. But a knowledge of those
truths which lead to the acquisition of wisdom and practice of virtue,
serves to meliorate the condition of mankind generally, at all times,
and under all circumstances;—inasmuch as they greatly assist in
banishing error, with its frequent concomitant, vice, not only from the
more civilized portions of the world, but also by their inherent
influence, from among nations less cultivated and refined.
The truths promulgated by means of a natural and sublime
philosophy—corresponding, as this does, with the dignity of an
enlightened spirit—must ever emanate from a virtuous heart as well as an
expanded intellect. Hence, the real philosopher,—he whose principles are
unpolluted by the sophisticated tenets of some modern pretenders to the
appellation,—can scarcely fail to be a _good man_. Such was the immortal
Newton; such were a Boyle, a Hale and a Barrow,—a Boerhaave, a Stephen
Hales and a Bradley; with many worthies equally illustrious,—whose
glories will, for ever, retain their primitive splendour.
Even the most celebrated sages of antiquity, extremely imperfect as we
know the philosophy of the early ages to have been, elucidated, by the
purity of their lives and the morality of their doctrines, the truth of
the position,—that the cultivation of natural wisdom, unaided as it then
was by the lights of revelation, encreased every propensity to moral
virtue. Such were Socrates, Plato his disciple, and Anaxagoras; who
flourished between four and five centuries before the Christian era.
The life of Socrates, who is styled by Cicero _the Father of
Philosophers_, afforded a laudable example of moderation, patience, and
other virtues; and his doctrines abound with wisdom. Anaxagoras and
Plato united with some of the nobler branches of natural science, very
rational conceptions of moral truth. Both of them had much higher claims
to the title of philosophers, than Aristotle, who appeared about a
century afterwards. This philosopher, however,—for, as such, he
continued for many ages to be distinguished in the schools,—was, like
Socrates, more a metaphysician than an observer of the natural world.
His morality is the most estimable part of his works; though his
conceptions of moral truths were much less just than those of Anaxagoras
and Plato:[5] for his physics are replete with notions and terms alike
vague, unmeaning and obscure.[6] The intimate connexion that subsists
between the physical and moral fitness of things, in relation to their
respective objects, was more evidently known to Anaxagoras and Plato,
than to either Socrates or Aristotle: and the reason is obvious;—both of
the former cultivated the sublime science of _Astronomy_.
-----
Footnote 5:
Aristotle is supposed, by some, to have imbibed the best and most
rational of his notions from his master Plato; to whom,
notwithstanding, he seems to have been greatly inferior as a moral
philosopher.
His opinions respecting government, abound in good sense. As a
general outline of his sentiments on this subject, it may serve to
mention, that he distinguished civil government into two kinds; one,
in which the general welfare is the great object; the other, in
which this is not at all considered.[5a] In the first class, he
places the limited monarchy—the aristocratical form of
government—and the republic, properly so called. In the second, he
comprehends tyranny—oligarchy—and democracy; considering these as
corruptions of the three first. Limited monarchy, he alleges,
degenerates into despotism, when the sovereign assumes to himself
the exercise of the entire authority of the state, refusing to
submit his power to any controul;[5b] the aristocracy sinks into an
oligarchy, when the supreme power is no longer possessed by a
reasonable proportion of virtuous men,—but by a small number of
rulers, whose wealth alone constitutes their claim to authority; and
the republican government is debased into a democracy, when the
poorest class of the people have too great an influence in the
public deliberations.[5c]
In Physics, Aristotle scarcely deserves the name of a Philosopher.—As
to his metaphysical opinions, in the common acceptation of the
term,—it is impossible to ascertain, with certainty, what they really
were. It was not until eighteen centuries after his death, that his
philosophy—such as it was then promulgated, anew—began to be generally
known and studied. After the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks,
in the year 1453, some fugitive Greeks, who had escaped the fury of
the Ottoman arms, brought from that city into the west of Europe many
of the writings of the Stagyritish philosopher: But, although some of
his treatises were previously known, they were such as had passed
through the hands of the Arabs, in translations into their tongue;
done by men who, it may be fairly presumed, very imperfectly
understood the author’s language; consequently not capable, even if
they were disposed, to do justice to the sense of the original.
Subsequent translations of those writings, from the Arabic, probably
occasioned, in the same way, further departures from the meaning of
the original Greek. Thus varying, as may be supposed, from the
opinions taught by Aristotle himself,—the philosophy of the schoolmen,
engrafted upon his systems, was neither entirely that of the
Stagyrite, nor altogether different. His writings, nevertheless, gave
birth to what is termed the Scholastic Philosophy,—“that motley
offspring of error and ingenuity,” as it is called by Mr. Mallet.[5d]
“To trace at length,” says this writer, “the rise, progress, and
variations of _this philosophy_, would be an undertaking not only
curious, but instructive; as it would unfold to us all the mazes in
which the force, the subtlety, the extravagance of human wit, can lose
themselves: till not only profane learning, but Divinity itself, was
at last, by the refined frenzy of those who taught both, subtilized
into mere notion and air.”[5e]
Footnote 5a:
Aristot. de Rep.—lib, 3. cap. 6.
Footnote 5b:
Id. Rhet.—lib. 1. cap. 8.
Footnote 5c:
Id. de Rep.—lib. 3. cap. 7.
Footnote 5d:
In his _Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon_.
Footnote 5e:
Ibid.
Footnote 6:
Baron Bielfeld (in his _Elements of Universal Erudition_) observes,
that the fondness for Aristotle’s reveries began about the twelfth
century. It was then, that the _scholastic_ philosophy was formed.
This was partly borrowed from the writings of the Arabs, who were
always attached to the theories of Aristotle: they were initiated into
a subtile, ambiguous, abstract and capricious mode of reasoning; by
which they never hit the truth, but constantly went on the one side,
or beyond the truth. Toward the end of the fourteenth century,
continues the learned Baron, this absurd system arrived to a great
height. It became a mere jargon, a confused heap of unintelligible
ideas.
The celebrated Mr. Boyle, the great successor of Lord Verulam (St.
Albans) in experimental philosophy, is said to have declared against
the Philosophy of Aristotle, as having in it more of words than
things; promising much and performing little; and giving the
Inventions of Men for indubitable proofs, instead of building upon
observation and experiment. He was so zealous for, and so scrupulous
about, this true method of learning by experiment, that, though the
_Cartesian_ philosophy then made a great noise in the world, yet he
would never be persuaded to read the works of _Descartes_; for fear he
should be amused, and led away, by plausible accounts of things
founded on conjecture, and merely hypothetical. (See Art. _Boyle_, in
the New and General Biography.)—This great and excellent man was born
the same year in which Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, died.
Epicurus, the disciple of Democritus, and follower of the Philosophy
of Aristotle, was engaged, although unsuccessfully enough, in the
labyrinth of Metaphysics, as well as in Physics. He adopted the system
of _Atoms_, which Democritus first propagated; and hence appears to be
derived Descartes’s equally preposterous doctrine of the _Plenum_ and
of _Vortices_.
-----
To this cause, then, may be fairly attributed the half-enlightened
notions of the Deity,[7] and of a future state, entertained by these
pagan searchers after truth. To the same cause may be traced the
sentiment that dictated the reply made by Anaxagoras,—when, in
consequence of his incessant contemplation of the stars, he was asked,
“_if he had no concern for his country?_”—“_I incessantly regard my
country_,” said he, pointing to Heaven.
-----
Footnote 7:
“Nulla gens tam fera, quæ non sciat Deum habendum esse, quamvis
ignoret qualem habere deceat.”
CIC. de Naturâ Deorum.
-----
Plato’s attention to the same celestial science unquestionably enlarged
his notions of the Deity, and enabled him to think the more justly of
the moral attributes of human nature. According to Plato—whose morality,
on the whole, corresponds with the system maintained by Socrates,[8]—the
human soul is a ray from the Divinity. He believed, that this minute
portion of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, was omniscient, while
united with the Parent stock from which it emanated; but, when combined
with the body, that it contracted ignorance and impurity from that
union. He did not, like his master Socrates, neglect natural philosophy;
but investigated many principles which relate to that branch of
knowledge:—and, according to this philosopher, all things consisted of
two principles,—_God_ and _matter_.
-----
Footnote 8:
While Plato followed the morals of Socrates, he cultivated the
metaphysical opinions of Pythagoras. He is said to have founded his
physics on the notions of Heraclitus: it may be presumed,
nevertheless, that he derived that branch of his system from a better
source.
-----
It is evident that Plato believed in the immortality of the soul of man;
but he had, at the same time, very inadequate conceptions of the mode or
state of its existence, when separated from the body. It seems to have
been reserved for the Christian dispensation, to elucidate this great
_arcanum_, hidden from the most sagacious of the heathen
philosophers.[9] It was the difficulty that arose on this subject, the
incapability of knowing how to dispose of the soul, or intellectual
principle in the constitution of our species, after its disentanglement
from the body; a difficulty by which all the philosophers, antecedent to
the promulgation of Christianity, were subjected to unsurmountable
perplexities;—it was this, that rendered even the expansive genius of
Anaxagoras utterly incompetent to conceive of the possibility that the
soul should exist, independent of some union with matter. He therefore
invented the doctrine of the _Metempsychosis_; in order to provide some
receptacle of organised matter for that imperishable intellectual
principle attached to our nature here, after its departure from the
human frame; and to which new vehicle of the vital spirit of its
original but abandoned abode, the extinguished corporeal man, its union
with it should impart the powers and faculties of animal life.
-----
Footnote 9:
“_Reason_, tho’ taught by sense to range on high,
To trace the stars and measure all the sky;
Tho’ fancy, memory, foresight fill her train,
And o’er the beast he lifts the pride of man;
Yet, still to _matter_, _form_ and _space_ confin’d,
Or moral truths or laws that rule mankind,
Could ne’er, _unaided_, pierce the mental gloom,
Explore _new_ scenes _beyond the closing tomb_,
Reach with _immortal_ hope the blest abode,
Or raise one thought of _spirit_ or of GOD.”
_Vision of Columbus_, book VIII.
-----
Cultivating, as Plato did, the mind-expanding science of Astronomy,
faintly even as the true principles of this branch of science were then
perceived,[10] this philosopher could not fail to derive, from the
vastness, beauty and order, manifested in the appearances and
revolutions of the heavenly bodies, a conviction of the perpetual
existence of a great intelligent First Cause. It was, indeed, as the
Abbé Barthelemy justly remarks, the order and beauty apparent through
the whole universe, that compelled men to resort to a First Cause:[11]
This, he observes, the early philosophers of the Ionian school (which
owed its origin to Thales) had acknowledged. But Anaxagoras[12] was the
first who discriminated that First Cause from matter; and not only this
distinguished pupil of Thales,[13] but Anaximander, who, antecedently to
him, taught philosophy at Athens, with Archelaus the master of Socrates,
all treated in their writings of the formation of the universe, of the
nature of things, and of geometry and astronomy.
-----
Footnote 10:
“An inordinate desire to explain and generalise, without facts and
observations, led the ancient philosophers to the most absurd and
extravagant notions; though, in a few cases, they have displayed the
most wonderful ingenuity, and sagaciously anticipated the discoveries
of modern times.”
_New Edinb. Encyclop._ tit. Astronomy.
Footnote 11:
“If the petty motions of us mortals afford arguments for the being of
a God, much more may those greater motions we see in the world, and
the phænomena attending them: I mean, the motions of the planets and
heavenly bodies. For these must be put into motion either by one
common mighty Mover, acting upon them immediately, or by causes and
laws of His appointment; or by their respective movers, who, for
reasons to which you can by this time be no stranger,” (referring his
reader to preceding arguments), “must depend upon some Superior, that
furnished them with the power of doing this. And granting it to be
done either of these ways, we can be at no great distance from a
demonstration of the existence of a Deity.”—Wollaston’s _Rel. of Nat.
delineated_, sect. v. head 14th.
Footnote 12:
A disciple of Anaximenes, and preceptor to Socrates. He died 428 years
B. C. in the seventy-second year of his age.
Footnote 13:
Thales, of Miletus in Ionia, was one of the seven sages of Greece: he
was born about six hundred and forty years before the Christian era.
After travelling into other countries, he returned to his own, and
there devoted himself exclusively to the study of nature. Being the
first of the Greeks who made any discoveries in _Astronomy_, he is
said to have astonished his countrymen, by predicting a solar eclipse;
and he instructed them, by communicating the knowledge of geometry and
astronomy, which he had acquired while in Egypt. He died in the
ninety-sixth year of his age,—544 years B. C.
-----
According to Mr. Gibbon, the philosophers of Greece deduced their morals
from the nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated,
however, as we are informed by this very ingenious historian, on the
Divine Nature, as a most curious and important speculation; and, in the
profound enquiry, they displayed both the strength and the weakness of
the human understanding. The Stoics and the Platonists endeavoured to
reconcile the interests of reason with their notions of piety. The
opinions of the Academicians and Epicureans, the two other of the four
most celebrated schools, were of a less religious cast: But, continues
Mr. Gibbon, whilst the modest science of the former induced them to
doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny, the
providence of a Supreme Ruler.
Cicero[14] denominated the God of Plato the _Maker_, and the God of
Aristotle the _Governor_, of the world.[15] It is somewhere observed,
that it is no reflection on the character of Plato, to have been unable,
by the efforts of his own reason, to acquire any notion of a proper
creation; since we, who have the advantage of his writings, nay of
writings infinitely more valuable than his, to instruct us, find it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conceive how any thing can
first begin to have an existence. We believe the fact, on the authority
of Revelation.
-----
Footnote 14:
Marcus Tullius Cicero—the same that has been already mentioned. He
was, himself, not only one of the most learned and eloquent men, but
one of the greatest philosophers, of antiquity. This illustrious Roman
(whose death occurred forty-three years before the Christian era)
firmly believed in the being of a God. He was likewise a decided
advocate for the doctrine of the soul’s immortality; concerning which,
some fine reasoning will be found in his book on _Old Age_;—a
doctrine, however, by no means confined to Cicero alone, but one
maintained by many of the most eminent among the heathen philosophers,
in the early ages. Plato appears to have been the first who supported
that opinion upon sound and permanent arguments, deduced from truth
and established principles.
Footnote 15:
Cicero himself says, “If any one doubt, whether there be _a God_, I
cannot comprehend why the same person may not as well doubt, whether
there be a sun or not.” [_De Naturâ Deorum_, 2. 2.]
It is observed by Dr. Turnbull, in his annotations on Heineccius’s
_System of Universal Law_, that Polybius as well as Cicero, and indeed
almost all the ancient philosophers, have acknowledged, that a public
sense of Religion is necessary to the well-being and support of civil
society: and such a sentiment of Religion is inseparable from a
reasonable conception of the being and attributes of the Deity.
“Society,” says Dr. Turnbull very truly, “can hardly subsist without
it: or, at least, it is the most powerful mean for restraining from
vice; and for promoting and upholding those virtues by which society
subsists, and without which every thing that is great and comely in
society must soon perish and go to ruin.”—“With regard to private
persons,” continues this learned writer, “he who does not often employ
his mind in reviewing the perfections of the Deity, and in consoling
and strengthening his mind by the comfortable and mind-exalting
reflexions, to which meditation upon the universal providence of an
all-perfect mind, naturally, and as it were, necessarily lead,
deprives himself of the greatest joy, the noblest exercise and
entertainment, the human mind is capable of; and whatever obligations
there may to virtue, he cannot be so firm, steady, and unshaken in his
adherence to it, as he, who, being persuaded of the truth just
mentioned, is daily drawing virtuous strength and comfort from it.”
[See the Annotator’s remark on ch. v. b. i. of _Heineccius_.]
-----
Great were, undoubtedly, the improvements in astronomy, made by the
Greek philosophers of early ages, on such of its rudiments as were
handed down to them from those nations by whom it was first
cultivated:[16] Yet it can scarcely be conceived, that, until the
celebrated Euclid of Alexandria,[17] and his followers, had reduced the
mathematics of Thales and others of those philosophers, into regular
systems of arithmetical and geometrical science, the true principles of
astronomy could be ascertained. In fact, seventeen centuries and an half
had elapsed, from the time of that great geometrician, before Copernicus
appeared: when this wonderful genius, availing himself of such remnants
of the ancient philosophy, as the intervening irruptions of the
barbarous nations of the north upon the then civilized world had left to
their posterity, opened to the view of mankind the real system of the
universe.[18]—So vast was the chasm, during which the nobler branches of
physics remained uncultivated and neglected, that, from the age of
Euclid, fourteen centuries passed away, before Roger Bacon, an English
Franciscan friar, began his successful enquiries into experimental
philosophy.—This extraordinary man is said to have been almost the only
_astronomer_ of his age; and he himself tells us, that there were not,
then, more than three or four persons in the world who had made any
considerable proficiency in the _mathematics_!
-----
Footnote 16:
The Greeks derived their knowledge of astronomy from the Egyptians and
Chaldeans. According to Plutarch, the sciences began to unfold
themselves about the time of Hesiod, the Greek poet, who flourished
upwards of nine centuries before the Christian era; but their progress
was very slow, until the time of Thales, which was about three
centuries later. And although this celebrated philosopher of antiquity
rendered himself famous by foretelling an eclipse of the sun, he only
predicted the _year_ in which it was to happen. Even this, it is
remarked by Mr. Vince (in his invaluable work, entitled, _A Complete
System of Astronomy_,) he was probably enabled to do by the _Chaldean
Saros_, a period of 223 lunations; after which, the eclipses return
again nearly in the same order. Philolaus, a disciple of Pythagoras,
lived about four hundred and fifty years before Christ, and is said to
have taught the true solar system,—placing the sun in the centre, with
the earth and all the planets revolving about it; a system which, it
is believed, Pythogaras himself had conceived, and was inclined to
adopt.
However, Hipparchus, who lived between one hundred and twenty-five and
one hundred and sixty years before the Christian era, and whom Mr.
Vince styles “the Father of Astronomy,” was the first person that
cultivated every part of that science. His discoveries, together with
those of Ptolemy, are preserved in the Μεγαλη Σύνταξις, or _Great
Construction_,—Ptolemy’s celebrated work on Astronomy, named by the
Arabs the _Almagest_, and now usually so called.
Footnote 17:
This great philosopher of antiquity, so justly entitled to celebrity
for his mathematical works, flourished three hundred years before the
Christian era. Care should be taken not to confound him with Euclid of
Megara, who lived a century earlier. The latter, as the Abbé
Barthelemi observes, being too much familiarized with the writings of
Parmenides and the Elean school, had recourse to abstractions; “a
method,” says the Abbé, “often dangerous, oftener unintelligible.”
Just after, he adds: “The subtleties of metaphysics calling to their
aid the quirks of logic, _words_ presently took place of _things_, and
students acquired nothing in the schools but a spirit of acrimony and
contradiction.” _Travels of the younger Anacharsis_, vol. iii. chap.
37.
Footnote 18:
That the sun is at rest, and that the planets revolve round him, is an
opinion that appears to have been received of old, by Philolaus,
Aristarchus of Samos, and the whole sect of the Pythagoreans. It is
probable, as Mr. Rowning[18a] observes, that this notion was derived
from them, by the Greeks: But the opinion that the sun stood still in
the centre, while the whole heavens moved around it, was the
prevailing one, until Copernicus, by the establishment of his system,
restored the ancient astronomy of the Pythagorean school.
Footnote 18a:
In his _Compendious System of Natural Philosophy_.
-----
But after the appearance of Copernicus,[19] succeeded by the ingenious
Tycho Brahe[20] and sagacious Kepler,[21] arose the learned physiologist
Bacon, Viscount of St. Albans,—one of the most illustrious contributors
to the yet scanty stock of experimental philosophy.[22] And soon after,
in the same age and nation, was manifested to the world, in the full
glory of meridian splendour, that great luminary of natural science, who
first enlightened mankind by diffusing among them the rays of
well-ascertained truths; clearly exhibiting to all, those fundamental
principles of the laws of nature, by which the grand, the stupendous
system of the material universe is both sustained and governed:—
“Nature and Nature’s Laws lay hid in night;
God said, Let NEWTON be,—and all was Light.”
Finally, it was reserved for our own age and country to derive dignity
and fame, from having given birth to an illustrious successor and
disciple of that immortal man, in the person of the yet
recently-departed RITTENHOUSE.
-----
Footnote 19:
Nicholas Copernic (usually latinized, by adding the terminating
syllable, us,) that celebrated astronomer, “whose vast genius,
assisted by such lights as the remains of antiquity afforded him,
explained the true system of the universe, as at present
understood,”[19a] was born at Thorn in Royal Prussia, the 19th of
January, 1442. He was alike distinguished for his piety and innocence,
as for his extraordinary genius and discoveries. He died in the
seventy-seventh year of his age.
Footnote 19a:
_Ritt. Orat._
Footnote 20:
This great man was a native of Knudsturp, a province of Scania in
Denmark, and born the 18th of December, 1546, of an illustrious
family. He was the first, who, by the accuracy and number of his
observations, made the way for the revival of astronomy among the
moderns; although, “in theory,” as Rittenhouse has expressed it, “he
mangled the beautiful system of Copernicus.”[20a]—Brahé (for this is
the family-name) died at the age of fifty-five years.
Footnote 20a:
Ibid.
Footnote 21:
John Kepler, a native of Wiel in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in Germany,
became as celebrated for the consequences he drew from the
observations of Tycho, as the latter was for the vast mass of
astronomical materials he had prepared. This eminent, though somewhat
“whimsical”[21a] astronomer, was born the 27th of December, 1571, and
died at the age of fifty-nine years.
Footnote 21a:
_Ritt. Orat._
Footnote 22:
“Before his (Bacon’s) time, philosophy was fettered by forms and
syllogisms. The logics of Aristotle held the human mind in bondage for
nearly two thousand years; a miserable jugglery, which was fitted to
render all truth problematical, and which disseminated a thousand
errors, but never brought to light one useful piece of knowledge.”—Ld.
Woolhousie’s _Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ld. Kames_.
-----
The objects of a genuine philosophy, are the discovery and promulgation
of the truths which emanate from a knowledge of the laws of nature, in
relation to the material world, and the inseparable influence of those
truths, consequent on an acquaintance with them, in giving a right
direction to the moral faculty of man. The intimate connexion subsisting
between natural and moral science, is indubitable; and it is equally
certain, that the accordant order, fitness and rectitude, which unite
into one glorious plan of wisdom, goodness and power, all portions of
creation, intellectual and sensitive as well as material, must rest on
the same unerring principles. The infinite variety and boundless extent
of nature’s works constitute a sublime system; manifesting a
correspondent perfection in the design, and all-bountiful dispensation
of good in its purposes.[23] The Almighty First Cause has founded this
system on immutable principles; wherein _truth_, in relation to the
moral world, may be considered as its basis,—as _fitness_ is, when
applied to the constitution of the natural world. These are,
respectively, the correlatives of the one and the other: and the unity
of design apparent in the whole system, plainly indicates the connexion
that subsists, in the nature of things, between moral virtue, which is
the result of a right perception of truth, and the fitness and order, to
which all the operations of the material universe conform.[24]—Towards
an investigation of _these_ things, the researches of the great American
philosopher were eagerly directed: such were the objects of his
unwearied pursuit; and such were the views entertained by him, of the
utility and importance of those sublime branches of knowledge, which he
cultivated so ardently and successfully.[25]
Footnote 23:
It is observed by an eminent philosopher of the present day, that “The
more the phænomena of the universe are studied, the more distinctly
their connexion appears, the more simple their causes, the more
magnificent their design, and the more wonderful the wisdom and power
of their Author.” (See _Elements of Chymical Philosophy_, by sir
Humphrey Davy, LLD. Sec. R. S.)
-----
Footnote 24:
On looking into Maclaurin’s Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s
Philosophical Discoveries, since penning the above, the writer of
these Memoirs was much gratified by the perusal of the following
passage, in the last chapter of that valuable work; wherein its author
treats “Of the Supreme Author and Governor of the Universe, the True
and Living God.” The writer is induced to add it in a note, to his own
reflections on the same subject, such as he has ventured to offer them
in the text; presuming that the authority of so eminent a philosopher
as Mr. Maclaurin will give weight to what he has himself advanced; so
far, at least, as there may appear to be some coincidence of sentiment
on the subject.
“The plain argument for the existence of the Deity, obvious to all and
carrying irresistable conviction with it, is from the evident
contrivance and fitness of things for one another, which we meet with
throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice and
subtle reasonings in this matter: a manifest contrivance immediately
suggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful
reasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our
belief. No person, for example, that knows the principles of optics,
and the structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without
skill in that science; or that the ear was formed, without the
knowledge of sounds:”—“All our accounts of nature are full of
instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful order of things,
for final causes, exalt our idea of the Contriver: the unity of design
shews him to be One. The great motions in the system, performed with
the same facility as the least, suggest his Almighty Power; which gave
motion to the earth and the celestial bodies, with equal ease as to
the minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the
internal parts of bodies, shews that His influence penetrates the
inmost recesses of things, and that He is equally active and present
every where. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the
excellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and
the beauty which adorns the works of nature, far superior to any thing
in art, suggest His consummate Wisdom. The usefulness of the whole
scheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it,
with the internal disposition and moral structure of those beings
themselves, shew His unbounded goodness. These are arguments which are
sufficiently open to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while
at the same time they acquire new strength and lustre from the
discoveries of the learned. The Deity’s acting and interposing in the
universe, shew that He governs it, as well as formed it; and the depth
of His counsels, even in conducting the material universe, of which a
great part surpasses our knowledge, keeps up an inward veneration and
awe of this great Being, and disposes us to receive what may be
otherwise revealed to us, concerning Him.”
Footnote 25:
Mr. Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s
_Principia_, exposes the folly of those depraved dreamers in
philosophy, “the sordid dregs of the most impure part of mankind,” who
strive to maintain, that the constitution of the world is not derived
from the will of God, but from a certain necessity of nature; that all
things are governed by _fate_, not by Providence; and that matter, by
_necessity of nature_, has existed always and every where, and is
infinite and eternal. He then adds:—“We may now, therefore, take a
nearer view of nature in her glory, and contemplate her in a most
entertaining manner: and withal, more zealously than ever, pay our
worship and veneration to the Creator and Lord of the Universe; _which
is the principal advantage of philosophy_. He must be blind who, from
the most excellent and most wise structure of the creatures, does not
presently see the infinite wisdom and goodness of their Creator: and
he must be mad, who will not own those attributes.”
-----
The enlightened part of the people have, in every civilized nation and
in all ages, very rationally valued themselves on their great men. It is
both useful and proper to commemorate the renown of such as have
approved themselves, in an eminent degree, Benefactors of Mankind. The
Life, therefore, of so distinguished a Philosopher as RITTENHOUSE, must
be expected to interest the feelings, as well as the curiosity, of the
good and the wise, not only of our own country but of foreign nations.
With respect to the usefulness and importance of that majestic science,
which was the favourite study and principal object of the pursuit of our
philosopher, during a life of ordinary extent but of very extraordinary
attainments and character, something may with propriety be said, with a
view to an illustration of the subject. And among other evidence, which,
it is presumed, may not be unaptly adduced on the occasion, the
Memorialist will cite in the first place, as well as occasionally
afterwards, the sentiments of a distinguished foreign astronomer, whose
abilities and erudition rendered him eminently qualified to decide, in a
discussion of this nature: He shall be made to speak for himself, though
not in his own tongue; the great work from which the quoted extracts are
made, being written in French.
Among the numerous and important advantages, then, resulting from
astronomy, noticed by the celebrated Lalande (in the preface to his
book, entitled _Astronomie_,) he remarks that it is well known, that
besides the tendency of this science to dissipate many vulgar errors and
prejudices,[26] cosmography and geography cannot go on, but by its
means: that the discovery of the satellites of Jupiter has given greater
perfection to our geographical and marine charts, than they could have
attained by ten thousand years of navigation and voyages;[27] and, that
when their theory shall become still better known, the method of
determining the longitude at sea will be more exact and more easy.
-----
Footnote 26:
“A man would deceive himself,” says Lalande, “in believing he could
be a philosopher, without the study of the natural sciences. To be
wise, not by weakness, but by principles, it is necessary that, to
be able to reflect and think with vigour, we be freed from those
prejudices which deceive the judgment, and which oppose themselves
to the development of reason and of genius. Pythagoras would not
have any disciples, who had not studied Mathematics: over his door
was to be read, that “no one was to enter, unless he were a
geometrician.”—Morals would be less sure, and less attractive for
us, if they were to be founded on ignorance or on error.
“Ought we,” he asks, “to consider as of no importance the advantage of
being freed from the misfortunes of ignorance? Is it possible to
observe, without a feeling of compassion and even of shame, the
stupidity of those, who formerly believed, that by making a great
vociferation, during an eclipse of the Moon, they furnished relief to
the sufferings of that (imagined) goddess; or, that these eclipses
were produced by enchantment?”
“Cum frustra resonant æra auxiliaria Lunæ.”
Met. iv. 333.
Reyas, in the dedication of his Commentaries on the Planisphere to the
Emperor Charles V. mentions a curious historical fact, in illustration
of the effects of that superstition, derived from ignorance, which
astronomy has banished from the civilized world. It is thus related by
Lalande:—“Christopher Columbus, when commanding the army which
Ferdinand, king of Spain, had sent to Jamaica, some short time after
the discovery of that island, experienced so great a scarcity of
provisions, that no hope remained of saving his army, which he
expected to be soon at the mercy of the savages. An approaching
eclipse of the moon furnished this able man with the means of
extricating himself from his embarrassment: he let the chief of the
savages know, that if they should not, in a few hours, send him all he
asked for, he would oppress them with the greatest calamities; and
that he would begin by depriving the moon of her light. At first, they
contemned his menaces; but, when they saw that the moon began, in
reality, to disappear, they were seized with terror; they carried all
they had to the general, and came themselves to implore forgiveness.”
Comets were formerly, even in civilized nations, another great cause
of consternation among the people; and one, also, which a knowledge of
astronomy has at length divested of its terrors, by removing the
source of those superstitious errors, a grossly mistaken notion of the
nature of those phænomena. “We are sorry to find,” says Lalande, “such
strange prejudices, not only in Homer [Iliad iv. 75.] but even in the
most beautiful poem of the sixteenth century; whereby means are
furnished of perpetuating our errors—
“Qual con le chiome sanguinose orrende
Splender Cometa suol per l’aria adusta,
Che i regni muta e i feri morbi adduce,
E ai purpurei tiranni infausta luce.”
_Tasso’s Jerus. del._
Which Mr. Hoole has thus translated—
“As, shaking terrors from his blazing hair,
A sanguine Comet gleams through dusky air,
To ruin states, and dire diseases spread,
And baleful light on purpled tyrants shed.”
Further, the progress of genuine astronomy has almost wholly
dissipated, in our day, the gross delusions of astrology, with the
mischievous portents of its infatuated judicial interpreters; follies
engendered by ignorance, which is, ever, the prolific parent of
prejudice, of superstition, and of their numerous concomitant evils.
Footnote 27:
Mr. Rittenhouse observes, (in his Oration delivered before the
American Philosophical Society, in 1775,) that “Galileo not only
discovered these moons of Jupiter, but suggested their use in
determining the longitude of places on the earth; which has since been
so happily put in practice, that Fontenelle does not hesitate to
affirm, they are of more use to geography and navigation, than our own
moon.”—This great man, one of the first restorers of the true
principles of physics, was condemned by, and suffered the penalties of
the Inquisition, in 1535, for defending the system of Copernicus! He
died in 1542.
A letter from Andrew Ellicott, Esq. to Mr. Robert Patterson, dated the
2d of April 1795, and published in the fourth volume of the American
Philosophical Society’s Transactions, contains sundry observations of
the immersions of the satellites of Jupiter, made at Wilmington in the
state of Delaware, by Messrs. Rittenhouse, J. Page, Lukens and
Andrews, respectively, on divers days from the 1st to the 23d of
August (both included,) in the year 1784; together with those observed
at the Western Observatory, by Messrs. Ellicott, Ewing, Madison, &c.
on divers days from the 17th of July to the 19th of August (both
included,) in the same year: also, of the emersions of those
satellites, by the same Eastern Observers, from the 29th of August to
the 19th of September (both included,) and by the same Western
Observers, from the 27th of August, up to the 19th of September, both
included; all in the year 1784. These observations were made,
“Le Trident de Neptune est le Sceptre du Mond.”[27a]
when those able geometricians and astronomers were employed in
ascertaining the Western Boundary of Pennsylvania, by determining the
length of five degrees of longitude, West, from a given point on the
river Delaware.
Footnote 27a:
“The trident of Neptune is the sceptre of the world.”—This, as Lalande
observes, is nearly what Themistocles said at Athens, Pompey at Rome,
Cromwell in England, and Richelieu and Colbert in France.
-----
“It is to astronomy,” says Mr. Lalande, “that we are indebted for the
first voyages of the Phœnicians, and the earliest progress of industry
and commerce: it is likewise to it, that we owe the discovery of the New
World. If there remain any thing to desire for the perfection and
security of navigation, it is, to find the longitude at sea.” In
continuation, he says:—
“The utility of navigation for the welfare of a state, serves to prove
that of astronomy. But it seems to me, that it is difficult for a good
citizen to be ignorant, now, of the usefulness of navigation; above all,
(says Lalande, feelingly,) in France. The success of the English, in the
war of 1764, has but too well shewn, that a marine alone governs the
fortune of empires, their power, their commerce; that peace and war are
decided on the ocean; and that, in fine, as Mr. Miere has expressed it,—
“Ancient chronology deduces, from a knowledge and calculation of
eclipses, the best established periods in time, that it is possible to
obtain: and in ages anterior to regular observations, nothing but
obscurity is to be met with. We should not have in the history of
nations any uncertainty in dates, if there had always been astronomers.
We may perceive, above all, the connexions of astronomy in _The Art of
verifying Dates_. It is by an eclipse of the Moon,[28] that we discover
the error of date that exists in the vulgar era with respect to the
birth of Christ. It is known that Herod was king of Judea, and that
there was an eclipse of the moon immediately before the death of that
prince: we find this eclipse was in the night, between the 12th and 13th
of March, of the fourth year before the vulgar era; so that this era
ought to be removed three years back, at least.
-----
Footnote 28:
Mr. Derham, speaking of the utility resulting from the observation of
these phænomena, (in his _Astro-Theology_,) says—“As to the eclipses,
whether of sun or moon, they have their excellent uses. The astronomer
applies them to considerable services, in his way, and the geographer
makes them no less useful in his: the chronologer is enabled, by them,
to amend his accounts of time, even of the most ancient days; and so
down through all ages: and the mariner, too, can make them serviceable
to his purpose, to discover his longitude, to correct his account at
sea, and thereby make himself more secure and safe in the untrodden
paths of the deep.”
W. B.
-----
“It is besides from astronomy, that we borrow the division of time in
the common transactions of life, and the art of regulating clocks and
watches. We may say, that the order and the multiplicity of our affairs,
of our duties, our amusements; the attachment to exactness and
precision; in short, our habits; all have rendered this measure of time
almost indispensable, and placed it among the number of the _desiderata_
of human life.
“If, for want of clocks and watches, we should be under the necessity of
recurring to meridians and sundials, even this would further prove the
advantages derived from astronomical science; since dialling is only an
application of spherical trigonometry and astronomy.
“Le Sage is displeased with good reason with those, whom an admiration
of the stars has carried so far, as that they fancied them to be
Deities:[29] but, far from condemning the study of them, he recommends
it, for the glory of the Creator.”
-----
Footnote 29:
Lucius Cælius Lactantius Firmianus, a Christian writer in the
beginning of the fourth century, reasons in a conclusive manner
against the heathen mythology, in the inference he draws from the
argument, used by the heathens, to prove the heavenly bodies to be
divinities. His argument, on this head, will be found towards the
conclusion of Mr. Derham’s _Astro-Theology_, where it is translated
from the Latin of that early and eloquent advocate of Christianity (in
his _Divin. Instit._ l. 2. c. 5.) in these words:—
“That argument whereby they” (those idolaters) “conclude the heavenly
bodies to be gods, proveth the contrary: for if therefore they think
them to be gods, because they have such certain and well-contrived
rational courses, they err: for, from hence it appears that they are
not gods; because they are not able to wander out of those paths that
are prescribed them. Whereas, if they were gods, they would go here
and there, and every where, without any restraint, like as animals
upon the earth do; whose wills being free, they wander hither and
thither, as they list, and go whithersoever their minds carry them.”
Those vast orbs of matter in the universe, which constitute the
planets of our system, if even we consider this alone, and each of
which is known to have its appropriate motion, must of necessity have
had those motions communicated to them, at first, by some Being of
infinite power; the perfect order and regularity of their motions
render it equally plain, that that Being was also infinite in wisdom;
and the uninterrupted continuance of the same regularity of motion, in
their respective orbits, demonstrates in like manner, that He who
originally imparted their motions to the several planets is, moreover,
infinite in duration.
The _vis inertiæ_ of all _material_ substances, a quality inseparably
interwoven with their nature, deprives them (considered merely as
such) of the power of spontaneous motion; matter is inherently
_inert_: consequently, those great globes of matter, the planets
(including the earth,) necessarily derive their motions from a
supremely powerful First Cause, as well as from one infinitely
intelligent, and everlasting in his Being. Hence, Lactantius well
observes, in another place, that “There is, indeed, a power in the
stars, of performing their motions; but that is the power of God, who
made and governs all things; not of the stars themselves, that are
moved.”
The reasoning of Lactantius, on this subject, is more worthy of a
philosopher, than that employed by Descartes, in supporting his
chimerical notion of vortices; or than that which led Kepler to adopt
his scheme, equally unsupported by any rational principles, of a
vectorial power produced by emanations of the sun, as primary agents
of motion in the solar system. Because these schemes of Descartes and
Kepler make it necessary to recur to some ulterior, as well as more
adequate and comprehensible cause of motion, in the planets, than
either vortices or emanations from the sun: whereas Lactantius
resorted, at once, to an intelligent First Cause, capable of producing
the effect; without conjuring up inefficient agents, as first movers;
which left them still under the necessity of going back to a CREATOR
of their respective causes (but second causes, at best,) of the
planetary motions; consequently, the First Cause; and, also, of
admitting the existence of Intelligence, as an essential attribute in
the nature of that Being.
An edition of the works of Lactantius (who was a native of Fermo in
Italy,) was printed at Leipsick, in 1715.
-----
Adverting to such as considered “fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the
circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to
be gods which govern the world,”[30] he applies the words of
Solomon:—“With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be
gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the first
Author of beauty has created them—For, by the greatness and beauty of
the creatures, proportionably the Maker of them is seen.”[31]
-----
Footnote 30:
Wisdom of Solomon, ch. 13. v. 2.
Footnote 31:
Ibid. ch. 13. v. 3 and 5.
-----
“David found also, in the stars,” continues Lalande, “means of elevating
his contemplation of the Deity:”—“The heavens declare the glory of
God;”[32] “I will view thy heavens, the works of thy fingers, the moon
and the stars which thou hast established:” and we see that Mr. Derham
has called by the name of “_Astro-Theology_,” a work, in which is
presented, in all their force, the singularity and grandeur of the
discoveries that have been made in astronomy; as being so many proofs of
the existence of a God. (See what Aristotle thought on this subject, in
the eighth book of his _Physics_.)
-----
Footnote 32:
Psalm 19. v. 1.
-----
Such were the reflections of Mr. Lalande, on a subject with which he was
intimately acquainted.
The opinions of eminent and enlightened men have deservedly great
weight, in all those matters on which it is presumable, from the nature
of their pursuits, their thoughts have been most employed.
Notwithstanding, therefore, the fulness of the foregoing extracts, the
writer believes that the very apt and judicious observations contained
in the following passage, in support of similar sentiments, extracted
from a voluminous work of a distinguished English astronomer, of the
present day, will not be deemed to have been improperly brought into
view, on this occasion:—
“The obvious argument of the existence of a DEITY, who formed and
governs the universe,” (says Mr. Vince, the author referred to,) “is
founded upon the uniformity of the laws which take place in the
production of similar effects; and from the simplicity of the causes
which produce the various phænomena. The most common views of nature,
however imperfect and of small extent, suggest the idea of the
government of a GOD, and every further discovery tends to confirm that
persuasion. The ancient philosophers, who scarce knew a single law by
which the bodies in the system are governed, still saw the DEITY in his
works: how visible therefore ought He to be to us, who are acquainted
with the laws by which the whole is directed. The same law takes place
in our system, between the periodic times and distances of every body
revolving about the same centre. Every body describes about its
respective centre equal areas in equal times. Every body is spherical.
Every planet, as far as our observations reach, is found to revolve
about an axis; and the axis of each is observed to continue parallel to
itself. Now as the circumstances which might have attended these bodies
are indefinite in variety, the uniform similarity which is found to
exist amongst them, is an irrefragable argument of design. To produce a
succession of day and night, either the sun must revolve every day about
the earth, or the earth must revolve about its axis: the latter is the
most simple cause; and, accordingly, we find that the regular return of
day and night is so produced. As far also as observations have enabled
us to discover, the return of day and night, in the planets, is produced
by the operation of a similar cause. It is also found, that the axis of
each planet is inclined to the plane of its orbit, by which a provision
is made for a variety of seasons; and by preserving the axis always
parallel to itself, summer and winter return at their stated periods.
Where there are such incontestable marks of design, there must be a
DESIGNER; and the unity of design through the whole system, proves it to
be the work of ONE. The general laws of nature shew the existence of a
Divine INTELLIGENCE, in a much stronger point of view, than any work of
man can prove him to have acted from intention; inasmuch as the
operations of the former are uniform, and subject to no variation;
whereas in the latter case, we see continual alterations of plan, and
deviations from established rules. And without this permanent order of
things, experience could not have directed man in respect to his future
operations. These fixed laws of nature, so necessary for us, is an
irresistible argument that the world is the work of a wise and
benevolent BEING. The laws of nature are the laws of GOD; and how far
soever we may be able to trace up causes, they must terminate in his
will. We see nothing in the heavens which argues imperfection; the whole
creation is stamped with the marks of DIVINITY.”—[See _A Complete System
of Astronomy_; by the Rev. S. Vince, A. M. F. R. S. &c. printed at
Cambridge, in 1799—vol. ii. p. 290, 291.]
None of the works of creation present to the contemplation of man
objects more worthy of the dignity of his nature, than those which
engage the attention of the astronomer. They have, interested men of the
sublimest genius, in all ages of the world: and the science of astronomy
is spoken of with admiration, by the most celebrated sages of antiquity.
Although no astronomer of our day, how enthusiastic soever he may be in
favour of his science, will be disposed to say with Anaxagoras, that the
purpose for which he himself or any other man was born, was, that he
might contemplate the stars; yet it does seem, as if the objects of this
science more naturally attracted the attention and employed the research
of elevated minds, than those things, within the narrow limits of this
world, an acquaintance with which constitutes the ordinary mass of human
knowledge. The disposition of man to direct his eyes frequently upwards,
and the faculty to do so, arising from his erect figure and the position
and structure of the organs of his vision, furnish no feeble argument in
proving, that this temporary lord of his fellow-beings on this globe has
nobler destinies, infinitely beyond them; being enabled and permitted by
the Author of his being, even while in this circumscribed state of his
existence, to survey those myriads of worlds which occupy the immensity
of space; to contemplate their nature, and the laws that govern them;
thence, to discern, with the eye of reason, the Great First Cause of
their being;[33] and thus having acquired, a juster knowledge of his own
nature, to grasp at an endless futurity for its existence.
-----
Footnote 33:
In Mr. Smart’s _Poetical Essay on the Immensity of the Supreme Being_,
after a glowing description of some of the admirable works of nature,
is this apt, though laconic address to the Atheist:—
“Thou ideot! that asserts, there is no God,
_View_, and be dumb for ever.”
-----
That the erect countenance and upward aspect of the human species were
his peculiar endowments by the Deity, for these purposes among others,
appears to have been the impression on the mind of Ovid, when he said:—
“Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta deorum;
Pronaque cum spectent animalia cætera terram,
Os homini sublime dedit, cælumque tueri
Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.”[34]
_Met._ i. 88.
-----
Footnote 34:
The poet gives a whimsical account of the first formation of man, out
of this earth, which is represented as being then new; and, having
been recently separated from the high æther, is therefore supposed as
yet holding some affinity with heaven, and retaining its seeds. He
describes the son of Japetus (Prometheus) moulding a portion of earth,
mixed with river-water, into the similitude of those heathen deities,
who were said to rule over all things.
A poetic translation into our own language, of the lines above quoted,
which exhibit “the godlike image,” thus formed, after its being
animated by the stolen fire of Prometheus, is comprehended in the
_italicised_ lines of the following passage, extracted from Mr.
Dryden’s versification of the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses; in
which the English poet has well preserved the beauty, the force, and
the sublimity of the thought, so finely expressed in the original:—
“A creature of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet, and then was _Man_ design’d
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire form’d, and fit to rule the rest:
Whether with particles of heav’nly fire
The God of nature did his soul inspire;
Or earth, but now divided from the sky,
And pliant still, retain’d th’ ætherial energy:
Which wise _Prometheus_ temper’d into paste,
And, mixt with living streams, _the godlike image cast_:
_Thus, while the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes
Beholds his own hereditary skies_.”
-----
Mr. Pope has well observed, that—
“The proper study of mankind, is Man:”—
But, in order that he may be enabled to know himself, it is
indispensably necessary for him to acquire such a knowledge of other
created beings that surround him, as the limited nature of his faculties
will allow. He must attentively observe the operations of nature in the
material universe, survey with a reflecting mind its stupendous fabric,
and study its laws. Hence, he will be made acquainted, and although in a
partial, yet not an inconsiderable degree, with the powers and extent of
that intellectual principle which he finds in the government of the
moral, as well as the natural world. And being thus enabled to know his
own proper standing in creation, and his appropriate relation to all its
parts, he will by these means be qualified to ascend to those enquiries,
which will open to his mind a just sense of the attributes of the Deity,
of whose existence he will feel a perfect conviction. In this way, will
man obtain a due knowledge of his own “being, end and aim;” and become
fully sensible of his entire dependence on his Creator: while he will
thereby learn, that he incessantly owes him the highest adoration and
the most devoted service.[35] In this way it is, that the philosopher,
more especially the astronomer,—
“Looks, through Nature, up to Nature’s God.”[36]
_Pope’s Ess. on Man._
-----
Footnote 35:
Man will, unquestionably, by taking an extensive range in the
contemplation of nature, proportionably enlarge his intuitive
conceptions of the attributes of her Almighty First Cause; of whose
transcendently exalted existence, the study of his own being, one of
nature’s greatest works, will have taught him the reality: and a due
knowledge of himself, alone, will also instruct him in the dependent
nature of his condition, and the duties resulting from that state of
dependence, in his humble relation to the Supreme being.
Mr. Smart, in the poem before quoted, has prettily expressed this
idea, in the following lines:—
“Vain were th’ attempt, and impious, to trace
Thro’ _all_ his works th’ Artificer Divine—
And tho’ no shining sun, nor twinkling star,
Bedeck’d the crimson curtains of the sky;
Tho’ neither vegetable, beast, nor bird,
Were extant on the surface of this ball,
Nor lurking gem beneath; tho’ the great sea
Slept in profound stagnation, and the air
Had left no thunder to pronounce its Maker;
Yet Man at home, _within himself_, might find
The Deity immense; and, in that frame
So fearfully, so wonderfully made,
See and adore his Providence and Pow’r.”
Footnote 36:
The same sentiment is beautifully expressed by Thomson, in the
following apostrophe:
“With thee, serene Philosophy! with thee,
And thy bright garland, let me crown my song!
Effusive source of evidence, and truth!
A lustre shedding o’er th’ ennobled mind,
Stronger than summer-noon; and pure as that,
Whose mild vibrations soothe the parted soul,
New to the dawning of celestial day.
Hence through her nourish’d pow’rs, enlarged by thee,
She springs aloft, with elevated pride,
Above the tangling mass of low desires,
That bind the fluttering crowd; and angel-wing’d,
The heights of science and of virtue gains,
Where all is calm and clear; with nature round,
Or in the starry regions, or th’ abyss,
To reason’s or to fancy’s eye display’d:
The _First_ up-tracing, from the dreary void,
The chain of causes and effects to Him,
The world producing essence, who alone
Possesses being; while the _Last_ receives
The whole magnificence of heaven and earth,
And every beauty, delicate or bold,
Obvious or more remote, with livelier sense,
Diffusive painted on the rapid mind.”
_Summer_, l. 1729 and seq.
-----
Besides the various and important uses of astronomy, here pointed out,
it is connected, by means of numerous ramifications, with other
departments of science, directed to some of the most useful pursuits of
human life. Lalande has even shewn us, in the preface to his
_Astronomie_, in what manner this science has a relation to the
administration of civil and ecclesiastical affairs, to medicine, and to
agriculture. A knowledge of astronomy is obviously connected, by means
of chronology, with history. It is even a necessary study, in order to
become acquainted with the heathen mythology; and many beautiful
passages in the works of the ancient poets can neither be distinctly
understood nor properly relished, without a knowledge of the stars: nay,
that finely poetical one, in the book of Job, in which the Deity is
represented as manifesting to that patient man of affliction and sorrow
the extreme imbecility of his nature, is unintelligible without some
knowledge of astronomy:—
“Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of
Orion?—
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season; or canst thou guide
Arcturus, with his sons?”
Some of the greatest poets of antiquity were in a manner fascinated, by
the grandeur of that science, (though they accompanied it with mystical
notions,) which furnishes the sublimest objects in nature to the
contemplation of the astronomer.
Ovid tells us, he wished to take his flight among the stars:
—-—-—“Juvat ire per alta
Astra; juvat, terris et inerti sede relictis,
Nube vehi, validique humeris insistere Atlantis.”[37]
_Metamorph._ lib. xv.
-----
Footnote 37:
It delights me to soar among the lofty stars; it delights me to leave
the earth and this dull habitation, to be wafted upon a cloud, and to
stand upon the shoulders of the mighty Atlas.
Mr. Dryden has thus translated the original into English verse:—
“Pleas’d, as I am, to walk along the sphere
Of shining stars, and travel with the year;
To leave the heavy earth, and scale the height
Of Atlas, who supports the heavenly weight.”
-----
And Horace acquaints us with the objects of curiosity and research, in
the contemplation of which he envied his friend Iccius, who was occupied
in that way, on his farm:—
“Quæ mare compescant causæ, quid temperet annum;
Stellæ sponte suâ, jussæne, vagentur et errant,
Quid premat obscurum Lunæ, quid proferat orbem.”[38]
Lib. i. epist. 12, ad _Iccium_.
-----
Footnote 38:
Dr. Francis thus versifies this passage, in our language:—
————“What bounds old ocean’s tides;
What, through the various year, the seasons guides:
Whether the stars, by their own proper force,
Or foreign pow’r, pursue their wand’ring course:
Why shadows darken the pale Queen of Night;
Whence she renews her orb, and spreads her light.”
-----
Virgil seemed willing to renounce every other study, in order that he
might devote himself to the wonders of astronomy. In the second book of
his Georgics, he says:
“Me vero primum dulces ante omnia Musæ,
Quarum sacra fero, ingenti perculsus amore,
Accipiant; cælique vias et sidera monstrent,
Defectus Solis varius, Lunæque labores;
Unde tremor terris, quâ vi maria alta tumescant
Obicibus ruptis, rursusque in se ipsa residant;
Quid tantum oceano properent se tingere soles
Hyberni, vel quæ tardis mora noctibus obstet—
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.”[39]
l. 475 and seq.
And, in addition to these classical writers, a modern poet (Mr.
Voltaire) appears, by a letter written in the year 1738, to have
participated in the regrets expressed by Virgil; and to have been
desirous of directing all his faculties towards the sciences. He
produced, on the philosophy of Newton, a work which has contributed to
the expansion of genius; and, in his epistle to the Marchioness du
Chatelet, he pays that great man a very exalted compliment, in these
poetic lines:
“Confidens du Tres Haut, substances eternelles,
Qui parez de vos feux, qui couvrez de vos ailes
Le trône oú votre Maitre est assis parmi vous;
Parlez: Du grand Newton n’étiez-vous point jaloux?”[40]
-----
Footnote 39:
Thus rendered, in English verse, by Mr. Dryden:—
“Ye sacred Muses, with whose beauty fir’d,
My soul is ravish’d, and my brain inspir’d;
Whose priest I am, whose holy fillets wear,
Would you your poet’s first petition hear;
Give me the way of wand’ring stars to know:
The depths of heav’n above, and earth below.
Teach me the various labours of the moon,
And whence proceed th’ eclipses of the sun.
Why flowing tides prevail upon the main,
And in what dark recess they sink again.
What shakes the solid earth, what cause delays
The summer nights, and shortens winter days—
Happy the man, who, studying nature’s laws,
Through known effects can trace the secret cause.”
Footnote 40:
The lines here referred to were written about eight years after Sir
Isaac Newton’s death. Voltaire supposes an apotheosis of Newton to
have taken place, among the planets personified by some of the deities
of the heathen mythology. Thus ascribing intelligence to the stars, he
considers them, by a poetical fiction, as being in the _confidence_ of
the Most High—the _true_ God; and to those subordinate deities, or,
perhaps, a fancied superior order of angelic beings, the poet makes
his figurative address; which may be thus rendered in English verse:—
Ye confidents of the Most High,
Ye everlasting lights!
Who deck, with your refulgent fires,
The scene of godlike rights!
Whose wings o’erspread the glorious throne
Whereon your Lord is plac’d,
That Lord, by whose transcendent pow’r
Your borrow’d rays are grac’d;
Speak out, bright orbs of heaven’s expanse!
And frankly let us know:
To the exalted NEWTON’S name,
Can you refuse to bow?
-----
Astronomy has not only engaged the attention of multitudes of
illustrious men, of every age and nation, but it has been patronized by
great and enlightened princes and states; cultivated by men of genius
and learning, of all ranks and professions; and celebrated by historians
and poets.
This charming, as well as sublime and invaluable science, has also been
studied, and even practically cultivated, by many celebrated women, in
modern times. There are indeed circumstances connected with this
innocent and engaging pursuit, that must render it very interesting to
the fair sex. Some ladies have prosecuted this object with such success,
as to acquire considerable distinction in the philosophical world.
While, therefore, the meritorious transactions of men are held in
grateful remembrance and frequently recorded in the annals of fame, it
is due to justice and impartiality, that literary, scientific, and other
attainments of the gentler sex, calculated for the benefit of civil
society, should be alike commemorated. Among such then, as examples, may
be named the following:—
Maria Cunitia (Kunitz,) daughter of a physician in Silesia, published
Astronomical Tables, so early as the year 1650.
Maria-Clara, the daughter of Eimmart and wife of of Muller, both
well-known astronomers, cultivated the same science.
Jane Dumée published, in the year 1680, Conversations (or Dialogues) on
the Copernican System.
Maria-Margaretta Winckelman, wife of Godfrey Kirch, an astronomer of
some distinction[41] who died in 1710, at the age of seventy-one years,
worked at his Ephemerides, and carried on Astronomical Observations with
her husband. This respectable woman discovered the Comet[42] of 1702, on
the 20th of April in that year: she produced, in 1712, a Work on
Astronomy; and died at Berlin, in the year 1720. Her three daughters
continued, for thirty years, to employ themselves in Astronomical
Observations, for the Almanacks of Berlin.
-----
Footnote 41:
Godfrey Kirch was born in the year 1640, at Guben in Lower Lusatia,
and lived with Hevelius. He published his Ephemerides in 1681, and
became established at Berlin in 1700. This astronomer made numerous
observations.
Footnote 42:
—-—-—“Amid the radiant orbs
That mere than deck, that animate the sky,
The life-infusing suns of other worlds,
Lo! from the dread immensity of space
Returning with accelerated course,
The rushing Comet to the sun descends;
And, as he sinks below the shading earth,
With awful train projected o’er the heavens,
The guilty nations tremble. But, above
Those superstitious horrors that enslave
The fond sequacious herd, to mystic faith
And blind amazement prone, th’ enlighten’d few,
Whose godlike minds Philosophy exalts,
The glorious stranger hail. They feel a joy
Divinely great; they in their powers exult;
That wond’rous force of thought, which mounting spurns
This dusky spot, and measures all the sky;
While, from his far excursions through the wilds
Of barren ether, faithful to his time,
They see the blazing wonder rise anew,
In seeming terror clad, but kindly bent
To work the will of all-sustaining love:
From his huge vapoury train perhaps to shake
Renewing moisture on the numerous orbs,
Through which his long elipsis winds; perhaps
To lend new fuel to declining suns,
To light up worlds, and feed th’ eternal fire.”
_Thomson’s Summer_, l. 1702 and seq.
-----
Elizabeth d’Oginsky Puzynina, Countess Puzynina and Castellane of
Mscislau, in Poland, erected and richly endowed a magnificent
Observatory at Wilna, in the year 1753; and in 1767, she added to this
establishment a fund equivalent to twelve thousand (American) dollars,
for the purpose of maintaining an observer and purchasing instruments.
The king of Poland afterwards gave to this institution the title of a
“Royal Observatory.”
The wife of the celebrated Hevelius was, likewise, an astronomer. Madame
Hevelius made Observations along with her husband; and she is
represented, in the _Machina Cœlestis_, as having been engaged in
measuring distances.
In the century just passed, the Marchioness du Chatelet translated
_Newton_: Besides whom,—
Madame Lepaute and Madame du Piery were both known in the Astronomical
World.
In our own time, Miss Caroline Herschel, sister of the great practical
astronomer of the same name, in England, has not only distinguished
herself, by having discovered the Comet of 1786; another, on the 17th of
April, 1790; and a third, on the 8th of October, 1793;[43] but likewise
by attending to Astronomical Observations, along with her brother, for
several years.
-----
Footnote 43:
Mr. Messier observed this Comet in France, eleven days before it was
discovered in England by Miss Herschel.
-----
To these may be added the name of an illustrious female; Elizabeth,
eldest daughter of Frederick V. Count Palatine of the Rhine and King of
Bohemia, by the only daughter of James I. This Princess (who was an aunt
of King George I.) cultivated a fine genius for the several branches of
natural philosophy, and was well versed in mathematical science.
Although this excellent woman was a Protestant, she was Abbess of
Herworden in Westphalia, where she died in 1680, at the age of sixty-two
years.
Mr. Lalande, in the prefatory department of his great work on
_Astronomy_, after noticing the Abbé Pluche’s book, entitled _Spectacle
de la Nature_, says: “The freshness of the shade, the stillness of
night, the soft beams of twilight, the luminaries that bespangle the
heavens, the various appearances of the moon, all form in the hands of
Pluche a fit subject for fine descriptive colouring: it takes in view
all the wants of man, regards the attention of the Supreme Being to
those wants, and recognizes the glory of the Creator. His book is a
treatise on final causes, as well as a philosophical work; and there are
a great many young persons to whom the reading of it would afford
satisfaction and pleasure.” Observing that he himself had no object in
view, in his own work, but merely to treat of Astronomy, Lalande
recommends to his readers, _Nature Displayed_, Derham’s
_Astro-Theology_, and the Dialogues of Fontenelle on _The Plurality of
Worlds_. Such works as these, with some elementary books on astronomy
and those branches of science most intimately connected with that
science, would be very proper for the study of that respectable class of
females, whose minds are too elevated and correct to derive any
gratification from the trifling productions of most of the modern
novellists and romance-writers; but who, at the same time, might not be
desirous of engaging in the more abstruse and laborious researches,
which demand the attention of profound practical astronomers.[44] The
grand, the delightful views of nature, which studies of this sort would
present to the vivid imagination, the delicate sensibility, and the good
dispositions of a woman of genius and refinement, would not only improve
her understanding and sanction the best feelings of her heart, but they
would furnish her mind with an inexhaustible fund of animating
reflections and rational enjoyments: in every respect, indeed, they
would contribute to her happiness.
-----
Footnote 44:
That the mind of the female sex is capable of compassing great and
extraordinary attainments, even in the most arduous branches of
science, is attested by many instances; and it cannot be doubted that
these would be more numerous, were women oftener attentive to
philosophical pursuits. Those who have been just named serve to shew,
that astronomy has been cultivated with success, by them. And Dr. Reid
tells us (in his _Essays on the intellectual and active Powers of
Man_,) that both the celebrated Christiana, Queen of Sweden, and the
Princess Elizabeth, daughter of Frederick, King of Bohemia, and aunt
of George I., were adepts in the philosophy of Descartes. The latter
of these princesses, though very young when Descartes wrote his
_Principia_, was declared by that philosopher to be the only person he
knew, who perfectly understood not only all his philosophical
writings, but the most abstruse of his mathematical works.
-----
Let not, then, the beauties of astronomical science, and the captivating
studies of natural philosophy in general, be exclusively enjoyed by men;
but let the amiable, the intelligent, and the improved part of the
female sex, be invited to a participation, with them, in these
intellectual pleasures.[45]
-----
Footnote 45:
The writer is happy in having it in his power to cite, in support of
his own opinion, that of an amiable and conspicuous female, in favour
of ladies making themselves acquainted with, at least, the rudiments
of astronomical science.
The Countess of Carlisle, a woman whose literary attainments, as well
as virtues and accomplishments, do honour to her sex and station, in
her Letters, under the signature of _Cornelia_, thus recommends an
attention to the study of astronomy, to the young ladies to whom her
letters are addressed. “Attain a competent knowledge of the globe on
which you live, that your apprehension of Infinite Wisdom may be
enlarged; which it will be in a much higher degree, if you take care
to acquire a general idea of the structure of the universe. It is not
expected you should become adepts in astronomy; but a knowledge of its
leading principles you may, and ought to obtain.”—Her ladyship then
refers her young female correspondents to the _Plurality of Worlds_ of
Fontenelle, in order that they might acquire a knowledge of the
planetary orbs; pleasantly recommending this author as a proper
person, in the capacity of “a gentleman usher,” to “introduce” them to
an “acquaintance” with “that brilliant assembly.”
_Lady Carlisle’s Letters_, lett. 8th.
-----
Here, perhaps, might be rested the evidence of the all-important
usefulness of that branch of knowledge, in which our American
Philosopher was pre-eminently distinguished.
But, inasmuch as astronomy forms a part of mathematical science, more
especially of those branches of it, which, under the denomination of
mixed and practical mathematics, are intimately and inseparably
interwoven, every where, with physical considerations, the reader will,
it is presumed, be gratified by a perusal of the following admirable
description of the Uses of Mathematics, extracted from the great Dr.
Barrow’s _Prefatory Oration_,[46] upon his admission into the
Professorship, at Cambridge. Indeed, in writing the Life of a man so
eminently skilled as Dr. Rittenhouse was, in the several departments or
various branches of natural philosophy, it seems proper and useful to
exhibit to the reader such views as have been furnished by men of
renowned erudition, of the nature and importance of that complicated,
that widely-extended science, in the cultivation of which our
philosopher held so exalted a rank.
-----
Footnote 46:
Translated from the Latin.
-----
Dr. Barrow[47] thus eulogizes the Mathematics—a science “which depends
upon principles clear to the mind, and agreeable to experience; which
draws certain conclusions, instructs by profitable rules, unfolds
pleasant questions, and produces wonderful effects: which is the
fruitful parent of—I had almost said—all arts, the unshaken foundation
of sciences, and the plentiful fountain of advantage to human affairs:
In which last respect we may be said to receive from mathematics the
principal delights of life, securities of health, increase of fortune
and conveniences of labour: That we dwell elegantly and commodiously,
build decent houses for ourselves, erect stately temples to God, and
leave wonderful monuments to posterity: That we are protected by those
rampires from the incursions of an enemy, rightly use arms, artfully
manage war, and skilfully range an army: That we have safe traffic
through the deceitful billows, pass in a direct road through the
trackless ways of the sea, and arrive at the designed ports by the
uncertain impulse of the winds: That we rightly cast up our accounts, do
business expeditiously, dispose, tabulate, and calculate scattered ranks
of numbers, and easily compute them, though expressive of huge heaps of
sand, nay immense hills of atoms: That we make pacific separations of
the bounds of lands, examine the momentums of weights in an equal
balance, and are enabled to distribute to every one his own by a just
measure: That, with a light touch, we thrust forward bodies, which way
we will, and step a huge resistance with a very small force: That we
accurately delineate the face of this earthly orb, and subject the
economy of the universe to our sight: That we aptly digest the flowing
series of time; distinguish what is acted, by due intervals; rightly
account and discern the various returns of the seasons; the stated
periods of the years and months, the alternate increasements of days and
nights, the doubtful limits of light and shadow, and the exact
difference of hours and minutes: That we derive the solar virtue of the
sun’s rays to our uses, infinitely extend the sphere of light, enlarge
the near appearances of objects, bring remote objects near, discover
hidden things, trace nature out of her concealments, and unfold her dark
mysteries: That we delight our eyes with beautiful images, cunningly
imitate the devices and portray the works of nature; imitate, did I say?
nay excel; while we form to ourselves things not in being, exhibit
things absent, and represent things past: That we recreate our minds,
and delight our ears, with melodious sounds; attemperate the inconstant
undulations of the air to musical tones; add a pleasant voice to a
sapless log; and draw a sweet eloquence from a rigid metal; celebrate
our Maker with an harmonious praise, and not unaptly imitate the blessed
choirs of heaven: That we approach and examine the inaccessible seats of
the clouds, distant tracts of land, unfrequented paths of the sea; lofty
tops of mountains, low bottoms of vallies, and deep gulphs of the ocean:
That we scale the ethereal towers; freely range through the celestial
fields; measure the magnitudes and determine the interstices of the
stars; prescribe inviolable laws to the heavens themselves, and contain
the wandering circuit of the stars within strict bounds: Lastly, that we
comprehend the huge fabric of the universe; admire and contemplate the
wonderful beauty of the divine workmanship, and so learn the incredible
force and sagacity of our own minds by certain experiments, as to
acknowledge the blessings of heaven with a pious affection.”
-----
Footnote 47:
This very eminent mathematician, as well as learned and pious divine,
died in the year 1677, aged only forty-seven years. See the life of
this extraordinary man, written in 1683, by the learned Abraham Hill;
prefixed to the first volume of the doctor’s theological works; a
fifth edition of which, in three folio volumes, was published by
archbishop Tillotson, in 1741. He also wrote and published many
geometrical and mathematical works, all in Latin.
“The name of Dr. Barrow,” says Mr. Granger, one of his biographers,
“will ever be illustrious, for a strength of mind and a compass of
knowledge that did honour to his country. He was unrivalled in
mathematical learning, and especially in the sublime geometry, in
which he was excelled only by one man; and that man was his pupil, the
great Sir Isaac Newton. The same genius that seemed to be born only to
bring hidden things to light, to rise to the heights or descend to the
depths of science, would sometimes amuse itself in the flowery paths
of poetry, and he composed verses both in Greek and Latin.”
This “prodigy of learning,” as he is called by Mr. Granger, was
interred in Westminster Abbey, where a monument, adorned with his
bust, is erected to his memory.
-----
The honours that have been rendered to celebrated men in almost every
age of the world, and by all nations concerning which we have any
historical memorials, are noticed by numberless writers, both ancient
and modern. The cultivation of astronomical science had, doubtless, its
origin in the remotest ages of antiquity,[48] through the Chaldeans,[49]
the Egyptians, the Phœnicians and Greeks, the Arabs, and the Chinese.
But the Indians of the western hemisphere appear to have had little
knowledge of astronomy, at the time of Columbus’s discovery, yet they
were not inattentive to its objects: for Acosta tells us, that the
Peruvians observed the equinoxes, by means of columns erected before the
temple of the sun at Cusco, and by a circle traced around it. Condamine
likewise relates, that the Indians on the river of the Amazons gave to
the Hyades, as we do, the name of the Bull’s-head; and Father Lasitau
says, that the Iroquois called the same stars the Bear, to which we give
that name; and designated the Polar star by the appellation of the
immoveable star. Captain Cook informs us, that the inhabitants of Taiti,
in like manner, distinguish the different stars; and know in what part
of the heavens they will appear, for each month in the year; their year
consisting of thirteen lunar months, each being twenty-nine days.
-----
Footnote 48:
Flavius Josephus informs us, (in his _Jewish Antiquities_, b. i. chap.
7. 8.) that the sons of Seth employed themselves in astronomical
contemplations. According to the same historian, Abraham inferred the
unity and power of God, from the orderly course of things both at sea
and land, in their times and seasons, and from his observations upon
the motions and influences of the sun, moon and stars. He further
relates, that this patriarch delivered lectures on geometry and
arithmetic to the Egyptians, of which they understood nothing, until
Abraham introduced those sciences from Chaldea into Egypt, from whence
they passed into Greece: and, according to Eupolemus and Artapan, he
instructed the Phœnicians, as well as the Egyptians, in astronomy.
Footnote 49:
We are informed by some ancient writers, that when Babylon was taken,
Calisthenes, one of Aristotle’s scholars, carried from thence, by the
desire of his master, celestial observations made by the Chaldeans,
nearly two thousand years old; which carried them back to about the
time of the dispersion of mankind by the confusion of tongues: and
those observations are supposed to have been made in the famous temple
of Belus, at Babylon. But these accounts are not to be depended on:
because Hipparchus and Ptolemy could find no traces of any
observations made at Babylon before the time of Nabonassar, who began
his reign 747 years before the birth of Christ; and various writers,
among the ancients, agree in referring the earliest Babylonian
observations to about the same period. In all probability, the
Chaldean observations were then little more than matters of curiosity;
for, even in the three or four centuries immediately preceding the
Christian era, the celestial observations which were made by the
Greeks were, for the most part, far from being of any importance, in
relation to astronomical science.
Indeed, the knowledge of astronomy at much later periods than those in
which the most celebrated philosophers of Greece flourished, must have
been very limited and erroneous, on account of the defectiveness of
their instruments. And, added to the great disadvantages arising from
this cause, the ancients laboured under the want of a knowledge of the
telescope and the clock; and also maintained a false notion of the
system of the world; which was almost universally adhered to, until
the revival and improvement of the Pythagorean system by Copernicus,
who died in 1543. Within the last two hundred years, but,
particularly, since the laws of nature have been made manifest by the
labours and discoveries of the immortal NEWTON, the science of
astronomy has made astonishing advances towards perfection.
-----
Astronomy has been patronised by many great princes and sovereign
states. Lalande observes, that, about the year 1230, the Emperor
Frederick II.[50] prepared the way for the renewal of the sciences among
the moderns, and professed himself to be their protector. His reign,
according to the great French astronomer just mentioned, forms the first
epocha of the revival of astronomy in Europe.
-----
Footnote 50:
This sovereign re-established the university of Naples, founded that
of Vienna in Austria, in the year 1237, and imparted new vigour to the
schools of Bologna and Salerno. He caused many ancient works in
medicine and philosophy to be translated from the Arabian tongue;
particularly, the _Almagest_ of Ptolemy.
Cotemporary with the Emperor Frederick II. was Alphonso X. King of
Castile, surnamed _the Wise_. This prince was the first who manifested
a desire of correcting the _Tables of Ptolemy_. In the year 1240, even
during the life of his father, he drew to Toledo the most experienced
astronomers of his time, Christians, Moors, or Jews; by whose labours
he at length obtained the _Alphonsine Tables_, in 1252 (the first year
of his reign:) which were first printed at Venice, in 1483. He died in
the year 1284.
-----
Coeval with that sovereign, was Johannes de Sacro-Bosco,[51] a famous
English ecclesiastic, who was the first astronomical writer that
acquired celebrity in the thirteenth century. Very nearly about the same
time, appeared also that prodigy of genius and learning, Friar
Bacon:[52] and from that period, down to our own day, there has been a
succession of illustrious philosophers: whose names have justly been
renowned, for the benefits they have conferred on mankind; names which
reflect honour on the countries to which they respectively belong. Many
of those benefactors of the world were honoured with marks of high
distinction, by their sovereigns and cotemporaries; and their fame will
descend to the latest posterity.
-----
Footnote 51:
His name was _John Holywood_; deduced, according to a practice
prevalent in his time, from the place of his nativity, which was
Halifax, a town in the west-riding of Yorkshire, in England, where he
was born in the year 1204. It was formerly named _Holy-wood_; and was,
probably, so called in _Sacro-Bosco’s_ day: but the more ancient name
of that place was Horton, or _Hair_-town; and Halifax signifies
_Holy-hair_.—This great man was the inventor of the sphere; and wrote
a work, entitled _De Sphærâ_, which was very celebrated. He died at
Paris, in 1256.
Footnote 52:
He died in 1294, at the age of eighty years.
-----
In recording these Memoirs of the Life of an American Philosopher, whose
name adds dignity to the country that gave him birth, it is the design
of the author to represent him as he truly was; and in doing so, he
feels a conscious satisfaction, that his pen is employed in delineating
the character of a man, who was rendered singularly eminent by his
genius, his virtues and his public services. Deeply impressed with the
magnitude and importance, as well as delicacy of the subject, the writer
has not undertaken the task without some hesitation. He is sensible of
the difficulties attending it, and conscious of his inability to do
justice to its merits. Arduous, however, as the undertaking is, and
since no abler pen has hitherto attempted any thing more, on this
subject, than to eulogize[53] some of the prominent virtues and talents
of our philosopher, his present biographer will endeavour, by the
fidelity with which he shall portray the character of that truly
estimable man, to atone for the imperfections of the work in other
respects. Possessing, as he does, some peculiar advantages, in relation
to the materials necessary for this undertaking, he flatters himself it
will be found, that he has been enabled thereby to exhibit to his
countrymen, and the world generally, a portrait, which, in its more
important features, may prove deserving of some share of public regard.
-----
Footnote 53:
Dr. RUSH’S _Eulogium_, “intended to perpetuate the memory of DAVID
RITTENHOUSE,” &c. was delivered before the American Philosophical
Society in Philadelphia, (a great many public characters, and a
numerous concourse of private citizens, also attending,) on the 17th
of December 1796. It was pronounced in pursuance of an appointment
made by the society, in these words, viz:
“At a meeting convened by special order, on the 1st of July, 1796, the
following motion was made, and unanimously adopted; viz. That this
Society, deeply affected by the death of their late worthy President,
do resolve, That an EULOGIUM, commemorative of his distinguished
talents and services, be publicly pronounced before the Society, by
one of its members.”—Dr. Rush’s appointment was made at the next
meeting of the society.
The following resolutions passed by them, after the delivery of the
oration, will evince the high sense they entertained of the merit of
this performance; viz.
“_Philosophical Hall, Dec. 17, 1796.—In Meeting of the American
Philosophical Society_,
“_Resolved_, unanimously, That the thanks of this society be presented
to Dr. Benjamin Rush, for the eloquent, learned, comprehensive, and
just Eulogium, which he has this day pronounced, upon the character of
our late respected President, Dr. David Rittenhouse.
“_Resolved_, unanimously, That Dr. Rush be requested to furnish the
society with a copy of the Eulogium, to be published under their
direction.
“An extract from the minutes:—SAMUEL MAGAW, ROBERT PATTERSON, W.
BARTON, JOHN BLEAKLEY, Secretaries.”
It may not be thought superfluous, to add, that Dr. Rush well knew Mr.
Rittenhouse. A personal friendship of an early date subsisted between
them: it probably originated when the latter established his residence
in Philadelphia, about six and twenty years before his death. In the
summer of 1772, Mr. Rittenhouse (in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Barton)
expressed his friendly estimation of the doctor in these few
words—“The esteem I have for Dr. Rush is such, that his friendship for
Mr. —— would, alone, give me a very good opinion of that gentleman.”
-----
Sir William Forbes, in the introduction to his interesting Account of
the Life and Writings of the late Dr. Beattie, reminds his readers, that
“Mr. Mason prefaces his excellent and entertaining Memoirs of the Life
and Writings of Gray, with an observation more remarkable for its truth
than novelty;” that “the Lives of men of letters seldom abound with
incidents.”—“A reader of sense and taste, therefore,” continues Mr.
Mason, “never expects to find, in the Memoirs of a Philosopher or Poet,
the same species of entertainment or information, which he would receive
from those of a Statesman or General. He expects, however, to be
informed or entertained. Nor will he be disappointed, did the writer
take care to dwell principally on such topics as characterize the man,
and distinguish that peculiar part which he acted in the varied drama of
society.”
Yet these observations of Mr. Gray’s biographer, though pretty generally
correct, admit of some qualification and many exceptions, depending on a
variety of circumstances. It is true, that a mere narrative of the life
of a “philosopher,” as well as of a “poet,” considered only as such, and
abstractedly, must be expected to be devoid of much “incident” that can
interest the generality of readers. But, both philosophers and poets
have, in some instances, been also statesmen; sometimes, even generals:
both have, not unfrequently, distinguished themselves as patriots, and
benefactors of mankind.
In writing the life of our philosopher, the plan of a dry recital of
only such circumstances and occurrences as have an immediate relation to
the individual, has not been pursued. Biographical Memoirs, it is
conceived, do not confine a writer to limits so narrow, but permit him
to take a much greater latitude. It is even allowable, in works of this
kind, to introduce historical facts, memorable events, proceedings of
public bodies, notices of eminent men, evidences of the progress and
state of literature, science and the arts, and the actual condition of
civil society, in the scene that is contemplated; together with
occasional reflections on those and similar subjects. Some of these
objects may not seem, perhaps, to be necessarily or very intimately
connected with the principal design, the life of the person treated of:
but such of them as should, at first view, appear to have the most
remote relation to that object, may be afterwards discovered to be both
useful and interesting in a discussion of this nature; while others
serve to elucidate the main scope of the work. A latitude of this
description, in the compilation of memoirs, seems to be quite consistent
with the genius and spirit of works of that nature; and the modern
practice of memoir-writers has been conformable to this view of the
subject.[54]
-----
Footnote 54:
“Biography, or the writing of Lives,” says Dr. Hugh Blair, “is a very
useful kind of composition; less formal and stately than history; but
to the bulk of readers, perhaps, no less instructive; as it affords
them the opportunity of seeing the characters and tempers, the virtues
and failings of eminent men, fully displayed; and admits them into a
more thorough and intimate acquaintance with such persons, than
history generally allows. For, a writer of lives may descend, with
propriety, to minute circumstances and familiar incidents. It is
expected of him, that he is to give the private, as well as public
life, of the person whose actions he records; nay, it is from private
life, from familiar, domestic, and seemingly trivial occurrences, we
often receive most light into the real character.”—_Lectures on
Rhetoric and Belles Lettres_, sect. 36. In addition to so respectable
an opinion as that of Professor Blair, respecting the utility and
characteristic features of biographical works, the writer of these
memoirs hopes he will be excused for giving the sentiments on the same
subject, contained in the following extracts from Dr. Maty’s _Memoirs
of the Life of Lord Chesterfield_, “tending to illustrate the civil,
literary, and political history of his own time.”
“Besides the great utility which general history derives from private
authorities, other advantages no less important,” says this learned
and ingenious biographer, “may be obtained from them. It is from
observing individuals, that we may be enabled to draw the outlines of
that extraordinary, complicated being, man. The characteristics of any
country or age must be deduced from the separate characters of
persons, who, however distinguishable in many respects, still preserve
a family-likeness. From the life of almost any one individual, but
chiefly from the lives of such eminent men as seemed destined to
enlighten or to adorn society, instructions may be drawn, suitable to
every capacity, rank, age or station. Young men, aspiring to honours,
cannot be too assiduous in tracing the means by which they were
obtained: by observing with what difficulty they were preserved, they
will be apprized of their real value, estimate the risks of the
purchase, and discover frequent disappointment in the possession.”
“It is from the number and variety of private memoirs, and the
collision of opposite testimonies, that the judicious reader is
enabled to strike out light, and find his way through that darkness
and confusion in which he is at first involved.”
“Who does not wish that Cæsar had lived to finish his Commentaries;
and that Pompey’s sons, instead of fighting their father’s cause, had
employed themselves in writing his life?—What a valuable legacy would
Cicero have left us, if, instead of his philosophical works, he had
written the memoirs of his own times! Or how much would Tyro, to whom
posterity is so much indebted for the preservation of his master’s
letters, have encreased that obligation, if, from his own knowledge,
he had connected and explained them! The life of Agricola, by his
son-in-law Tacitus, is undoubtedly one of the most precious monuments
of antiquity.”
-----
The writer of the present work has therefore ventured, with all due
deference to the public opinion, to pursue the course here described.
And in doing this, he presumes that the comprehensive range he has
allowed himself has enabled him to render his memoirs, even of a
“philosopher,” not altogether barren of incidents, nor destitute, he
trusts, either of pleasing information or useful instruction.
========================================
NOTE.—The reader is requested to substitute (with his _pen_) the word
_Earth_, in the place of “_Sun_,” in the sixth line of the note numbered
(18), page xxxii. of the foregoing Introduction: the error in the print
is an essential one; and passed unobserved, until it was too late to
correct it in the press. At the same time the reader will be pleased to
insert the word _security_, in the place of “_scarcity_,” in the ninth
line from the top of page xlii.
MEMOIRS
OF THE
LIFE OF DAVID RITTENHOUSE;
ANTERIOR TO
HIS SETTLEMENT IN PHILADELPHIA.
========================================
The paternal ancestors of DAVID RITTENHOUSE were early and long seated
at Arnheim, a fortified city on the Rhine, and capital of the district
of Velewe or Veluive, sometimes called the Velau, in the Batavian
province of Guelderland;[55] where, it is said, they conducted
manufactories of paper,[56] during the course of some generations. The
orthography of the name was formerly Rittinghuysen, as the writer of
these memoirs was informed by an European member of this family.[57] But
it is net improbable, that, in more strict conformity to the idiom of
its Saxo-Germanic original, the name was spelt Ritterhuysen[58]—or,
perhaps, Ritterhausen; which signifies, in our language, _Knights’
Houses_: a conjecture that seems to be somewhat corroborated by the
chivalrous emblems alluding to this name, belonging to the family, and
which have been already noticed.
-----
Footnote 55:
The duchy of Guelderland formerly belonged to the Spanish monarchy;
but by the peace of Utrecht, in 1713, part of it was ceded to Austria,
part to Prussia, and guaranteed to them by the treaty of Baden, in
1714: that part which became subject to Prussia was, in exchange for
the principality of Orange, ceded to France. By the barrier-treaty, in
1715, the states general of the United Provinces likewise obtained a
part of it. But the Upper and Lower Guelderland have no connexion with
each other: Lower Guelderland is (or was, until very lately) one of
the Seven United Provinces: it is the largest of them all, and the
first in rank. Arnheim, which is the capital of the whole province, is
a large, populous, and handsome town: it was formerly the residence of
the dukes of Guelderland, and the states of the province held their
meetings there.
Footnote 56:
The writer of these memoirs having been in Holland in the summer of
the year 1778, adverted, while in Amsterdam, to the circumstance of
the Rittenhouses, of Pennsylvania, having come into America from some
part of the United Provinces; and his curiosity being excited, by his
consanguineous connexion with that family, to obtain some information
concerning them, the following was the result of his enquiries. He
found a Mr. _Adrian Rittinghuysen_, (for so he himself wrote his
name,) residing in that city. This venerable man, who was then
eighty-five years of age, appeared to be at least independent in his
condition; and had, probably, retired from business, the part of the
city in which he resided (the Egelantier’s Gracht, or Canal,) not
exhibiting the appearance of a street of trade.
The information derived from this respectable old man, was, that his
forefathers had long been established at Arnheim; that his father,
Nicholas, was a paper-manufacturer in that city, as others of the
family had been; and that his father’s brother, William, went with his
family to North America, where he some time afterward, as he had
understood, established the paper-mills near Germantown. He further
stated, that he had only one child, a daughter, who was married, and
resided at the Hague; and that he was, himself, as he believed, the
last of his family-name, remaining in the United Provinces.
Although plain in his dress and manners, and in the general appearance
of his household, this person seemed to be pleased in shewing the
writer a family-seal, on which was engraved a coat of arms. The
armorial device represented a castellated house, or chateau; on the
left side of which was a horse, standing on his hind feet and rearing
up, with his fore feet resting against the wall of the house: and this
house very much resembled the chateau in the armorial bearing of the
Spanish family “_de Fuentes, señores del Castillio_,” as represented
in Dubuisson’s French Collection of Arms: The seal having been much
worn, the lines, &c. describing the several tinctures of the bearing,
could not be discerned; and, therefore, it cannot be properly
blazoned. At the same time, the old gentleman did not omit to mention,
that his mother was a _De Ruyter_; and that her arms were, a mounted
chevalier armed cap-à-piè.
These facts, relative to the origin of the American Rittenhouses, did
not appear to the writer to be unworthy of notice. They are correctly
stated, being taken from a memorandum made by him, immediately after
his interview with Adrian Rittinghuysen.
The introduction of this slight sketch of the occupation and condition
of some of the European ancestors of our Philosopher, into his Life,
may be the more readily excused, since the great Newton himself was
not inattentive to such objects. There is, indeed, implanted by nature
in the human mind, a strong desire to become acquainted with the
family-history of our forefathers. Hence, Sir Isaac Newton left, in
his own hand-writing, a genealogical account or pedigree of his
family; with directions, subjoined thereto, that the registers of
certain parishes should be searched, from the beginning to the year
1650; and he adds—“Let the extracts be taken, by copying out of the
registers whatever may be met with, about the family of the Newtons,
in words at length, without omitting any of the words.” This
investigation and enquiry of Sir Isaac, was made in the sixty-third
year of his age; and he himself caused the result to be entered in the
books of the herald’s office.
Such, also, was the curiosity of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. While the
Doctor was in England, he undertook a journey to Eaton, in
Northamptonshire, (a village situated between Wellingborough and
Northampton,) the residence of his forefathers, for the purpose of
obtaining information, as he tells us himself, concerning his
family.—“To be acquainted with the particulars of my parentage and
life, many of which are unknown to you,” (said Dr. Franklin in his
_Life_, which he addressed to his son,) “I flatter myself, will afford
the same pleasure to you as to me—I shall, relate them upon paper.”
Footnote 57:
See the preceding note.
Footnote 58:
Conradus Rittershusius was a learned civilian of Germany. He was born
at Brunswick in the year 1560, and died at Altorf in Switzerland, in
1613. Two of his sons, George and Nicholas, also distinguished
themselves in the republic of letters. The writer of the present
memoirs is too little acquainted with the genealogies of either German
or Dutch families, to pretend to claim any consanguinity between this
C. Rittershuysen (or, as latinized, Rittershusius,) and our
Rittenhouses. But the name appears to have been, originally, the same;
and the ancestors of both, it may be presumed, were of the same
country: In giving a latin termination to the name, the _y_ is
omitted, not being a Roman letter.
-----
It has been asserted, that the first of the Rittenhouses who migrated to
America, was named William; and that he went from Guelderland to the
(now) state of New-York, while it was yet a Dutch colony. This William
was also said to have left at Arnheim a brother, Nicholas, who continued
to carry on the paper-making business in that city.[59] But, in a
genealogical account of the family in the possession of the Memorialist,
Garrett (or Gerard) and Nicholas Rittenhouse are stated to have arrived
at New-York, from Holland, so late as the year 1690: it likewise states,
that Nicholas there married Wilhelmina Dewees, a sister of William
Dewees, who came thither about the same time; and that, soon afterwards,
they all removed to the neighbourhood of Germantown in Pennsylvania;
where Nicholas established the first paper-mill ever erected in
America.[60] It is believed, however, that Garrett and Nicholas
Rittenhouse were sons of William; who is supposed to have arrived in
some part of the original territories of New-York, prior to the year
1674;[61] that the Nicholas left in Arnheim, was his brother; and that
his sons Garrett and Nicholas, who are stated to have been the first of
the family that settled in New-York, in 1690 (from whence they removed,
“soon afterwards,” into Pennsylvania,) did, in fact, transfer themselves
into this latter province, in that year.—Garrett left children; some of
whose descendants are resident in Pennsylvania, and others in
New-Jersey.
-----
Footnote 59:
The Dutch were early and long distinguished for the superior quality
of the paper manufactured in their country. It excelled, in its
whiteness and the closeness of its texture, as well as its goodness in
other respects, the paper made elsewhere; and it was an article of
great importance to the republic, both for the internal consumption
and for exportation, until the Hollanders were rivalled in this
manufacture by the perfection to which it was afterwards brought in
other parts of Europe.
Paper, made from linen rags (for that made from cotton, silk, and some
other substances, was of a much elder date,) is said to have been
originally introduced into Germany from Valencia and Catalonia, in
Spain, as early as the year 1312, and to have appeared in England
eight or ten years afterwards. But the first paper-mill in Great
Britain was erected at Dartford in Kent, by Mr. Speelman, a German,
jeweller to queen Elizabeth, in the year 1558: and it was not until
more than a century after, that any other paper than of an inferior
quality was manufactured in England. Little besides brown paper was
made there, prior to the revolution in 1688: yet, soon after that
period, the English were enabled to supply themselves with much the
greater part of the various kinds of paper used in their country, from
their own mills; and the perfection to which the manufacture of this
important article has since been carried, not only in England, but in
France, Italy and Germany, has greatly diminished the consumption of
Dutch paper.
It is a fact worthy of notice, that the establishment of paper-mills
in Pennsylvania, by the Rittenhouses, was nearly co-eval with the
general introduction of the manufactory of white paper in the mother
country. This appears from the following circumstance:—There is now
before the writer of these memoirs a paper in the hand-writing of the
celebrated William Penn, and subscribed with his name, certifying that
“William Rittinghousen and Claus” (Nicholas) “his son,” then “part
owners of the paper-mill near Germantown,” had recently sustained a
very great loss by a violent and sudden flood, which carried away the
said mill, with a considerable quantity of paper, materials and tools,
with other things therein, whereby they were reduced to great
distress; and, therefore, recommending to such persons as should be
disposed to lend them aid, to give the sufferers “relief and
encouragement, in their needful and commendable employment,” as they
were “desirous to set up the paper-mill again.”—This certificate is
without date: but Mr. Penn was twice in Pennsylvania. He first arrived
in the year 1682, and returned to England in 1684; his second arrival
was in 1699, and he finally left the province in 1701. It was probably
during the latter period of his residence in his proprietary-dominion,
though, perhaps, in the first, that the Germantown paper-mills were
destroyed.
The William Rittinghousen (so Mr. Penn writes the name) here
mentioned, is supposed to be the same named in the text, and to have
been the great-grandfather of our astronomer. In Mr. Penn’s
certificate he is called an old man, and is stated to have then been
“decrepid.”
In order to shew the present importance of that article, as a
manufacture, in the United States, and which was first fabricated in
this country by the Rittenhouses, the reader is presented with the
following view of the quantity of paper, of various descriptions,
annually made at one hundred and eighty-five paper-mills, within the
United States; taken from the latest information furnished on this
subject.
Tons. Reams. Value.
For Newspapers,[59a] 500 50,000 $150,000
Books, 630 70,000 245,000
Writing, 650 111,000 333,000
Wrapping, 800 100,000 83,000
—-— —-—-— —-—-—
2580 331,000 811,000
Footnote 59a:
The number of Newspapers, printed annually in the United States, is
estimated at twenty-two and an half millions.
Footnote 60:
Mr. Benjamin Rittenhouse, a younger brother of David, speaking of his
paternal ancestors, in a letter addressed to the writer of these
memoirs, says: “The family originally settled in the state of
New-York, while a Dutch colony; and were, undoubtedly, the first
paper-makers in America.” This fact was also communicated to the
writer, by Dr. Franklin, some years before.
Footnote 61:
At the peace of Breda, in 1667, the Dutch colony of New Netherlands
was confirmed to the English, to whom it had been ceded in 1664. But
the Dutch having reduced the country in the years 1672 and 1673, it
was finally restored to the English by the peace of Westminster, on
the 9th of February, 1674. The Rittenhouses are supposed to have
seated themselves, before this latter period, in that part of the
colony afterwards called East-Jersey. Some of the name reside in the
state of New-Jersey, at this day; but it is not known that any of them
are inhabitants of the state of New-York. Those in New-Jersey, with
most of those of the name in Pennsylvania, are descendants of
Nicholas.
-----
Nicholas Rittenhouse, the grandfather of our Philosopher, died about the
year 1730; leaving three sons, William, Henry, and Matthias; and four
daughters, Psyche, Mary, Catharine, and Susanna. Of these daughters,
Psyche intermarried with John Gorgas, from whom are descended the
Gorgas’s of Cresham and Cocolico; Mary, with John Johnson, the father of
Casper, John, Nicholas, William, and Benjamin Johnson, some of whom are
now (or were lately) living, in the neighbourhood of Germantown;
Catharine, with Jacob Engle, in the same vicinity; and Susanna, with
Henry Heiley of Goshehoppen.
William Rittenhouse, the eldest brother of our Philosopher’s father,
died at the paper-mills, near Germantown. He left several children, one
of whom did lately, and perhaps yet does, carry on those works.—Henry
and Matthias removed to the townships of Worcester and Norriton, about
the year 1732 or 1733; where both lived to be upwards of seventy years
of age.
The old American stock of the Rittenhouses were Anabaptists,[62] and
persons of very considerable note in that religious society. Probably,
therefore, they were induced to establish their residence in
Pennsylvania, towards the close of the seventeenth century, by the
tolerating principles held forth by William Penn,[63] in respect to
religious[64] concerns; the justness of the tenure by which he became
proprietor of the soil;[65] and the excellence of the political
regulations established by that great legislator, for the civil
government of his newly-acquired domains.
-----
Footnote 62:
The Rittenhouses who first settled in America, are supposed to have
leaned towards the religious tenets of (if they did not belong to)
that peaceable branch of the Anabaptists, denominated Mennonites.
Simon Menno, the founder of this sect, was one of the first reformers:
he was born at a village called Witmarsum, in the Batavian province of
Friesland, in 1505; the same year in which John Knox was born, and
four years before the birth of Calvin.
Menno had been a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, and some have
endeavoured to stigmatize him, as one who was “a notorious
profligate.” This, however, may be attributed to his having left the
communion of the church of which he was originally a member: for, he
is represented to have been “a man of probity, of a meek and tractable
spirit, gentle in his manners, pliable and obsequious in his commerce
with persons of all ranks and characters, and extremely zealous in
promoting practical religion and virtue, which he recommended by his
example as well as by his precepts.” He was, moreover, a man of genius
and eloquence, and possessed a considerable share of learning. This
extraordinary man died in the duchy of Holstein, in the year 1561.
The fundamental principles of the followers of Menno are, in some
respects, similar to those of the people called Quakers: They use,
likewise, great plainness in their apparel, and adhere to some of the
practices of the primitive Christian church. But this peaceable sect
baptize adults, and celebrate the eucharist in a manner peculiar to
themselves.
Some of Menno’s disciples came into Pennsylvania from New-York, in the
year 1692. The principal congregation of this sect was established at
Germantown, soon after the Rittenhouses had settled themselves there;
and this may be considered as the mother of the sect, in America. The
Mennonites have since become a numerous body in Pennsylvania,
principally in the county of Lancaster; and this religious society
comprehends, among its members, many intelligent worthy men, and
valuable citizens.
Footnote 63:
In the Preface to a printed copy of the celebrated Speech delivered in
the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, on the 24th of May, 1764, by
the late John Dickinson, Esq. the Merits of the Founder of
Pennsylvania, as they were declared at various times, in the
proceedings of the Legislative Body of the colony, and in some other
public Documents, are thus summed up by the writer.
“WILLIAM PENN,
A Man of Principles truly humane;
An Advocate for
Religion and Liberty;
Possessing a noble Spirit,
That exerted itself
For the Good of Mankind;
was
The great and worthy Founder
of
PENNSYLVANIA.
To its Inhabitants, by Charter,
He granted and confirmed
Many singular Privileges and Immunities,
Civil and Religious,
Which he continually studied
To preserve and defend for them;
Nobly declaring,
That they had not followed him so far,
To lose a single tittle
Of the Great Charter,
To which all Englishmen were born.
For these Services,
Great have been the Acknowledgements
Deservedly paid to his Merit;
And his Memory
Is dear to his People,
Who have repeatedly confessed,
That,
Next to Divine Providence,
Their Happiness, Prosperity, and Increase
Are owing
To his wise Conduct and singular Goodness;
Which deserve ever to be remembered
With
Gratitude and Affection,
By
PENNSYLVANIANS.”
For the materials of which the foregoing Eulogy is composed, its
author[63a] has referred his readers to the Minutes of Assembly, for
the years 1719 and 1725, to those from the year 1730 to 1740, both
inclusive, excepting only 1736, 1737 and 1739; also, for 1745, 1755
and 1756; to other proceedings of the assembly, in the years 1730 and
1738; and to their Address to Governor John Penn, in 1764.
A very respectable Memorial of another nature, in honour of the justly
celebrated Penn, decorates the edifice of a noble public institution
in the capital of his former domain; an institution devoted to the
purposes of charity, humanity and benevolence. It is a finely executed
metallic statue, in bronze, of that great man; representing him in his
appropriate attire, and holding in his right hand _The Charter of
Privileges_.[63b] The statue stands on an elegant pedestal of marble,
in an handsome area on the south front of the Pennsylvania Hospital:
and the four sides of the pedestal contain these modest inscriptions;
viz.
“William Penn—Born, 1644—Died, 1718.”
(And underneath, the Family-Arms, with his Motto; viz.)
“Mercy—Justice.”
---
“Pennsylvania Granted by Charles II. to William Penn,
1681.”
---
“The Proprietary arrived in 1682; made a just and amicable arrangement
with the Natives, for the purchase of their Lands; and went back to
England in 1684.”
---
“Returned to Pennsylvania, 1699; and finally withdrew to his Paternal
Estate, 1701.”
The public in general, with the Pennsylvania Hospital more
particularly, are indebted for this Memorial of true Greatness, to the
munificence of a Grandson of the Founder of the extensive Dominion
that bears his name; John Penn, of Stoke-Poges in Buckinghamshire,
Esquire; by whom the statue was presented, in the year 1804.
Footnote 63a:
In the continuation of the _Life of Dr. Franklin_, (written by the
late Dr. Stuber, of Philadelphia,) it is said that the Preface to Mr.
Dickinson’s Speech was drawn up by the late learned Provost Smith, and
that Dr. Franklin wrote the Preface to Mr. Galloway’s, in reply.
Footnote 63b:
See Note 64
Footnote 64:
The Charter of Privileges, granted and solemnly confirmed to the
freemen of Pennsylvania and territories belonging to the province, by
the proprietary, on the 28th of October, 1701, was, after being
approved and agreed to by the legislative body of the province,
accepted by them the same day; in lieu of the Frame of Government
originally stipulated between Mr. Penn and the Planters, in the year
1683. The first article of this charter provided for a full enjoyment
of the Liberty of Conscience, by all persons who should acknowledge
“One Almighty God, the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the World.” It
also declared to be capable of holding any office or place, under the
government, all persons professing faith in “Jesus Christ, the Saviour
of the World,” and who should, when required, attest their allegiance,
&c.
Footnote 65:
Incorporated with that edition of the _Laws of Pennsylvania_, which
was published in the year 1810, “under the authority of the
legislature,” with Notes and References, by Charles Smith, Esq. is an
article that bears a respectful testimony to the justice and clemency
of the founder of that state: It is an important and very interesting
_Note_ to an act of assembly passed the 1st day of April, 1784,
(entitled, “An act for opening the Land-Office, for granting and
disposing of the unappropriated Lands within this State,”) containing
“a connected view of the land-titles of Pennsylvania from its first
settlement to the present time.” In this document the learned editor
speaks of the integrity and virtuous policy manifested by Penn, with
respect to his conduct towards the Indian natives of the country, to
which he had acquired the dominion under his sovereign, in these
terms.
“William Penn, although clothed with powers as full and comprehensive
as those possesed by the adventurers from Portugal and Spain, was
influenced by a purer morality and sounder policy. His religious
principles did not permit him to wrest the soil, by force, from the
people to whom God and nature gave it, nor to establish his title in
blood; but, under the shade of the lofty trees of the forest, his
right was fixed by treaties with the natives, and sanctified, as it
were, by incense smoking from the calumet of peace.”
The note from which this extract is made, (and which comprizes 156
large 8vo. pages, printed on a small type,) forms a valuable treatise,
historical as well as legal, of the territorial rights of the former
proprietaries, and of the land-titles deduced from them by the
citizens of Pennsylvania.
-----
Matthias, the youngest son of Nicholas Rittenhouse, by Wilhelmina Dewees
his wife, was born at the paper-mills belonging to his family, near
Germantown,[66] in the county of Philadelphia and about eight miles from
the capital of Pennsylvania, in the year 1703. Having abandoned the
occupation of a paper-maker, when about twenty-nine years of age, and
two years after his father’s death, he then commenced the business of a
farmer, on a piece of land he had purchased in the township of
Norriton,[67] about twenty miles from the city of Philadelphia; his
brother Henry establishing himself in the same manner, in the adjoining
township of Worcester. In October, 1727,—about three years prior to
Matthias’s removal from the vicinity of Germantown,—he had become a
married man. His wife was Elizabeth William (or Williams) who was born
in 1704, and was daughter of Evan William, a native of Wales. Her
father, a farmer, dying while she was a child, she was placed under the
charge of an elderly English (or, more probably, Welsh) gentleman, in
the neighbourhood, of the name of Richard Jones; a relation of her
family. That truly respectable woman possessed a cheerful temper, with a
mind uncommonly vigorous and comprehensive: but her education was much
neglected, as is too often the fate of orphan children. Yet, perhaps, no
censure ought justly to be imputable to Mr. Jones, in this case; because
there were very few schools of any kind, in country situations, at that
early day.[68]
-----
Footnote 66:
Germantown was settled in the year 1682. It was so called by its
founders, a small colony of Germans from the Palatinate, mostly from
the vicinity of the city of Worms, who are said to have been converted
while in their own country, to the principles of the people called
Quakers, by the preaching of William Ames, an Englishman. Germantown
is now a populous village, of considerable extent; and by reason of
its proximity to the capital, this place furnishes an agreeable
residence to many respectable families from thence. See also Note 62.
Footnote 67:
This township derives its name (which it gave also to Mr.
Rittenhouse’s patrimonial farm and his original observatory,) as does
likewise the neighbouring town of Norriston, the county-town of the
(now) county of Montgomery, from the respectable Pennsylvania family
of Norris; of which Isaac Norris, Esq. was eighteen times chosen
Speaker of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, during the term of
half a century from the time of his first election, in the year 1713.
Mr. Norris held many public offices in Pennsylvania with great
reputation and honour. He is represented as having been “an ornament
to his country;” and this gentleman, who died in the year 1735, then
held the Chief-Justiceship of the Province.
Footnote 68:
In the year 1683, Enoch Flower undertook to teach English in the town
of Philadelphia. Six years afterwards, originated the Friends’ Public
School in the same town, then in its infancy; and in 1697, this school
was incorporated, on the petition of Samuel Carpenter, Edward Shippen,
Anthony Morris, James Fox, David Lloyd, William Southby, and John
Jones, in behalf of themselves and others. In the year 1708, this
corporation was enlarged and perpetuated by a new charter, under the
name of “The Overseers of the Public School, founded in Philadelphia,
at the request, cost, and charges of the people called Quakers.” It
was further extended in the year 1711; when the three first named
gentlemen, together with Griffith Owen, Thomas Story, Richard Hill,
Isaac Norris, Samuel Preston, Jonathan Dickinson, Nathan Stanbury,
Thomas Masters, Nicholas Waln, Caleb Pusey, Rowland Ellis and James
Logan, were appointed Overseers.
As this was the earliest considerable school established in
Pennsylvania, as well as the first institution of the kind, in the
province, the names of its promoters deserve to be held in
remembrance, among the Patrons of learning and useful knowledge in
this country.
From this view of the origin of schools in the capital of
Pennsylvania, it will be perceived, that the means of acquiring even
the rudiments of literary instruction must have been difficult of
access in country places, for some considerable time after the periods
just mentioned. This is one of the most serious grievances to which
the settlers in new and unimproved countries are subjected.
-----
The extraordinary natural understanding of this person, so very nearly
related as she was to the subject of these memoirs, seemed to the writer
to merit particular notice; and the more especially, for a reason which
shall be hereafter mentioned.
By this wife, Matthias Rittenhouse had four sons and six daughters;[69]
three of whom died in their minority. The three eldest of the children
were born at the place of their father’s nativity; the others, at
Norriton. Of the former number was DAVID, the eldest son, the subject of
these memoirs.—He was born on the 8th day of April, 1732.[70]
-----
Footnote 69:
Margaret, who intermarried with Edward Morgan; Esther, with the Rev.
Thomas Barton; David, the subject of these Memoirs; Andrew, who died
in his minority; Anne, who intermarried with George Shoemaker;
Eleanor, who intermarried with Daniel Evans; Benjamin, yet living;
Jonathan, who died in his minority; and Mary and Elizabeth (twins,) of
whom the latter died in her minority, unmarried: Mary, who is living,
has been twice married, but without issue; her first husband was
Thomas Morgan. David had no sons; and two of his three brothers having
died young and unmarried, the only persons, descended from our
philosopher’s father, Matthias, who now bear the name of Rittenhouse,
are the surviving brother of David, namely, Benjamin, and his sons.
Benjamin has been twice married; first, to a daughter of General John
Bull; and, secondly, to a daughter of Colonel Francis Wade: By both
marriages he has male issue; and, as it is believed, two of the sons
by the first wife are married.
Footnote 70:
“There is,” says a late ingenious writer,[70a] “a strong propensity in
the human mind to trace up our ancestry to as high and as remote a
source as possible.” “This principle of our nature,” he observes,
“although liable to great perversion; and frequently the source of
well-founded ridicule, may, if rightly directed, become the parent of
great actions. The origin and progress of individuals, of families,
and of nations, constitute Biography and History, two of the most
interesting departments of human knowledge.”
The pride of ancestry is, indeed, “liable to great perversion,” and is
too frequently “the source of well-founded ridicule:” yet the
experience and the history of mankind, in every age and country, have
shewn, that it is connected with and derived from principles of our
nature, which are not only laudable in themselves, but such as, if
“rightly directed” and properly applied, become eminently useful to
society.
Footnote 70a:
See a “Discourse delivered before the New-York Historical Society, at
their anniversary meeting, December the 6th, 1811: By the Hon. De Witt
Clinton, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society.”
-----
This son was an infant, when his family removed to Norriton and engaged
in the business of farming; and his father appears, early, to have
designed him for this most useful and very respectable employment.
Accordingly, as soon as the boy arrived at a sufficient age to assist in
conducting the affairs of the farm, he was occupied as an husbandman.
This kind of occupation seems to have commenced at a very early period
of his life; for it is ascertained, that, about the fourteenth year of
his age, he was actually employed in ploughing his father’s fields.[71]
-----
Footnote 71:
It is not this occupation that, in itself, usually attaches to those
who follow it, the idea of clownishness: but it is the ignorance that,
unfortunately, too generally characterizes persons employed in it,
which, by an association of ideas, is apt to derogate from the
worthiness of the employment itself. If the profession of husbandry be
an honourable one, and every rational consideration renders it such,
then one of the most important operations in conducting the great
business of the agriculturist, cannot be destitute of dignity. To
follow the plough is not a servile labour: it is an employment worthy
of a freeman; and if the person, thus engaged, be a man of native
talents, aided by some improvement of mind, scarcely any occupation
can afford him greater scope for philosophic reflection.
While, therefore, the reader contemplates the celebrated Rittenhouse,
such as he was in his maturer years; and then takes a retrospective
view of the embryo-philosopher in the period of his youth, directing
the plough on his father’s freehold; let it be recollected, that the
sovereigns of a mighty empire, in the Eastern world, occasionally
guide this truly important machine with their own hands, in honour of
agriculture: let him recal to his mind, that, in the proudest days of
the Roman republic, consuls, dictators, senators, and generals, were
not unfrequently called forth from the actual occupancy of this
implement of husbandry, by the voice of their country; and, seizing
either the civil or the military helm of its government, with hands
indurated by the toils of the peaceful field, have by the wisdom of
their counsel, or by their valour, supported the tottering fabric of
the state and saved the commonwealth: let them remember, in fine,
that—
“In ancient times, the sacred plough employ’d
The kings and awful fathers of mankind;”[71a]
and that WASHINGTON, himself, the pride and boast of his age as well
as country, disdained not to engage himself, personally, in
agricultural pursuits.
Footnote 71a:
Thomson’s Spring.
-----
At that period of our future Philosopher’s life, early as it was, his
uncultivated mind, naturally teeming with the most prolific germs of yet
unexpanded science, began to unfold those buds of genius, which soon
after attained that wonderful luxuriance of growth by which the
usefulness and splendour of his talents became eminently conspicuous.
His brother Benjamin relates,[72] that, while David was thus employed at
the plough, from the age of fourteen years and for some time after, he
(this informant,) then a young boy, was frequently sent to call him to
his meals; at which times he repeatedly observed, that not only the
fences at the head of many of the furrows, but even his plough and its
handles, were covered over with chalked numerical figures, &c.[73]—Hence
it is evident, that the exuberance of a sublime native genius and of
almost unbounded intellectual powers, unaided by any artificial means of
excitement, were enabled, by dint of their own energy, to burst through
those restraints which the corporeal employments of his youth
necessarily imposed upon them.
-----
Footnote 72:
This gentleman was commissioned by Governor Mifflin, in the year 1791,
to be one of the associate judges of the court of common pleas, in and
for the county of Montgomery: but his tenure of this office was
afterwards vacated, by his removal to Philadelphia.
Footnote 73:
“Astronomy,” says Mr. B. Rittenhouse, in the letter before referred
to, “appeared at a very early day to be his favourite study; but he
also applied himself industriously to the study of opticks, the
mechanical powers,” &c.
-----
During that portion of his life in which this youthful philosopher
pursued the ordinary occupations of a husbandman, which continued until
about the eighteenth year of his age, as well as in his earlier youth,
he appeared to have inherited from healthful parents a sound
constitution, and to have enjoyed good health.
It was at this period, or rather about the seventeenth year of his age,
that he made a wooden clock, of very ingenious workmanship: and soon
after, he constructed one of the same materials that compose the common
four-and-twenty hour clock, and upon the same principles. But he had
exhibited much earlier proofs of his mechanical genius, by making, when
only seven or eight years old, a complete water-mill in miniature.
Mr. Rittenhouse’s father was a very respectable man: he possessed a good
understanding, united to a most benevolent heart and great simplicity of
manners. The writer long knew him; and, from his early acquaintance with
the character, the appearance, and the habits of this worthy sire of an
illustrious son, he had long supposed him to have been inclined to the
religious principles of the society called Friends, although he had been
bred a Baptist:—but a circumstance which shall be noticed hereafter,
will evince the liberality of this good man’s opinions, in the
all-important concern of religion. Yet, with truly estimable qualities,
both of the head and heart, old Mr. Rittenhouse had no claims to what is
termed genius; and therefore did not, probably, duly appreciate the
early specimens of that talent, which appeared so conspicuous in his son
David. Hence, he was for some time opposed to the young man’s earnest
desire to renounce agricultural employments; for the purpose of devoting
himself, altogether, to philosophical pursuits, in connexion with some
such mechanical profession as might best comport with useful objects of
natural philosophy, and be most likely, at the same time, to afford him
the means of a comfortable subsistence. At length, however, the father
yielded his own inclinations, in order to gratify what was manifestly
the irresistible impulse of his son’s genius: he supplied him with money
to purchase, in Philadelphia, such tools as were more immediately
necessary for commencing the clock-making business, which the son then
adopted as his profession.
About the same time, young Mr. Rittenhouse erected on the side of a
public road, and on his father’s land in the township of Norriton, a
small but commodious work-shop; and, after having made many implements
of the trade with his own hands, to supply the deficiency of many such
as were wanting in his purchased stock, he set out in good earnest as a
clock and mathematical instrument maker.
From the age of eighteen or nineteen to twenty-five, Mr. Rittenhouse
applied himself unremittingly, both to his trade and his studies.
Employed throughout the day in his attention to the former, he devoted
much of his nights to the latter. Indeed he deprived himself of the
necessary hours of rest; for it was his almost invariable practice to
sit up, at his books, until midnight, sometimes much later.
It was in this interval and by these means, that our young philosopher
impaired his constitution, and contracted a pain in his breast; or
rather, as he himself described that malady to the writer, “a constant
heat in the pit of the stomach, affecting a space not exceeding the size
of half a guinea, attended at times with much pain;” a sensation from
which he was never exempt, during the remainder of his life. About this
time, he retired from all business, and passed several weeks at the
Yellow Springs, distant but a few miles from his place of residence. He
there bathed and drank the waters; and from the use of this chalybeate,
he appeared to have derived some benefit to his general health, though
it afforded little alleviation of the pain in his breast.
A due regard to the sacredness of historic truth demands, that some
circumstances which occurred while Mr. Rittenhouse was yet a youth, and
_one_ which it is believed had a very considerable influence on his
subsequent pursuits and reputation, should now be made known. Because
the writer of these memoirs conceives he ought not to be restrained, by
motives which would appear to him to arise from a mistaken delicacy,
from introducing into his work such notices of his own father, long
since deceased, as do justice to his memory; while they also serve to
elucidate the biographical history of Mr. Rittenhouse.
In the year 1751, when David Rittenhouse was about nineteen years of
age, THOMAS BARTON, who was two years elder than David, opened a school
in the neighbourhood of Mr. Matthias Rittenhouse. It was while Mr.
Barton continued in that place, supposed to have been about a year and a
half, that he became acquainted with the Rittenhouse Family; an
acquaintance which soon ripened into a warm friendship for young Mr.
Rittenhouse, and a more tender attachment to his sister, Esther.
Two years afterwards (in 1753), the personal attractions and fine
understanding of the sister rendered her the wife of Mr. Barton; who,
for some time before, had officiated as one of the tutors in the then
recently-established Academy, afterwards College, of Philadelphia; now
the University of Pennsylvania. In this station, he continued until the
autumn of 1754; when he embarked for England, for the purpose of
receiving episcopal ordination in the church, and returned to
Pennsylvania in the early part of the following year.
The very intimate connexion thus formed between Mr. Barton and a sister
of Mr. Rittenhouse (who was two years elder than this brother),
strengthened the bands of friendship which had so early united these
young men: a friendship affectionate and sincere, and one which never
ceased until Mr. Barton’s death, nearly thirty years afterwards;
notwithstanding some difference of political opinions had arisen between
these brothers-in-law, in the latter part of that period, in consequence
of the declaration of the American independence.
Mr. Barton was a native of Ireland, descended from an English family; of
which, either two or three brothers settled in that kingdom, during the
disastrous times in the interregnum of Charles I. Having obtained very
considerable grants of land in Ireland, this family possessed ample
estates in their then adopted country. Hence, flattering prospects of an
establishment there, in respect to fortune, were held out to their
descendants. Through one of those untoward circumstances, however, by
means of which the most unexpected revolutions in the affairs of
families and individuals have been sometimes produced, the expectations
of an independent patrimony which our Mr. Barton’s father had
entertained, were speedily dissipated. Nevertheless, this gentleman, who
was the eldest son of his family, was instructed in the rudiments of a
classical education in the vicinity of his family residence in the
county of Monaghan, under the direction of the Rev. Mr. Folds, a
respectable English clergyman; and at a suitable age, he was sent to the
university of Dublin, where he finished his academical education.
Entirely destitute of fortune, but possessing a strong intellect, stored
with useful and ornamental learning as well as an ardent and
enterprizing spirit, this young adventurer arrived in Philadelphia soon
after he had completed his scholastic studies.
The writer’s principal design, in presenting to the public view these
slight sketches of the early history of the late Rev. Mr. Barton, shall
be now explained.
When Mr. Rittenhouse’s father established his residence at Norriton, and
during the minority of the son, there were no schools in the vicinity at
which any thing more was taught, than reading and writing in the English
language and the simplest rules of arithmetic. Young Mr. Rittenhouse’s
school-education, in his early youth, was therefore necessarily bounded
by these scanty limits of accessible instruction: He was, in truth,
_taught_ nothing beyond these very circumscribed bounds of literary
knowledge, prior to the nineteenth year of his age; though it is
certain, that some years before that period of his life, he began to be
known—at least in his own neighbourhood—as a mathematician and
astronomer, in consequence of his cultivation of the transcendent genius
with which heaven had endued him.
Under such circumstances as these, the familiar intercourse between
David Rittenhouse and his young friend Barton, which commenced when the
age of the former did not exceed nineteen years, could not fail to prove
highly advantageous to the mental improvement of both. The one possessed
a sublime native genius; which, however, was yet but very imperfectly
cultivated, for want of the indispensable means of extending the bounds
of natural knowledge: the other had enjoyed the use of those means, in
an eminent degree, and thus justly acquired the reputation of a man of
learning. A reciprocation of these different advantages, as may be well
supposed, greatly promoted the intellectual improvement of both.
It will be readily conceived, that Mr. Barton’s knowledge of books must
have rendered even his conversation instructive to Mr. Rittenhouse, at
so early a period of his life. But the former so greatly admired the
natural powers of his young friend’s mind, that he took a delight in
obtaining for him access to such philosophical works, and other useful
books, as he was then enabled to procure for his use; besides directing,
as far as he was capable, the course of his studies.
After Mr. Barton’s removal to Philadelphia and while he resided in that
city, his means of furnishing his friend with books, suitable for his
instruction, were greatly enlarged; an advantage of which he most
assiduously availed himself: and it is supposed to have been about this
time, that a small circulating library was established in Norriton, at
the instance of Mr. Barton, zealously seconded by the co-operation and
influence of Mr. Rittenhouse.
Finally, when Mr. Barton returned from England, in the year 1755—at
which time Mr. Rittenhouse was yet but twenty-three years of age, he
brought with him a valuable addition to his friend’s little library;
consisting, in part, of books which he himself had commissioned Mr.
Barton to purchase for him.[74]
-----
Footnote 74:
The zeal and attention with which our young philosopher pursued his
early studies, and such mechanical objects as are more intimately
connected with those branches of natural philosophy to which he was
most devoted, will appear from the following extract of a letter,
addressed by him to Mr. Barton, on the 20th of September, 1756, being
then little more than twenty-four years of age; viz. “I have not
health for a soldier,” (the country was then engaged in war,) “and as
I have no expectation of serving my country in that way, I am spending
my time in the old trifling manner, and am so taken with optics, that
I do not know whether, if the enemy should invade this part of the
country, as Archimedes was slain while making geometrical figures on
the sand, so I should die making a telescope.”
-----
No doubt can be entertained, that Mr. Rittenhouse derived the great and
extraordinary faculties of his mind from nature; and it is equally
evident, that for some years after he arrived to manhood, he possessed
very slender means of improving his natural talents: Nay further, it is
well known to those who were long personally acquainted with him, that
after his removal to Philadelphia, when he was eight-and-thirty years of
age, a period of life at which the place of his residence, and the
condition of his pecuniary affairs, united in placing within his reach
much that is dear to science,—even then, his long continued professional
employment and the various public stations he filled, in addition to
frequent ill health, deprived him of a large share of those advantages.
The vast stock of knowledge which, under such untoward circumstances, he
actually acquired, is therefore an additional proof of his native
strength of intellect.
But, wonderful as a kind of intuitive knowledge he possessed really was,
his mental powers would probably have remained hidden from the world,
they would have been very imperfectly cultivated, at best, had not an
incident apparently trivial, and which occurred when our Astronomer was
a young boy, furnished what was, in all probability, the very first
incitement to an active employment of his philosophical as well as
mechanical genius.
Mr. Rittenhouse’s mother having been already noticed somewhat
particularly, the reason for this being done shall be here stated: it is
connected with the incident just now referred to. This valuable woman
had two brothers, David and Lewis Williams (or William), both of whom
died in their minority. David, the elder of these, pursued the trade of
a carpenter, or joiner. Though, like his nephew and namesake, he was
almost wholly an uneducated youth, he also, like him, early discovered
an unusual genius and strength of mind. After the death of this young
man, on opening a chest containing the implements of his trade which was
deposited at Mr. M. Rittenhouse’s, (in whose family it is presumed he
dwelt,) a few elementary books, treating of arithmetic and geometry,
were found in it: With these, there were also various calculations and
other papers, in manuscript; all, the productions of David Williams
himself, and such as indicated not only an uncommon genius, but an
active spirit of philosophical research. To this humble yet valuable
coffer of his deceased uncle, Mr. Rittenhouse had free access, while yet
a very young boy. He often spoke of this acquisition as a treasure;
inasmuch as the instruments of his uncle’s calling afforded him some
means of exercising the bent of his genius towards mechanism, while the
books and manuscripts early led his mind to those congenial pursuits in
mathematical and astronomical science, which Were ever after the
favourite objects of his studies.[75]
-----
Footnote 75:
It is observable, that, in like manner, an accidental circumstance
seems to have given the first impulse to the philosophical researches
of that eminent mathematician, Colin Maclaurin, the friend and
disciple of Newton. His biographer, Mr. Murdoch, relates, that “his
genius for mathematical learning discovered itself so early as at
twelve years of age; when, having accidentally met with a copy of
Euclid in a friend’s chamber, in a few days he became master of the
first six books, without any assistance: and thence, following his
natural bent, made such a surprising progress, that very soon after we
find him engaged in the most curious and difficult problems.”
It is not ascertained at what age Rittenhouse obtained access to his
uncle Williams’s little collection of books and papers; though it was,
probably, before his twelfth year. But it is to be observed, that at
the early age of twelve, Maclaurin had been a year at the University
of Glasgow, where he was placed under the care of one of the most
eminent and learned professors of the age; while Rittenhouse, for some
years after that period of life, had his time occupied in agricultural
pursuits, and was almost entirely uneducated.
One particular in which similar merit attaches itself to these two
distinguished philosophers, is, that all their more serious studies
were directed towards objects of general utility.
Having introduced the name of Maclaurin more than once into these
Memoirs, the author of them cannot refrain from presenting to his
readers the following epitaph upon that great mathematician. It is
attributed to the late Dr. Johnson: the delicacy and chasteness of the
sentiment, as well as the classical purity of the language, certainly
render it a specimen of this species of composition worthy of the pen
of that justly-admired writer.—
H. L. P. E.
Non ut nomine paterno consulat;
Nam tali auxilio nil eget;
Sed, ut in hoc infelici campo,
Ubi luctus regnant et pavor,
Mortalibus prorsus non absit solatium:
Hujus enim scripta evolve,
Mentemque tantarum rerum capacem,
Corpori caduco superstitem crede.
---
The writer of the _Adversaria_, in a respectable periodical
publication,[75a] observes, that “it would not be easy to do justice
to this elegant and nervous sentence, in English.” But, as he has
given a very good prose translation of it into our language, the
subjoined versification of this was attempted by a young lady, at the
request of the writer of these memoirs:—
Not to perpetuate his father’s praise,
For no such aid his lofty fame requir’d,
Did filial piety the marble raise;
But other thoughts the friendly deed inspir’d.
Here, in this tearful vale, where sorrow dwells
And trembling mortals own the reign of fear,
At his command, the sculptur’d tablet tells,
Where hope exists, to dry the wand’rer’s tear.
For, read his works, O man! and then believe,
The mind that grasp’d at systems so sublime,
Beyond the mortal part must ever live,
And bloom, in sacred heav’n’s ethereal clime.
Footnote 75a:
The Port-Folio.
-----
It being thus apparent, that not only Mr. Rittenhouse’s mother but her
brother David Williams were persons of uncommon intellectual powers, the
writer thinks it fairly presumable, that our Astronomer inherited his
genius from his mother’s family.[76] His surviving brother has decidedly
expressed this opinion: in a letter on the subject of the deceased,
addressed to the writer of these memoirs soon after Dr. Rittenhouse’s
death, he says—“I am convinced his genius was more derived from his
mother, than from his father.”
-----
Footnote 76:
In order to gratify the curiosity, if not to remove the doubts, of
such persons as are not disposed to believe in the reality of any
thing like an hereditary power, bias, or propensity of the mind, the
following memorable instances are selected from many others which
might be adduced; to shew that mental faculties, as well as corporeal
qualities and even mental and bodily diseases, are sometimes inherited
by children from their parents: perhaps cases of this kind exist more
frequently than is either observed or imagined.
Mr. James Gregory, the inventor of the reflecting telescope in common
use, called the Gregorian, was one of the most distinguished
mathematicians of the seventeenth century. This eminent man, who was
born at Aberdeen in Scotland in the year 1638, was a son of the Rev.
Mr. John Gregory, minister of Drumoak in the same county: his mother
was, moreover, a daughter of Mr. David Anderson, of Finzaugh, a
gentleman who possessed a singular turn for mathematical pursuits.
Mr. David Gregory, a nephew of the foregoing, was some time Savilian
professor of astronomy at Oxford. This _Subtilissimi Ingenii
Mathematicus_, as he is styled by his successor Dr. Smith, was born at
Aberdeen, in the year 1661. Of the four sons of this celebrated
mathematician,—
David, a mathematician, was regius professor of modern history, at
Oxford;
James was professor of mathematics, at Edinburgh; and
Charles was also professor of mathematics, at St. Andrew’s.
Besides these men of genius in the same family, was the late Dr. John
Gregory, professor of medicine in the University of Edinburgh; who had
previously held the philosophical chair in the University of St.
Andrews, from which he delivered lectures on the mathematics,
experimental philosophy, and moral philosophy. This gentleman was
grandson of the inventor of the Gregorian telescope, son of Dr. James
Gregory, professor of medicine at Aberdeen, and father of another
James, successor of Dr. Cullen, in the medical chair at Edinburgh.
A mathematical genius was hereditary in the family of the Andersons;
and, from them, it seems to have been transmitted to their descendants
of the name of Gregory. Alexander Anderson, cousin-german of David
abovementioned, was professor of mathematics at Paris, in the
beginning of the eighteenth century; and published there in 1712,
_Supplementum Apollonii redivivi_, &c. The mother of the James
Gregory, first named, inherited the genius of her family; and
observing in her son, while yet a child, a strong propensity to
mathematics, she herself instructed him in the elements of that
science.
Margaret, the mother of the late Dr. Thomas Reid, professor of moral
philosophy in the University of Glasgow, was a daughter of David
Gregory, Esq. of Kinnardie in Banffshire, elder brother of the James
Gregory first mentioned. It is remarked by a celebrated writer, that
“the hereditary worth and genius which have so long distinguished, and
which still distinguish, the descendants of this memorable family, are
well known to all who have turned their attention to Scottish
biography: but it is not known so generally, that in the female line,
the same characteristical endowments have been conspicuous in various
instances; and that to the other monuments which illustrate the race
of the Gregories, is to be added the philosophy of Reid.”—(See Dugald
Stewart’s _Account of the Life and Writings of Dr. Reid_.)
The great mathematical genius of the celebrated astronomer, John
Dominick Cassini, descended to his great-grandson. John-James, the son
of John-Dominick, who inherited the genius of his father, succeeded
him as professor of astronomy in the Royal Observatory at Paris, a
place which the father had filled more than forty years: John-James’s
son, Cæsar-Francis Cassini de Thury, (who died in the year 1784, at
the age of seventy years,) was an eminent astronomer: and his son, the
Count John-Dominick de Thury, was also a distinguished astronomer.
The eldest of these Cassini’s was a native of Italy, and born in 1625.
He died in the seventy-seventh year of his age; and in the year 1695,
a medal was struck to honour his memory, by order of the king of
France.
These instances of genius in three families, afford striking examples
of its being sometimes hereditary. It is further observable, that, in
the case of the great professor Simson, his mathematical endowments
were said to be derived from his mother’s family; as Mr. Rittenhouse’s
were likewise supposed to have been from that of his mother.
-----
A casualty that occurred in the year 1756, appeared to have been very
near depriving the world of the talents, services, and example of our
Philosopher, at a very early period of those pursuits in which he was
afterwards so eagerly engaged. This circumstance is thus narrated by
himself, in a letter dated the 26th of July, in that year, and addressed
to the Rev. Mr. Barton, at his then residence in Redding township, York
county.[77]
-----
Footnote 77:
Mr. Barton resided on a farm, near what are called the Sulphur Springs
(now comprehended within the limits of the new county of Adams,) from
some time in the year 1755, until the spring of 1759; during which
period he officiated as a missionary from “the society,” established
in England, “for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts,” for
the counties of York and Cumberland. While he resided in that then
remote settlement of Pennsylvania, he was greatly instrumental, both
by his precept and example, in stimulating the people to avenge the
numerous barbarities perpetrated on the inhabitants and their property
in that frontier, by their French and Indian enemies. In the
expedition against Fort Du Quesne (now Pittsburg,) undertaken in the
year 1758, under the orders of brigadier-general Forbes, he served as
a chaplain to the forces then employed, by virtue of a commission from
governor Denny: and in that campaign he became personally acquainted
not only with the commander in chief, but, among others, with colonel
(afterwards general) Washington; colonel (afterwards general) Mercer;
colonel Byrd of Virginia; colonel Dagworthy; colonel James Burd of
Pennsylvania; all provincial officers of great merit; besides colonel
(afterwards general) Bouquet, sir John St. Clair, sir Peter Hacket,
major Stewart, and other gentlemen of worth and distinction, who held
commands in the British regiments engaged in that service. With most
of these very respectable military characters Mr. Barton occasionally
corresponded, afterward; and his services, during a residence of
between three and four years in that part of Pennsylvania, were
honourably acknowledged, as well in England as among his
fellow-citizens, in various instances.
After Mr. Barton left the county of York, he became established in
Lancaster, where he officiated as rector of St. James’s church in
that borough, and missionary to the large and respectable
country-congregations of Caernarvon and Pequea, nearly twenty years.
-----
“I was,” said our young philosopher, “obliged to ride hard to
reach Lancaster, the evening after I left you; and being somewhat
tired myself, as well as my horse, I determined to go to the
Dunker’s-Town,[78] where I staid the remainder of that day and the
night following. I was there entertained with an epitome of all
the whimsies mankind are capable of conceiving. Yet it seemed to
me the most melancholy place in the world, and I believe would
soon kill me were I to continue there; though the people were
exceedingly civil and kind, and the situation of the place is
pleasant enough.[79] From thence I went homewards, through
Reading;[80] where I was agreeably surprised, the number and
goodness of the buildings far exceeding my expectations.
-----
Footnote 78:
Although commonly called Dunker’s-Town, the proper name of this once
noted village is Ephrata. The little community which formerly resided
there, usually styled Dunkers, date the origin of their sect about the
year 1705. The original members of this religious society, in Germany,
Switzerland, and some other parts of Europe, having been persecuted
and banished from their homes, assembled themselves in the duchy of
Cleves, under the protection of the king of Prussia: and from thence
they migrated to Pennsylvania, mostly between the years 1718 and 1734,
a few of them only remaining behind. See also the next note.
Footnote 79:
The proper name of this place is Ephrata; and the very singular
religious society to whom it belongs, are denominated Seventh-Day
Baptists.
The society is said to have originally consisted of about twenty
families who migrated from Germany to Pennsylvania, about the year
1718 or 1719; part of whom settled at this place, and founded the
village of Ephrata (the head-quarters of the sect,) which is situated
about thirteen miles, north-eastward, from Lancaster, on a little
stream called the Cocolico-creek. These people hold the doctrine of an
universal redemption, ultimately, denying the eternity of future
punishment; that war and judicial oaths are unchristian; and that it
is not justifiable to take interest, for money lent. They keep the
seventh day of the week as their sabbath, and baptize by submersion;
whence they derive their name: they also inculcate the propriety of
celibacy, and of maintaining a community of goods; but when any of
them marry, and acquire property independent of the society in
Ephrata, they are obliged to retire from thence and reside elsewhere.
The men generally wear their beards, and clothe themselves in a habit
not unlike that of the Carmelites or White Friars: the women dress
like nuns. Both men and women observe great abstemiousness in their
diet, living chiefly on vegetables, and submit to some privations and
corporal severities, besides, in their religious discipline; they lie
upon benches, with a wooden block instead of a pillow: but though
meek, humble, and even timid, in their deportment, they are very civil
to strangers who visit them.
The society of Ephrata is supported by cultivating their lands,
conducting a printing-press, a grist-mill, a paper-mill, a saw-mill, a
tan-yard, &c. and the women are employed in spinning, knitting,
sewing, making paper-lanterns and other toys, &c.
The village consists of about ten or a dozen buildings; and is mostly
composed of the cloisters and convent, two churches, and the mills.
One of their places of worship adjoins the sisters’ apartments, as a
chapel; another belongs to the brothers’ apartments: and to these
churches, the brethren and the sisterhood respectively resort, every
morning and evening, sometimes, too, in the night, for the purpose of
worshipping; much of which is made up of soft and melodious chanting,
by the females. There is said to be one other place of worship,
wherein all the members of the society, within the bounds of the
settlement, meet once a week to celebrate worship publicly.
Such, indeed, _was_ the pleasant, sequestered little village of
Ephrata, at the time our then very young philosopher visited it; and
such was the condition of that little-known sect of Christians, while
the society continued under the direction of their second and last
president, the late Mr. Peter Miller. This venerable old German, who
had been bred to the priesthood in some one of the Protestant churches
of his native country, became a convert to the principles of this
obscure ascetic sect, over which he long presided with much
reputation, after the death of its reputed founder, CONRAD BEIXLER,
his patriarchal predecessor. But, though possessing a good share of
the old scholastic learning, with a large portion of piety, the mind
of Mr. Miller was strongly tinctured with many mystical notions in
divinity; such as well comported with the “whimsies” of the religious
society he governed.
Since the death of this good man, the ancient discipline of the
religious community at Ephrata, which had become greatly relaxed
during the revolutionary war, has almost wholly disappeared. The chief
seat of the Seventh-Day Baptists is no longer what it was: for, in
lieu of the solemn devotional stillness of the secluded cloysters and
cells of its once monastic inhabitants, and which, at this time, are
nearly deserted, are now substituted various occupations of industry,
amidst “the busy haunts of men.”
A letter from lady Juliana Penn to the second and last worthy
president of this little religious society, has a place in the
Appendix. It is indicative of the goodness of her ladyship’s heart.
Footnote 80:
The county-town of Berks, in Pennsylvania, pleasantly situated on the
Schuylkill, about fifty-six miles, north-westward, from Philadelphia.
-----
“You have perhaps seen, in one of the last papers, an account of the
prodigiously large hail-stones which fell in Plymouth.[81] The lightning
struck a tall green poplar standing in our meadow, just before the door,
and levelled it with the earth. I was standing between the tree and
house; and, at the same instant that I saw the flash of lightning, felt
a most violent shock through my whole body,—and was stunned with such a
horrible noise, that it is impossible for imagination to represent any
thing like it.”
-----
Footnote 81:
A neighbouring township to Norriton, the place of Mr. Rittenhouse’s
country residence.
-----
The advantages and the disadvantages, which Mr. Rittenhouse respectively
enjoyed and encountered, until after he had attained to the period of
manhood, have been mentioned; and it will be readily perceived, that the
latter greatly outweighed the former, in every other particular than
that of his native genius, which alone was sufficient to preponderate
against innumerable difficulties.
The great deficiencies in his education, as well as their causes, having
been misconceived and incorrectly represented in some publications, a
due regard to truth demands a correction of such mistaken opinions. Soon
after his death, there appeared in the Maryland Journal, “_Anecdotical
Notices of Mr. David Rittenhouse_;” which, although written with some
ingenuity and knowledge of the subject, contained several errors. It is
therein asserted, among other things, that “his parents, _incapable_ of
giving him any other education than common reading and writing, intended
to have brought him up to country-business; but, being blessed by nature
with a mechanical turn of mind, he soon gave specimens of his ingenuity
in making wooden clocks: This so recommended him to notice, as to give
him an opportunity of learning the clock-making business.”—It has been
already shewn, that Mr. Rittenhouse never received the least instruction
in any mechanic art; and it is not ascertained that he ever made more
than one wooden clock. It is also notoriously an error, that his parents
were “incapable” of giving him any other education, than the common
schooling he received: they were by no means poor, though not wealthy.
His father inherited some patrimony; and he had, besides, been about
nine years concerned in conducting the paper-manufactory near
Germantown, after his one-and-twentieth year, before he purchased the
Norriton farm.[82] This part of his estate he was enabled to give to his
eldest son, David, about the year 1764; prior to which time the old
gentleman removed to a farm he had purchased, nearly adjoining it in
Worcester township, and on which he had erected a good two-story stone
dwelling-house with suitable out-houses. There Mr. David Rittenhouse’s
father and mother afterwards resided, together with their other son,
Benjamin, (the house being so constructed as, conveniently, to
accommodate two small families,) until the death of old Mrs. Rittenhouse
in the autumn of 1777, at the age of seventy-three years, and of her
husband in the autumn of 1780, in the seventy-eighth year of his age.
The Worcester farm was left to the younger son: and, in addition to
these not inconsiderable establishments for his sons, the old gentleman
had given small portions to each of his five daughters, when they
severally married. The remains of this worthy and upright man, for he
truly merited that character, were interred in the cemetery belonging to
a Baptist congregation, in the neighbourhood, in which both he and his
wife had long attended divine worship. But, some years before his death,
the old gentleman disposed of a lot of ground very near to his own
house,—and _gratuitously_, if the writer’s information be correct,—to a
Presbyterian congregation, for a burial place, and site for a church
they were then about to erect. If this little piece of land was a
_donation_ to the religious society to whom it belongs, the grant of it,
though not of great value, furnishes an instance of that liberality of
sentiment and goodness of heart which characterized our Astronomer’s
father, and to which some allusion is before made.
-----
Footnote 82:
This farm contained about one hundred and fifty acres. It was lately
sold by the heirs of Dr. Rittenhouse.
-----
When, therefore, all the circumstances here mentioned, respecting
Matthias Rittenhouse’s property and condition of life, shall be taken
into view, it will be evident that he possessed a decent competency;
with an estate quite independent, though not large: for he never enjoyed
what is now termed affluence.
Concerning our Astronomer’s early life and condition, even his eloquent
eulogist, Dr. Rush, was mistaken in some particulars. His assertion,
that Mr. Rittenhouse was descended from parents “distinguished for
probity, industry, and simple manners,” is perfectly correct. But,
although he was comparatively “humble” in his “origin,” his father held
the highly respectable station of an intelligent, independent
farmer;[83] and it has been also seen, that his paternal ancestors, for
some generations in succession, were proprietors of considerable
manufactories of an article important in commerce and the arts, and
eminently useful in literature and science as well as in the common
affairs of life.
-----
Footnote 83:
“Omnium autem rerum, ex quibus aliquid acquiritur, nihil est
agriculturâ melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulcius, nihil homine, nihil
libero dignius,” Cic. _De Offic._ ii. 42.
-----
Dr. Rush has remarked, in regard to Mr. Rittenhouse’s talents first
becoming generally known, that “the discovery of his uncommon merit
belonged chiefly to his brother-in-law, the Rev. Mr. Barton, Dr. Smith,
and the late Mr. John Lukens.” Perhaps it might be said, with greater
strictness, that the “discovery” here spoken of, belonged solely to Mr.
Barton; by whom it was communicated, very early, to his learned and
reverend friend, Dr. Smith,—and through him, to the ingenious
astronomical observer, Mr. Lukens, (afterwards surveyer-general,) as
well as some other distinguished characters of that time. The writer in
the Maryland paper before referred to, after having noticed the
prevailing opinion that Mr. Rittenhouse was _self-taught_, had corrected
the full extent of that misconception, in these words: “This is not
strictly true; for, while engaged in these acquirements,” (astronomy,
&c.) “the Rev. Mr. Barton, a learned episcopal clergyman of Lancaster,
married his sister.”——“Mr. Barton, admiring the simplicity of manners
and natural genius of his brother-in-law, afforded him every assistance
in his power,—not only in mathematics, but in several other branches of
literature: Mr. Rittenhouse was worthy of his notice; for he lost no
time, and spared no pains, to improve himself in knowledge, as far as
his limited education would permit.”
Hence, as well as from the preceding narrative, it will appear that Dr.
Rush was led into a further mistake, respecting Mr. Rittenhouse.—In
regard to his exalted genius, the learned professor has amply done
justice to his memory. He has, in particular, recorded one extraordinary
fact, in proof of his genius, well worthy of notice; and which is
therefore related in the Professor’s own words.——“It was during the
residence of our ingenious philosopher with his father, in the country,
that he made himself master of Sir Isaac Newton’s _Principia_, which he
read in the English translation of Mr. Motte. It was here, likewise, he
became acquainted with the science of Fluxions; of which sublime
invention he believed himself, for a while, to be the author: nor did he
know for some years afterwards, that a contest had been carried on
between Sir Isaac Newton and Leibnitz, for the honour of that great and
useful discovery.” Then exclaims the ingenious eulogist, in terms of
well-founded admiration, “What a mind was here!”—But, immediately after,
he adds—“_Without literary friends or society, and with but two or three
books_, he became, before he had reached his four-and-twentieth year,
the rival of two of the greatest mathematicians in Europe!”—The
circumstance must, then, have escaped Dr. Rush’s recollection—if indeed
he had ever been made acquainted with it,—that five years before Mr.
Rittenhouse attained to the age of twenty-four, he found at least one
literary friend, in Mr. Barton; whose intimate society he long enjoyed,
prior to that period; and that, through his means, he had access to many
books.[84]
-----
Footnote 84:
The opinion, that Mr. Rittenhouse was, in his youth and the first
years of his manhood, “without literary friends or society, and with
but two or three books,” though erroneous in fact, was propagated
pretty early; and that opinion has, since, generally prevailed. About
twenty-two years before his death, a book was published in
Philadelphia, under the title of _Caspipina’s Letters_; of which the
Rev. Mr. Duché, then assistant-minister of Christ-church and St.
Peter’s in that city, was the writer. In that pleasant little work,
its amiable and worthy author (who has been dead many years) has thus
mentioned our philosopher. “After taking a few turns in the garden, we
walked back again to the college, where we had appointed to meet the
modest and ingenious Mr. Rittenhouse, who, _without one single
advantage from a private tutor_, or public education, by the mere
force of genius and industry, may now justly be reckoned the first
astronomer and mathematician in the world.”
Under such circumstances as these, it is by no means a matter of
surprise, that Dr. Rush should have been led into a similar mistake.
It is, nevertheless, truly astonishing to find an American writer (the
late Rev. Mr. Linn,) who, five years after Dr. Rittenhouse’s death,
published in Philadelphia, where both resided, a poem entitled, “The
Powers of Genius;” but, in which the name of RITTENHOUSE is not once
noticed! And yet that gentleman had not omitted to introduce, in one
of his notes, an observation which shews, that an European
philosopher, also of sublime genius, was present to his mind’s
eye!—“From the exhibitions of American talents,” said Mr. Linn, “I
indulge the warmest expectations. I behold, in imagination, the
NEWTONS, the Miltons, and the Robertsons, of this new world; and I
behold the sun of genius” (likewise “in imagination,” it is presumed,)
“pouring on our land his meridian beams.”
The writer of these memoirs believes Dr. Linn to have been a very
worthy, as well as an ingenious man: as such, he regrets his premature
death, and entertains a respect for his memory. But he could not, in
justice to the merit of Dr. Rittenhouse’s character, pass unnoticed so
unaccountable an omission as the one just mentioned, in Dr. Linn’s
Poem.
-----
It is not meant to be insinuated, however, that Mr. Barton ever gave Mr.
Rittenhouse any insight into the knowledge of fluxions; or, indeed, much
instruction, if any at all, in other of the higher branches of
mathematics: because the first named gentleman never did himself pretend
to the character of a profound mathematician; and because, likewise,
although always esteemed a man of learning, his pursuits in science and
literature were chiefly directed to objects of a different nature. That
Mr. Rittenhouse derived some instruction and information from his early
acquaintance with Mr. Barton, is certain: but, whatever may have been
the extent of the literary advantages which the latter was enabled to
confer on his young friend and companion, they could not in any degree
derogate from the intrinsic excellence and greatness of our Astronomer’s
innate genius.
That a mind so formed as that of our young philosopher—situated in life
as he was—should have impelled him to assume the business of
clock-making, can not be a matter of surprize: this occupation,
connected with that of a mathematical instrument maker, is such as may
be well supposed to have presented itself to his youthful ingenuity;
being in accordance with the philosophical bent of his genius in his
early years, while yet untutored in science and unknown to the world.
The great utility of the common clock, in measuring time, is universally
known. It possesses numerous and manifest advantages, beyond those of
sun-dials, clepsydræ, sand-glasses, and other horological instruments,
by reason of its vastly superior accuracy: the sun-dial, indeed, is
oftentimes wholly useless in all situations, even in the day-time; and
always necessarily so, at night.
But the many improvements which have been made in modern times, in
chronometers,—more especially in pendulum-clocks,—have very much
advanced a correspondent accuracy in astronomical observations:
and these improvements, together with those lately made in
telescopes—chiefly by Dr. Herschel, the discoverer of the
_Georgium Sidus_[85]—afford good grounds for hoping, that yet
farther and more important additions will continue to be made to
the recent discoveries in astronomy.
-----
Footnote 85:
Dr. Herschel, by means of his admirable telescopes, the most powerful
that have ever been constructed, discovered on the 13th of March,
1781, a new planet without the orbit of Saturn, called the _Georgium
Sidus_. The newly discovered star was thus named by Dr. Herschel
himself, in honour of his patron King George III. by whose bounty he
was enabled to construct, and to make incessant and laborious
observations with those wonderful telescopes, by which this astronomer
has extended our knowledge of the planetary and sidereal system, far
beyond its former limits.[85a]
Some astronomers on the continent of Europe, and in America likewise,
have affected to call this new planet _Herschel_; while others have
endeavoured to give it the name of _Uranus_. Would it not be well, in
order to avoid the perplexity and confusion arising from various names
for the same thing, that astronomers of eminence should designate this
planet, in future, by the name which the discoverer—who, it may be
presumed, was best entitled to give it a denomination—chose to apply
to it? It is a strange kind of compliment to Dr. Herschel, if it could
have been intended as a mark of respect to him, to refuse an adoption
of that name which he had assigned to his own discovery; even by
changing it for that of the Doctor himself! He wished this planet, no
doubt, to retain the appellation of _Georgium Sidus_, as a memorial of
his grateful respect for his royal benefactor; and in this object of
his wish he would be disappointed, by changing it for any other.
The name _Uranus_ is also objectionable, and on another ground. Uranus
was a fabulous personage. It is pretended, that in the isle called
_Panchay_,[85b] to the east of Africa, is to be seen on a column of
gold, a recital of the principal actions of Uranus, together with
those of Saturn and Jupiter. It is said that the former was the most
ancient king in the world; and that, having been a just and beneficent
man, well versed in the knowledge of the stars, he was the first who
offered sacrifices to the gods of heaven. We are also told, that in
the island just named is a mountain, where Uranus, holding the sceptre
of the world, took great pleasure in contemplating the firmament and
the stars. Among the sons of this monarch, according to the same
fiction, the two most distinguished were Atlas and Saturn, who
partitioned between them their father’s kingdom; and Atlas, who in the
division acquired the sea-coasts, is said to have excelled in
astrology: his reign is placed about sixteen hundred years before the
Christian era, and he is therefore ranked as a co-temporary of Moses.
Such is the fabulous history of Uranus! whose name some Christian
philosophers seem desirous to perpetuate, with honour, by attaching it
to a newly-discovered world! It would be extremely difficult if not
impracticable (and, perhaps, even if practicable, the attempt would
not be advisable at this time of day,) to abolish such of the names of
the heavenly bodies as are derived from the appellations of the false
gods of antiquity. But it appears very questionable, whether it be
consistent with propriety and a due regard to truth, to connect fable,
in any manner, with established and important realities; or whether it
be right to dignify the heathen mythology and the preposterous annals
of fabulous ages, by unnecessarily associating any thing relating to
them, with objects of genuine and useful science.
Baron Bielfeld seems to entertain similar sentiments on this head,
when (treating of the mathematics, in his “Elements of Universal
Erudition,”) he observes, that “the fables of ancient poets concerning
the stars, and,” he adds, “the fancies of some modern Christian
astronomers, who have given them names borrowed from the holy
scriptures, do not deserve the least attention, when we would treat
seriously on this science.” There is much justness in this observation
of the learned and ingenious baron: But if the application of names
derived from sacred writ, to the stars, be censurable; how much to be
condemned among Christians is the practice of giving, even in our day,
and in a science which has philosophical truth for its object, the
names of heathen deities, and fabulous persons of antiquity, to the
celestial bodies! Is it proper, can it, in any way, promote the
interests of true science or the attainment of useful knowledge, thus
to commemorate any of the absurdities of a false and impious
mythology; or any of those traditional personages of the early ages,
whose history, as handed down to us in the reveries of the ancient
poets and other profane writers, are either enveloped in fable or
inexplicable mystery? But to return from this digression:—
Mr. Lalande remarks in his great work on astronomy, which was
published in the year 1792, that Louis XIV. gave to astronomers
unceasing marks of the interest he took in their labours; and that
George III. occupied, with great delight, much of his time in his
Observatory at Richmond, as well as in Herschel’s at Slough. In his
own, in Richmond Gardens, the king of England has noble and beautiful
instruments; among which are a mural arch of 140° and 8 feet radius,
made by Sisson, a sector of 12 feet, a transit telescope of 8 feet,
made by Adams, and a telescope of 10 feet of Herschel. This grand
Observatory was erected in the year 1770, under the direction of Dr.
Bevis: it is 140 feet in front, and consists of two stories.
Such princes, then, as Louis XIV. and George III. deserve to be
honourably mentioned in the records of astronomical science: and it
was meritorious in Dr. Herschel, to dedicate to so munificent a patron
and promoter of astronomy as the latter sovereign, in the way he has
done, his important discovery of a new planet.
It is noticed by the writer of the article “Astronomy,” in Dr.
Brewster’s _New Edinburgh Encyclopædia_, (the first volume of which
has been very lately reprinted in Philadelphia,) that the venerable
Herschel,[85c] at the advanced age of seventy-two years, still
continued to observe the heavens with the most unwearied assiduity:
and that his contemplated “successor,” who, it is presumed, is his
son, “promises to inherit the virtues and the talents of his father.”
Footnote 85a:
Herschel, in calling his newly-discovered planet by the name of his
patron, was not without illustrious precedents for so doing. When
Galileo discovered the four Satellites of Jupiter, in the year 1610,
he named them the _Medicea Sidera_, in honour of the family of Medici,
his patrons. And Cassini, who, in the years 1671, 1672, and 1684,
successively, discovered the fifth, the third, and the first and
second Satellites of Saturn, denominated these stars, _Sidera
Lodoicea_, in honour of Louis XIV. in whose reign, and observatory,
they were first discovered. The fourth Satellite of Saturn (but the
first of them, in the order of time, that was known) had been
previously discovered by Huygens, sixteen years before any one of the
others was known to exist.
Footnote 85b:
So written by Lalande. There is an Asiatic island called _Panay_: it
is one of the Philippines, and lies, as _Panchay_ is said to do, “to
the east of Africa.”
Footnote 85c:
“Herschel, with ample mind and magic glass,
Mid worlds and worlds revolving as they pass,
Pours the full cluster’d radiance from on high,
That fathomless abyss of Deity.”
_Purs. of Lit._ dial. the fourth.
-----
Further improvements may also be expected to take place, in the
construction of watches and other spring-chronometers; so as to render
them still more useful for the purposes of navigation, by ascertaining
with greater precision the longitude at sea.[86] For this purpose, the
finely-improved English time-keepers of Harrison, Mudge, and others,
have been found of the greatest utility. Mr. de Zach, (in his
Explanation and uses of the Tables of the Motions of the Sun,[87]) after
some observations on determining differences of longitude by means of
astronomical observation, says,[88]—“De cæteris longitudinem
determinandi modis, non est hic disserendi locus;—de uno vero, horologiâ
maritimâ seu nauticâ, quidquam adjicere non alienum erit. Triginta jam
abhinc annis, ingeniosissimi horologiorum artifices, Harrison, Cummings,
Kendal, Arnold, Mudge, apud Anglos,—Le Roy et Berthoud apud Gallos,
varia navigantium usui, egregia excogitaverant, et ad magnum perduxerant
perfectionis gradum, horologia nautica, (Anglis, Time-keeper.) Cum eorum
in longitudinibus itenere maritimo definiendis, usum quisque norit,
plura hic dicere abstineo; simile horologium ab ingenioso horolopega
Thom. Mudge constructum, in Observatorio Regio Grenovicensi sæpius
exploratum, anno 1784, a Clar. D. Campbell, classis navalis præfecto[89]
ad Terram Novam (Newfoundland) vectum, et reductum, ab hoc tempore in
Observatorio Excellentissimi Comitis de Bruhl, Londini, Doverstreet,
assidue observatum est. Hoc ipsum horologium maritimum, anno 1786, in
terrestribus, iteneris longitudines determinandi gratia, concreditum
mihi fuit, cum â Serenissimo Duce Saxe-Gothanâ, omnium scientiarum
bonarumque artium patrono, imprimis astronomiæ, faventissimo, Londino
evocatus in Germaniam me conferrem, ubi amplissimæ splendidissimæ
Speculæ, Astronomicæ Gothanæ extruendæ cura mihi demandata erat;[90]
attuli eodem hoc tempore, ad Serenissimi mandatum, minoris molis
horologium, quod in braccis gestari solet (Anglis, Pocket-chronometer,)
a Londiniensi artifice, D. Josiah Emery,[91] constructum, quod summâ
accuratione et subtilitate elaboratum, nil majoribus cedit horologiis
nauticis, ut videre licet ex tribus horum motuum elenchis ab Ilustr.
Comite de Bruhl, et â aliorum Dr. Arnold, nuperrime publici juris
factis. Sub finem anni 1786 et ad initium 1787, Serenissimum in itenere
per Germaniam, Galliam, et Italiam, comitatus sum: hoc itenere quorundam
locorum et Specularum astronomicarum longitudines definitæ sunt ex
comparatione temporis horologii maritimi (quod ad tempus solare medium
Londinense, in Doverstreet incedebat) cum tempore medio loci, quod
sextante Hadleianâ per solis altitudines, quas correspondentes dicimus,
vel ex comparatione cum illo, quod in Speculis Astronomicis ab ipsis
astronomis traditum nobis fuit. Iisdem itaque automatis, cum primum
Gotham advenissem, observatorii futuri longitudinem maximâ cum curâ
atque diligentiâ definivi, quam paucis post diebus Serenissimus Dux
Londinum profectus, chronometro suo secum deportato denuo perbelle
comprobaverat.”
-----
Footnote 86:
Philip III. king of Spain, first offered a reward for the discovery of
the longitude, about two centuries ago; and the States of Holland,
soon after, followed his example. The Regent of France, during the
minority of Louis XV. also promised a great reward to any person who
should discover the longitude at sea.
In the year 1714, the parliament of Great Britain offered a reward for
a like discovery; and if the method, to be proposed, should determine
the longitude to twenty geographical miles, the premium was to be
twenty-thousand pounds sterling. The act of parliament established a
board of Commissioners of the Longitude. Several other acts were
passed, in the reigns of Geo. II. and III. directed to the same
purpose. Finally, in the year 1774, all those acts were repealed, by
one offering separate premiums for finding the longitude; either by
the lunar method, or by a watch keeping true time,—or by any other
method practicable at sea. This act proposes as a reward for a
time-keeper, 5000_l._, if it determine the longitude to one degree or
sixty geographical miles,—7500_l._, if to forty miles,—and 10,000_l._,
if to thirty miles. If the method be by improved Solar and Lunar
Tables, constructed upon Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation, the
author is to receive 5000_l._; provided such Tables shall show the
distance of the Moon from the Sun and Stars within fifteen seconds of
a degree, answering to about seven minutes of longitude, after making
an allowance of a half a degree for the errors of observation. The
Commissioners have the power of giving smaller rewards, at their
discretion, to persons making any discovery for finding the longitude
at sea, though it may not be within the above limits.
The set of Solar and Lunar Tables which were sent to the Board of
Longitude, about the year 1763, by the widow of the celebrated
astronomer, Tobias Mayer, were honoured with a reward of 3000_l._
sterling, by an act of the British parliament, in consideration of
their great usefulness in finding the longitude at sea.
Footnote 87:
See Mr. de Zach’s great work, entitled, _Tabulæ Motuum Solis novæ et
correctæ_, &c.
Footnote 88:
For the use of such readers as may not be acquainted with the Latin
language, the following translation of the above is given, from the
original of Mr. de Zach.
“Concerning the means of determining the longitude, this is not the
proper place to treat: of one, however, the marine or nautical
time-keeper, it will not be foreign to our purpose to say something.
“It is now about thirty years, since those very ingenious makers of
time-keepers, Harrison, Cummings, Kendal, Arnold, and Mudge, among the
English,—Le Roy, and Berthoud, among the French,—devised various and
excellent ones for the use of navigators, and brought to a great
degree of perfection those marine watches, called by the English,
Time-keepers. As every one knows their use in ascertaining the
longitude, on a _sea-voyage_, I shall not say any thing more of them
here.—A similar time-piece, made by the celebrated watch-maker Mr.
Thomas Mudge, and often referred to in the royal observatory of
Greenwich, was, in 1784, made use of by the Hon. Vice-Admiral (John)
Campbell, commander of the naval squadron[88a] on the Newfoundland
station,—going thither and returning; and from that time was
diligently examined, at the observatory of his Excellency Count Bruhl,
in Dover street London.
“This very marine time-piece was confided to my charge, in the year
1786, for the purpose of determining the longitudes of my journey by
land; when, called from London by his Serene Highness the Duke of
Saxe-Gotha,—the patron of all the sciences and liberal arts, but more
especially favouring astronomy,—I returned to Germany; where the
erecting of a complete and splendid Observatory, at Gotha, was placed
under my direction.[88b] I then took with me, by the command of his
Serene Highness, a watch of a smaller size, which he usually carried
in his fob,—called by the English a Pocket-chronometer,—made by a
London artist, Mr. Josiah Emery:[88c] which, being made with the
greatest accuracy and ingenuity, yielded nothing in point of
correctness to the larger nautical time-keepers, as may be seen from
three tables of their movements by the illustrious Count Bruhl, and
also of others, by Dr. Arnold, lately established by authenticated
certificates.
“About the end of the year 1786 and the beginning of 1787, I
accompanied His Serene Highness, in a tour through Germany, France and
Italy. In this journey, the longitudes of several places and
astronomical observatories were determined, from a comparison of the
time of a nautical time-keeper (which was set by the solar mean time
in Dover street, London,) with the mean time of the place; which
appears by the altitudes of the sun, by Hadley’s sextant—those which
we call _corresponding_, or by a comparison with it, as transmitted to
us in observatories, by those astronomers. By the same instruments,
therefore, when I arrived at Gotha, I ascertained the longitude of the
future observatory there, with the greatest care and attention; which
the Duke, going to London a few days after, taking with him his
chronometer, at length fully verified.”
Footnote 88a:
Here is a reference, in the text, to note 89.
Footnote 88b:
Here is a reference, in the text, to note 90.
Footnote 88c:
Here is a reference, in the text, to note 91.
Footnote 89:
Sundry astronomical observations were made by this officer, while a
captain in the British navy, in the years 1757, 8, and 9; which were
reported to the admiralty on the 14th of April, 1760, by Dr. Bradley,
then astronomer-royal. See Dr. Bradley’s letter of that date, to the
Secretary of the Admiralty; published (among other papers) in the year
1770, by order of the board of longitude, at the end of T. Mayer’s
Tables and Method of finding the Longitude; edited by Dr. Maskelyne.
Footnote 90:
The Observatory, a very handsome and respectable one, was constructed
at Gotha in the year 1788, under the auspices of the then reigning
Duke of Saxe-Gotha, a zealous patron of astronomy. It is placed on an
eminence, a league from the city, and is built entirely of hewn stone.
Mr. de Zach, a native of Hungary, an experienced astronomer, was
appointed by the duke its director.
The instruments with which the Gotha Observatory is furnished are
chiefly English, as are those of most of the celebrated European
observatories. Among these, is a transit telescope, by Ramsden; and
Mr. Lalande mentions, in his _Astronomie_ (in the year 1792,) that
there were to be added, two murals of eight feet radius, an entire
circle of eight feet diameter, a great zenith-sector, &c. but that Mr.
Ramsden, who was employed to make them, found great difficulty in
supplying all the demands for instruments, which his great reputation
occasioned.
It is well known, that the first improvements in astronomical
instruments took place in Great-Britain; and both Lalande and de Zach,
as well as other foreign astronomers of eminence, have done ample
justice to the superior ingenuity and skill of the artists of that
country, in this department of mechanism. The ingenious Mr. Edmund
Stone, in his _Supplement to the English Translation of Mr. Bion’s
Construction and Use of Mathematical Instruments_, (published in 1758,
nearly forty years after he translated Mr. Bion’s work into English,)
observes—that, having set about the business (the translating of this
latter work,) he soon perceived that many French instruments were
excelled by some of the English of the same kind, in contrivance; and
that, as to workmanship, he never did see one French instrument so
well framed and divided as some English have been. “For example,” says
Mr. Stone, “Mr. Sutton’s quadrants, made above one hundred years ago,”
(before the middle of the seventeenth century,) “are the finest
divided instruments in the world; and the regularity and exactness of
the vast number of circles drawn upon them, is highly delightful to
behold. The mural quadrant at the Royal Observatory, at Greenwich, far
exceeds that of the Royal Observatory at Paris. Also, the theodolites
of Messrs. Sisson and Heath, the clocks and watches of Messrs. Graham,
Tompion and Quare, the orreries of Mr. Graham and Mr. Wright, and many
more curiously contrived and well executed mathematical instruments
which I could mention, far exceed those of the French, or indeed any
other nation in the world.—The making good mathematical instruments,”
continues Mr. Stone, “is almost peculiar to the English; as well as
their skill in all branches of the mathematics and natural philosophy
has been generally superior to that of other nations.”
Without wishing to derogate from the justly acquired fame of British
artists, for the excellence of their mathematical and astronomical
instruments, M. Rittenhouse’s skill and accuracy, displayed in such as
he made, stand unsurpassed by similar works of their most celebrated
mechanicians: while his profoundness in astronomical science, and his
wonderful ingenuity of invention and contrivance, manifested in the
construction of his Orrery, leave him without a rival, in the two-fold
character of an Astronomer and a Mechanic. The idea of the fine
planetarian machine constructed by Mr. Rowley, under the name of the
Orrery, and supposed to have been invented by Mr. Graham, is said to
have been taken from a very similar machine, of which that eminent
philosopher, Dr. Stephen Hales, had the credit of being the original
contriver. But Mr. Rittenhouse was, incontrovertibly, the Inventor, as
well as the Maker, of that sublimely-conceived and unrivalled machine,
which bears the name of the Rittenhouse-Orrery: and Dr. Morse, in
noticing some of the more prominent productions of scientific
ingenuity and skill, in America, observes, with good reason, that
“every combination of machinery may be expected from a country, a
native son of which,” (referring in a note to “David Rittenhouse, Esq.
of Pennsylvania,”) “reaching this inestimable object in its highest
point, has epitomised the motions of the spheres that roll throughout
the universe.” See Morse’s _American Geography_, first published in
1789.
Footnote 91:
The accuracy of some of the fine pocket-chronometers constructed by
the celebrated artists named by Mr. de Zach, and by some others, such,
for instance, as the one made by Emery for the count de Bruhl,
mentioned in the text, has rendered them, on some occasions, useful
assistants in making astronomical observations on land. Dr.
Rittenhouse occasionally used one for such purposes, many years. It
was an excellent pocket-watch, made by Le Roy of Paris for the late
Matthias Barton, Esq. who was induced to let Dr. Rittenhouse have it.
After his decease, this watch was gratuitously restored to its former
proprietor, by Mrs. Rittenhouse’s desire, and as a testimonial of what
she knew to have been her late husband’s regard for his nephew. Mr. M.
Barton bequeathed it, by his last will, to his brother and physician,
Dr. Benjamin S. Barton.
-----
This very respectable testimony of an eminent German astronomer affords
incontestable proof of the great accuracy, of which nautical
chronometers are susceptible, and to which they have actually been
brought by some artists of celebrity, mostly English.[92]
-----
Footnote 92:
The Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, for the year
1729, contain an article that furnishes additional evidence of the
extraordinary skill and ingenuity manifested by English artists in the
construction of watches, as well as other pieces of mechanism which
require great accuracy in the workmanship: it forms a pleasant little
narrative in an eulogium on Father Sebastian,[92a] a Carmelite Friar
of singular mechanical ingenuity; and it indicates, at the same time,
that the repeating-watch was invented in England. The story is thus
told:—
“Charles II. roy d’Angleterre, avoit envoyé au feu roi deux Montres à
Repetition; _les premieres qu’on ait vues en France_. Elles ne
pouvoient s’ouvrir que par une secrete précaution des ouvriers
Anglois, pour cacher la nouvelle construction, et s’en assurer
d’autant plus la gloire et le profit. Les montres se dérangérent, et
furent remises entre les mains de M. Martineau, horloger du roi, qui
n’y put travailler faute de les sçavoir ouvrir. Il dit a M. Colbert,
et c’est un trait de courage digne d’etre remarqué, qu’il ne
connoissoit qu’un jeune Carme capable d’ouvrir les montres, ques’il
n’y réussissoit pas, il falloit se resoudre à les renvoyer en
Angleterre. M. Colbert consentit qu’il les donnât au P. Sebastien, qui
les ouvrit assez promptement, et de plus les raccommoda sans sçavoir
qu’ elles étoient au roi, ni combien étoit important par ses
circonstances l’ouvrage dont on l’avoit chargé.”
Footnote 92a:
His baptismal name was _John Truchet_.
-----
The general use of the common clock ought not to derogate from the
ingenuity of an invention of such universal importance in the affairs of
human life. The pendulum-clock now in use was brought to some degree of
perfection, if not invented, by Huygens,[93] who was one of the first
mathematicians and astronomers of the age in which he lived: and the
date of this invention is about the middle of the seventeenth century;
although Galileo disputed with him the discovery, a few years earlier.
Clocks of _some_ kind date their antiquity much higher; some writers
pretending to carry their invention back as far as the year 510 of the
Christian era. However, on the authority of Conrad Gesner,[94] the
honour of inventing the clock, before the application of the pendulum to
these machines was made by Huygens, belongs to England: He says, that
“Richard Wallingford, an English abbot of St. Albans, who flourished in
the year 1326, made a wonderful clock by a most excellent art; the like
of which could not be produced in all Europe.”[95] This was forty-six
years before Henry de Vic, a German, made his clock for Charles V. king
of France; and fifty-six years before the duke of Burgundy ordered one,
which sounded the hour, to be carried away from the city of Courtray, in
Flanders.
-----
Footnote 93:
This great man, who was the son of Christian Huygens lord of
Zuylichem, a counsellor of the prince of Orange, was born in the year
1629, at Zuylichem, in the province of Guelderland, the country of the
ancestors of Rittenhouse. Having resided for some time in France, he
quitted that country on account of his religion, in 1684, in
consequence of the revocation of the edict of Nantes. He died in
Holland in 1695, at the age of sixty-six years.
Galileo, who was a native of Florence, lived to the age of
eighty-seven years. He died fifty-three years before Huygens; and
about fourteen before Huygens’s application of the pendulum to clocks,
so as to effect an _isochronal_ regulation of their movements.
Galileo’s use of the pendulum, for the purpose of measuring time,
seems to have been nothing more than the annexation of a short
pendulum to clock-work.
Footnote 94:
This celebrated naturalist and physician, who was styled by Boerhaave,
_Monstrum Eruditionis_, was born at Zurich in 1516: He was, probably,
of the same family as that of the late Solomon Gesner the poet, who
was a native of the same city, and appeared more than two centuries
afterwards. Conrad Gesner was so distinguished a writer, as a
naturalist, that he was called the Pliny of Germany. A splendid
edition of Pliny’s Natural History, under the title of the _Historia
Mundi_ of Caius Plinius Secundus, with a dedication by Erasmus to
Stanislaus Turzo, bishop of Olmutz, was printed at Basil, by Froben,
so early as 1525. This copy of Pliny (which is now very rare) having
been published in the vicinity of Conrad Gesner, during his youth,
that circumstance may have prompted him to direct his attention to
those pursuits in science, which distinguished this learned Swiss.
Footnote 95:
About two centuries after that period when the sciences had begun to
revive and the mechanical arts to flourish, the construction of clocks
appears to have been much improved. And in the reign of Henry VIII. a
stately clock was made by an artist, the initials of whose name are
“N. O.” in the year 1540, and placed in the royal palace at
Hampton-Court. This not only shewed the hour of the day, but an
orrery-part, connected with it, exhibited the motion of the sun
through all the signs of the zodiac, and also of the moon, with other
matters depending on them. A similar one, in the cathedral of Lunden
in Denmark, is mentioned by Heylin: But Martin, in his _Philosophia
Britannica_, speaks of a piece of clock-work in the cathedral of
Strasburg, in Alsace; “in which, besides the clock-part, is the
celestial globe or sphere, with the motions of the sun, moon, planets
and fixed stars, &c.” This was finished in the year 1574, and is
represented as being much superior to a pompous clock at Lyons, in
France, which also has an orrery department.
-----
Within our own day and a short period of time preceding it,
great improvements have been made in the construction of the
pendulum-clock,[96] as well as in other descriptions of
Chronometers.[97] Mr. Rittenhouse’s early zeal in his practical
researches into astronomy, prompted him to desire the greatest possible
accuracy in the construction of time-pieces adapted to astronomical
purposes; and uniting, as he did, operative skill with a thorough
knowledge of the principles upon which their construction depends, he
was enabled—impelled by so powerful a motive—to display to the world, by
his own manual ingenuity, the near approach to perfection to which the
pendulum-chronometer may be brought. Besides his astronomical pursuits,
his early employment in ascertaining the limits and fixing the
territorial boundaries of Pennsylvania, and of some of the neighbouring
states, obliged him to supply himself with chronometers of the greatest
possible accuracy: and these were either made by his own hands, or under
his immediate inspection by his brother, who, with the aid of his
instruction, became an excellent mechanician. One of these fine
instruments, bearing on its face the name of _Benjamin Rittenhouse_ as
the maker, and the date of the year 1786, is now in the possession of
Mr. Norton Prior,[98] of Philadelphia: but that admirable one, the
workmanship of which was executed by our Philosopher himself, and which
was part of the apparatus of his Philadelphia Observatory, is now placed
in the hall of the American Philosophical Society.[99] This is
constructed on a greatly improved plan of his own, which improvement was
afterwards applied to that now belonging to Mr. Prior; and the latter is
the same chronometer, it is believed, that was used by Mr. D.
Rittenhouse, in fixing the northern line which divides Pennsylvania from
New York, and in establishing the boundary line between the last
mentioned state, and Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, respectively, in
the years 1786 and 1787.—A description of the principles of his
observatory-chronometer here mentioned, together with some account of
its mechanism, will be found in the Appendix: the former having been
communicated to the writer of these memoirs by the ingenious Robert
Patterson, Esq. director of the Mint; and the latter by that able
mechanician, Mr. Henry Voight, chief coiner in that institution,—a
person who, by reason of his well-known skill as a clock and
watch-maker, was employed by Mr. Rittenhouse more than forty years
since, in the fabrication of some of his philosophical instruments.
-----
Footnote 96:
The first pendulum-clock made in England, was in the year 1662, by Mr.
Fromanteel, a Dutchman.
In the library-hall of the Philadelphia Library-Company, is one of the
clocks made by that artist, having this inscription engraven on its
face, “_Johannes Fromanteel, Londini, fecit_;” but without any date.
This clock was a donation to the library-company, in the year 1804, by
Mr. Samuel Hudson, of Philadelphia, whose ancestor purchased it at an
auction in London, after the restoration of king Charles II. The
traditional account of it is, that it belonged, originally, to the
Cromwell family; and, when presented, was said to be one hundred and
forty years old: but it could not have been the property of the
protector, Cromwell, the time of whose death was between three and
four years anterior to Fromanteel’s construction of a pendulum-clock.
Footnote 97:
Besides the testimony of so distinguished an astronomer as Mr. de
Zach, already given, respecting the very great accuracy to which
time-keepers have been brought, the following translation, taken from
what the celebrated Lalande has said in his treatise _Des Horloges
Astronomiques_, (in the second volume of his _Astronomie_,) furnishes
some curious and interesting facts on that subject.
“Short (the mathematical instrument maker,) upon the occasion of the
transit of mercury over the sun observed in 1753, assures us that he
had found by many observations, that his clock had not varied more
than one second, from the 22d of February to the 6th of May (_Philos.
Trans._ 1753, p. 200;) so that, with a like pendulum, it is possible
to obtain an exactness which, till this time, was thought incredible.
There are English astronomers who have assured me,” continues Lalande,
“that pendulum-clocks have been made which did not vary more than
five″ in a year:[97a] but that does not appear to me to be yet
established as a fact; the oils that one is obliged to use in them are
sufficient, by the change of consistency they undergo, to prevent such
preciseness. The count de Bruhl, a great amateur and a perfect
connoisseur also, on the subject of time-pieces, shewed me in London a
diary of the going of two pendulums of Mudge, one of the most
celebrated clock-makers in London: in one, there was a difference of
half a second a day, between winter and summer; and in the other a
second. Mr. Aubert has a pendulum made by Shelton, which varies also
nearly a second in the day, in extreme seasons. Picard, in 1671, had a
clock which did not lose a second in two months. But, whatever may
have been, since that period, the skill of the clock-makers of Paris,
we cannot obtain such exactness, but by mere accident and an equality
of temperature in the atmosphere that is very rare: now, the
correctness of our clocks is a necessary consequence of their
principles; but these do not go so far. Mr. Emery has observed two
clocks beat the same second, during three months; they were, however,
very near to each other, and probably had some influence on one
another by means of their foot-board or support.”
Footnote 97a:
Even watches have been already brought to an inconceivable degree of
exactness. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Emery made some, in the year 1786, which
did not vary one second in a voyage of an hundred leagues.
Footnote 98:
This gentleman’s name is connected with another circumstance in
relation to Mr. D. Rittenhouse, which deserves to be noticed. He is in
possession of a finely-graduated thermometer, made by our Philosopher;
on the scale of which is engraved, by him, the record of a memorable
fact concerning the climate of Pennsylvania, referring by a mark to
22° _below_ 0, of Fahrenheit’s scale; viz.—“_Jan. 2. 1762—Great Cold
in Pennsylvania_.” This fact was ascertained by Mr. Rittenhouse, from
a reference to the accurate Messrs. Masons and Dixon’s Journal; in
which, such was stated to have been the degree of cold in the forks of
the Brandywine (about thirty miles westward, and very little to the
southward, from Philadelphia,) on the day mentioned.
Mr. Rittenhouse had noticed, that, at his Norriton Observatory, (in
lat. 40° 9′ 31″ N.) the mercury in Fahrenheit’s thermometer, not
exposed to the sun-shine but open to the air, was at 94½°, on the 5th
of July 1769; “which,” says he, “was the greatest height it had ever
been observed to rise to, at that place.” But the writer is informed
by a judicious and attentive observer, that at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, which is in lat. 40° 2′ 39″ N. (the long. of this
borough-town is 5^h 1′ 4″ W. from Greenw.) the mercury rose by
Fahrenheit’s scale, on the 7th of July, 1811, to 97½°. Admitting this
to be correct, if 1½° be then deducted, for the extra heat of so large
a town as Lancaster in comparison with a country-situation, there is
in this case the great range of 118° by Fahrenheit’s scale, for the
extremes of heat and cold in Pennsylvania.
The writer brought with him, from England, a meteorological diary kept
in London, during the severe frost there, from the 7th day of January,
1776, to the 28th of the same month, both days inclusive. The greatest
cold, during that period, was 15° and it is thus noted, in respect to
the state of the atmosphere at the time; “Clear sky—_intense
cold_—wind west.” The mercury rose on one day, within that time, to
34°. The _mean_ degree of cold, in the same period, was there 26¾°.
The greatest cold at Philadelphia, during the same days of January,
1776, was at 17°, but the mercury rose there, on one of those days, to
48°. The _mean_ degree of cold at Philadelphia, in this corresponding
period of time, was 29⅓°; being about 2½° warmer (or rather, less
cold,) than the general temperature of the weather in London, at the
same time, in what was there called a “severe frost.” Eighty-five
degrees of Fahrenheit’s scale is considered as a very extraordinary
heat, in London: consequently, a range of 68° may be presumed to reach
the extremes of heat and cold in England, in the latitude of nearly
52° N.[98a]
Notwithstanding the extremes of heat and cold, which thus appear in
the climate of Pennsylvania, Mr. Jefferson remarks (in his _Notes on
Virginia_,) that these extremes are greater at Paris than at
Williamsburg, the hottest part of Virginia. Yet Williamsburg, which is
only about 2¾° to the southward of Philadelphia, is nearly 11¾°
further south than Paris.
Footnote 98a:
Since writing the above, the author has ascertained, that in London,
during the four last years of the last century, Six’s thermometer, out
of doors, averaged 49.6; that on the hottest day within that period,
the mercury rose to 86; and that it fell, on the coldest day, to 4.
Footnote 99:
See a description of this Chronometer, in the Appendix.
-----
The great accuracy and exquisite workmanship displayed in every thing
belonging to the profession he pursued, that came through his hands,
soon became pretty extensively known: and this knowledge of his
mechanical abilities, assisted by the reputation he had already acquired
as a mathematician and astronomer, in a short time procured him the
friendship, respect and patronage, of some eminent scientific
characters; while it promoted his interest, in the profession he had
thus newly chosen. In this he was, nevertheless, _self-taught_; for he
never received the least instruction from any person, in any mechanic
art whatever: and, therefore, if he were to be considered as being
merely an excellent artist, in an occupation intimately connected with
the science of mathematics—_untutored_, as he was, in any art or
science,—he would deservedly be deemed an extraordinary and eminent man.
It will be perceived, however, that it was the _union_ of the almost
unbounded powers of his genius, and his prodigious acquirements in a
sublime science, with his wonderful abilities as a philosophical
mechanic—and these faculties and attainments, moreover, combined with an
amiable and virtuous character,—which constituted that celebrity so
justly attached to his name.
Our young philosopher lived a retired, though by no means an inactive
life, in his father’s family, for several years after he arrived to
(what is usually termed) lawful age. In this situation, which was a
pleasant one in many respects, he long continued to enjoy the tranquil
scenes of rural life, amidst the society of an amiable and very
intelligent family-circle, and surrounded by many worthy and estimable
neighbours, by whom he was both loved and respected. His chief
occupation was the profession he had chosen; but in such occasional
intervals of personal abstraction from the mechanical part of his
business, as the assistance the workmen he employed enabled him to
obtain, he devoted much of the time to philosophical pursuits and study.
Frugal in his expenditures, his industry furnished him amply with the
means of comfort; and in the plentiful and decent mansion of his
father’s family he experienced, with contentment, almost every
gratification that a reasonable mind could desire. Good health seemed
alone to be wanting to complete his happiness, in his earlier years; a
privation which he felt through the greater part of his life.
Such was the condition of Mr. Rittenhouse, while he remained under the
same roof with his father and mother, and some of their unmarried
children. It was a mode of life which his disposition was calculated to
enjoy; for, strongly attached to his kindred and friends by the
benevolence of his nature, he derived much of his happiness from the
reciprocal affections of a domestic circle and the kind intercourses of
friendly esteem.
There does not appear to have been, for a long time, any occurrence that
could have much disturbed the placid composure of our philosopher’s
mind,—until 1762; in which year his sister Anne died, in the
twenty-sixth year of her age. She was the wife of Mr. George Shoemaker,
a respectable citizen of Philadelphia, and a member of the religious
society of Friends. A letter which Mr. Rittenhouse wrote to his
brother-in-law Mr. Barton, in October 1762, announcing this event,
indicates the keenness of his sensibility on the occasion. Mrs.
Shoemaker was a woman of intrinsic worth; she died in the prime of life;
and it is believed, she was the first of Mr. Rittenhouse’s affectionate
little band of brothers and sisters who had attained to the age of
maturity, that he had then lost. After giving a circumstantial account
of his sister’s illness and death, he informs Mr. Barton, that Mr.
Daniel Stanton, an eminent public speaker in the society of
Friends,[100] attended her in her last illness, at her particular
request;—and, added Mr. Rittenhouse, “the same worthy gentleman who
visited her in her sickness, delivered an excellent exhortation at the
grave,—giving, in a few words, a very just character, I think, of our
deceased sister.”
-----
Footnote 100:
Mr. Stanton died at Philadelphia, the 28th of June, 1770, aged
sixty-two years. He was, for above forty years, a distinguished
preacher among the people called Quakers; and is reputed to have been
a man, “who, from his youth, had been a conspicuous example of
Christian meekness, humility, and self-denial; a zealous promoter of
the cause of religion, and the essential good of mankind.”
Some elegiac verses, under the title of a “poetic tribute” to
the memory of this worthy man,—from the pen of a lady in
Philadelphia,—were published in the _Port Folio_, for April
1813.
-----
Mr. Shoemaker (who married again) had an only child named Jacob, by his
first wife here mentioned. This son became a young man of promising
character: but, having entered the American army at the commencement of
the revolutionary war, and attained (it is believed) the rank of
captain, under the patronage of his uncle David Rittenhouse, he was
slain in the campaign of 1781, in South-Carolina. Mr. Rittenhouse was
much afflicted by the death of this gallant young man, who fell in the
flower of his age.
An occasion presented itself, in which Mr. Rittenhouse, when only in the
thirty-second year of his age, was employed in transacting an important
piece of business of a _public_ nature: it was as follows.
In consequence of a petition of the Messrs. Penn to the court of
chancery in England, exhibited in the year 1735, it was decreed by the
lord chancellor, in 1750,—That an agreement which had been entered into
between the Penns and Lord Baltimore, concerning the long-subsisting
controversy relative to the boundary lines between Pennsylvania and
Maryland, should be carried into specific execution: and, accordingly, a
final agreement was executed by those proprietaries of the two
provinces, on the fourth day July, 1760.
In pursuance of the chancellor’s decree, provision was made for
ascertaining and fixing the “circle,” to be “drawn at twelve miles
distance from New-Castle, northward and westward, unto the beginning of
the fortieth degree of north latitude;”—and thence, running a straight
line westward, five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the
eastern boundary; as described in the royal charter to William Penn.
Commissioners were appointed under the chancery-degree, for settling
these boundaries. But nothing was definitively done in the business,
until the eleventh of January, 1769; when the line which was run by
Messrs. Mason and Dixon in the years 1767 and 1768, in pursuance of the
final agreement between the parties before mentioned, was approved and
ratified by the king in council.
So early, however, as about the close of the year 1763, four or five
years before the running and marking of Mason and Dixon’s line, Mr.
Rittenhouse was employed by the Penn family in making some geographical
arrangements, preparatory to the final establishment of those
boundaries. He was engaged to perform this service, by the Rev. Mr.
Richard Peters, (afterwards D. D. and rector of the united churches of
Christ-Church and St. Peters, in Philadelphia,) who then officiated as
the Governor’s provincial secretary; a gentleman of learning and great
worth; and one who, on various occasions, manifested a friendship for
Mr. Rittenhouse, as well the high opinion he entertained of his
abilities.
The particular department of that business thus committed to Mr.
Rittenhouse, seems to have been the fixing of _the Circle_,—or at least,
the tracing of its course or route, topographically; and this was,
certainly, a matter of no little difficulty. That this service was
performed to the satisfaction of the then administrators of the
government of Pennsylvania, and that it was an arduous one, will appear
by the following extract of a letter from Mr. Rittenhouse to the Rev.
Mr. Barton, dated the sixteenth of February, 1764.[101]
-----
Footnote 101:
This letter contains, likewise, a short narrative of an occurrence
which excited much feeling, and claimed a considerable portion of the
public attention, at the time. As Mr. Rittenhouse’s account of the
transaction referred to, will serve to shew that he was not an
indifferent spectator of the political events of that early day; and,
further, that he was zealously disposed to support the legitimate
authority of the government, in order to suppress illegal and
disorderly proceedings, subversive of the laws and dangerous to the
public peace and safety; this part of his letter to Mr. Barton (of the
16th of February, 1764,) is also presented to the reader.
It will be recollected that what was called the _Paxton Riot_ in
Pennsylvania, in the year 1763, was occasioned by an attempt made by
many of the inhabitants of a district in the upper end of Lancaster
(now Dauphin) county, called Paxton, with some of their neighbours, to
destroy a number of Indians resident in and near that county; who were
extremely obnoxious to the Paxton people, by reason of the supposed
treachery, if not actual hostility, of these Indians to the settlers
on the Paxton frontier, in the war that had then recently terminated.
These unfortunate Indians had, nevertheless, uniformly professed
themselves to be friendly to the English, in that war; and were so
reputed by the government of Pennsylvania: but finding themselves,
notwithstanding, threatened with extermination by “_the Paxton Boys_”
(as they were then called,)—by whom a few old men, women, and children
had been destroyed, shortly before, at their homes,—they sought the
protection of the government. Part of them were, accordingly, placed
in the public prison in Lancaster, and the remainder at the barracks
in Philadelphia, as places of security. Those in Lancaster, to the
number of fourteen or fifteen, were soon after, as is well known,
killed by the Paxton people, one of the prison doors having been
forcibly broken open by them. The remnant of these persecuted Indians,
who were in Philadelphia, were more fortunate than their brethren;
they escaped the horrors of assassination: And it is to the expedition
against these wretched fugitives—a mere handful of men, unarmed, and
claiming from Christians an asylum from massacre,—that Mr. Rittenhouse
refers in his letter.
“You are no doubt, long before this time, well acquainted,” said our
young philosopher, “with every particular of the Paxtonian expedition
to Philadelphia: nor need I tell you, that whatever information you
may have through the channel of ——, will be abominably corrupt. About
fifty of the scoundrels marched by my work-shop—I have seen hundreds
of Indians travelling the country, and can with truth affirm, that the
behaviour of these fellows was ten times more savage and brutal than
theirs. Frightening women, by running the muzzles of their guns
through windows, swearing and hallooing; attacking men without the
least provocation; dragging them by the hair to the ground, and
pretending to scalp them; shooting a number of dogs and fowls;—these
are some of their exploits.
“I received a letter from sister E. soon after the alarm at
Philadelphia was over, and will give you a part of it, which I doubt
not will be agreeable to you.”—It is as follows.
—“On Monday morning between one and two o’clock, an express came to
the governor, informing that the rebels were on their way, and that a
great number of them were on this side the White Horse. There was one
express after another, till there was certain intelligence that some
of them were at Germantown. When the first express came, the bells
were rung, the drums beat, and the constables were ordered to go from
house to house, to knock up the inhabitants, and to bid them put
candles at their doors: it had the appearance of all the houses being
illuminated. Before day, there were above twenty men met at J. J.’s,
and chose their officers. Before night they were increased to nearly
an hundred; as were likewise most of the other companies: E—— and all
our men were in captain Wood’s company. They all appeared to be in
high spirits, and desirous to meet the rebels. On Tuesday, when the
mayor and the other gentlemen set off for Germantown, the heads of the
companies begged of them not to comply with any dishonourable terms,
and told them—“Gentlemen, we are ready to go wherever you may command
us; and we had much rather you would let us treat with them (the
rebels) with our guns.”—On their return, there was a general murmur
among the companies against the proceedings of our great men; they
knew it, and there was a long harangue made by Mr. Chew: but it did
not answer the end. On Wednesday morning I went to —-—, as usual; and
on my return home, I stopped at our friend H. J.’s; when, on a sudden,
the alarm-gun was fired, the bells began to ring, and the men called
“_to arms_,” as loud as possible. I cannot describe, my dear brother,
how I felt: we ran to the door, when to add to my fright, I saw E——,
amidst hundreds of others, run by with his gun. They met at the
court-house, formed themselves into regular companies, and marched up
Second-street as far as the barracks; when they found it was a false
alarm.
“It was a pleasing, though melancholy sight, to view the activity of
our men. In less than a quarter of an hour, they were all on their
march,—it is supposed above a thousand of them; and by all accounts,
there were not ten —— among them. It was the common cry, while our men
were parading—“What! not one —— among us!”—Instead of joining with
others, they would sneak into corners, and applaud the “Paxton-boys.”
Their behaviour on this occasion has made them appear blacker than
ever.”
Concerning these extraordinary transactions, to which much importance
was attached in their day, and which, moreover, constitute a curious
and interesting occurrence in the history of Pennsylvania, in the time
of our philosopher, the testimony of another respectable witness is
added; a person, besides, who bore a principal part in arresting the
progress of the insurrection referred to. On the 2d of June, 1765, Dr.
Franklin, who was then in London, wrote a letter to the celebrated
Henry Home, lord Kames, in which the following interesting
circumstances are related, respecting what was called the Paxton
Expedition: this letter is inserted entire in lord Woolhousie’s
_Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Lord Kames_. The Doctor therein
says—“In December (1763,) we had two insurrections of the back
inhabitants of our province, by whom twenty poor Indians were
murdered, that had from the first settlement of the province lived
among us, under the protection of our government. This gave me a good
deal of employment; for, as the rioters threatened further mischief,
and their actions seemed to be approved by an increasing party, I
wrote a pamphlet, entitled _A Narrative_, &c. to strengthen the hands
of our weak government, by rendering the proceedings of the rioters
unpopular and odious. This had a good effect: and afterwards, when a
great body of them with arms marched towards the capital in defiance
of the government, with an avowed resolution to put to death one
hundred and forty Indian converts, then under its protection, I formed
an association at the governor’s request, for his and their defence,
we having no militia. Near one thousand of the citizens accordingly
took arms: Governor Penn made my house for some time his
head-quarters, and did every thing by my advice; so that, for about
forty-eight hours, I was a very great man, as I had been once some
years before, in a time of public danger. But the fighting face we put
on, and the reasonings we used with the insurgents, (for I went, at
the request of the governor and council, with three others, to meet
and discourse them,) having turned them back, and restored quiet to
the city, I became a less man than ever; for I had, by these
transactions, made myself many enemies among the populace.”
-----
“I hope,” said he, “you will never believe that I am determined to
disclaim all kind of intercourse” with you: for I can say with the
greatest sincerity there are very few things I so much regret, as that I
have it not in my power to spend a great part of my time with you. My
attention has, for some time past, been engaged with such a multiplicity
of things, that I may with some reason claim your indulgence for my not
writing. Have I not, indeed, an equal right to complain?—for, I think
this letter will balance our accounts, from the time I last saw you.
“I waited on Mr. Peters, as you desired me to do. He treated me kindly,
and made an offer of doing me some services; for which I am greatly
obliged to him. He likewise paid me for my attendance at New-Castle, and
much more generously than I expected;—though I found it a very laborious
affair; being obliged, singly, to go through a number of tedious and
intricate calculations.”
It appears that about this time, Mr. Rittenhouse’s friends had some
beneficial object in view for him; perhaps some official situation,
which they conceived to be adapted to the nature of his pursuits, and
such as might more permanently promote his interests. But whatever that
object may have been, he seems to have hesitated about it. If it were a
public appointment of a permanent kind, it would probably have required
his removal to the city,—a measure which he did not contemplate at that
time; and he might, besides, have been disinclined to undertake any
official duties, which would be likely to occupy the greater part of his
time. He expressed himself thus to Mr. Barton, on the subject, in the
letter just quoted:—“I am greatly obliged to you, my dear brother, for
pointing out any prospect of advantage to me: I shall consider the
matter you mention in your last, and let you know my opinion. The
objections you have so well answered, are those which would most readily
occur to me. Considering the crazy state of my constitution, a retired
life would certainly suit me best. Since death, to use John
Bunyan’s[102] phrase, does usually knock at my door once a day, would it
not be a folly for me to take up the load of any public business?”
Footnote 102:
-----
The writer of these memoirs well remembers to have heard Mr.
Rittenhouse, when fully matured in years, speak of the pleasure he
derived from the reading of John Bunyan’s _Pilgrim’s Progress_, while
a youth. It is, certainly, no faint compliment to the “well-told tale”
of that “ingenious dreamer,” that it engaged the attention of David
Rittenhouse, even at a very early period of his life: and that
compliment is greatly enhanced by the following beautiful invocation,
addressed to the long-since departed spirit of the humble, yet
persecuted, the pious, yet fanciful Bunyan, by the amiable Cowper:—
“Oh thou, whom, borne on fancy’s eager wing,
Back to the season of life’s happy spring,
I pleas’d remember, and, while mem’ry yet
Holds fast her office here, can ne’er forget;
Ingenious dreamer, in whose well-told tale
Sweet fiction and sweet truth alike prevail;
Whose hum’rous vein, strong sense, and simple style;
Witty, and well-employ’d, and, like thy Lord,
Speaking in parables his slighted word;
I name thee not, lest so despis’d a name
Should move a sneer at thy deserved fame:
Yet, ev’n in transitory life’s late day,
That mingles all my brown with sober gray,
Revere the man, whose PILGRIM marks the road,
And guides the PROGRESS of the soul to God.”
Cowper’s _Tirocinium_.
The celebrated Benjamin Franklin too, in the account of his Life
written by himself, informs us, that the _Pilgrim’s Progress_ (which
Franklin there, inadvertently, calls “_Bunyan’s Voyages_,”) was a
favourite book of his, in his earlier years. “I have since learned,”
says the Doctor, “that it has been translated into almost all the
languages of Europe; and, next to the Bible, I am persuaded, it is one
of the books which has had the greatest spread.”
-----
About three years afterwards, Mr. Rittenhouse seemed to have been less
indisposed to accept of an official situation: and, such was his high
standing with the government and its most influential friends, there can
be very little doubt he could have obtained a respectable one. It is
evident that, at this latter period, when perhaps his health was
improved, he had some particular office in view: because, by a letter to
Mr. Barton, dated January 28th 1767, he said—“I am entirely satisfied
with your proceedings in the affair I recommended to you; and I shall
wait on Mr. Peters. The reputation of the office would be very agreeable
to me; but the execution of it would, I am afraid, greatly interfere
with the other projects you have so much insisted on.”
Mr. Rittenhouse continued a bachelor until the 20th of February, 1766,
when he married Eleanor Colston, daughter of Bernard Colston, a
reputable farmer in the neighbourhood. This person belonged to the
religious society called Quakers; Mr. Rittenhouse was not himself a
member of any particular church: but the marriage was solemnized at
Norriton, by the Rev. Mr. Barton, who went thither for the purpose at
his brother-in-law’s request.
Some time prior to this event, old Mr. Rittenhouse, having previously
made his son David the proprietor of the Norriton farm, removed with his
family to the house he had built[103] on his place in Worcester
township, already mentioned; while the son’s family occupied the old
place of residence: and here our Astronomer remained about four years
after his marriage. It was during this period, that his reputation as an
astronomer became eminently conspicuous;[104] his name acquired a
celebrity even in the old world, of which his early but now much
increased fame, in his native country, was a sure presage.[105]
-----
Footnote 103:
This was about the year 1764.
Footnote 104:
In the earlier part of this interval of time, and before he became
more seriously engaged in those great works and researches, the
construction of his Orrery, and the Observation of the Transit of
Venus with the operations preparatory to it, which about that time
engrossed his attention, he occasionally amused himself with matters
rather speculative than practical: though he very seldom devoted any
considerable portion of his time to things which he did not consider
as being in some degree useful.
The following is one of those instances in which his active mind was
diverted from severer studies, to some objects of a more playful
nature.
In the year 1767, some ingenious country-gentleman published in
Messrs. Hall and Sellers’s paper, under the signature of T.T. the
result of calculations he had made on Archimedes’s famous vaunting
assertion, Δος που στω, και την γην κινησω. Mr. Rittenhouse published,
some short time after, calculations (or rather the result of
calculations) of his own, on the same problem. This appeared in a
piece under the signature of “_A Mechanic_,” dated the 8th of October,
1767: and a reply to it, by T. T. dated October the 29th, appeared in
the same paper. These little speculations will be found in the
Appendix. It is not improbable that Mr. Rittenhouse, under the
disguise of “A Mechanic,” appeared in print on this occasion, for the
purpose of drawing the attention of ingenious men to subjects of this
nature.
Footnote 105:
It was between the years 1766 and 1770—the interval of time above
mentioned,—that the two important circumstances occurred, which gave
great celebrity to the reputation of Mr. Rittenhouse, as an
astronomer: these were the Construction of the Orrery invented by him,
and the admirable result of his observations of the Transit of Venus,
as published in the Philosophical Society’s Transactions.
Amidst those objects of importance in which he was principally
occupied, he occasionally amused himself with matters of minor
consequence. Among other things, he contrived and made, in the
beginning of the year 1767, an ingeniously contrived thermometer,
constructed on the principle of the expansion and contraction of
metals, by heat and cold, respectively. This instrument had, under
glass, a face upon which was a graduated semi-circle: the degrees of
heat and cold corresponded with those of Fahrenheit’s thermometer; and
these were also correspondently designated, by an index, moving on the
centre of the arch. Its square (or rather parallelogramical) form, its
flatness and thinness, and its small size—together with its not being
liable to the least sensible injury or irregularity, from any position
in which it might be placed,—rendered it safely portable; insomuch,
that it could be conveniently carried in the pocket.
He presented one of these metaline Thermometers to Dr. Peters, in June
1767: Another, which he made for himself, was a considerable time in
the hands of Mr. Barton, at Lancaster. They were found to agree very
well with Fahrenheit’s. In a letter to Mr. Barton, dated the 26th of
July 1769, he said—“You will oblige me by sending the metaline
thermometer by..., and let me know the greatest height you have seen
it, this season, Fahrenheit’s thermometer, in my Observatory, not
exposed to the sunshine but very open to the air, was 94½° on the 5th
of this month, at 3 in the afternoon; which is the highest I have ever
seen it.”
-----
About the time that he projected his Orrery (which shall be duly noticed
in its place), it appears he had been speculating on the doctrine of the
compressibility of water. For in a letter to Mr. Barton, dated from
Philadelphia the 27th of March, 1767, he mentions,—that he had not then
met with any person, who had seen Mr. Kinnersley’s[106] experiment on
that theory; but that he understood it was made with the air-pump, and
conjectured it to have been similar to the one made by a member of the
Royal Society, related in Martin’s Magazine: which is thus quoted in Mr.
Rittenhouse’s letter:
“I took a glass ball of about an inch and 6/10 in diameter, which was
joined to a cylindrical tube of 4 inches and 2/10 in length, and in
diameter 1/100 of an inch; and by weighing the quantity of mercury
that exactly filled the ball, and also the quantity that filled the
tube, I found that the mercury in 23/100 of an inch of the tube was
the 10000th part of that contained in the ball; and with the edge of a
file, I divided the tube accordingly. This having been done, I filled
the ball and part of the tube with water exhausted of air: Now, by
placing this ball and tube under the receiver of an air-pump, I could
see the degree of expansion of the water, answering to any degree of
rarefaction of the air; and by putting it into a glass receiver of a
condensing engine, I could see the degree of compression of the water,
answering to any degree of condensation of the air, &c.”—Then adds.
Mr. Rittenhouse—“Indeed I do not doubt the compressibility of water,
although the above experiment does not much please me. If the
particles of water were in actual contact, it would be difficult to
conceive how any body could much exceed it in specific gravity; yet we
find that gold does, more than eighteen times.”
-----
Footnote 106:
The Rev. Ebenezer Kinnersley, A. M. Professor of English and Oratory
in the college of Philadelphia. This venerable and worthy man, who was
a clergyman of the Baptist church, was a very eminent Electrician. In
this branch of philosophy, he was an able lecturer and ingenious
experimentalist: and perhaps to no person—at least in America,—were
his cotemporaries more indebted, than to him, for the light which he
shed, at a very early day, on this interesting and pleasing science.
-----
The first academic honour conferred upon our philosopher, was on the
17th of November, 1767; when the College of Philadelphia, then in its
meridian splendour, bestowed on him an honorary degree of Master of
Arts. Mr. Rittenhouse being present at the commencement then held, the
provost, in conferring this degree, thus addressed him,—in terms of a
just and well merited compliment:
“Sir,—The trustees of this College (the faculty of professors cheerfully
concurring), being ever desirous to distinguish real merit, especially
in the natives of this province,—and well-assured of the extraordinary
progress and improvement which you have made, by a felicity of natural
genius, in mechanics, mathematics, astronomy, and other liberal arts and
sciences, all which you have adorned by singular modesty and
irreproachable morals,—have authorized and required me to admit you to
the honorary degree of Master of Arts, in this seminary: I de therefore,
by virtue of this authority, most cheerfully admit, &c.”
Mr. Rittenhouse’s great abilities, as an astronomer and mathematician,
being now every where known, he was employed in the year 1769, in
settling the limits between the provinces of New-York and New-Jersey.
The original grant of all the territory, called by the Dutch
_New-Netherlands_ (sometimes _Nova-Belgia_), was made by King Charles
II. to James Duke of York, on the 12th of March, 1663-4; and on the 24th
of June following, the Duke granted that part of it, now called
New-Jersey, to the Lord Berkeley of Stratton and Sir George Carteret,
jointly. The Dutch reduced the country, in the year 1672; but it was
restored by the peace of Westminster, February the 9th, 1673-4. On the
29th of June, in the same year, a new patent was issued to the Duke of
York, for the lands comprised within the limits described in the former
patent. On the 28th of the succeeding July, the colony of New-Jersey was
divided into East and West-Jersey (hence, generally called the Jersies);
and the former was then granted, by the Duke of York, to Sir George
Carteret. In 1675, West-Jersey, being Lord Berkeley’s moiety of the
province, was sold to John Fenwick, in trust for Edward Bylinge; who
assigned his interest therein to William Penn and others,[107] in trust,
for the use of his creditors. This partition was confirmed in the year
1719, by the general assembly of the Jersies. But prior to this
confirmation, viz. the 10th of October, 1678, a new grant of West-Jersey
was made by the Duke of York, to the assigns of Lord Berkeley; and on
the 1st of February, 1681-2, East-Jersey was sold and conveyed, in
pursuance of Sir George Carteret’s will, to twelve persons; who, by
separate deeds, conveyed one-half of their several interests in the same
to twelve other persons: and, on the 14th of the next month, the Duke of
York made a new grant of East-Jersey to those twenty-four proprietors,
thereby confirming the same to them. The proprietors of both the Jersies
afterwards became very numerous, by purchase as well as by descent. This
being attended with great inconveniencies, they finally surrendered the
government to the crown, on the 17th of April, 1702: and from that time,
the province of New-Jersey continued to be a royal government, until the
American revolution.
-----
Footnote 107:
According to the American historian, Marshall, Lord Berkeley assigned
his interest in the Jersies to Penn and his three associates, in the
year 1674; and they, soon perceiving the inconvenience of a joint
property, divided the province, in 1676, with Carteret, who still
retained his interest: to him they released East-Jersey; and received
from him, in return, a conveyance for the western part of the
province. The Duke of York resigned the government of East Jersey to
the proprietor, retaining that of West-Jersey _as an appendage to
New-York_, until August 1680; when, on a reference to Sir William
Jones, the title was decided against the Duke: after which, he
formally released all claim upon East-Jersey. Soon after this,
Carteret transferred his rights to Penn, and eleven other persons of
the same religious persuasion, who immediately conveyed one half of
their interest to James Drummond, Earl of Perth, and eleven others;
and these, in March 1683, obtained a conveyance from the Duke of York
directly to themselves.—During these transactions, continual efforts
were made to re-annex the Jerseys to the province of New-York. [See
Marshall’s _Introduction to the Life of Washington_, ch. vi.]
-----
The division-line, between East and West-Jersey, was to run from the
south-east point of Little Egg-Harbour, on Barnegate Creek—being about
midway between Cape-May and Sandy-Hook, to a creek, a little below
Ancocus-Creek, on the river Delaware; thence, about thirty-five miles in
a straight course, along the Delaware, up to 44° 40´ of north latitude.
The province of New-York passed a legislative act on this subject, in
the year 1762; and the New-Jersey Assembly enacted a corresponding law,
in 1764. Five commissioners—namely, John Stevens, James Parker, Henry
Cuyler, William Donaldson, and Walter Rutherford—were appointed on this
business, for the two provinces: their report was passed upon, by both;
and it was confirmed by the King in council, the 1st of September, 1773.
It is understood, that the division-line between East and West-Jersey
remained unsettled, so late as the year 1789. But it nevertheless
appears, that the territorial boundary between New-York and New-Jersey
was fixed by Mr. Rittenhouse, forty-four years ago.
A recurrence shall now be had to a date anterior to our Philosopher’s
employment in the transaction just mentioned.—Within the two years
preceding that period, two objects of much importance to astronomical
science, claimed a large share of the public attention, in this country:
One of them, especially, had already actually engaged the investigations
of the ablest astronomers of the other hemisphere, as well as our own;
preparatory to the then approaching event, to which those researches
were directed. The result of the expectations excited by both of those
objects proved, on their final completion, highly honourable to the fame
of Mr. Rittenhouse.
The first of these, in the order of time, was our Astronomer’s
newly-projected Orrery; a general but concise description of which, was
communicated by his friend, the Rev. Dr. Smith, to the Philosophical
Society, on the 21st of March, 1768. Of this fine and eminently useful
piece of mechanism, more particular mention shall be made in the sequel.
The other circumstance, just referred to, was the then approaching
Transit of Venus over the Sun’s disk; an event which was to take place
on the 3d day of June, 1769: And of Mr. Rittenhouse’s participation in
the arduous labours of the astronomical world, on that very interesting
occasion, the following narrative will furnish some account.
The American Philosophical Society, in their meeting on the 7th of
January, 1769, had appointed the following gentlemen to observe that
_rare phænomenon_,[108] as it was aptly styled by Dr. Smith; namely,
the. Rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) John Ewing, Mr. Thomas Prior, Joseph
Shippen, jun. Esq., Hugh Williamson, M. D., the Rev. Dr. Smith, Mr.
David Rittenhouse, John Lukens, Esq. and Messrs. James Alexander, Owen
Biddle, James Pearson, John Sellers, Charles Thomson, and William Poole.
The gentlemen thus nominated were distributed into three committees, for
the purpose of making separate observations at three several places;
these were, the city of Philadelphia, Mr. Rittenhouse’s residence, in
Norriton, and the Light-House near Cape Henlopen, on Delaware Bay. Dr.
Ewing, an able mathematician and very respectable astronomer, had the
principal direction of the Observatory in the City, which was erected on
this occasion in the State-house Gardens; and Mr. O. Biddle, a person of
much ingenuity, had the charge of superintending the observations at
Cape Henlopen. Associated with Mr. Rittenhouse, on the Norriton
committee, were the Rev. Dr. Smith, provost of the College of
Philadelphia, well known as an astronomer and eminently skilled in the
mathematics; Mr. Lukens, then surveyor-general of Pennsylvania, who
possessed considerable abilities in the same departments of science; and
Mr. Sellers, a respectable member of the provincial legislature, for the
county of Chester. The Rev. Mr. Barton, with some other gentlemen of
ingenuity and talents, voluntarily attended at Norriton, on this
occasion; and rendered such assistance as they could, to the committee.
-----
Footnote 108:
There will not be another transit of Venus over the Sun’s disk, until
the 8th of December, 1874; which, it is probable few persons now
living will have an opportunity of observing, astronomically: And from
that time, down to the 14th of June, A. D. 2984, inclusively,—a period
of upwards of eleven centuries,—the same planet will pass over the Sun
only eighteen times. There will be one other such transit of this
planet, within the present century; after which there will not be
another, during the term of one hundred and twenty-one years and an
half. [See Table of the Transits of Venus over the Sun, in Lalande’s
_Astronomie_; vol. ii.]
-----
As the time approached near, when this extraordinary and almost
unprecedented[109] astronomical phænomenon was to manifest itself, the
public expectation and anxiety, which were before considerable, became
greatly heightened. The ignorant—and those, generally, unacquainted with
the nature of the looked-for event,—hearing much every where said on the
subject, and seeing the preparations making for the occasion, had their
curiosity wonderfully excited. To scientific men, the inestimable value
of the approaching phænomenon suggested very different sensations. “Its
importance to the interests of Astronomy and Navigation, had,” as Dr.
Ewing observed at the time, “justly drawn the attention of every
civilized nation in the world.” An accurate ascertainment of the Sun’s
Parallax,—an important. and fundamental article in Astronomy, was a
_desideratum_ not yet obtained. Only two Transits of Venus over the Sun,
had been _observed_, prior to the 3d of June, 1769, since the creation
of the world; and of these, the first alone was seen but by two
persons:[110] Yet, as the learned gentleman just quoted has
remarked,—“the Transits of Venus, alone, afford an opportunity of
determining this problem” (the settling the Parallax of the Sun,) “with
sufficient certainty: and these,” he adds, “happen so seldom, that there
cannot be more than two in one century, and in some centuries none at
all.”
-----
Footnote 109:
There had been but one of these transits of Venus over the Sun, during
the course of about one hundred and thirty years preceding the transit
of 1769; and, for upwards of seven centuries, antecedently to the
commencement of that period, the same planet had passed over the Sun’s
disk no more than thirteen times. [See Lalande’s Table, before
referred to.]
Footnote 110:
Jeremiah Horrox and William Crabtree, two Englishmen, were the
observers of the Transit of Venus of 1639.
-----
To an object, then, of such vast importance to science, were
proportioned the expectations of our Observers. But they could not fail
to experience, at the same time, in common with their astronomical
brethren in other parts of the world, a large portion of anxious
apprehensions, lest a cloudy day—nay, even a solitary passing
cloud,—should baffle entirely their exalted hopes, and destroy all the
fruits of their arduous labours! Yet such an occurrence, as one or the
other of these events, was evidently within the calculations of a
probable incident.
Mr. Rittenhouse participated largely in these blended hopes and fears.
He had, for some time before, been laboriously employed in making the
requisite preparatory observations and calculations: and, as Norriton
was now rendered eminently conspicuous, by being fixed on as a principal
site for observing the very interesting phænomenon so near at hand, he
had been assiduously engaged, at the same time, in preparing and
furnishing an Observatory at that place, suitable for the occasion. This
he began to erect early in November, 1768,—“agreeably,” to use his own
words, “to the resolutions of the American Philosophical Society;” but,
through various disappointments from workmen and weather, he was not
enabled to complete it till the middle of April, 1769.[111]
-----
Footnote 111:
It was not until the year 1786, that Mr. Rittenhouse built the house
at the north-west corner of Arch and (Delaware) Seventh streets, in
Philadelphia, where he resided during the remainder of his life: but
probably it was some few years earlier that he erected his
Observatory, a small but pretty convenient octagonal building, of
brick, in the garden adjacent to his dwelling-house. Its situation was
not an ineligible one, when the building was first put up: but its
commodiousness and utility were probably much diminished, by the
erection, not long afterwards, of some large houses near it; and it is
presumable, that its usefulness in any degree, for the purposes of an
Observatory, could have continued but a little while beyond the
duration of its late proprietor’s life, by reason of the rapid
increase of the number of lofty houses in the vicinity. Indeed it
lately became extremely probable, on considering the great enlargement
of Philadelphia within the last twenty-five years, that the future
augmentation of the population and extension of improvements in this
beautiful and hitherto flourishing city, would, in a very few years,
render the late Observatory of Mr. Rittenhouse wholly useless for
astronomical purposes; and, in the event of the surrounding ground and
adjacent buildings being alienated from his family, improper for any
other.
This was the Observatory noticed by Mr. Lalande, when (in his
_Astronomie_, published in 1792,) he made this remark, treating of the
numerous Observatories in different parts of the world—“In America, I
know of no Observatory but that of Mr. Rittenhouse at Philadelphia.”
The Observatory at Norriton, mentioned in the text, was a temporary
erection; and was disused on his removal to Philadelphia, soon after.
The one put up in the State-House Gardens in that city on the same
occasion, was likewise a temporary edifice, constructed of wood.
-----
The Norriton Observatory was commodiously situated near Mr.
Rittenhouse’s mansion, on a pretty elevated piece of ground, commanding
a good range of horizontal view. This temporary edifice was as well
adapted to the purpose for which it was chiefly designed, as the nature
of the materials of which it was constructed, and other circumstances,
would permit. Some monies had been previously appropriated by the
Philosophical Society, towards defraying the expenses necessarily
incident to this occasion, at the three several places of observation:
but the funds of the society, at their disposal for such purposes, were
very limited; and it is believed that the quota of these funds assigned
for the expenditures actually incurred for making the observations of
the transit, at Norriton, was quite inconsiderable in its amount.
In order that ample justice may be done to the merits of Mr.
Rittenhouse, for all the preparatory arrangements made by him on this
occasion, the reader is here presented with an extract from Dr. Smith’s
subsequent Report, to the Philosophical Society, of the proceedings of
the Norriton Committee, and made in their behalf.—“I am persuaded” says
the doctor, “that the dependance which the learned world may place on
any particular Transit-Account, will be in proportion to the previous
and subsequent care, which is found to have been taken in a series of
accurate and well conducted observations, for ascertaining the _going_
of the time-pieces, and fixing the latitude and longitude of the place
of observations, &c. And I am the more desirous to be particular in
these points, in order to do justice to Mr. RITTENHOUSE, one of the
committee; to whose extraordinary skill and diligence is owing whatever
advantage may be derived, in these respects, to our observation of the
Transit itself.”—“Our great discouragement at our first appointment,”
continues the learned reporter, “was the want of proper apparatus,
especially good Telescopes with Micrometers. The generosity of our
Provincial Assembly soon removed a great part of this discouragement,
not only by their vote to purchase one of the best reflecting
Telescopes, with a _Dollond’s_ micrometer;[112] but likewise by their
subsequent donation of one hundred pounds,” (this was in sterling money,
= $444) “for erecting Observatories and defraying other incidental
expences.[113] It was forseen, that on the arrival of the Telescope,
added to such private ones as might be procured in the city, together
with fitting up the instruments belonging to the honourable the
Proprietaries of the province—viz. the equal Altitude and Transit
Instruments and the large astronomical Sector,—nothing would be wanted
for the city Observatory in the State-House Square, but a good
Time-piece, which was easily to be procured. We remained, however, still
at a loss, how to furnish the Norriton Observatory:[114] But even this
difficulty gradually vanished.”
-----
Footnote 112:
On an address of the Philosophical Society to the general assembly,
dated the 15th of October, 1768, the latter “Resolved, That a sum, not
exceeding one hundred pounds sterling, be provided and appropriated
for purchasing a reflecting telescope with a micrometer, for the
purpose mentioned in the said address” (observing the Transit of
Venus, then near at hand,) “and, afterwards, for the use of the house;
and that the speaker do write to Benjamin Franklin, Esq. in London, to
purchase the same.”
Footnote 113:
On a similar address of the Philosophical Society, dated the 7th of
February, 1769, the assembly granted them one hundred pounds, “to be
laid out towards defraying the expenses necessary for observing the
(then) ensuing Transit of Venus.” This grant was made on the 11th of
February, 1769.
But the sum then granted proving very inadequate to the object, the
society petitioned the assembly on the 11th of February, 1773;
stating, that the erecting the different observatories, fitting up
instruments, engraving various plates, and publishing the different
transit papers alone, cost the society near 400_l._ and praying
assistance to discharge that debt.
Footnote 114:
Mr. Lalande, in the preface to his _Astronomie_ (3d edit. 1792,)
mentions, that he did not then know of any other observatory in
America than that of Mr. Rittenhouse.
-----
Thus it appears, that while the public contributions, and such
astronomical instruments suitable for the occasion as were the
public property, were principally at the disposal of the
Philadelphia committee, the Observatory at Norriton—which seems to
have been considered as a private establishment, belonging to an
individual,—depended almost entirely on other resources. Even an
excellent reflecting telescope (though without a micrometer,) the
property of the Library Company of Philadelphia, and to which
institution it was a donation from the Hon. T. Penn,—the same that
had been used by Messrs. Macon and Dixon, when employed in settling
the boundary lines of Pennsylvania and Maryland—was necessarily
appropriated to the use of Mr. Owen Biddle, who was appointed by the
Society to conduct the Observation of the Transit, near Cape
Henlopen.
The Norriton Observatory was, notwithstanding, at last completely
furnished with every instrument proper for the occasion. In consequence
of some previous communications made by Dr. Smith to the Hon. Mr. T.
Penn of London, and to the Rev. Mr. Maskelyne, the British
astronomer-royal at Greenwich, the former worthy and liberal gentleman
had sent, for the use of the Norriton committee, a reflecting Telescope
with Dollond’s Micrometer—such as the doctor had expressed a wish to
obtain; and requested, that after the committee should have made their
observations with it, it should be presented in his name to the
College.[115] Through the means of Dr. Smith, likewise, an astronomical
quadrant of two and an half feet radius, made by Sisson, the property of
the East-Jersey proprietaries, was procured by Mr. Lukens from the Earl
of Stirling, surveyor-general of that province. This had been pretty
early sent up by Mr. Lukens to Mr. Rittenhouse, and was used by him in
ascertaining the latitude of his Observatory.
-----
Footnote 115:
This was one instance among many of the munificence of Mr. Penn to the
College of Philadelphia, and of his zealous wish to promote the
interests of science in Pennsylvania. The trustees of the college say,
in a letter written to Mr. Penn the 1st of August, 1769, thanking him
for his donation of the fine instrument above mentioned, together with
a pair of “Adams’s new-invented Globes;” “We have likewise the
pleasure to acknowledge a fresh instance of your benevolence, in
sending us a chemical apparatus under the care of Dr. Rush.” “The many
great and valuable favours this College has received at your hands,
have always been conferred in a manner which has rendered them
peculiarly acceptable; and cannot fail to leave the most lasting
impressions of gratitude and esteem in the heart of every person
concerned in the institution.”
-----
In addition to these and some other apparatus used at Norriton on the
occasion—a catalogue and description of the whole of which, are
contained in Dr. Smith’s before-mentioned report—the zeal, industry, and
talents of Mr. Rittenhouse enabled him to furnish his Observatory with
the three following described instruments, made by himself,[116] as
described by Dr. Smith.
-----
Footnote 116:
Mr. Lalande (in his _Astronomie_) has been careful to mention, that
the celebrated astronomer Hevelius possessed a similar merit. He
constructed, himself, the very large telescopes and other instruments,
described (with plates) in his great work entitled, _Machina
Cœlestis_, and with which he furnished the Observatory that he
established at his own residence, in the year 1641. Hevelius (whose
true name was John Hoelké.) was the son of a brewer; but was well
educated. He was born at Dantzic the 28th of January, 1611: and after
having made the tour of England, France and Germany, from 1630 to
1634, he was, on his return to his native city, occupied for some time
in the affairs of that little republic; of which he officiated as
consul, in 1651. He died on the anniversary of his birth-day, at the
age of seventy-six years.
-----
1. An _Equal Altitude Instrument_—its telescope three and an half feet
focal length, with two horizontal hairs, and a vertical one in its
focus; firmly supported on a stone pedestal, and easily adjusted to a
plummet-wire four feet in length, by two screws, one moving in a North
and South, the other in an East and West direction.
2. A _Transit Telescope_, fixed in the meridian, on fine steel points;
so that the hair in its focus could move in no other direction than
along the meridian; in which were two marks, South and North, about 330
yards distance each; to which it could be readily adjusted in an
horizontal position by one screw, as it could in a vertical position, by
another.
3. An excellent _Time-piece_—having for its pendulum-rod a flat steel
bar, with a bob weighing about twelve pounds, and vibrating in a small
arch. This went eight days, did not stop when wound up, beat dead
seconds, and was kept in motion by a weight of five pounds.[117]
-----
Footnote 117:
For some of the reasons which induced the writer to describe the
instruments used on that occasion, see Note 125.
-----
Thus was the Norriton Observatory furnished with all the more
immediately necessary apparatus, in readiness for the important event
which was the main object of these arduous exertions. Much credit was
due to Dr. Smith, much to Mr. Lukens and the other gentlemen engaged on
this occasion, for the assistance which he, and they, afforded Mr.
Rittenhouse. Yet the doctor himself very candidly says—in reporting the
proceedings of the Norriton committee to the Philosophical
Society,—“other engagements did not permit Mr. Lukens or myself to pay
much attention to the necessary preparations; but we knew that we had
entrusted them to a gentleman on the spot, who had joined to a complete
skill in _mechanics_, so extensive an _astronomical_ and _mathematical_
knowledge, that the use, management, and even the construction of the
necessary apparatus, were perfectly familiar to him. Mr. Lukens and
myself could not set out for his house till Thursday, June 1st; but, on
our arrival there, we found every preparation so forward, that we had
little to do, but to adjust our respective telescopes to distinct
vision. He had fitted up the different instruments, and made a great
number of observations, to ascertain the going of his Time-piece, and to
determine the latitude and longitude of his Observatory. The laudable
pains he hath taken in these material articles,” continues Dr. Smith in
his report, “will best appear from _the work itself_,—which he hath
committed into my hands, with the following modest introduction; giving
me a liberty, which his own accuracy, care and abilities, leave no room
to exercise.”[118]
-----
Footnote 118:
In addition to this publicly declared testimony of Dr. Smith, to the
merits of Mr. Rittenhouse on that occasion, are the following extracts
of a letter from the Dr. to Mr. Barton, dated July the 8th, 1769.
“Mr. Jesse Lukens left my house on Tuesday evening, at half an hour
past six, where he waited till I scrawled out a pretty long letter to
Mr. Rittenhouse, for whom my esteem encreases the more I see him; and
I shall long for an opportunity of doing him justice for his elegant
preparations to observe the Transit, which left Mr. Lukens and me
nothing to do, but to sit down to our telescopes. This justice I have
already in part done him, in a long letter to the proprietor” (Thomas
Penn, Esq.) “yesterday, and I hope Mr. Rittenhouse will not deprive us
of the opportunity of doing it in a more public manner, in the account
we are to draw up next week.”
“I did not chuse to send Mr. Rittenhouse’s original projection of the
Transit, as it is a society paper, to be inserted in our minutes: but
I have enclosed an exact copy. Pray desire him to take the sun’s
diameter again carefully, and examine the micrometer by it. The mean
of our diameters come out, Hor. Diam. 31′ 34″, 3—Polar Diam. 31′ 32″,
8—Ven. Diam. 57, 98.—The Sun’s is bigger than the Naut. Almanac gives:
That of Venus very well. The diameters of the State-house micrometer
come out less. I have compared some of _our_” (the Norriton)
“micrometer-observations with those made in _town_, and do not find a
difference of one second: but _all_ theirs do not seem to have been
taken with equal care, and differ from each other sometimes; a fault I
do not find among ours. Our nearest distance of the centres comes out,
I think, 10′ 3″, in which we agree within about one second with their
nearest distance: and our time of the nearest approach of the centres,
viz. 5^h 20′ 32″, reduced to mean time, is within one minute of the
time marked for their nearest approach.”
“With my compliments to Mr. Rittenhouse and family, I am, in great
haste,” &c.
Mr. Barton was then at Norriton, and Dr. Smith wrote from
Philadelphia.
-----
_Norriton, July 18th 1769._
“Dear Sir,
“The enclosed is the best account I can give of _the Contacts_,
as I observed them; and of what I saw during the interval between
them. I should be glad you would contract them, and also the other
papers, into a smaller compass,—as I would have done myself, if I had
known how. I beg you would not copy any thing merely because I have
written it, but leave out what you think superfluous.—I am, with great
esteem and affection, yours, &c.
DAVID RITTENHOUSE.[119]
TO REV. DR. SMITH.”
-----
Footnote 119:
On the 26th of the same month he thus addressed Mr. Barton on the
subject:—
“I have at last done with astronomical observations and calculations
for the present, and sent copies of all my papers to Dr. Smith, who, I
presume, has drawn up a complete account of our Observations on the
Transit of Venus: this I hope you will see, when you come to
Philadelphia. I have delineated the Transit, according to our
observations, on a very large scale, made many calculations, and drawn
all the conclusions I thought proper to attempt, until some foreign
observations come to hand, to compare with ours; all of which have
been, or will be laid before the Philosophical Society. The Doctor has
constantly seemed so desirous of doing me justice, in the whole
affair, that I suppose I must not think of transmitting any separate
account to England.”
-----
The result of the Norriton Observations of the Transit of Venus—as well
as those also made under the auspices of the American Philosophical
Society, at Philadelphia and Cape Henlopen—will be found, in detail, in
the first volume of the Transactions of that Society.[120] And “the Work
itself,” to which Dr. Smith refers, in his Report of the Proceedings of
the Norriton Committee, bears ample testimony to the transcendent
Astronomical Abilities of Mr. Rittenhouse.—Four days after the Transit,
Dr. Smith transmitted to the Hon. Mr. Penn, in London, a short account
of the Norriton Observations, more particularly mentioning the times of
the Contacts, and a few other circumstances attending them. This was
speedily communicated by Mr. Penn to the Rev. Mr. Maskelyne,[121] the
Astronomer Royal; who, acknowledging the receipt of the communication,
by a note, dated at Greenwich the 2d of August, 1769, says—“I thank you
for the account of the Pennsylvania Observations (of the Transit,) which
seem _excellent_ and _complete_,[122] and do honour to the gentlemen who
_made_ them[123], and those who promoted the undertaking;— among whom, I
reckon yourself[124] in the first place.”[125]
-----
Footnote 120:
The first volume of the Society’s Transactions contains (p. 125,)
among other observations of the transit of Venus in 1769, those made
at Baskenridge in New-Jersey, by the late Earl of Sterling. William
Alexander, the gentleman referred to, and who held this title, was (it
is believed) a native of New-York. It is presumable that the title he
bore was one to which he had an equitable right: It was recognized in
America, the country of his birth, from the time of his first
assumption of it until his death, although his claim to that honour
was not juridically established in Great Britain, where, in official
acts of that government, he was styled “William Alexander, Esq.
_claiming_ to be Earl of Sterling.” He was descended from Sir William
Alexander, in the reign of James I., to whom that monarch made a grant
of the province of Nova Scotia, on the 20th of September, 1621. On the
12th of July, 1625, Sir William obtained from King Charles I. a grant
of the soil, lordship and domains, of that province, which, with the
exception of “Port-Royal,” (Annapolis, on the Bay of Fundy,) formerly
the capital of the province, he conveyed on the 30th of April, 1630,
to Sir Claude de St. Etienne, lord of la Tour and Uarre, and to his
son Sir Charles de St. Etienne, lord of St. Deniscourt, on condition
that they should continue subjects to the crown of Scotland. This Sir
William was appointed by Charles I. commander in chief of Nova-Scotia.
Soon after the institution of the order of Baronets of Nova-Scotia, he
had been advanced to that dignity by Charles I. viz. on the 21st of
May, 1625; when the king conferred on him the privilege of coining
copper-money. In 1626, he was created Viscount Sterling: and on the
14th of June, 1633, he was further promoted by the same king to the
Earldom of Stirling.
The late Lord Stirling, who was seated at Baskenridge in New-Jersey,
inherited his Baronetage and titles of Nobility, as heir-male to
Henry, the fourth Earl. He married Sarah, daughter of Philip
Livingston, Esq. of New-York, by whom he had issue two daughters; Lady
Mary, married to —— Watts, Esq. of New-York, and Lady Catharine, first
married to William Duer, Esq. of New-York, and after his decease to
William Nelson, Esq. of the same city.
This nobleman appears to have been in some degree skilled in
astronomy, and was reputed a good observer. In the first volume of the
_Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_ there is
contained, besides his lordship’s observations of the transit of
Venus, a letter from him to Dr. Smith, communicating an account of his
having discovered, on the 28th of June, 1770, a comet, which he
observed astronomically on that and the three succeeding nights; being
the same that Mr. Rittenhouse first saw on the 25th of that month; and
respecting which, there are two letters from him to Dr. Smith, in the
same volume.
Immediately before the American revolution, lord Sterling was one of
the king’s council in New-Jersey; and held also, under the crown, the
appointment of surveyor-general for the eastern division of that
province. With the talents of a philosopher, he united those of the
soldier: On the 1st of March, 1776, his lordship was appointed a
brigadier-general in the continental army, and was afterwards promoted
to the rank of major-general. He was esteemed a brave and faithful
officer, and served with reputation; but he died before the close of
the war.
In the same volume of the _Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society_, with lord Stirling’s observations, there are, independent of
those made under the direction of that society, the observations of
the transit of Venus in 1769, made at Cambridge in New-England, by
John Winthrop, Esq. F. R. S. and member of the American Philosophical
Society, Hollisian Professor of Mathematics in Harvard-College—(see p.
124;) likewise, the result of those made by captain Holland and Mr.
St. Germain, at and near Quebec; and by other skilful observers, at
sundry places in Europe and the West-Indies; all reported (p. 120) by
a committee of the American Philosophical Society.
Footnote 121:
Afterwards Dr. Maskelyne.—“To the abilities and indefatigable
attention of this celebrated astronomer,” says the Rev. Mr. Vince (in
his great work on astronomy,) “nautical astronomy is altogether
indebted for its present state of perfection. Of our (the English)
_Nautical Almanac_, that great astronomer, M. de la Lande, thus
writes: “On a fait á Bologne, á Vienne, á Berlin, á Milan; mais _Le
Nautical Almanac de Londres_, est l’ephemeride la plus parfaite qu’il
y ait jamais eu.” He has established the Newtonian doctrine of
universal attraction upon the firmest foundation, by his experiments
upon Schehallien.[121a] His regular observations of the sun, moon,
planets, and fixed stars, which are every year published, are allowed
to possess an unrivalled degree of accuracy; and we may consider them
as the basis of future improvements of the tables of the planetary
motions. M. de la Lande, in his _Astronomie_ (vol. ii. p. 121. last
edit.) speaking of astronomical observations, says—“Le recueil le plus
moderne et le plus précieux de tous est celui de M. Maskelyne,
Astronome Royal d’Angleterre, qui commence á 1765, et qui forme déja
deux volumes in folio jusqu’ á 1786. La precision de ces observations
est si grande, qu’on trouve souvent la même second pour l’ascension
droite d’une planete dédecite de différentes étoiles, quoiqu’on y
emploie la mesure du temps.”; His catalogue of fundamental stars is an
invaluable treasure. These, and his other various improvements in this
science, entitle him to the most distinguished rank amongst
astronomers, and will render his name illustrious, as long as the
science of astronomy shall continue to be cultivated.”
Of Lalande himself, whose name often occurs in the following pages,
Mr. Vince thus speaks:—“To that celebrated astronomer, M. de la Lande,
the world is indebted for the most important improvements in the
science of astronomy. Through so extensive a field, he has left no
track unbeaten; almost every part has received improvements from him.
His system of astronomy is invaluable, and has tended far more to the
general promotion of that science than all other works which ever
appeared upon the subject. The labours of this great astronomer will
perpetuate his name.” See Vince’s _Complete System of Astronomy_, vol.
ii. p. 288 and 289.
Footnote 121a:
The Schehallien is a mountain in Scotland, being one of the highest
points in that range of mountains called the Grampian-Hills. The
elevation of the Schehallien above the surface of the sea is about
1760 feet. W. B.
Footnote 122:
Mr. Vince observes, in his _Complete System of Astronomy_, (vol. i. p.
419) that the Transit of Venus affords a very accurate method of
finding the place of the node; and this he verifies expressly by
calculations founded on the observations made by Mr. Rittenhouse at
Norriton, in the year 1769.
Footnote 123:
To so honourable a testimony, in favour of the merits of the
Pennsylvania observers of this Transit, as that of Mr. Maskelyne, the
acknowledgments of many other eminent foreign astronomers might be
superadded: And the Rev. Dr. Smith, addressing himself to the American
Philosophical Society, observes, “that societies of the first
reputation in Europe are not ashamed to place our labours on a footing
with their own; freely acknowledging, that we have been chiefly
instrumental in ascertaining that great desideratum in astronomy, the
sun’s parallax; and, consequently, the dimensions of the solar
system.” See his Oration, delivered before the society, Jan. 22, 1773.
Footnote 124:
The compliment here paid by the Astronomer-Royal to the Hon. T. Penn,
proprietary of the late province of Pennsylvania, for the zeal he
manifested in _promoting_ the Pennsylvania Observations of the Transit
of Venus, was well merited,—as the detailed accounts of that highly
interesting phænomenon abundantly shew.
Nor was that the only instance in which Mr. Penn discovered his
attachment to the reputation and prosperity of that extensive American
territory, which continues to bear the name of his family. He was, on
various occasions, a liberal and disinterested benefactor to public
institutions in Pennsylvania: as a proof of which, his aggregated
donations to the College of Philadelphia, prior to the American war,
amounting to about twelve thousand dollars—besides a grant of the
manor of Perkessie in Bucks county, containing upwards of 3000
acres,—need alone be mentioned.
But it is within the knowledge of many persons in the midst of whom
these memoirs are penned, that even the Juliana Library Company, in
Lancaster (an inland and secondary town of Pennsylvania) experienced
repeated proofs of the munificence of Mr. Penn, and also of his late
truly noble and excellent consort, after whom that institution was
named. The writer himself, well knows, from the tenor of numerous
letters, not only from Mr. but Lady Juliana Penn, (who honoured the
Rev. Mr. Barton with their friendship and correspondence, for the
space of twenty years,—a patronage which was continued to a member of
his family, long after Mr. Penn’s death,) the generous and unremitted
attention of both, to whatever seemed likely to promote the honour or
the interest of Pennsylvania.
Thomas Penn, Esq. died on the 21st of March, 1775, when he had just
completed the seventy-fourth year of his age. He was the survivor of
all the children of the illustrious founder of Pennsylvania; “whose
virtues, as well as abilities, he inherited in an eminent degree,”—as
was justly observed in an obituary notice published soon after his
decease. Lady Juliana, his widow, survived him many years.
In the Pennsylvania Gazette (then published by Messrs. Hall and
Sellers, but originally by _Franklin_ and Hall,) for May 17, 1775,
appeared the following just tribute to the memory of Mr. Penn.
“He had the principal direction of the affairs of this government for
half a century, and saw such an increase of population, arts, and
improvements in it, as during the like period, perhaps no man, before
him, ever beheld in a country of his own. He rejoiced at the sight,
was a kind landlord, and gave a liberal, often a magnificent
encouragement, to our various public institutions. The Hospital, the
College, our different Libraries and Religious Societies, can witness
the truth of this: For he did not confine himself to sect or party;
but, as became his station, and the genius of his father’s benevolent
policy, he professed himself a friend to universal liberty, and
extended his bounty to all. In short, as the grave, which generally
stops the tongue of flattery, should open the mouth of Justice, we may
be permitted to conclude his character by saying,—that he was both a
great and a good man.”
The writer of these Memoirs hopes he will not be censured by any
Pennsylvanian of generous feelings, for introducing, in the Appendix,
some elegiac verses (by an unknown hand,) in commemoration of the
virtues of this worthy man; who was not only a munificent benefactor
to this country, and a bountiful patron of the Memorialist himself, as
well as his family; but who, also, took a very friendly interest in
the reputation and prosperity of Mr. Rittenhouse. These verses were
published in _The Pennsylvania Magazine_, for Oct. 1775.
Footnote 125:
In addition to the honourable testimony of the Astronomer-Royal, in
favour of the Pennsylvania Observers of the Transit of Venus, is the
following eulogy of another eminent English astronomer,—as
communicated by Dr. Franklin to Dr. T. Bond, one of the
Vice-Presidents of the Philosophical Society, in a letter from London
dated the 5th of Feb. 1772. The Rev. Mr. Ludlam, the gentleman
referred to, and whom Dr. Franklin styles “a most learned man and
ingenious mechanic”—in a paper published in the Gentleman’s Magazine
(and a copy of which, subscribed by himself, was sent by him to the
Society,) giving an account of the Society’s Transactions, more
especially their Observations of the Transit of Venus,—applauds both
the General Assembly and the late Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, for
the countenance and assistance they gave to the making those
Observations.——“No astronomers,” said Mr. Ludlam, “could better
deserve all possible encouragement; whether we consider their care and
diligence in making the Observations, their fidelity in relating what
was done, or the clearness and accuracy of their reasonings on this
curious and difficult subject.” He then mentions, in very honourable
terms, the papers of Mr. Rittenhouse, Dr. Smith, Dr. Ewing, and Mr.
Biddle, who drew up the several accounts of the Observations made at
Norriton, Philadelphia, and Cape-Henlopen; and adds, that “they have
very honestly given not only the Result of their Observations, but the
_Materials_ also, that others may examine and judge for themselves; an
example worthy of imitation by those European astronomers, who are so
very shy of giving particulars, and vouch for their _Instruments_ and
Observations in general terms.”
The same gentleman, in a letter dated at Leicester (in England,)
January the 25th, 1772, and transmitted to the Philosophical Society
by Dr. Franklin, wrote thus:—“The more I read the Transactions of your
Society, the more I honour and esteem the members of it. _There is not
another Society in the world, that can boast of a member such as_ Mr.
RITTENHOUSE: theorist enough to encounter the problems of determining
(from a few Observations) the Orbit of a Comit; and also mechanic
enough to make, with his own hands, an Equal-Altitude Instrument, a
Transit-Telescope, and a Time-piece. I wish I was near enough to see
his mechanical apparatus. I find he is engaged in making a curious
Orrery. May I ask,” &c.
As further evidence of the high estimation in which the Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society, and particularly of the
Observers of the Transit, were held abroad, Dr. Wrangel, an eminent
and learned Swedish clergyman, wrote thus to Dr. Smith from Stockholm,
under the date of Oct. 18, 1771:—“I have been agreeably surprised to
observe the rapid progress of your American Society, of which I esteem
it a great honour to be counted a member,” &c.—“Your accurate
Observations of the Transit of Venus have given infinite satisfaction
to our (Swedish) astronomers; as will the rest of your Transactions,
to the literary world, when they come to be further known.”
-----
Here the observation will emphatically apply;—Laus est, â viro laudato
laudari.
Before this interesting occurrence in the life of Mr. Rittenhouse is
finally passed over, the reader’s attention is solicited to the
beautiful and animated description given by Dr. Rush, in his Eulogium,
of the sensations which must have been more particularly experienced by
that extraordinary man, on the near approach of the long-expected
Phænomenon.—“We are naturally led here,” says the learned Professor, “to
take a view of our Philosopher, with his associates, in their
preparations to observe a phænomenon which had never been seen but
twice[126] before, by any inhabitant of our earth, which would never be
seen again by any person then living, and on which depended very
important astronomical consequences. The night before the long-expected
day, was probably passed in a degree of solicitude which precluded
sleep. How great must have been their joy, when they beheld the morning
sun!—‘and the whole horizon without a cloud;’ for such is the
description of the day, given by Mr. Rittenhouse, in the report referred
to by Dr. Smith. In pensive silence and trembling anxiety, they waited
for the predicted moment of observation: it came,—and brought with it
all that had been wished for, and expected, by those who saw it.—In our
Philosopher, it excited—in the instant of one of the contacts of the
planet with the sun, an emotion of delight so exquisite and powerful, as
to induce fainting. This,” then remarks Dr. Rush, “will readily be
believed by those who have known the extent of that pleasure which
attends the discovery, or first perception of Truth.”
Footnote 126:
According to Mr. Lalande, (in his _Astronomie_, vol. ii.) the transit
of Venus over the Sun, in 1639, observed by only Messrs. Horrox and
Crabtree, two Englishmen, and which was the first ever observed, was
seen in consequence of a fortunate accidental circumstance. He says,
that Horrox had been occupied in making calculations for an almanack,
from the Tables of Lansbergius, which are much less perfect than the
Rudolphine Tables: that these Tables of Lansbergius were in an error
of 16′ for the latitude of Venus, while the Rudolphine Tables had an
error of only 8′; but the one of Lansbergius made Venus pass on the
sun in such a way, as that the transit ought to be visible; whereas
the tables of Kepler represented the planet as passing below him; and
thus it was, remarks Lalande, that bad tables occasioned a good
observation. Relying on these tables, which Lansbergius had extolled
with a confidence likely to produce imposition, Horrox prepared
himself to observe that transit; and on the 24th of November, it took
place at the time he expected, Venus being about half an hour on the
sun when he set. He had sent on the occasion to his friend Crabtree,
who was at Manchester, some miles from Hoole: and he observed the
transit, likewise; though very imperfectly, by reason of intervening
clouds. W. B.
On the 9th of November, following, there was a Transit of Mercury over
the Sun. An account of this phænomenon,—as observed at Norriton by
William Smith, d. d. John Lukens, Esq. and Messrs. David Rittenhouse and
Owen Biddle, the Committee appointed for that Observation by the
American Philosophical Society,—was drawn up and communicated to the
Society, by direction and in behalf of the Committee, by Dr. Smith: this
will be found in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions. In this
report it is remarked, that—“the first time that ever Mercury was
observed on the Sun’s disk, was by Gassendus at Paris, October 28th
1631, O. S. and that the Transit of Nov. 9th was the fourth in that
class; the two intermediate ones, each at forty-six years distance,
having been observed by Dr. Halley, in 1677 and 1723.”
Mr. Maskelyne, the celebrated English Astronomer before
mentioned,[127]—in a letter to Dr. Smith, of the 26th of December,
1769—expressed a wish “that the difference of Meridians of Norriton
and Philadelphia, could be determined by some measures and bearings,
within one-fiftieth or one-hundredth part of the whole; in order to
connect,” continues Mr. Maskelyne, “your observations of the Longitude
of _Norriton_ with those made by Messrs. Mason and Dixon, in the
course of measuring the degree of Latitude.”—This request of the
Astronomer Royal was communicated to the Philosophical Society of
Philadelphia; in consequence of which, Dr. Smith, Mr. Lukens and Mr.
Rittenhouse, were appointed to make the terrestrial measurement
required. These gentlemen, having taken to their assistance Mr.
Archibald M’Clean and Mr. Jesse Lukens, two able and experienced
Surveyors, commenced their operations at Norriton, early on the 2d day
of July following, and completed their survey on the 4th day of that
month. The Report of the able Committee, to which this business was
assigned by the American Philosophical Society, is also contained in
the first volume of the Transactions of that learned Body. After
giving various calculations, resulting from the operations of that
committee, the Reporter says—“Hence, by the above measurement and
work, we get Norriton Observatory 52″ of time West of the Observatory
in the State-house Square; which is exactly what we got by that
excellent element, the external contact of Mercury with the Sun, Nov.
9th 1769.”—“The external contact,” continues the Reporter, “gave it
something more; owing, no doubt, to the difference that will arise
among Observers, in determining the exact moment when the thread of
light is compleated: and the mean of all our Observations gives the
difference of Meridians, between Norriton and Philadelphia, only 4″ of
time more than the terrestrial measurement, and the external contact
of Mercury, gave it,—which may be taken as a very great degree of
exactness; if we consider that the difference of Meridians, between
the long-established Observatories of Greenwich and Paris, (as Mr. De
la Lande writes, Nov. 18th 1762,) was not then determined within 20″
of time—For, he says, ‘some called it 9′ 15″; others, 9′ 40″;’ but
that he himself commonly used 9′ 20″, though he could not tell from
what Observations it was deduced.[128]—Finally, the Report fixes
Philadelphia to be 5^h 0′ 37″, and Norriton, 5^h 1′ 29″ West from
Greenwich.[129] The Latitude of Norriton, as deduced from the actual
mensuration just mentioned, connected with Observations previously
made by Mr. Rittenhouse—predicated also, in part, on antecedent
Calculations of Messrs. Mason and Dixon, who, (having been furnished
with a complete Astronomical Sector,) had ascertained the southernmost
point of the City of Philadelphia to be in Latitude 39° 56′ 29″,4.
N.—is stated, in the same Report, as being 40° 9′ 31″. It came out, by
the measurement, 25″.09 less North, with respect to the southernmost
point of Philadelphia, than Mr. Rittenhouse’s Observations had given
it; and, in making these, he had no better Instrument than Sisson’s
two-and-an half feet Quadrant. Nevertheless, the framer of the Report
remarks, “as both were fixed by celestial observations and experienced
Men, the small difference ought perhaps to be divided; and if a mean
be taken, to reconcile it with the terrestrial measure, the Lat. of
the south point of Philadelphia would be 39° 56′ 42″; and that of
Norriton, 40° 9′ 43″.[130]
-----
Footnote 127:
Flamsted, Halley, Bradley and Bliss, successively occupied the royal
observatory at Greenwich, from the time of its institution by Charles
II.; and, in the year 1765, the last of these eminent men was
succeeded in the place of Astronomer-Royal, by Nevil Maskelyne, B. D.
a man who, in the words of the profound French astronomer, Lalande,
“has sustained perfectly the reputation of that famous observatory.”
The scientific world are indebted to this excellent practical
astronomer for the publication of the Nautical Almanack; and, in a
great measure, for the perfection of the lunar method of ascertaining
the longitude at sea. “His unwearied exertions in this great cause of
humanity and science,” as the compilers of the _New Edinburgh
Encyclopedia_ (in the article _Astronomy_) observe, “entitle him to
the gratitude of the remotest posterity.”
Footnote 128:
It appears that the difference of the meridians of the Greenwich and
Paris Observatories, is 9′ 20″ as assumed by Lalande. This was
ascertained by the result of the measurement of the distance between
those Observatories, made sometime about the year 1786 or 1787, under
the sanction of the British and French governments, respectively; and
this difference of meridians corresponds with what Dr. Maskelyne had
before stated it to be. The last mentioned astronomer shewed, in 1787,
that the latitude of Greenwich is 51° 28′ 40″.
Footnote 129:
In relation to Paris, Mr. Lalande calculates the longitude of
Philadelphia at 5^h 9′ 56″, according to Mr. Rittenhouse; and its
latitude, as being 39° 5′7 10.
Footnote 130:
In Mr. Rittenhouse’s “Delineation of the Transit,” &c. published in
the first volume of the Philosophical Society’s Transactions, it
appears that he assumed the latitude of the Norriton Observatory to be
40° 9′ 56″.
-----
The same Volume of the American Philosophical Transactions that
comprehends the communications of these Proceedings—as well as various
Observations, made at different places, on the then recent Transit of
Venus—contains also a Memoir, by Dr. Smith, deducing the Sun’s Parallax
from a comparison of the Norriton and some other American Observations
of the Transit of Venus, in 1769, with the Greenwich and some other
European Observations of the same: And with this paper, its learned
writer has incorporated a communication, on the same subject, made to
him by Mr. Rittenhouse.
Until about the period at which the latest of these favourite
transactions of Mr. Rittenhouse took place—namely, his geometrical
employment in ascertaining the Latitude and Longitude of Norriton and
Philadelphia, respectively,—he continued to reside on his farm at
Norriton. And here he still carried on, with the aid of some apprentices
and journey-men, his self-acquired occupation of a Clock and
Mathematical Instrument-maker: combining, at intervals, with these
mechanical pursuits, an unceasing attention to his philosophical studies
and researches; and occasionally employing himself, principally with a
view to his health, in some of the occupations of Husbandry. Ever an
economist of Time, of which he well knew the inestimable value, none of
his hours which could be spared from necessary sleep were suffered to be
unemployed. In this rural abode, he enjoyed the comforts of domestic
life amidst his little family, consisting only of an amiable wife and
two young children. In short, no part of his time was unengaged, or
uselessly passed; although he, not unfrequently, felt the solace of
friendly calls, and was gratified by visits from persons of science,
worth, and distinction.
The writer of these memoirs designed to narrate those circumstances most
worthy of notice, in the Life and character of Mr. Rittenhouse, in their
chronological order; and this plan will be generally adhered to. Having
followed our philosopher in his astronomical and mechanical pursuits, up
to the year 1770, it therefore becomes proper to recur to a period of
his life some few years earlier, in order to introduce the history of
his Orrery,[131] before mentioned; a piece of mechanism which is
admitted, by all competent judges of its merit, to be one of the
greatest of his works.
-----
Footnote 131:
See Martin’s _Philosophia Britannica_, lect. xi. note 141. Though
“_Orrery_” be a modern name, the invention of such machines as it is
now applied to, is of a very early date. The first _planetarium_ or
_orrery_, of which we have any account, was the famous machine of
Archimedes. This consisted, as Cicero (in his _Tusculan Questions_)
asserts, of a sphere, of an hollow globular surface, of glass, within
which was some ingenious mechanism, to exhibit the motions of the
moon, the sun, and all the planets then known. Very imperfect as it
must necessarily have been in other respects, it was radically
erroneous, in being adapted to the _Ptolomaic_ system. This is
described in Latin verse, by the poet Claudius Claudianus, of
Alexandria, who flourished about four centuries after the Christian
era, and more than six centuries after the Syracusean philosopher.
Cicero, in his book _De Naturâ Deorum_, mentions one invented by
Posidonius the Stoic, in his time, and about eighty years before the
birth of Christ. He describes it as a “sphere,”—“in every revolution
of which, the motions of the sun, moon, and five planets were the same
as in the heavens, each day and night.”
Nothing further is heard of orreries or spheres, until about five
hundred and ten years after Christ, when Anicius Manlius Torquatus
Severinus Bœthius, the Roman Consul, (who was also a Christian, and a
Peripatetic Philosopher,) is said to have contrived one. Theodoric,
king of the Goths, calls it “_Machinam Mundo gravidam, Cœlum
gestabile, Rerum Compendium_”: But Bœthius was, nevertheless, put to
death by this Gothic king, A. D. 524. A long and dismal reign of
barbarism and ignorance having succeeded this period, no further
mention is made of any thing in the nature of a planetarium, for about
one thousand years. See Note 95.
-----
The Planetarium invented by Mr. George Graham,[132]—and a model of which
was improperly retained by Mr. Rowley, its constructor,—had, long before
the appearance of Mr. Rittenhouse’s machine, acquired the name of an
Orrery; in compliment to Richard Boyle, Earl of Orrery,[133] who merely
patronized the construction of one, from the artist Rowley’s pirated
model. This complimentary appellation of Mr. Graham’s then newly
invented Planetarium is said to have been bestowed upon it by Lord
Orrery’s friend, Sir Richard Steele:[134] and, the name being thus
applied to _that_ machine, all those of the nature of _Planetaria_,
subsequently constructed,—however variant in usefulness or design, from
the original one bearing the name of an “Orrery,”—were denominated
_Orreries_.[135] In compliance, then, with long established usage, Mr.
Rittenhouse modestly called his Planetarian-machine, from the first
projection of it, an Orrery; although the entire merit, both of the
invention and construction, belonged to himself.[136]
-----
Footnote 132:
In the work, entitled, “A new and general Biographical Dictionary,”
&c. published in 1761, the _Invention_ of _Graham’s_ Planetarium is
attributed to the celebrated Charles Boyle, Earl of Orrery; and the
compilers of that work cite this _supposed_ Invention of Lord
_Orrery_, “as an indubitable proof of his mechanical genius.” On this
authority, the compilers of the British Encyclopædia (reprinted in
Philadelphia by Mr. Dobson,) in the very words of the Biographical
Dictionary, make the nobleman from whom the first English Orrery
derives its name, the Inventor. But it seems to be now pretty
generally admitted, that his lordship was only the Patron of the
machine, made for George I. by Mr. Rowley.
Footnote 133:
This accomplished nobleman, who was also the fourth Earl of Cork, in
Ireland, and the third Earl of Burlington, in England, was born in the
year 1695, and died in 1753. He was a great encourager of the liberal
arts, possessed an extraordinary taste and skill in architecture, and
was animated by a most exalted public spirit.
Footnote 134:
Mr. Martin (in his _Philosophia Britannica_) says: “The Orrery, though
a modern name, has somewhat of obscurity in respect to its origin;
some persons deriving it from a Greek word, which imports to _see_ or
_view_:” “But others say, that Sir Richard Steele first gave this name
to an instrument of this sort, which was made by Mr. Rowley for the
late Earl of Orrery, and shewed only the movement of one or two of the
heavenly bodies. From hence many people have imagined, that this
machine owed its invention to that noble lord.” This Orrery was a
large one; and, although it is represented by Mr. Martin as a very
defective machine, it was purchased by King George I. at the price of
one thousand guineas.
Footnote 135:
Besides the Orrery here referred to, as the invention of the
celebrated mechanic and watchmaker, Mr. George Graham, a like machine
was afterwards contrived by Mr. James Ferguson, an eminent Scotch
mechanic and astronomer, and another planetarium of the same kind, by
Mr. William Jones, an ingenious mathematical instrument maker, of
London. From the planetarium or orrery of Graham, however, as a model,
all the modern orreries, prior to Mr. Rittenhouse’s, appear to have
been taken. The one constructed by Mr. Rowley is said to be very
similar to that invented by Dr. Stephen Hales.
But the idea of a planetarium, somewhat similar to the
Rittenhouse-orrery, seems to have been conceived by Huygens, who died
in 1695. A collection of this celebrated philosopher’s works was
printed at Leyden in the year 1724 and 1728: and in these will be
found the description of a planetarium; “a machine” (says Lalande, in
speaking of the one contemplated by Huygens,) “which represents, by
wheel-work, the revolutions of the planets around the sun and of the
moon around the earth, in their durations and natural dimensions; with
their excentricities, their inequalities, and their inclinations
towards the ecliptic.” See Lalande’s _Astron._
Footnote 136:
Mr. Jefferson remarks, in his _Notes on Virginia_, that “Mr.
Rittenhouse’s model of the planetary system has the plagiary
appellation of an Orrery.” This was, undoubtedly, a plagiary name, in
its relation to Graham’s Planetarium, of which Lord Orrery was the
supposed inventor: but the charge of plagiarism does not properly
apply to the same name, when bestowed by Mr. Rittenhouse himself, on
the grand machine of his own invention and construction. How improper
soever this name may have been in its first application to a
planetarium, it has since been generally applied to similar machines;
and it has thus acquired an appropriate signification in relation to
them. Mr. Rittenhouse did not choose to depart from the appellation in
common use, in naming a machine for surpassing, in ingenuity of
contrivance, accuracy and utility, any thing of the kind ever before
constructed; yet, in all those points of excellence, he was the
inventor of that admirable machine, which has been generally
denominated, by others, “the Rittenhouse Orrery.”
-----
It is not ascertained, at what time Mr. Rittenhouse first conceived the
plan of that extensive, complicated and inestimable Orrery, which he
afterwards executed. Probably, he had long thought on the subject,
before he publicly announced his design. It is certain, however, that
before the beginning of the year 1767, there was some correspondence and
some understanding, respecting it, between himself and the Rev. Mr.
Barton. It appears in fact, that, prior to that period, Mr. Barton had
been fully apprized of his brother-in-law’s desire to carry into effect
his meditated design of constructing a complete Orrery, on a plan
entirely new; and that some arrangement was previously made, between
these gentlemen; by which Mr. Barton undertook to indemnify Mr.
Rittenhouse, for such actual expenditures as he should incur in making
the machine and his loss of time while employed in the work, not
exceeding a stipulated sum; provided he should not be able to dispose of
it, when finished, at a price then fixed on. The prudential caution of
our young Philosopher (then about thirty-four years of age,) and the
public spirit of his friend, grounded on the confidence he had in the
artist’s talents and abilities, were alike evinced on this occasion.
The first written communication made by Mr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Barton,
on the subject of the Orrery, is contained in a letter under the date of
Jan. 28th, 1767: it is in these words:—“I am glad you took the pains to
transcribe, and send me, Martin’s _Account of Orreries_.”[137] “Two
forms (he says) have principally obtained, the Hemispherical Orrery and
the Whole Sphere. But the idea given us by the former, is very unnatural
and imperfect. An Orrery, then, adapted to an Armillary Sphere is the
only machine that can exhibit a just idea of the true System of the
World.”—“But in my opinion,” says Mr. Rittenhouse, “the latter is
likewise very unnatural; for, what has a Sphere, consisting of a great
number of metaline Circles, to do with the true System of the World? Is
there one real, or so much as apparent Circle, in it? (the bodies of the
Sun and Planets excepted.) Are they not all merely imaginary lines,
contrived for the purpose of calculation? I did not intend to let one of
them have a place in my Orrery, except the Zodiac, on which I would have
the true latitude and longitude of each planet pointed out by its proper
Index.”
-----
Footnote 137:
See Note 131.
-----
“I did not design a Machine, which should give the ignorant in astronomy
a just view of the Solar System: but would rather astonish the skilful
and curious examiner, by a most accurate correspondence between the
situations and motions of our little representatives of the heavenly
bodies, and the situations and motions of those bodies, themselves. I
would have my Orrery really useful, by making it capable of informing
us, truly, of the astronomical phænomena for any particular point of
time; which, I do not find that any Orrery yet made, can do.”
“But,” continues Mr. Rittenhouse, “perhaps it may be necessary to comply
with the prevailing taste: If so, my plan must be entirely altered;—and
this is a matter that must be settled between you and me, before I can
proceed. However, I shall send you, in my next, a particular account of
my design; such as I would have it, if not limited by the fear of making
it too expensive.—A specimen (if I may so call it) of the most curious
part of it, though much smaller than that intended for the Orrery, is
now in hand, and I hope will soon be finished.”
To this letter Mr. Barton returned the following answer.
“_Lancaster, February 21st, 1767._
“Dear Brother,
“I received, a few days ago, yours of the 28th ult.—after it had
undergone the torture of some Dutchman’s pocket, which compelled it to
force its way through the cover: However, the inside did escape
without many fractures; so that I had the pleasure of getting it into
my hands in such a condition that I could read it.
“Had I known your distress, at the time you received my letter, I
should have sincerely felt for you. I well know the anxiety of an
husband, on such occasions, and my heart will ever join in sympathy
with him: For you, my feelings would have been doubled, as a husband,
as my friend and brother. Glad I am, therefore, that I have no
occasion to condole with you, but rather to rejoice; and I most
sincerely and affectionately congratulate you, on the escape and
recovery of your good girl, and wish you joy of your daughter. I
desire to offer my best regards to sister Nelly, for the compliment
she intended me, had her child been a boy. Her intention was kind, and
I hope to have the continuance of her favourable opinion of me.
“I am much pleased with your remarks on Spherical Orreries, or rather
on the circles generally adapted to such Orreries. Mr. Rowning seems
to be so much of the same opinion, that I could not deny myself the
pleasure of transcribing some part of his account of Orreries, and of
an imaginary machine, which he thinks might be made very useful.[138]
Several of his hints appear to me ingenious, and I hope they will not
be unacceptable to you.
“I would have you pursue your Orrery in your own way, without any
regard to an ignorant or prevailing taste. All you have to study is
truth, and to display the glorious system of Copernicus in a proper
manner;—and to make your machine as much an original, as possible. I
beg you will not limit yourself in the price. I am now perfectly
convinced, that you can dispose of it to advantage; and should be
sorry you would lose one hour more in fears or doubts about it. In
fact, I have laid such plans for the disposal of it, that I have
almost a moral certainty of having a demand for more than one of the
kind. I have not time to write you as fully as I could wish, as the
transcribing from Rowning has detained me so long, and I am this
moment setting out for Caernarvon.
“My letter to the Proprietor[139] is delayed, till I can send him the
account of your design, which you are pleased to promise me. You say
you have “a specimen” in hand: I should be glad to know what it is.
“I shall not neglect the things you mentioned to me, as I shall always
receive a pleasure in serving you.... She joins me in love to father,
mother and all friends.—I am, in haste, dear Davy, your very
affectionate friend and brother,
“THOMAS BARTON.
“P. S. Forgive this wretched scrawl—I have not time to examine whether
I have committed any errors in copying Mr. Rowning.
“I beg leave to recommend Huygens’, Cotes’, Helsham’s, and Power’s
Philosophy to you. You will be much pleased with them.
-----
Footnote 138:
See _A Compendious System of Natural Philosophy_, &c. by J. Rowning,
M. A. part iv. chap. 15.
-----
“I wish you would purchase Bion’s Description of Philosophical and
Mathematical Instruments, &c.”
“MR. DAVID RITTENHOUSE.”
-----
Footnote 139:
The Hon. Thomas Penn, of Stoke-Poges, in Buckinghamshire, heretofore
one of the Proprietaries of the former province of Pennsylvania. This
gentleman was then usually styled, in Pennsylvania, “The Proprietor.”
-----
His next letter to Mr. Barton, covering the promised Account of his
Orrery, is dated the 27th of March, 1767: and this, it will be
perceived, is very nearly a year before a description of it was
communicated to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. In
this letter, he says—“Rowning’s opinion of Orreries pleases me more than
any thing I had met with before. The idea of his _imaginary_ machine
naturally presents itself to persons conversant in Astronomy; but, if
actually made, it could not answer the purpose, unless prodigiously
large,—which I presume is the reason it has never been done.
“I send you a description of _my_ imaginary machine: the foundation of
it is now laid; and I hope that part of it, containing the mechanical
Astronomy of the Moon, will be finished some time this spring: _then_ we
shall be able to judge, whether my abilities are equal to the
undertaking.”
The “Description” here referred to, in Mr. Rittenhouse’s own
hand-writing, is new before the writer of these Memoirs; and is thus
endorsed by the Rev. Mr. Barton—“Original Description of Mr.
Rittenhouse’s Orrery, first communicated to Thomas Barton.”—For the
satisfaction of those, who may not have an opportunity of seeing the
American Philosophical Society’s Transactions, in which this short
account of the Orrery was afterwards published; and, as this _original_
description of it differs somewhat from the _printed_ one, it is
presumed that the introduction of the former into this work, will not be
unacceptable to the reader.
The impossibility of conveying to the mind of any one, even the most
intelligent and skilful, by means of either any delineation upon paper
in the nature of a diagram, or by words, an adequate idea of so complex
and multiform a machine as the one now about to be described, will
instantly be conceived. Indeed no description, alone, can render the
nature of its construction, and the many curious and useful purposes it
is capable of answering, perfectly intelligible to the most scientific
Astronomer. Mr. Rittenhouse’s very concise description of his Orrery
will, therefore, necessarily be found defective: it is thus worded by
himself.
---
“DESCRIPTION OF A NEW ORRERY.
“This Machine is intended to have three faces, standing perpendicular to
the horizon: that in the front to be four feet square, made of
sheet-brass, curiously polished, silvered, and painted in proper places,
and otherwise ornamented. From the centre arises an axis, to support a
gilded brass ball, intended to represent the Sun. Round this ball move
others, made of brass or ivory, to represent the Planets: They are to
move in elliptical orbits, having the central ball in one focus; and
their motions to be sometimes swifter, and sometimes slower, as nearly
according to the true law of an equable description of areas as is
possible, without too great a complication of wheel-work. The orbit of
each Planet is likewise to be properly inclined to those of the others;
and their Aphelia and Nodes justly placed; and their velocities so
accurately adjusted, as not to differ sensibly from the tables of
Astronomy in some thousands of years.
“For the greater beauty of the instrument, the balls representing the
planets are to be of a considerable bigness; but so contrived, that they
may be taken off at pleasure, and others, much smaller, and fitter for
some purposes, put in their places.
“When the Machine is put in motion, by the turning of a winch, there are
three indexes which point out the hour of the day, the day of the month,
and the year (according to the Julian account,) answering to that
situation of the heavenly bodies which is then represented; and so
continually, for a period of 5000 years, either forward or backward.
“In order to know the true situation of a Planet at any particular time,
the small set of balls are to be put each on its respective axis; then
the winch to be turned round until each index points to the given time.
Then a small telescope, made for the purpose, is to be applied to the
central ball; and directing it to the planet, its longitude and
inclination will be seen on a large brass circle, silvered, and properly
graduated, representing the zodiac, and having a motion of one degree in
seventy-two years, agreeable to the precession of the equinoxes. So,
likewise, by applying the telescope to the ball representing the earth,
and directing it to any planet,—then will both the longitude and
latitude of that planet be pointed out (by an index and graduated
circle,) as seen from the earth.
“The two lesser faces are four feet in height, and two feet three inches
in breadth. One of them will exhibit all the appearances of Jupiter and
his Satellites—their eclipses, transits, and inclinations; likewise, all
the appearances of Saturn, with his ring and satellites. And the other
will represent all the phænomena of the moon, particularly, the exact
time, quantity, and duration of her eclipses—and those of the sun,
occasioned by her interposition; with a most curious contrivance for
exhibiting the appearance of a solar eclipse, at any particular place on
the earth: likewise, the true place of the moon in the signs, with her
latitude, and the place of her apoge in the nodes; the sun’s
declination, equation of time &c. It must be understood, that all these
motions are to correspond exactly, with the celestial motions; and not
to differ several degrees from the truth, in a few revolutions, as is
common in Orreries.
“If it shall be thought proper, the whole is to be adapted to, and kept
in motion by, a strong pendulum-clock; nevertheless, at liberty to be
turned by the winch, and adjusted to any time, past or future.”
“N. B. The diurnal motions of such planets as have been discovered to
revolve on their own axes, are likewise to be properly represented; both
with regard to the Times, and the situation of their Poles.”
---
The foregoing is a literal copy of the original manuscript; and such
readers of this article as may think proper to compare it with the
printed description of Mr. Rittenhouse’s Orrery, communicated to the
American Philosophical Society by Dr. Smith, on the 21st of March 1768,
and contained in the first volume of that Society’s Transactions, will
find some (though, on the whole, not very essential) differences, in the
two descriptions. The concluding paragraph, indeed,—designated, in each,
by a N. B.—is materially variant in the two: and it appears, by its
having been announced in the published (and later) account of this
machine, that, “the clock part of it may be contrived to play a great
variety of Music,” (a suggestion wholly omitted in Mr. Rittenhouse’s
original communication, made to the Rev. Mr. Barton,) that the
philosophic Artist had been afterwards induced, in one particular at
least, “to comply with the prevailing taste.”[140] But this may be
readily accounted for: our artist had previously made some extremely
curious and beautiful Time-pieces, to each of which was attached the
mechanism of a Musical Clock, in addition to a limited Planetarium, in
miniature. These were in the hands of gentlemen of respectability and
taste:[141] and they were much and generally admired, as well for the
great ingenuity displayed by the constructor, in these combined and
pleasing operations of his machinery, as for the superior accuracy and
beauty of the workmanship; qualities eminently conspicuous in all his
mechanical productions.
-----
Footnote 140:
This design was, however, finally abandoned.
Footnote 141:
One of these valuable clocks, which is of a large size, with an
accurate little planetarium attached to its face and placed above the
dial-plate,[141a] was made for the late Mr. Joseph Potts, of
Philadelphia county, who paid for it, as the writer is informed, six
hundred and forty dollars. In the spring of the year 1774, it was
purchased by the late Mr. Thomas Prior, of Philadelphia; to whom, it
is said, general Sir William Howe made an offer of one hundred and
twenty guineas for it, shortly before the evacuation of that city, in
1778. It is also said, that Don Joseph de Jaudenes, late minister of
Spain to the United States, offered Mr. Prior eight hundred dollars
for this clock, with a view of presenting it to his sovereign. Mr.
Prior, however, retained it until his death, in the spring of the year
1801: after which, it passed through two other hands, successively,
into the possession of Professor Barton, of Philadelphia, whose
property it now is.
Footnote 141a:
The area of the face of the dial plate is twenty inches square, and
the motions and places of the planets of our system are represented on
a circular area of eight inches in diameter.
-----
It appears, that when Mr. Rittenhouse sent the foregoing description of
his projected Orrery to Mr. Barton—that is to say, on the 27th of March,
1767[142]—the “foundation” of it was “laid.” But, notwithstanding his
earnest wishes prompted him to the utmost diligence, in his exertions to
finish it, many circumstances concurred to retard its completion. The
magnitude of the undertaking—the multiplicity of the work—and, perhaps,
the difficulty of sometimes readily procuring, even from Philadelphia,
the necessary materials,—all conspired, to prevent as early a completion
of the machinery as he had anticipated: and, added to these causes of
unavoidable delay, was the yet unabandoned pursuit of his professional
business.
-----
Footnote 142:
It appears that Mr. Barton must have transmitted to the honourable Mr.
T. Penn, in London, a description of the Orrery, very soon after it
was publicly communicated to the Philosophical Society in
Philadelphia; for, a letter from Mr. Penn to that gentleman, dated
July 22, 1768, contains this remark—“The account you give me of Mr.
Rittenhouse’s Orrery, is what I could not have imagined could be
executed in Pennsylvania; and I shall be much pleased to see a
copper-plate of it, for which I would make that gentleman a present,
for his encouragement; or, perhaps he may be induced to bring it
hither, and exhibit it, by publicly lecturing on it.”
Had Mr. Rittenhouse taken an Orrery to England, and it appears by his
letters of March 15, 1771, and Feb. 3, 1772, quoted in the text, that
he had seriously intended going thither, he would, very probably, have
derived great emolument, as well as fame, by delivering lectures on
astronomy, adapted to his orrery; and it is probable, that, in
addition to the public encouragement he might reasonably have
calculated upon, Mr. Penn would have patronised him, with his usual
liberality. Of the disposition of that worthy gentleman to befriend
him, Mr. Rittenhouse seems to have been fully sensible: for, in a
letter of the 11th of December, 1768, to Mr. Barton, he said—“I am
very desirous to send Mr. Penn something: as the orrery is not
finished, perhaps a description of it, with draughts of the clock I
have just made, may answer the purpose, together with some little
instrument: I shall be glad to have your thoughts on the matter.” It
may be proper here to remark, that no engraving, or drawing, could
give an adequate idea of the orrery: and that the clock, mentioned by
Mr. Rittenhouse, was one of those of which a short notice is
introduced, immediately after the original description of the orrery,
in the text.
-----
The Orrery was, nevertheless, then his favourite object. On the 18th of
June, 1767, he wrote to Mr. Barton, thus—“I hope you will persuade your
Pequea friends to stay for the clocks, till harvest is over; and then, I
think, I may venture to promise them, for ready money: but, at this
time, one part of the Orrery is in such forwardness, that I am not
willing to lay it by till it is done. I hope it will far exceed the
description I gave you of it. To-morrow morning I am to set off for
Reading, at the request of the Commissioners of Berks county, who wrote
to me about their town-clock. They had employed a ... to make it, who,
it seems, is not able to go through with it: if I should undertake to
finish it, this will likewise retard the great work.”
Amidst the more important philosophical pursuits which engaged Mr.
Rittenhouse’s attention before his removal to Philadelphia, as well as
after he fixed his residence in that city, he now and then relaxed the
energy of his mind from its employment in laborious investigations, by
bestowing a portion of his time on minor objects in physical science;
and indeed, sometimes, even on little matters of ingenuity, curiosity
and amusement. As instances of this, he addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barton
the letter under the date of the 20th of July, 1768, which will be found
in the Appendix; and also another, dated the 4th of February, 1770, to
which there is the following postscript:
“I have,” says he, “seen a little curiosity, with which you would be
pleased; I mean the glass described by Dr. Franklin, wherein water may
be kept in a boiling state, by the heat of the hand alone, and that for
hours together. The first time I shall be in Lancaster, where I hope to
be next June, I expect to prevail on you to accompany me to the
Glass-house,[143] where we may have some of them made, as well as some
other things I want.”—A description of this instrument, then usually
called _Dr. Franklin’s Pulse-Glass_,[144] by means of which water may be
made to boil, _in vacuo_, by the heat of the human hand, was
communicated by Mr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Barton in a subsequent letter.
-----
Footnote 143:
The glass-house mentioned in the text, was erected several years prior
to the American revolutionary war, at the village of Manheim, about
twelve miles from the borough of Lancaster, by Mr. Henry William
Stiegel, an ingenious and enterprising German gentleman. Glass of a
very good quality and workmanship, was made at that glass-house; as
will appear by the following extracts from a letter of Mr. Rittenhouse
to Mr. Barton, written in the summer of 1771, and acknowledging the
receipt of a barometer-tube executed there. He says—“I am obliged to
you for the glass tube; it will make a pretty barometer, though the
bore is somewhat too small. I have compared it with an English tube,
and do not think the preference can, with any reason, be given to the
latter.” And in the same letter, he requests Mr. Barton to procure for
him, from the glass-house, “some tubes of a size fit for
spirit-levels.” “The bore,” says he, “must be half an inch in
diameter, and from four to eight inches in length; as straight as
possible, and open at one end only.”
While Mr. Stiegel was thus early and meritoriously carrying on the
manufacture of glass, he was also engaged in manufacturing iron at
Elizabeth-Furnace in the vicinity, which then belonged to him. But he
proved unfortunate in his extensive undertakings, and the glass-works
have not since been in operation. The foundery of Elizabeth, together
with the great establishment of iron-works connected with it, and of
which Robert Coleman, Esq. of Lancaster, is now the proprietor, are
well known.
Footnote 144:
Dr. Franklin is said to have first met with the Pulse-Glass in
Germany, and to have introduced it into England with some improvement
of his own.
-----
MEMOIR
OF THE
LIFE OF DAVID RITTENHOUSE;
CONTINUED,
FROM THE TIME OF HIS SETTLEMENT IN PHILADELPHIA.
In the autumn of 1770, our Philosopher changed the place of his
residence; removing, with his family, into the city of Philadelphia. To
this exchange of his beloved retirement, at his Norriton farm, for the
scene of noise and activity presented by a great town, he must have been
induced by the flattering prospects of advantage to himself and
usefulness to the public, pointed out to him by his friends: and among
these, Dr. Smith was one of the most urgent for the measure. The
following extract of a letter, dated the 27th of January, 1770, and
addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barton by that gentleman, will explain his
motives, and at the same time exhibit Mr. Rittenhouse’s views, on that
occasion: it will also afford strong evidence of the Doctor’s friendship
for our philosopher.
“As my esteem for Mr. Rittenhouse increases, the more I know him,” said
Dr. Smith, “I set on foot a project, assisted by my neighbours, the
Wissahickon millers, to get him recommended to the Assembly, to be put
in as a trustee of the loan-office, in the bill now before the house. I
first broke the matter to the speaker;[145] telling him, Mr. Rittenhouse
ought to be encouraged to come to town, to take a lead in a manufacture,
optical and mathematical, which never had been attempted in America, and
drew thousands of pounds to England for instruments, often ill finished;
and that it would redound to the honour of Philadelphia to take a lead
in this, and of the Assembly, to encourage it. The speaker took the
proposal well, and, in short, so did every person applied to; and when
the vote passed, the day before yesterday, for the three trustees, the
whole house rose for Rittenhouse’s name; so that Mr. Allen,[146] who was
hearty among the rest for him, observed—“_Our name is Legion, for this
vote_,”—though Dr. M—— got in only by the speaker’s casting vote.
-----
Footnote 145:
Joseph Galloway, Esq. a representative in assembly from the county of
Bucks. He was speaker of the house, from the year 1766 to 1773,
inclusively; excepting a short interval in the session of 1768-9, in
which Joseph Fox, Esq. officiated as speaker.
Footnote 146:
William Allen, Esq. chief-justice of the supreme court of
Pennsylvania, and a member of assembly from the county of Cumberland.
-----
“This will give you pleasure, as it shews that a good man is capable of
sometimes commanding all parties; and it will be creditable for Mr.
Rittenhouse, even if the bill should not succeed for the present. The
salary to each of the trustees is 200_l._[147] Both the Mr. Ross’s,[148]
Mr. Biddle,[149] and Mr. Carpenter,[150] were hearty in their interest
for Rittenhouse,—so was Minshull;[151] and I hope you will thank them
all. The governor[152] declared (and with more frankness than usual,)
when I waited on him,—“Mr. Rittenhouse’s name shall never be an
objection with me, in this or any other bill: on the contrary, I shall
rejoice if the bill come to me in such a form, as that I can shew my
regard for him.”
-----
Footnote 147:
Equal to 533 Spanish or American dollars.
Footnote 148:
John and George Ross, Esqrs. lawyers of great respectability, and
brothers; the former a resident in Philadelphia; the latter in
Lancaster. Mr. George Ross was a member of the first congress; and was
appointed by the assembly on the 5th of April, 1775, judge of the
admiralty-court for Pennsylvania.
Footnote 149:
Edward Biddle, Esq. a lawyer of eminence, and a representative in
assembly for the county of Berks, in which he resided. This gentleman
was one of the delegates appointed to the congress of the 10th of May,
1775, under an unanimous resolution of the assembly, passed in
December, 1774; but, having succeeded Mr. Galloway as speaker of that
house, in the session of 1774-5, he did not take his seat in congress,
with his colleagues. These were John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys,
John Morton, George Ross, Thomas Mifflin, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
Willing and James Wilson, Esqrs.
Footnote 150:
Emanuel Carpenter, Esq. long a respectable member of assembly from
Lancaster county.
Footnote 151:
Thomas Minshull, Esq. a respectable member of the house, from York
county.
Footnote 152:
The Hon. John Penn.—This worthy gentleman, a grandson of the
celebrated William Penn, was lieutenant-governor of Pennsylvania,
under the chief proprietaries of the province, from October 1763, to
May 1771; and again, from August 1773, until the revolution.
-----
“Yet, my dear friend,” adds Dr. Smith, “I fear this bill will not pass;
and the Governor may be reduced to the hard dilemma, of even _striking
out_ the name he would wish _in_, if he had the nomination himself. The
house insist on putting the names in the bill, before it goes up: the
Governor contends, that he ought to have at least a share in the
nomination. This matter has been long litigated. The governor, to
maintain his right, always strikes out _some_ names—even though he
approves of them, and puts in others. This he did last year, and put in
the name of Dr. M——, and the other trustee now in the bill. The house
would not admit his amendment, then; but now, this year, they take two
of the very men the governor had appointed last year, vote them in
themselves, and join Mr. Rittenhouse with them. The governor cannot well
_negative_ any of those approved by him, before; yet he must negative
_some one_, to assert his right;—and I believe it would really give him
pain, if _that_ one should be _David_.
“I am thus particular,” continues the Doctor, “that you may understand
the whole, and not think our friend slighted by the government, even if
this thing should not succeed. All the council[153] are hearty for Mr.
Rittenhouse; and if he does not get this matter, he will not be long
without something else. But I hope some expedient may be hit upon, to
compromise the matter, should the bill not have faults in itself, that
may set it aside.”
-----
Footnote 153:
The proprietary’s and governor’s council, consisting of James
Hamilton, William Allen, Joseph Turner, William Logan, Richard Peters
(D. D.), Lynford Lardner, Benjamin Chew, Thomas Cadwallader, Richard
Penn, James Tilghman, Andrew Allen, and Edward Shippen, jun. Esquires.
Joseph Shippen, jun. Esquire, officiated many years as provincial
secretary and clerk of the council.
-----
The warm and sincere interest which Mr. Barton took in every thing that
seemed likely to promote the welfare of his brother-in-law, was
manifested on this occasion. In his answer to Dr. Smith’s letter,
written a week after, he says: “Your letter by Mr. Slough was so truly
obliging and friendly, that I cannot think of words strong enough to
express my gratitude. Rittenhouse, I trust, will always be sensible of
the favours you have shewn him, and of the uncommon pains you have taken
to serve him on this occasion, which have been represented to me, fully,
by Mr. Slough.[154] Accept then, dear sir, my most hearty thanks for
your kind offices in behalf of Mr. Rittenhouse. Accept of my wife’s best
thanks, also — —. She shed tears of gratitude, when she read your
letter, (for her attachment to her brother David is very great,) and
declared, in a high strain of enthusiasm, that Dr. Smith was the most
steady friend and obliging man that ever lived; that she should honour
and respect him, while living, and, should she survive him, would always
revere his memory. Thus it was, that the sister of your ‘optical and
mathematical’ friend expressed herself on the occasion.”
-----
Footnote 154:
Matthias Slough, Esq. who served several years with reputation as a
representative in the assembly, from the county of Lancaster.
-----
Notwithstanding the fair prospects which Mr. Rittenhouse thus had, in
the beginning of the year 1770, of being enabled to establish himself in
Philadelphia, with a handsome salary of 200_l._ _per annum_ from the
government, in addition to such funds as he might reasonably calculate
on acquiring, in that capital, by his professional occupation, both he
and his friends were disappointed, in regard to the contemplated
official station: The assembly rose, as Dr. Smith seemed to have
anticipated a very short time before, without passing the loan-office
bill.
Mr. Rittenhouse’s actual removal into the city, in the succeeding
autumn, appears to have been made in pursuance of a previous
determination more recently formed;[155] one founded on some plan, not
liable to be affected by such contingencies as have been just noticed.
Prior to that period, his Orrery was nearly if not quite completed: for
it appears by a letter which he wrote to Mr. Barton from Norriton, on
the 12th of May preceding his removal to the city, that the trustees of
Nassau-Hall, in New-Jersey, had then agreed on some terms with him, as
the inventor, maker, and proprietor, for the purchase of it.[156] The
trustees of the College of Philadelphia had likewise been in treaty with
him, for the same purpose: but the Princeton College succeeded in their
negociation, and thus acquired the property of the Orrery first
constructed.
-----
Footnote 155:
On the 4th of Feb. 1770, he mentioned to Mr. Barton his then
contemplated removal into that city, in these terms—“Dr. Smith, to
whom I am indebted for many kindnesses, is very urgent to have me come
to Philadelphia to reside, which it is probable I may do shortly: but
I am not yet determined. If I live to write again, you shall know more
of my mind; in the mean time, I shall be glad to have your opinion of
the matter.”
Footnote 156:
Since writing the above the author has ascertained, that towards the
close of April, 1770, the orrery was purchased for the college of
New-Jersey. On the 23d of that month, Dr. Witherspoon, then the
president of that college, accompanied by some gentlemen, went to
Norriton for that purpose, and it appears that the orrery was then
nearly finished.
-----
This circumstance gave, at the time, some dissatisfaction to the more
immediate friends of the Philadelphia institution; though it is
confidently believed that no degree of censure, whatever, could be
justly imputed to Mr. Rittenhouse, on the occasion; perhaps, none was
fairly chargeable on any of the parties. Mr. Rittenhouse, however,
experienced some unpleasant sensations; although, in order to avoid any
suspicion of his having been actuated by an undue partiality towards the
College of Princeton, he had made such a stipulation in favour of its
sister-institution, as could not fail, when made known, to remove any
imputation of impropriety of conduct on his part, in the transaction.
This is explained by the following passage in the letter to his
brother-in-law, last referred to,—evidently penned without any reserve.
After noticing the dissatisfaction just mentioned, he says—“I would not,
on any account, incur the imputation of cunning; nor are there,
probably, many persons living who deserve it less: yet I am greatly
mistaken if this matter” (his transfer of the Orrery to Princeton
College) “does not, in the end, turn out to my advantage, and
consequently, to your satisfaction. At present, the point is settled as
follows: I am to begin another” (Orrery) “immediately, and finish it
expeditiously, for the College of Philadelphia. This I am not sorry for;
since the making of a second will be but an amusement, compared with the
first: And who knows, but that the rest of the colonies may catch the
contagion.”[157]
-----
Footnote 157:
The following extract of a letter from Dr. Smith to Mr. Barton,
written the day after Mr. Rittenhouse’s on the same subject, will
further explain the embarrassing circumstances that attended this
transaction, and the delicate situation in which Mr. Rittenhouse,
particularly, was placed.
“I never,” said the Doctor, “met with greater mortification, than to
find Mr. Rittenhouse had, in my absence, made a sort of agreement to
let his Orrery go to the Jersey College. I had constantly told him,
that if the Assembly did not take it, I would take it for our College,
and would have paid the full sum, should I have begged the money. I
thought I could depend, as much as on any thing under the sun, that
after Mr. Rittenhouse knew my intentions about it, he would not have
listened to any proposal for disposing of it, without advising me, and
giving our College the first opportunity to purchase. I think Mr.
Rittenhouse was never so little _himself_, as to suffer himself to be
taken off his guard on this occasion. This province is willing to
honour him, as her _own_: and believe me, many of his friends wondered
at the newspaper article; and regretted that he should think so little
of his _noble_ invention, as to consent to let it go to a village;
unless he had first found, on trial, that his friends in this city had
not spirit to take it: For if he would wish to be known by _this
work_—and introduced to the best business and commissions for
instruments, from all parts of the continent,—his _Orrery_ being
placed in our College, where so many strangers would have an
opportunity of seeing it, was the sure way to be serviceable to
Himself.
“You will think, by all this, that I am offended with him, and that
our friendship may hereby be interrupted: Far from it—I went to see
him, the day the newspaper announced the affair. I soon found that I
had little occasion to say any thing: he was convinced, before I saw
him, that he had gone too far. But still, as no time was fixed for
delivering the Orrery, I was glad to find he had concluded that it
should not be delivered till next winter; against which time, he said,
he could have a _second_ one made, if this one staid with him for his
hands to work by. As I love Mr. Rittenhouse, and would not give a man
of such delicate feelings a moment’s uneasiness, I agreed to wave the
_honour_ of having the first Orrery, and to take the second.”
In fact, the Orrery was not at that time finished; for Mr. Rittenhouse
then informed Dr. Smith, that he was under the necessity of waiting
for brass from England, to enable him to complete it. “The result
(continued the Doctor) will be, I think, that he will keep his Orrery
till towards winter; and should they not _then_ receive it, in the
Jersies, they will take it at New-York.”
On the 7th of the following month, Dr. Smith wrote thus finally, to
Mr. Barton, on this subject—“Your and my friend, Mr. Rittenhouse, will
be with you on Saturday. The Governor says, the Orrery shall not go:
he would rather pay for it, himself. He has ordered a meeting of the
Trustees on Tuesday next; and declares it as his opinion, that we
ought to have the _first_ Orrery, and not the second,—even if the
second should be the best.”
-----
The second Orrery was soon completed: for, on the 15th of March, 1771,
only ten months after the date of his last quoted letter to the Rev. Mr.
Barton, he wrote to that gentleman, on the subject, in these words. “Dr.
Smith bids me to tell you he will write by your son William. He is fully
employed, at present, with his Lectures, and has great success, having
raised upwards of two hundred pounds.[158] I am sure you would afford me
_some additional compassion_, if you knew the drudgery of explaining the
Orrery to two hundred persons,[159] in small companies of ten or twelve,
each: the satisfaction they universally express, makes however some
amends.”[160]
-----
Footnote 158:
The Rev. Dr. Peters wrote thus to Mr. Barton, under the date of March
22, 1771—“Dr. Smith has done wonders in favour of our friend
Rittenhouse. His zeal has been very active: he has got enough to pay
him for a second orrery; and the assembly has given him 300_l._ The
Doctor, in his introductory lecture, was honoured with the principal
men of all denominations, who swallowed every word he said, with the
pleasure that attends eating the choicest viands; and in the close,
when he came to mention the orrery, he over-excelled his very
self!”—“Your son will acquaint you with all the particulars respecting
it. The lectures are crowded by such as think they can, thereby, be
made capable of understanding that wonderful machine: whereas, after
all, their eyes only will give them the truth, from the figures, and
motions, and places, and magnitudes of the heavenly bodies.”
Footnote 159:
The author of _The Vision of Columbus_, a Poem, (first published at
Hartford in Connecticut, in the beginning of the year 1787,) alludes
to the Rittenhouse-Orrery, and to the numerous resort of persons to
the College-Hall, for the purpose of viewing that machine, in the
following lines, (book vii.)
“See the sage RITTENHOUSE, with ardent eye,
Lift the long tube and pierce the starry sky;
Clear in his view the circling systems roll,
And broader splendours gild the central pole.
He marks what laws th’ eccentric wand’rers bind,
Copies Creation in his forming mind,
And bids, beneath his hand, in semblance rise,
With mimic orbs, the labours of the skies.
There wond’ring crouds with raptur’d eye behold
The spangled Heav’ns their mystic maze unfold;
While each glad sage his splendid Hall shall grace,
With all the spheres that cleave th’ ethereal space.”
Footnote 160:
In a letter from Dr. Smith to Mr. Barton, dated March 23, 1771, is
this paragraph:—
“I have been so busy these two months past, that I could not find a
moment’s leisure to write. A good deal of time was to be given to the
public lectures, the Orrery, and the getting our dear friend
Rittenhouse brought into as advantageous a light as possible, on his
first entrance into this town as an inhabitant; all which has
succeeded to our utmost wishes; and the notice taken of him by the
province, is equally to his honour and theirs. The loss of his wife
has greatly disconcerted him; but we try to keep up his spirits, under
it.”
-----
The _italicised_ words, in the foregoing paragraph, have reference to a
great domestic calamity Mr. Rittenhouse had experienced, only a very few
months before,—the death of an affectionate wife, whom he tenderly
loved. This afflicting event appears to have overspread, for some time,
the highly sensible and delicate mind of our Philosopher, with a
considerable degree of gloominess. In this mood, then, he thus commenced
the letter just quoted: “_You_ are not unacquainted with the dismal
apprehensions of losing what is most dear to you” (alluding, here, to a
dangerous fit of illness from which Mrs. Barton, the writer’s sister,
had recently recovered;) “and therefore you can better judge, than I can
describe, what I feel at present. I do, indeed, endeavour to bear my
loss in the manner you recommend: but how irksome does every thing seem!
Nothing interesting, nothing entertaining! except my two little girls;
and yet my reflecting on their loss sinks me the deeper in affliction.
What adds to my misfortune, is the hurry of business I am engaged in,
and know not how to get rid of. My design, at present, is to keep the
children with me, until I can conveniently take a ramble to Europe.”
And, in the same strain of melancholy reflections, he concluded this
letter to his friend and brother-in-law: “I suppose,” said he, “you have
been informed, that the Assembly have made me a donation of three
hundred pounds. This would have been very agreeable to me, if my poor
Eleanor had lived: but now, neither money—nor reputation—has any charms;
though I must still think them valuable, because absolutely necessary in
this unhappy life.”
Although such was the keen sensibility of this amiable man, on so
distressing an occasion, his numerous avocations of business and
studies, aided by the correctness of his own reflections, gradually
dispelled these over-shadowings of his dejected mind; and ere long, he
very naturally regained his usual serenity and cheerfulness of temper.
A new phænomenon in the heavens soon after engaged his attention: this
was the Comet which appeared in June and July, 1770. His Observations on
this Comet, with the elements of its Motion and the Trajectory of its
Path, were communicated to the American Philosophical Society, through
his friend Dr. Smith, on the 3d of August, soon after the Comet’s
disappearance, and were dated at Norriton the 24th of the preceding
month. The letter to Dr. Smith, that covered this communication, and in
which he says, “Herewith I send you the fruit of three or four days
labour, during which I have covered many sheets, and literally drained
my ink-stand several times”—will demonstrate how completely his mind was
occupied in those researches.
About the close of the following autumn, some accounts of Observations
of this Comet in England and France, respectively, reached this country,
when a further correspondence on the subject took place between Dr.
Smith and Mr. Rittenhouse. These communications are published, entire,
in the first volume of the Philosophical Society’s Transactions; and,
with those already noticed, complete the list of our Astronomer’s papers
in that volume. It is here worthy of remark, that a comparison of Mr.
Rittenhouse’s Observations of this Comet with those of M. Messier in
France and Mr. Six in England, confirmed the theory of the American
Observer.
Before this subject is dismissed, however, it may not be deemed
uninteresting to subjoin an extract of a letter which Mr. Rittenhouse
addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barton (from Norriton,) on the 30th of July,
respecting the same Comet: it will, at least, serve to shew the zeal of
our Astronomer, on the occasion.
“I told you,” said Mr. Rittenhouse, “that some intricate calculation, or
other, always takes up my idle hours” (he seems to have considered all
his hours as “idle” ones, which were not occupied in some manual
employment,) “that I cannot find time to write to my friends as often as
I could wish: a new object has lately engrossed my attention. The Comet
which appeared a few weeks since was so very extraordinary, that I could
not forbear tracing it in all its wanderings, and endeavouring to reduce
that motion to order and regularity, which seemed void of any. This, I
think, I have accomplished, so far as to be able to compute its visible
place for any given time: and I can assure you, that the account from
York, of its having been seen again near the place where it first
appeared, is a mistake. Nor is Mr. Winthrop of Boston happier, in
supposing that it yet crosses the Meridian, every day, between twelve
and one o’clock, that it has already passed its perihelion, and that it
may, perhaps, again emerge from the Southern Horizon. This Comet is now
to be looked for no where but a little to the North of, and very near
to, the Ecliptic. It rises now a little before day-break; and will
continue to rise sooner and sooner, every morning. Yet perhaps, on
account of its smallness, we may see it no more; though I rather think
we shall: But I must stop, for fear of tiring you.”
The subjects of all Mr. Rittenhouse’s philosophical papers, comprised in
the first volume of the Society’s Transactions, having been now noticed,
some public acts connected with two of the objects to which those papers
relate, and which took place about the time to which these memoirs are
brought down shall, at present, be adverted to.
The Orrery had attracted a very general attention, among learned,
ingenious, and well-informed persons, in this country: it could not,
therefore, escape the notice of the then Legislature of Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, the honourable testimony borne by that very respectable
body, to the merits of Mr. Rittenhouse, is thus expressed in the Journal
of the House, under the date of March the 8th, 1771.
“The members of assembly, having viewed the Orrery constructed by Mr.
David Rittenhouse, a native of this Province, and being of opinion that
it greatly exceeds all others hitherto constructed, in demonstrating the
true Situations of the celestial Bodies, their Magnitudes, Motions,
Distances, Periods, Eclipses, and Order, upon the principles of the
Newtonian System:
“_Resolved_, That the sum of three hundred pounds be given to Mr.
Rittenhouse, as a Testimony of the high sense which this House entertain
of his Mathematical genius and Mechanical abilities, in constructing the
said Orrery. And a Certificate for the said sum, being drawn at the
table, was signed by the Speaker and delivered to Mr. Evans.
“_Ordered_, That Mr. Evans, Mr. Rhoads, Mr. James, Mr. Rodman, Mr.
Morton, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Edwards, with the
Speaker,[161] be a Committee to agree with and purchase from Mr.
Rittenhouse a new Orrery, for the use of the Public, at any sum not
exceeding four hundred pounds, lawful money of this Province.”[162]
-----
Footnote 161:
Joseph Galloway, Esq. was then speaker.
Footnote 162:
The committee, named in the above order of the general assembly, made
the following report to that body, on the 24th of September, 1771;
viz.
“The committee appointed to agree with, and purchase from Mr.
Rittenhouse a new Orrery for the use of the public, beg leave to
report, that they have, in pursuance of the order of assembly, agreed
with Mr. Rittenhouse for a new Orrery, at the price of four hundred
pounds, the price limited by the house; to consist of one principal
square (face,) of eight feet or more each way, with two wings; making
in the whole one large front, as nearly resembling the form of the
Orrery now standing in the College of the city of Philadelphia, as its
superior size will admit.” (Signed by all the members of the
committee.)
-----
Unfortunately, the important object designed to have been obtained “for
the use of the Public,” by the Order which closes this legislative
resolution was not executed. This disappointment of the liberal
intentions of the Legislature arose, probably, from the many and arduous
employments in which Mr. Rittenhouse was almost constantly engaged, in
the short period which intervened between that time and the commencement
of the troubles in America. But, whatever may have been the cause, the
consequence is much to be regretted.
In January, 1771, Mr. Rittenhouse was elected one of the Secretaries of
the American Philosophical Society; and on the 22d of February
following, an Address was presented to the General Assembly by that
Society, requesting the acceptance, by each Member of the House, of the
first volume of the Society’s Transactions, then recently published.
This Address, which was signed by order and in behalf of the Society, by
Dr. Smith, Dr. Ewing, and Mr. Robert Strettel Jones, together with Mr.
Rittenhouse, as the Secretaries, was favourably received by the
Assembly.
Some short time prior to this, viz. on the 22d of September, 1770, Dr.
Thomas Bond and Samuel Rhoads, Esq. two of the Vice-Presidents of the
American Philosophical Society, had, by their Order and in their behalf,
transmitted to the General Assembly the Observations on the Transits of
Venus and Mercury, then unpublished; not only those which had been made
under the directions of that Society, but such as had, in the
intermediate time, been received from the other American Colonies and
from England: the Society expressing, at the same time, a due sense of
the obligations they were under to the Assembly, “for the countenance
and encouragement they had given them, in carrying on the designs of the
Institution; and, that they were particularly thankful for the generous
assistance granted to them, for making those Observations.” They say
further: “We have the pleasure to find they have been highly acceptable
to those learned Bodies in Europe, to whom they have been communicated;”
and, that they were “likely to be of great service, in settling that
important point in Astronomy, which was proposed from the Transit of
Venus.”
It is evident from these proceedings, that there was, at that day, a
reciprocation of good will between the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and
a most valuable Scientific Institution, established within the bounds of
their jurisdiction. While the legislative body, on the one hand,
encouraged such institutions, and extended a liberal patronage to
persons of genius and useful talents; men of learning and abilities, on
the other, were stimulated by a sense of gratitude, and a laudable
desire of honourable fame, to exert themselves for the public welfare.
Among the Members of the then General Assembly of Pennsylvania, were
John Dickinson, William Allen, George Ross, Edward Biddle, Charles
Humphreys, John Sellers, John and Israel Jacobs, and James Wright,
besides the very respectable characters named in the foregoing
resolution and order of the House.[163]
-----
Footnote 163:
Messrs. Dickinson, Humphreys, Morton, Ross and Biddle, together with
Mifflin and Franklin, were delegated on the part of Pennsylvania to
the first general congress, which met in Philadelphia on the 5th of
September, 1774; and the same gentlemen, with the addition of Messrs.
Willing and Wilson, were also delegates from Pennsylvania in the
second general congress, which met in the same city on the 10th of
May, 1775. Of these “dignified and ever memorable assemblies,”
composed of that “illustrious band of patriots whose worth sheds a
lustre on the American character,” the great Washington was also a
member.
Mr. Dickinson, the writer of the celebrated _Farmer’s Letters_, was a
distinguished lawyer, statesman and scholar. Dr. Ramsay (who published
his _History of the American Revolution_ at the close of the year
1789,) remarks, that “the stamp-act, which was to have taken place in
1765, employed the pens and tongues of many of the colonists,” and,
that “the duties imposed in 1767, called forth the pen of John
Dickinson, who in a series of letters, signed ‘_A Pennsylvania
Farmer_,’ may be said to have sown the seeds of the revolution.”
From the commencement of the momentous controversy between the
North-American colonies and the parent state, Mr. Dickinson was an
able and strenuous assertor of the rights of the colonists. In the
summer of the year 1768, the Rev. Mr. Barton sent him a little
artificial fountain or jet-d’eau, called a perpetual fountain,
prettily contrived and ornamented. On that occasion, the patriotic
feelings of Mr. Dickinson were thus expressed, in an handsome allusion
to this engine; feelings, called forth by some sentiments contained in
the letter which accompanied this small present,—“I wish” (said he, in
his answer to Mr. Barton’s letter, dated the 29th of August,)—“I wish
‘a perpetual fountain’ may water the tree of American liberty—I shall
always be ready and willing, with pious hands, to sprinkle its roots;
even though, for every drop of the pure element I throw upon them, the
free-booters should pour upon me all the foul waters in which they
delight to dabble. I have acted from the best of motives, the love of
freedom and of my country. If reproaches can influence the weak and
malicious, they never can blot from my memory the pleasing
consciousness of having endeavoured to do my duty. I am extremely
sensible of my own frailties; and yet I think I have so much charity,
that I reflect with pleasure, that perhaps these very people who abuse
me, may derive some little advantage from those very actions of mine
for which they abuse me. May heaven grant this to be the case! It is
all the revenge I desire to take of them; and this I think, my good
sir, is a Christian revenge.”
Messrs. Allen, Ross, and Biddle, shall be noticed in another place.
Mr. Sellers was a sensible and ingenious country-gentleman, possessed
of some skill in mathematical and astronomical science. Messrs. John
and Israel Jacobs (whose sister was the second wife of Mr.
Rittenhouse) were also well-informed country-gentlemen: the former was
speaker of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, and the latter a
member of congress, after the revolution. Mr. James Wright was a very
respectable representative of the county of Lancaster, before the
revolution. The gentlemen named in the committee of the general
assembly, to treat with Mr. Rittenhouse for the purchase of an Orrery
for the use of the public, were likewise conspicuous for their worth.
Of these, Mr. Rhoads was one of the vice-presidents of the American
Philosophical Society, and Mr. Morton, a judge of the supreme court of
Pennsylvania, before the revolution: both were afterwards members of
congress.
-----
The various agitations which the public mind underwent in this country,
in the succeeding four years, in consequence of its disputes with the
parent state, and until the commencement of hostilities between the two
countries, seem to place Mr. Rittenhouse more out of view for some time,
with respect to any public employments. Then, all classes of people
appeared to have become Politicians. The interests of Literature were
neglected; Science, abstracted from Politics, was little cultivated; and
all other considerations were, in general, apparently absorbed in the
views which the American people entertained of their public affairs, and
in the prosecution of measures, adapted either for the obtaining a
redress of the then existing grievances, or to meet the possible
contingency of an adverse event. There was, in fact, for about four
years preceding the year 1775, a great interruption, sometimes an almost
total suspension, in the American colonies of Great Britain, of all
pursuits, except the ordinary and indispensable ones of Industry and
Commerce. Yet about the commencement of this period, (viz. in the summer
of 1771,) Mr. Rittenhouse was engaged with Mr. Kinnersley and some other
gentlemen, several days successively, in making a series of experiments
at Philadelphia, on the Gymnotus Electricus, or Electric Eel; for the
purpose of ascertaining the nature of the faculty by which this fish is
enabled, on being touched, to impart a shock, very similar in sensation
to that produced by the electric fluid. An account of these experiments
was long afterwards communicated by Mr. Rittenhouse to Professor Barton
of Philadelphia, and will be found in the first volume of his
_Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal_.
It was during this interval that Mr. Rittenhouse experienced a long
course of exemption from any very conspicuous public employments, which
could interfere with his favourite studies; an interval, in which he was
disposed to have enjoyed a kind of dignified leisure, amidst the
tranquillity of domestic employments; so far as the existing state of
things in the political world would permit a man, solicitous for his
country’s happiness, to participate in any sort of gratification, that
might be deemed incompatible with a due degree of interest in the public
weal. He possessed too enlightened and patriotic a mind not to be keenly
sensible of the delicate, as well as alarming situation, in which his
country was then placed. But nature had fitted him for the quiet station
of domestic life, and the delightful pursuits of natural science; rather
than for the bustle of official situation, and for those speculative
projects in politics, wherein specious theories often terminate in the
most deceptive results.
He had been investigating principles founded in Truth, from his
childhood; this object was always near to his heart; and he set little
value on any thing that did not lead to its attainment. This
predominating disposition of his mind is indeed plainly evinced by a
single sentence, contained in a letter which he addressed to Mr. Barton,
so early as the 16th of February, 1764. Having had a personal interview
with an eminent and worthy clerical gentleman, well disposed to befriend
him, but who was more a metaphysical than a natural philosopher, he thus
expressed himself on the occasion: “I had a good deal of conversation
with Mr. ******, not, perhaps, greatly to the satisfaction of either of
us; for he appears to me to be a Mystical Philosopher, and you know I
care not a farthing for any thing but sober Certainty in Philosophy.”
Fifteen years elapsed between the publication of the first and second
volumes of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society; and
there is an interval of about ten years between the latest of Mr.
Rittenhouse’s communications, contained in the first volume, and the
earliest in the second. These facts, alone, are sufficient to
demonstrate to what a state of depression all philosophical pursuits had
sunk, not only during the war of the revolution, but for some years
preceding it. It is true, that long before the close of that war, an
attempt was made by a few individuals to revive the long interrupted
meetings of the Society, at the stated times of their convening; and
that, for this purpose, a Charter of Incorporation was granted to the
members of that Institution, by an act of the Pennsylvania Legislature,
passed the 15th of March 1780: but that act itself contains an
acknowledgment of the truth, that, “The Society, after having been long
interrupted in their laudable pursuits by the calamities of war and the
distresses of our country,” had “found means to revive their
design,”—“in hopes of being able to prosecute the same with their former
success.”
But, at the date of Mr. Rittenhouse’s letter to Mr. Barton, of the 3d of
February, 1772,[164] he appears to have been chiefly engaged in his
domestic concerns and professional employment. He remained, even then,
very sensible of the loss he had sustained in the death of his wife: and
his reflections on that circumstance, together with the serious aspect
of the times and his frequent indisposition, depressed his mind,
occasionally, much below its natural state of cheerfulness. It must have
been in one of these hours of mental gloom, that he penned the
succeeding passage, in the letter last referred to.
-----
Footnote 164:
See Note 167.
-----
“I do not doubt, my dear Brother, but that you condemn me, as usual, for
not writing: but much writing ill suits a Mechanic. After the
comfortless toil of the day, when evening comes, I am glad to sooth my
mind with a favourite poet, or some other book of amusement. That you
may not be disappointed, I would have you to expect nothing of me, in
future. I no longer feel any inducement to exert myself: every
thing—even life itself—is insipid. Yet you will be told, I suppose, that
I am paying my addresses to some one:—I sincerely wish sad experience
may never teach you to reconcile these contradictions.”
“It is still my intention to go to England, as soon as my business will
permit. I have had my health as well as usual, until the last fortnight;
but have now a violent cold.”
The tenor of this quotation manifests, that our Philosopher did not, at
that time, enjoy his accustomed serenity of mind. Some of the causes of
his depression of spirits appeared to his friend and correspondent to be
of such a nature, as might, perhaps, be removed by a little pleasantry.
Under this impression, Mr. Barton, in his answer, thus rallied him:
“I am extremely sorry,”—said this gentleman, after replying to some
other parts of Mr. Rittenhouse’s letter—“to find your Ambition so low,
as to render you indifferent to that _Fame_ to which you might justly
aspire; and your Spirits so sunk, as to put you out of humour with the
world. My dear Brother, what can this be owing to? You have, indeed,
received a severe blow: but I am sure that your Philosophy has taught
you, with the Poet,—that,
“To be from all things that disquiet, free,
Is not consistent with Humanity.”
“Your case is not singular;—nay, it is favourable in comparison with
that of thousands. Though you have been deprived of one comfort, yet
many have been continued to you; such as, a tolerable share of
health—-your children—the means of subsistence—the esteem of your
friends—the applause of your countrymen, &c. &c. Banish therefore, I
beseech you, this serious sadness—these melancholy reflections; which,
if _Dr. Cadogan_[165] is to be credited, must be more injurious to your
health than any other cause can be.”
-----
Footnote 165:
Dr. William Cadogan’s “Dissertation on the Gout and all Chronic
Diseases,” &c. made its appearance in America about that time; and the
Rev. Mr. Barton, who had long experienced an hereditary gouty
affection, then thought favourably of the Doctor’s general theory,
although he could not adopt that ingenious theorist’s doctrine,
denying the existence of any hereditary diseases.
-----
“I know not, indeed, what kind of _Melancholy_ yours can be. To use the
words of the immortal Shakespeare,—
“You have neither the Scholar’s Melancholy,
Which is Emulation; nor the Musician’s,
Which is fantastical; nor the Courtier’s,
Which is Pride; nor the Lawyer’s, which is politic;
Nor the Lady’s, which is nice; nor the Lover’s,
Which is all these: but it is a Melancholy
Of your own,—compounded of many simples,
Extracted from many objects,—and, indeed,
The sundry Contemplation of the”——STARS.
“If you will promise to pardon your saucy niece, I will tell you what
she attributes it to. She says you are _in Love_; and, really, you seem
to insinuate as much, yourself: If it be so, I sincerely wish you
success in your “Addresses;” or a happy deliverance from the effects of
Love.”
“It would give me great pleasure to hear, that you had fairly resolved
upon going to England;[166] because it would be the means not only of
cheering your spirits, but of establishing your interest as well as
reputation. You give me some hopes of seeing you soon: your Sister and I
would be extremely glad, indeed, to see you at Lancaster.[167]
-----
Footnote 166:
Mr. Barton and some others of Mr. Rittenhouse’s friends had repeatedly
recommended to him to visit England: the former, particularly, often
urged him to it, and for the reasons assigned in the text. That he
had, himself, long contemplated that voyage, is apparent from the
extract of his letter to Mr. Barton, of the 15th of March 1771,
already quoted; and his last mentioned letter to the same gentleman
shews, that, nearly a year afterwards, he still had that object
steadily in view.
Footnote 167:
In a preceding letter, Mr. Barton had sent him some Mathematical
Problems, for solution. These had been furnished by a schoolmaster, in
Mr. Barton’s neighbourhood; who, although reputed a pretty good
mathematician, possessed but a small share of genius or invention,
while he had a large portion of confidence in his own abilities. In
noticing these problems, Mr. Rittenhouse could not refrain from
shewing some little irritation: he thought the communications too
trifling, too destitute of originality, or too useless, to merit his
attention; and, accordingly, he thus expressed himself on the
occasion, in a letter dated Feb. 3, 1772:
“I entreat you not to insist on my measuring heads with any
pragmatical schoolmaster, who is heartily welcome, for me, to divert
himself with his _x. y. z’s_, at which he may be very expert, and yet
be, as you say, both ignorant and conceited. His first question,
however, may be answered by any young algebraist: the second and third
are more difficult, and will admit of various answers. The fourth
contains four observations, picked out, (and carelessly enough,
several of the figures being wrong,) of a set made on the comet of
1682, which I shewed your son William in about half a dozen different
books; you will find them in Dr. Halley’s Astronomical Tables. Every
thing relating to this comet has long ago been settled by Dr. Halley;
so that, to give a complete answer to the question, I need only
transcribe from him: but you cannot conceive how much I despise this
kind of juggle, where no use is proposed. If your schoolmaster will
give me but three good observations (I do not want four) of the comet
of 1769, I will accept them with thanks, and soon undertake the
laborious task of determining its orbit, which we yet know nothing
about.”
To this Mr. Barton replied, in a vein of good-humoured pleasantry:
“I imagine you have mistaken me, with regard to the mathematical
questions. They were not sent as trials of your abilities: but, for
reasons with which W. B. is acquainted, and which I have desired him
to give you, in order to afford you a laugh. I shalt never “insist” on
your “measuring heads” with a “schoolmaster,” of any kind; because I
know full well, already, that your head is longer than all the heads
of the whole tribe. Had you known what diversion your solutions would
have afforded me, you would have sent them.”
-----
Although no doubt can be entertained, that, in the early part of the
year 1772, Mr. Rittenhouse had it very seriously in contemplation to
visit England, as soon, to use his own words, as his business would
permit, his intention in that particular was eventually frustrated: but
it is now uncertain, to what cause was owing a change of his views or
the disappointment of his plan.[168] He married, however, in the month
of December following, Miss Hannah Jacobs, of the city of
Philadelphia.[169]
-----
Footnote 168:
It is not improbable, that about the time of writing the letter of the
3d of Feb. 1772, from which extracts are given in the text, he began
to think seriously of marrying again. Both his natural disposition and
his habits endeared to him the comforts of domestic society; and these
he could not enjoy in a single state, his two only children being
infants. He therefore married, in December 1772; at which time he was
only in the forty-first year of his age. The lady he chose as his
companion, was a sensible, prudent and valuable woman; whose family
were members of the religious society of Friends, and with whose
brothers Mr. Rittenhouse had long been intimately acquainted. By that
marriage there was but one child, a daughter, who died in her infancy.
Mrs. Rittenhouse survived her husband little more than three years.
She died in October, 1799.
Footnote 169:
See the preceding note.
-----
By an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, passed the 26th of
February, 1773, Mr. Rittenhouse was appointed one of the Commissioners
for making the river Schuylkill navigable;[170] and by two subsequent
laws, passed on the 24th of March, 1781, and the 15th of March, 1784, he
was again appointed a Commissioner, at those two periods, for the same
purpose. And by a list of the incidental expences of the government, for
the first mentioned of those years, it appears that he received 41_l._
15_s._ 11_d._ for his services in that business. In these several
appointments of commissioners, during a term of eleven years, Mr.
Rittenhouse was uniformly first-named; and, consequently, became
president of their board.
-----
Footnote 170:
The first law of Pennsylvania, for removing rocks, sandbars and
gravel, from the bed of the river Schuylkill, so as to render it
passable with rafts, boats, and other small river-craft, was passed
the 14th of March 1761.
-----
The last important business of a public nature, in which Mr. Rittenhouse
was engaged, prior to the American war, was in fixing, jointly with a
Commissioner on the part of New-York, the beginning of the 43° of North
latitude, and to establish a Line, thence Westward, as the Boundary
between Pennsylvania and New-York.
Mr. Rittenhouse was appointed the Commissioner for this purpose, on the
part of the then province of Pennsylvania, by Gov. John Penn, on the
24th of October, 1774; and Samuel Holland, Esquire, was the Commissioner
on the part of New-York, appointed by Lieutenant-Governor Colden. As
Captain Holland’s[171] commission was not made out until the 8th of
November, these Joint-Commissioners could not proceed on the business of
their appointment, before that late period. It appears, however, by the
duplicate returns made by these gentlemen to their respective
governments, under the date of December the 14th in the same year, that
they “ascertained and fixed the beginning of the forty-third degree of
North latitude on the Mohawk or Western branch of the Delaware; and
there, in a small island of the said river, planted a stone, marked,
&c.”[172]—“but that the rigour of the season prevented them from
proceeding further in running the said line, &c.”[173]
-----
Footnote 171:
Mr. Holland was an able engineer in the British service, and held the
military rank of captain.
Footnote 172:
The Marks, &c. are particularly described in the Pennsylvania Act of
Assembly, passed the 29th of Sept. 1779, entitled “An Act to
establish and confirm the Boundary Line between this state and the
state of New-York.”
Footnote 173:
The Law, referred to in the preceding note, states the extent of
their further progress in the business at that time, which was
inconsiderable.
-----
In September 1772, the Philosophical Society announced in the public
prints, the receipt, by them, of sundry communications: among which
were various astronomical observations, made in Canada, by this
gentleman and two other military officers, from June 1765, to May
1770, (captain Holland being, at that period, surveyor-general of the
district of Quebec.) These observations were communicated to the
society by Mr. Rittenhouse; but, having been received after the first
volume of the Society’s Transactions was published, their publication
in the subsequent volumes was by some means omitted.
This Line remained thus unsettled, until after the conclusion of the
American war. Mr. Rittenhouse and Captain Holland having previously
established the North-Eastern Corner of Pennsylvania, on that boundary,
by ascertaining and marking thereon the beginning of the 43° of North
latitude, the Pennsylvania Legislature, on the 31st of March, 1785,
enacted a law, authorizing the Executive of the State to appoint a
Commissioner, in conjunction with one or more on the part of New-York,
to run and complete the Line. The person selected for this service by
Pennsylvania, in addition to Mr. Rittenhouse, was Andrew Ellicott, Esq.
an able Mathematician and Astronomer, and well qualified also, by his
practical knowledge of Surveying or Land-Mensuration: this gentleman was
accordingly commissioned[174] by the hon. Charles Biddle, Esquire, then
Vice-President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, on the
16th of June, 1786.[175] The Commissioners on the part of New-York, were
James Clinton and Simeon De Witt, Esquires: And by these gentlemen,
appointed on behalf of their respective governments, this business was
prosecuted; but it was not then completed.[176]
-----
Footnote 174:
Although Mr. Ellicott’s commission bears date the 16th of June, 1786,
his appointment took place some months sooner. On the 3d of April, in
that year, Mr. Rittenhouse wrote him thus:—
“Dear Sir,
“By direction of Council” (the Supreme Executive Council of
Pennsylvania,) “I wrote some time ago to the gentlemen appointed by
the state of New-York for running the northern boundary of this state.
I have received their answer; which is, that they will meet us at
Philadelphia on the 20th of this month, in order to concert measures
for carrying that business into execution. It will be necessary for
you to attend, and I shall confidently expect you—’till then, I must
defer many things I have to say to and settle with you: perhaps
copying the Nautical Almanack may wait until I see you. Hurry of
business will not permit me add more, than that I am,
Dear Sir,
Your very humble serv’t.
DAV. RITTENHOUSE.”
“ANDREW ELLICOTT, Esq.
Baltimore.”
And on the 29th of September, in the succeeding year, he addressed
another letter on the subject of this boundary, to Messrs. Ellicott
and Porter, jointly; wherein he says:
“Your packet came safe to hand, about three weeks after the date of
the letters. I am much obliged to you for the intelligence it
contains; you have succeeded beyond my expectation, and I have no
longer any doubt of your completing the line this season. I should
have been glad, if, to the account of your work, you had added some
description of the country: but my curiosity must wait till your
return.”
Mr. Rittenhouse continued in commission, for the establishing of this
line, until its entire completion: but his non-attendance with the
other commissioners in the actual running of the line, in the year
1787, was prevented by his being then engaged in fixing the
territorial boundary between the states of Massachusetts and New-York.
In the letter, last quoted, is this paragraph:—“Dr. Ewing and myself
were absent seven weeks, on the line between New-York and
Massachusetts, in which time we happily completed it, to the
satisfaction of all parties; and, with this business, I have bid
adieu, forever, to all running of lines.”
Footnote 175:
Dr. Rush has been led into a mere mistake of the date on this
occasion; probably, by an hasty perusal of the confirmatory law, of
Sept. 29, 1789. He states, in his eulogium, that it was the year 1786,
in which Mr. Rittenhouse “was employed in fixing the northern line
which divides Pennsylvania from New-York: his services on that
business were originally employed in 1774, He did, indeed, again act
as a commissioner, in the year 1786, and it was on the 16th day of
June, in that year, that Mr. Ellicott was commissioned to complete, in
conjunction with Mr. Rittenhouse, what the latter had begun to execute
eleven years and an half before the last mentioned date.
Footnote 176:
“In order to carry on the parallel of latitude with as much expedition
and economy as possible,” says Mr. Ellicott, “we dispensed with the
method of tracing a line on the arc of a great circle, and correcting
into the parallel; as pursued by Messrs. Mason and Dixon, in
determining the boundary between this state” (Pennsylvania,) “and the
state of Maryland, and which we followed in completing their line in
the year 1784. We commenced our operations by running a guide-line,
West, with a surveying compass, from the point mentioned on the
Delaware” (the one which was fixed by Dr. Rittenhouse and Capt.
Holland, in the year 1774,) 20¼ miles; and there corrected by the
following zenith lines” (laid down in the sequel,) “taken, at its
western termination, by a most excellent Sector, constructed and
executed by Dr. Rittenhouse.”
-----
The following letter, addressed by Mr. Rittenhouse to his wife, while he
was engaged in this service, will not only furnish the reader with some
idea of the manner in which the commissioners, with their attendants,
were obliged to live in the wilderness, and the nature of their
accommodations; but it will also present him with an interesting little
story, illustrative of the manners and condition, in our day, of some of
that unfortunate race of men, who were once the independent lords of
that vast territory, over which the descendants of a grant transatlantic
people now exercise all the rights of sovereignty and ownership. This
letter is dated the 6th of August, 1786.
“It is,” says Mr. Rittenhouse, “six long weeks since I have had the
happiness of seeing you or hearing from you; and this is the first
opportunity I have had of conveying a letter to you, since I left
Wyoming. As I cannot hope to receive a line from you until we approach
nearer to the habitable world, my next greatest pleasure is to inform
you of the favourable state of my health: this pleasure is indeed damped
in some degree, by my fears that you will not give full credit to what I
say, though I mean to abide strictly by the truth. The head-ach has been
unknown to me, almost ever since I left you; my cough, though much
better, is not quite removed; and I have no other complaint, except,
that which will never leave me in this world: this, however, far from
being worse than usual, is certainly something less troublesome; which I
attribute to my being more at liberty to use moderate exercise, and less
exposed to summer heats than I should be at home. This seems to be a
different climate from that you are in; the weather is constantly cool,
but not cold. We are at present situated on a pleasant bank of the
Susquehanna, about fifteen miles above the mouth of the Chenango, one of
the principal branches of this river. From this place to Middletown in
Lancaster county, is, by estimation, 270 miles along the river: much of
the road is very bad, so that we had a tedious journey.
“At Chenango, there are a few Indian families settled, amounting to
forty souls. Some of these people frequently visit us, and bring us fish
and venison; in return for which, they are very desirous to have flour
or salted provisions: and we live in the greatest harmony with them.
Five or six days ago, one of the Onondago Sachems with his family came
up in three canoes, and encamped in the evening, just below us. Next
morning, we received a message from them, requesting an audience for two
young ladies of the family. To this, a proper answer was returned,
(General Clinton having prudently brought an interpreter with him,) and
at the time appointed they were introduced to us in our tent, unattended
by any other Indians. After a draught of punch, and a decent silence,
our visitors were told that we were ready to hear what they had to say.
The eldest of the two, a fine girl of about twenty, and extremely well
dressed, with a becoming modesty made a short speech; concluding with an
handsome apology for acquitting herself no better, on account of her
youth and sex. The purport of her speech was, that thinking it would not
be disagreeable to us, they were come to spend a few days in our
company: that they were poor, and in want of provisions, especially
flour; and hoped we would furnish them with a small portion of our
stores,—at least for present use, whilst they staid with us. We
encouraged them to bring us fish and other fresh provision; in return
for which, they should have salt meat and some bread. Business being
over, some cheerful conversation ensued: and we had reason to think our
interpreter went much further than he was warranted to do; for he made
some proposition which the young lady negatived strongly, though we are
ignorant of what it was. He was then bid to assure them, that no insult
should be offered, and that they might visit us at our tents whenever
they pleased: to this one gentleman added, that we would treat them as
we would our own country women.
“It seems the old interpreter mistook the word _treat_, and construed
it, the _giving them victual and drink_: in consequence of this mistake,
the ladies expected to dine with us every day. They then departed,
seeming well satisfied; but in the afternoon we received a message from
them, complaining that we had already broken the treaty, in not sending
for them to dinner. To this we sent a verbal answer, with an apology,
and letting the ladies know we should expect them to tea. To my great
surprise, we then received a written note, thanking us for our kindness
and promising to drink tea with us,—signed, _Jacowe and Sally_: it was
in the Indian language, and written by Miss Sally herself. We now
thought it our duty to return a written compliment likewise; and this
intercourse ended with a verbal message from Miss Sally, assuring us,
that she thought herself honoured by our letter and would carefully
preserve it. The ladies did not fail to come; and have drank tea every
day, and sometimes dined with us. They are cheerful and agreeable; but
cannot, or will not, speak one word of English. Mr. De Witt draws
prettily, and is taking a very good picture of the young princess, which
I hope to have the pleasure of shewing you in a few weeks. I have
mentioned their _writing_, which you will be surprised at: but these
Indians are in some measure civilized; many of them have learned to
read;—they have the Common Prayer Book of the Church, printed in their
own language, which is the Mohawk.[177] The family now with us have
several books with them; likewise paper, pens and ink. Every evening,
the females jointly sing several religious hymns, and their music is at
least equal to any of this kind I have heard: the old mistress is very
devout, and sometimes says her prayers with great fervency. They are,
nevertheless, still but Indians; and Miss Sally will sit, with all her
finery about her, flat on the ground for hours together, under a
miserable bark shed, making buckskin shoes, until her eyes are almost
smoked blind; then, by way of relaxation, she and her cousin will step
into a little tottering canoe, where, standing upright, they row away
with incredible swiftness.
-----
Footnote 177:
The Liturgy of the Church of England was first translated into the
Mohawk language, in the year 1714. Another translation was made under
the direction of three clergymen of that church; namely, the Rev. Mr.
William Andrews, Dr. Henry Barclay, and Dr. John Ogilvie: This was
printed in the year 1769; but the place where it was printed does not
appear. In the year 1787, an handsome edition of the English Book of
Common Prayer, with a translation into the Mohawk language by captain
Joseph Brant, was published in London.
-----
“You will excuse me for entertaining you so long with an account of
these poor wretches. But your news, and your politics, are almost
forgotten. Still, my principal happiness is, that not only waking but
frequently in my dreams, I feel all that esteem and affection for you,
which I hope will never end. My companions are agreeable enough; but as
every one has his own humours, it is by no means a desirable thing to be
cooped up in a little tent, night and day, for weeks together, with any
one. I want something to employ my leisure hours. This I could do by
writing, but here is no privacy: I am at present obliged to write badly
and in a small hand, to prevent its being overlooked. I cannot think of
taking my departure for Philadelphia, until we approach nearer the
inhabited country: our next station, but one, will be at or near Tioga,
and from thence I shall return.”
* * * * * * * * * *
“God grant you health and spirits,” &c.
---
In 1787, Mr. Ellicott’s associates, in completing this line, were Col.
Andrew Porter of Pennsylvania, and Abraham Hardenberg and William
Morris, Esquires, of New York; Mr. Rittenhouse, who was engaged the same
year in a similar occupation, being unable to attend the finishing of
this boundary. It was then finally run and marked, by the other
commissioners here named; and, in conformity to the return of these
commissioners, their proceedings were ratified by a confirmatory law of
Pennsylvania, passed on the 29th of September, 1789.
Thus did the labours of a great work,—of one which employed the talents
of Mr. Rittenhouse towards the close of the year 1774—which were resumed
by him in 1786, and were afterwards continued and completed by Mr.
Ellicott and his associates,—receive the legislative sanction of
Pennsylvania, fifteen years after the commencement of this arduous
undertaking.
His studious habits, and zealous investigation of the works of nature,
led Mr. Rittenhouse to devote as much of his time, as the delicate state
of his health permitted him to retrench from occasional public
employments and his private occupations, to those objects for the
promotion of which the American Philosophical Society was instituted.
After he fixed his residence in Philadelphia, the established seat of
that Society, he attended their Meetings pretty regularly; and by that
means had an opportunity of forming a more intimate acquaintance with
many persons, most conspicuous, at that time, for talents, knowledge,
and learning. His great abilities had then become almost universally
known; and these, in connexion with the suavity of his deportment, his
great modesty, and exemplary moral character, had not only procured him
the esteem and respect of all good men; but confirmed the friendship of
his old acquaintances, and attached to him the high and sincere regard
of many new ones.
As one instance, among many, of the distinguished estimation in which
Mr. Rittenhouse was held by his fellow-citizens, after a residence of
between four and five years in Philadelphia; the American Philosophical
Society petitioned the legislature, on the 6th of March, 1775, fer
pecuniary aid, to enable them to erect an Observatory; and to allow Mr.
Rittenhouse an annual salary, as the “Public Astronomical Observer.”
The objects of this application were important, in a public view; and
its whole tenor was alike honourable to the enlightened patriotism of
the Philosophical Society, and the merit of the person to whom, more
particularly, it had reference.[178] Indeed, such a public act of so
respectable a body as that society, is a testimonial reflecting great
honour on the character of Mr. Rittenhouse; insomuch, that it would be
doing injustice to his memory, not to insert it in these Memoirs of of
his Life. It is as follows:
-----
Footnote 178:
Mr. Rittenhouse is not mentioned in the petition, by name. This was
unnecessary: for it was universally known, that it could apply to no
other person in America, so unquestionable and pointed are its
allusions to him; and that, perhaps, no other Astronomer then living,
so well merited the high encomiums on his philosophical abilities,
which it contains.
-----
“To the honourable the Representatives of the Freemen of the province of
Pennsylvania, in General Assembly met:
“The Representation and Petition of the American Philosophical Society,
held at Philadelphia, for promoting useful knowledge.
“Gentlemen,
“It must yield a sensible satisfaction to the good people of this
province, whom you represent, to find, that although it be among the
youngest of our American settlements, its reputation has risen high
among the sister colonies, and has extended even to the remotest part
of Europe, on account of our many public-spirited institutions, and
our rapid improvements in all useful arts. This satisfaction is also
greatly increased, when we consider, that notwithstanding these
institutions, through the necessity of the case, were generally
obliged to derive much of their first support from the benevolence of
individuals; yet a liberal spirit, for their encouragement and final
establishment, has gone forth among our Representatives, in proportion
to the increase of our provincial funds. And indeed the savings of
public money, after supplying the exigencies of the state, are never
more laudably directed, than towards the promoting whatever is useful
and ornamental in society.
“It is with unfeigned gratitude that your petitioners recollect the
repeated occasions you have given them, of acknowledging your bounty
and protection, in carrying on their designs ‘for the advancement of
useful knowledge;’ and it is their firm resolution never to abuse your
former indulgence, by any future unnecessary or unimportant
applications. By the means now in their own power, they hope, in
general, to be able to prosecute their plan; except so far as they may
sometimes find it incumbent on them humbly to suggest to you the
encouragement of useful inventions, and the patronizing undertakings
beneficial to the whole community: And it is in this last view, that
they presume to address you at this time.
“Amidst the variety of fields, which, in this new world, lie open to
the investigation of your petitioners, they have, for several years,
turned their views towards one, wherein they hope to gather some of
their chief laurels, and to make discoveries alike honourable to their
country and themselves. Our distance from the chief Observatories in
the world, the purity and serenity of our atmosphere, invite us, nay
loudly call upon us, to institute a series of regular Astronomical
Observations; the comparison of which with those made in Europe, and
elsewhere, might settle some very important points, and contribute
greatly to give a last perfection to Geography and Navigation. The
advantages derived to those noble and useful sciences, from such
observations, are so obvious, that there is scarce a civilized nation
in the world that has not made some provision for prosecuting them;
and your petitioners have been honoured with repeated solicitations
from some of the greatest men in Europe, to join with them in this
great work, and in a mutual communication of our labours.
“It would be inexcusable, therefore, in your petitioners to neglect
the present opportunity of endeavouring to set such a design on foot,
when we have a Gentleman among us, whose Abilities, speculative as
well as practical, would do Honour to any Country, and who is,
nevertheless, indebted for bread to his daily toil, in an occupation
the most unfriendly both to health and study. Under his auspices, the
work may now be undertaken with the greatest advantages; and others
may be bred up by him, to prosecute it in future times: but if the
present opportunity is neglected, perhaps whole centuries may not
afford such another. To rescue such a Man from the drudgery of manual
labour, and give him an occasion of indulging his bent of genius, with
advantage to his Country, is an Honour which crowned heads might glory
in,—but it is an Honour also, which it is hoped, in the case of a
native, Pennsylvania would not yield to the greatest prince or people
on earth!
“The design, which your petitioners have projected, and now humbly beg
leave to lay before your honourable House, is as follows, viz.
“First, That the Honourable Proprietaries be petitioned to grant a Lot
of Ground, for erecting a Public Observatory, and to give such other
encouragement to the design as they may think proper. And from their
known attachment to the interest of this country, as well as their
professed readiness to serve the Gentleman who is proposed to conduct
the design, your petitioners cannot have any doubt of their kind
compliance with this humble request.
“Secondly, That the assistance of your honourable House be requested,
agreeably to the concluding prayer of this petition.
“Thirdly, That a subscription be promoted for erecting a Public
Observatory, and furnishing it with such instruments as may be wanted,
in addition to those valuable ones now in the province. Of the success
of this subscription among our benevolent fellow-citizens, there can
be no doubt; and the expense of the additional instruments will not be
great, as the Gentleman proposed to conduct the design, is capable of
constructing them all with his own hand, in the most masterly manner.
“Fourthly, That the Observatory shall be at all times open to the
curious; and, particularly, that captains and mates of vessels, and
young gentlemen desirous of obtaining a practical knowledge in
Astronomy, shall have admittance, and (under proper rules, to be
framed for that purpose,) be taught the use of Instruments, and the
method of making Observations, especially the _new method_ of
ascertaining the longitude at sea; for the perfecting of which, the
Parliament of Great Britain has of late given such ample rewards, to
the singular advantage of trade and navigation.
“Fifthly, That the Observations to be made by the Public Observer,
shall be annually published, under the inspection of the American
Philosophical Society, and communicated to the learned Societies in
Europe, with such remarks as may render them generally useful and
entertaining.
“Sixthly, That the same person might also be appointed Surveyor of the
high roads and waters; in order that when any public proposals are to
be made, for improving navigation, and shortening the communications
between capital trading places, there be always a person who has
leisure, and is skilled in measuring and reducing distances, taking
heights and levels, and who may be employed in conjunction with
others, when necessary, to make report on all such matters, either at
the expence of those who request such service, or at the public
expence, as the case may require.
“Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray, that your Honourable House
would take the premises into your consideration, and allow a yearly
salary for such person, at least as a Public Astronomer, if you should
not view the additional office of Surveyor of the high roads and
waters in the same important light as it is viewed by your
petitionors; and they further pray, that you would give them leave to
bring in a bill for the legislative appointment of such Public
Observer, and for regulating his duty in the execution of his trust:
and your petitioners shall ever pray, &c.
Signed in behalf and by order of the American Philosophical Society,
at Philadelphia, March 6th 1775.
THOMAS BOND, V. P.”[179]
-----
Footnote 179:
Joseph Galloway and Samuel Rhoads, Esq’rs. the other vice-presidents
of the society, were then members of the general assembly; and Dr.
Franklin, the president, had not at that time returned from England.
Mr. Rittenhouse was, at the same time, one of the curators of the
society; as he was, also, during the year 1772.
-----
Nothing was done, in pursuance of this application to the legislature;
although there is not any reason whatever to doubt, that there was the
most favourable disposition in that enlightened and liberal assembly, to
promote the laudable views of the Philosophical Society, both as they
regarded the public interest, and the personal advantage of Mr.
Rittenhouse. But the period was then close at hand, and its arrival had
been for some time before anticipated, when the public voice was
expected to proclaim, in a tone of awful solemnity, “_Cedant Armis
Togæ_:” and, in fact, the calamatous appeal to arms which soon after
succeeded, seemed almost wholly to absorb all other considerations, than
such as were connected with the defence of the country and a new
organization of its internal polity.
Mr. Rittenhouse was among those, who early yielded to the call of their
fellow-citizens to serve them in a civil capacity. Dr. Franklin and
Major (afterwards General) Mifflin had been respectively appointed by
the continental congress, in the year 1775, to be post-master general of
“the United Colonies of North-America,” and quartermaster-general of the
American army: and, in consequence of these appointments, both these
gentlemen resigned, in the early part of the ensuing year, the seats
they had occupied in the general assembly of Pennsylvania, as burgesses
for the city of Philadelphia. To supply this vacancy in the
representation of that city, Colonel (afterwards General) Joseph Reed
and David Rittenhouse, Esq. were elected, in March 1776. Mr. Rittenhouse
took his seat on the 5th day of the same month, and continued an useful
member of that body until the termination of its legislative functions.
But, although he was a valuable and highly respectable member of that
house, he did not possess that species of talent which often enables a
man of even moderate abilities, to make a prominent figure in popular
assemblies: his perception was extremely quick; in deliberative powers
he excelled; and all his reasoning faculties were most accurate: yet, an
insuperable native diffidence—pursuits which precluded opportunities of
public speaking—and, perhaps, a peculiar structure of his mind—all
forbad his being an orator.
Notwithstanding the agitating and highly important public events which
occupied men’s minds, in the memorable year 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse could
not entirely abandon, even then, his darling pursuits. His ardent
attachment to the Newtonian philosophy led him, on various occasions, to
vindicate it against new-fangled theories which sometimes appeared
against it: for there still remained a few speculative men, and, among
these, some persons of considerable learning, who continued to adhere to
the visionary principles of Descartes and his followers.[180] Of this,
an instance occurred in the year 1776. A writer under the signature of
M. W. (and who is supposed to have been the late Rev. Matthew Wilson, a
respectable presbyterian clergyman, of Lewes,[181] in the county of
Sussex on Delaware,) published in _The Pennsylvania Magazine_, for March
and April in that year, (conducted by the late Mr. Robert Aitken of
Philadelphia,) some speculations, under the head of “A proposal for
reducing Natural Philosophy to a System, with Remarks on the Cartesian
and Newtonian Theories.” In his lucubrations, this writer discovered a
decided partiality for the doctrine of Descartes, in preference to those
of Newton. Nor did this admirer of the justly exploded philosophy of the
former long want a coadjutor: for, in the same Magazine, for the
succeeding month, appeared another reverend gentleman of the same
religious persuasion, and known to possess a copious fund of scholastic
learning; who, under the signature of J. W. approved, in the main, of
the opinions of his precursor, on this occasion. After acknowledging
that the Newtonian system prevailed universally in Great Britain, and
pretty generally throughout the rest of Europe, he asks—“Shall we then
hear any thing against the Newtonian principles, in Answer?” He adds—“I
answer, yes.” After rendering a constrained kind of compliment to the
great Newton, for his “inexpressible service to Philosophy”—“so far as
he adhered to his own plan,”—he proceeds with introducing “A few
Thoughts on Space, Dimension, and the Divisibility of Matters _in
infinitum_.”
-----
Footnote 180:
That eminent mathematician and astronomer, Mr. Roger Cotes,[180a] in
an excellent preface to his edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s _Mathematica
Principia Philosophiæ Naturalis_, has explained the true method of
philosophising; shewn the foundation on which the Newtonian system was
built; and refuted the objections of the Cartesians, and all other
philosophers, against it. In this preface, Mr. Cotes has ably answered
those, who contended, that gravity or attraction, in the system of
Newton, was not a clearer principle, nor one more fit to explain the
phænomena of nature, than the occult qualities of the peripatetics:
for, there were still philosophers, such as they were, who persisted
in that absurd opinion! “Gravity,” said the objectors, “is an occult
cause; and occult causes have nothing to do with true philosophy.” To
which Mr. Cotes made this lucid reply:—“Occult causes are not those
whose existence is most clearly demonstrated by observation and
experiment; but those only whose existence is occult, fictitious, and
supported by no proofs. Gravity, therefore, can never be called an
occult cause of the planetary motions; since it has been demonstrated
from the phænomena, that this quality really exists. Those rather have
recourse to occult causes, who make vortices to govern the heavenly
motions; vortices, composed of a matter entirely fictitious, and
unknown to the senses. But, shall gravity therefore be called an
occult cause, because the cause of gravity is occult, and as yet
undiscovered? Let those who affirm this, beware of laying down a
principle which will serve to undermine the foundation of every system
of philosophy that can be established. For causes always proceed, by
an uninterrupted connexion, from those that are compound, to those
that are more simple; and when you shall have arrived at the most
simple, it will be impossible to proceed further. Of the most simple
cause, therefore, no mechanical solution can be given; for if there
could, it would not be the most simple. Will you then call these most
simple causes _occult_, and banish them from philosophy? You may so;
but you must banish at the same time the causes that are next to them,
and those again that depend upon the causes next to them, till
philosophy, at length, will be so thoroughly purged of causes, that
there will not be one left whereon to build it.”
The great doctrine of gravitation and attraction, the _substratum_ of
the Newtonian philosophy, is amply verified by numerous observations
and experiments. Whether that which constitutes the principle of
gravity be, in itself, an incorporeal or spiritual substance, or a
_materia subtilis_, some very subtile kind of ethereal fluid, is a
question which does not at all affect the actual existence of such a
power. “We know,” as is observed by a great astronomer[180b] of our
own time, “that all the bodies in our system are retained in their
courses by such a power” (the power of attraction.) “And,” he adds,
“it is a very singular instance of the unerring wisdom of the CREATOR,
that the law which this power observes is such, that notwithstanding
the mutual attractions of the bodies, the system will never fall into
ruin, but is capable of preserving itself to all eternity. “Moreover,”
continues the same profound writer, “the mutual attraction which takes
place between distant bodies could not, of itself, either produce
their motion about the sun, or the rotation about their axes: it
required an external impulse to operate in conjunction with it, to
produce these effects; an act, which nothing but the arm of
OMNIPOTENCE could accomplish.” “An invisible power pervades the whole
system, and preserves it. In the effects produced by man, we see the
operation of the cause; but “the ways of the ALMIGHTY are past finding
out.” “Hence,” says our author, “in whatever point of view we take a
survey of our system, we trace the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of the
CREATOR: his Power, in its formation; his Wisdom, in the simplicity of
the means to produce the ends; and his Goodness, in making those ends
subservient to our use and enjoyment. Thus we are led by our enquiries
into the structure of the universe, to the proofs of the existence and
attributes of a SUPREME BEING, who formed and directs the whole.
Arguments of this kind produce conviction which no sophistry can
confound. “Every man may see it; man may behold it afar off.” Let not
therefore the ignorant declaim against those pursuits which direct us
to a knowledge of our CREATOR, and furnish us with unanswerable
arguments against the infidel and the atheist.”
But, to return more immediately to the doctrine of gravitation: Some
experiments had been made by M. Boguer and M. de la Condamine, so long
since as the year 1738, upon the Chimboraso in South-America, in order
to test the Newtonian theory of gravity, by examining the attraction
of mountains; and the result accorded with that theory. With a view,
however, to establish the principle more completely, the experiments
of Messrs. Boguer and Condamine having been made under so many
disadvantages, as rendered the result not sufficiently accurate to be
entirely depended on, similar experiments were made upon the Mountain
Schehallien in Scotland, by Dr. Maskelyne, at the request of the Royal
Society, and under the patronage of his sovereign, the present king,
who liberally undertook to defray the expenses. From observations of
ten stars near the zenith, he found the difference of latitudes of the
two stations on the opposite sides of the mountain to be 54″, 6; and
by a measurement of triangles, he ascertained the distance of the
parallels to be 4364, 4 feet, corresponding, in that latitude, to an
arc of the meridian of 42″, 94, which is 11″, 6 less than by
observation: its half therefore, 5″, 8, is the effect of the
attraction of the mountain; and from its magnitude, compared with the
bulk of the whole earth, Dr. Maskelyne computed the mean density of
the latter to be about double that of the mountain. “Thus,” to use the
words of Mr. Vince, “the doctrine of _Universal Gravitation_ is firmly
established.” The reader will find Dr. Maskelyne’s deductions from
this experiment, in Vince’s _Complete System of Astronomy_, vol. ii.
p. 100 and seq.
Footnote 180a:
This extraordinary man, who was the first Plumian professor of
astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge, was born July 10,
1682, and died prematurely June 5, 1716.
Footnote 180b:
The Rev. Mr. Vince, A. M. F. R. S. Plumian Professor of Astronomy and
Experimental Philosophy, in the University of Cambridge. See his
_Complete System of Astronomy_, vol. ii. p. 291.
Footnote 181:
The essay signed M. W. is dated from that place.
-----
Much as Mr. Rittenhouse was averse to controversy of any kind, he could
not content himself without publicly pointing out one palpable fallacy,
among the many mistakes which the last mentioned writer had fallen into:
for he did not notice the preceding production of ‘M. W.’ not deeming
it, probably, worthy of his attention. Accordingly, having been shewn
‘J. W.’s’ essay, with some remarks on it by his ingenious friend Mr.
Ellicott (then quite a young man,) Mr. Rittenhouse drew up some
observations, very concisely, on the errors of this Anti-Newtonian
essayist. This piece will be found in the same periodical work, for June
1776. Being addressed to Mr. Aitken, the publisher of the Magazine, our
Philosopher concludes his strictures thus: “I wish the gentleman would
be more cautious, for the future; as well on your own account as for the
sake of your readers, some of whom may be misled by the weakest
reasoning, on a subject which they do not understand[182] and I will
venture to assure him, that the whole doctrine of Infinites, which he is
pleased to call a sophism, will not produce one contradiction in a
mathematical head. Those of another cast[183] need not meddle with it,
since there is a sufficient variety of literary subjects to engage every
man, according to the bent of his genius.”
-----
Footnote 182:
In the beginning of these observations of Mr. Rittenhouse, on “J.
W.’s” piece, he says—“I am one of those who are ready to subscribe to
the general maxim, That perfection is not to be found in any thing
human; and therefore do not suppose the Newtonian philosophy to be so
perfect as not to admit of amendment: But I must confess, that almost
all the attempts to controvert that philosophy, which I have met with,
amount to nothing more than so many proofs, that those who made them
did not understand it. Of this kind, are the objections started by
your correspondent, J. W.”
Footnote 183:
Alluding, probably, to Metaphysicians; for, neither Mr. M. W. nor Dr.
J. W. was distinguished as a Mathematician.
-----
A further proof of Mr. Rittenhouse’s unremitting attachment to the
interests of science, even “amidst the calamities of an unhappy war,”
will be found in the following circumstances; a written memorial of
which, is preserved in the family of his friend, the late Dr. W. Smith.
On the 2d day of November, 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse was engaged, in the
city of Philadelphia, jointly with Dr. Smith and Mr. John Lukens, in
observing the transit of Mercury over the Sun, which appeared that day.
On the 9th of January, following, the Doctor and Mr. Rittenhouse
employed themselves at the same place, in like Observations on an
eclipse of the Sun, which then occurred. And, on the 24th of June, 1778,
just one week after the evacuation of that city by the British army, the
three gentlemen here named, together with Mr. Owen Biddle, were busied
in making observations, there, on another eclipse of the Sun. The
results of these several Observations, in the hand-writing of Dr. Smith,
having been bound up by him with a copy of T. Mayer’s Lunar Tables, the
writer of these Memoirs was obligingly permitted by Mr. Charles Smith,
the Doctor’s son, to transcribe them, for publication in this work. A
true copy of them is accordingly given in the Appendix.
But, to return to some political events of the year 1776: In the month
of September of that year, Mr. Rittenhouse was one of twenty-four
persons who were appointed justices of the peace, for the whole State of
Pennsylvania; in their capacity of members of the then existing council
of safety.
This appointment was made by virtue of an ordinance of the convention of
Pennsylvania, which passed the first constitution of the state, on the
28th of September, 1776, of which he was also a member, for the city of
Philadelphia. That convention could boast of possessing, among their
members, two distinguished philosophers, Franklin[184] and Rittenhouse:
but it cannot be ascertained, whether the opinions of these two eminent
men, on the subject of government, had any decided influence on the
deliberations of that assembly. Certain it is, however, that the
Constitution framed and promulgated by the convention, was predicated on
too many new and untried principles of civil polity; that it contained
too many aberrations from maxims founded on a knowledge of human nature,
to have warranted a reasonable expectation, that it could long prove
practically beneficial. Hence, after an experiment of fourteen years
continuance, it was succeeded by the present constitution of the state;
one admirably well suited to secure the rights and liberties of its
citizens, individually, and to promote the prosperity of the whole
community, so long as it shall be faithfully and wisely
administered.[185]
-----
Footnote 184:
Dr. Franklin was president of that convention.
Footnote 185:
Dr. Ramsay, who published his History of the American Revolution at
the close of the year 1789, after observing that the policy of
Great-Britain, in throwing the inhabitants of her ancient colonies on
the American continent out of her protection, induced a necessity of
establishing independent constitutions for themselves, makes these
judicious remarks:—“The many errors that were at first committed by
unexperienced statesmen, have been a practical comment on the folly of
unbalanced constitutions and injudicious laws.”
-----
The thirteen British Colonies, which, on the memorable fourth day of
July, 1776, had declared themselves free and independent States, assumed
at the same time a national character, under the denomination of “The
United States of America,” in the articles of confederation and
perpetual union between the states, then published:[186] and by these
articles it was agreed, that each state should retain its sovereignty,
freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, not
expressly delegated to congress by the confederation. As soon,
therefore, as Pennsylvania had adopted her state-constitution, measures
were pursued for organizing her government, in conformity to its
provisions. The right of appointing the treasurer of the state by annual
election, was vested in the immediate representatives of the people,
when assembled in their legislative capacity. This policy had been
invariably pursued in the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, while
she continued to be a British province: after the abrogation of the
first constitution of the state, the same mode of appointing that
important officer, the state-treasurer, was continued, and will probably
long remain a constitutional provision.
-----
Footnote 186:
The articles of confederation were not finally ratified by congress
until the 9th of July, 1778. “After eleven years experience,” as Dr.
Morse has observed, “being found inadequate to the purposes of a
federal government,” the present constitution of the United States was
formed at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1787, by that wise, liberal
and patriotic assembly, in which the illustrious Washington presided.
-----
The person first appointed to that high trust, under the republican
government of Pennsylvania, was David Rittenhouse: a man whose stern
integrity, numerous public services, and uniform adherence to those
principles which gave rise to the American revolution, were well
calculated to inspire a general confidence in his character; more
especially, in times when virtue and talents were considered as
meritorious qualities in public men, by those who elevated them to
office. The first legislative body of the State, after the declaration
of independence, assembled at Philadelphia in October, 1776; and, on the
14th day of January, in the following year, they chose Mr. Rittenhouse
to be the state-treasurer, without a dissenting voice. In like manner,
he was unanimously continued in that station, during twelve succeeding
years; in the last of which, he sent to the legislature his resignation
of that office: this event shall be more particularly noticed in its
proper place in the order of time.
In consequence of the possession of the city of Philadelphia by the
British army, from the latter end of September, 1777, until the
beginning of the ensuing summer, the session of the state-legislature
which intervened, was held at Lancaster. The compulsory removal from the
capital, not only of the government of Pennsylvania but of congress
also, and all the offices attached to the seat of the national
government, produced an high degree of agitation and resentment in the
public mind; more especially in Pennsylvania, where the evils occasioned
by the occupancy of their capital by an hostile army, were more keenly
felt by the citizens.
Under these impressions, the general assembly of that state passed a law
on the 13th of October (only seventeen days after the British forces
entered Philadelphia,) entitled “An act for constituting a council of
safety, &c.” By this act, twelve persons therein named, of whom David
Rittenhouse was one, were constituted that council: and to this body,
jointly with the supreme executive council of the state, great and
extraordinary powers were given, to punish (even capitally) offenders,
“traitors or others, who from their general conduct, or conversation,
should be deemed inimical to the common cause of liberty and the United
States of North-America.” The irritation, that could have provoked such
a measure, must have been extreme! for, surely, nothing less than an
extremity of necessity could be urged as any sort of justification, in a
free country, of a legislative act, whereby the constitution was grossly
violated, laws were dispensed with, and a summary authority of the
highest nature, vested in a tribunal unknown to the laws and unwarranted
by the constitution.[187] It is believed, however, that no proceedings
were had under this strange legislative act: and the writer is firmly
persuaded, that neither Mr. Rittenhouse, nor some others of the
gentlemen who constituted the tribunal erected by that act, would have
undertaken to exercise some of the powers required of them, thereby.
-----
Footnote 187:
“War never fails,” as Dr. Ramsay has justly observed, “to injure the
morals of the people engaged in it. The American war in particular,”
continues that historian, “had an unhappy influence of this kind.
Being begun without funds or regular establishments, it could not be
carried on without violating private rights; and in its progress, it
involved a necessity for breaking solemn promises, and plighted public
faith. The failure of national justice, which was in some degree
unavoidable, increased the difficulties of performing private
engagements, and weakened that sensibility to the obligations of
public and private honour, which is a security for the punctual
performance of contracts.”
This is a melancholy but faithful representation of some of the
injurious impressions made on the moral sentiments and feelings of the
people of this country, by the revolutionary war: evils inseparable
from warfare; and such as necessarily spring from a state of things,
alike destructive of social order and the refinements of society, as
repugnant to the precepts of religion, the dictates of natural justice
and the mild suggestions of benevolence.
-----
Daring the occupancy of Philadelphia by the British forces under Sir
William Howe, the commander in chief, from the 26th of September, 1777,
until the evacuation of that city on the 18th of June, in the following
year, Mr. Rittenhouse resided at Lancaster;[188] where he was busily
employed in the duties of his office of treasurer of the state.[189]
Before his removal from Philadelphia, he had placed his family at or in
the vicinity of his farm in Norriton, distant about twenty miles in a
north-westwardly direction from the capital; then conceiving that
situation to be a place of safety from any hostile excursions. While he
himself continued in the borough of Lancaster, he made his home at the
house of the late William Henry, Esq. at that time treasurer of the rich
and populous county of the same name; a situation which was very
commodious for the business of his office, from its connexion with that
of the county-treasurer, and one which was also rendered the more
agreeable, by reason of Mr. Henry being a person of very considerable
mechanical ingenuity.
-----
Footnote 188:
This large and thriving borough, said to be the greatest inland town
in the United States, was, for a short time, (though very short,
indeed,) the seat, or rather place of refuge, of the American
congress; the members of which, having separated on the near approach
of the British army, eight days before their occupation of the
capital, re-assembled at Lancaster the 27th day of the same month.
Lancaster, which is situated at the distance of sixty-four miles from
Philadelphia, in a direction nearly west, was at first conceived to be
a place of safety: but, for their more perfect security, congress
convened, three days afterwards, at York in Pennsylvania, a
considerable county-town about twenty-two miles westward from
Lancaster, and from each of which places, the intervening great river
Susquehanna is about equidistant.
Footnote 189:
His active mind derived much of its happiness from its continual
employment. It appears, that, while engaged in the duties of his
office, at Lancaster, in the latter part of the year 1777, he made the
calculations for an Ephemeris, called “Father Abraham’s
Pocket-Almanack, for the year M.DCC LXXVIII;” the late Mr. John
Dunlap, the publisher, (who was, during many years, an eminent printer
in Philadelphia,) having, in his advertisement of it, announced to the
public, that “The Astronomical Calculations of this Almanack were
composed by David Rittenhouse, A. M.” Mr. A. Ellicott made
calculations for Pennsylvania and Maryland Almanacks, several years
after Mr. Rittenhouse declined to continue them.
It is believed that our Astronomer made the calculations for “Father
Abraham’s Almanack,” and probably some others, for several years: but
mostly in the earlier part of his life. And, as it was no
disparagement to the talents of a Franklin to publish “Poor Richard’s
Almanack,”[189a] (which the Doctor long continued to print,) so it was
none to the genius and abilities of a Rittenhouse, that he employed
himself, occasionally, in making calculations of an useful nature for
these Ephemerides.
Footnote 189a:
Not only the astronomical calculations of this once well-known and
highly esteemed Ephemeris, but its poetry also, (which is said to have
possessed a considerable share of merit,) were the productions of
Jacob Taylor, Esq. an old English gentleman, who, for some time,
executed the office of Surveyor-General of Pennsylvania. Franklin was
the printer and publisher of this Ephemeris: but many of the
productions of his pen, which appeared in it, and, among the rest, his
“Way to Wealth,” contributed towards rendering it a very popular
publication, of its kind. Franklin commenced the publication of “Poor
Richard’s Almanack,” in the year 1732, when he was but twenty-six
years of age.
-----
This separation of Mr. Rittenhouse from his wife and children—attended
too, as it was, by the most embarrassing circumstances, and great
uncertainty with respect to the extent of its continuance—produced, in
such a disposition as his, the most poignant feelings. His lot, it is
true, was that of thousands of his fellow-citizens: nor were the
opposite party exempt from similar evils; many of whom were obliged to
abandon their homes, and, after making great sacrifices, to seek an
asylum among strangers. These were a part of the miseries inseparable
from a state of war; and some of them were of that nature which
necessarily resulted from a war of so singular a character;
considerations, however, which could not afford much alleviation to the
anxious feelings of our Philosopher, in his exile: those sensations were
in his mind, extremely acute; aggravated as they were, by the almost
hopeless condition of his native country at that time.[190]
-----
Footnote 190:
“At no period of the war,” says chief-justice Marshall the historian,
“had the American army been reduced to a situation of greater peril,
than during the winter at Valley-Forge.” “More than once they were
absolutely without food. Even while their condition was less desperate
in this respect, their stock of provisions was so scanty, that there
was seldom at any time in the stores a quantity sufficient for the use
of the troops for one week. Consequently, had the enemy moved out in
force, the American army could not have continued in camp. The want of
provisions would have forced them out of it; and their deplorable
condition with respect to clothes, disabled them from keeping the
field in the winter. The returns of the first of February (1778)
exhibit the astonishing number of three thousand nine hundred and
eighty-nine men in camp unfit for duty, for want of clothes. Of this
number, scarcely a man had a pair of shoes. Even among those returned
capable of doing duty, very many were so badly clad, that exposure to
the colds of the season must have destroyed them. Although the total
of the army exceeded seventeen thousand men, the present effective
rank and file amounted to only five thousand and twelve. The returns
throughout the winter do not essentially vary from that which has just
been particularly stated.”
Such was the miserable condition of the American army, at the date of
the above returns! It was, indeed, sufficiently desperate in
appearance, to have appalled the stoutest heart; and it required the
magnanimity, as well as the virtue of a WASHINGTON, to conquer such
difficulties and rise superior to them.
-----
A letter which he wrote to his wife, from Lancaster, on the 26th of
January, 1778, strongly bespeaks his inquietude and distress, at that
alarming period; and is, besides, so very expressive of his purity of
heart and the delicacy of his conjugal and parental affections, that the
following extracts from it will, it is presumed, be strikingly
indicative of his principles and temper.
“One of your last,” says Mr. Rittenhouse to his wife, “convinces me,
that the fears I expressed in a former letter are well-founded; I mean,
that you will write, when writing is painful to you: Indeed, my dear H.
I am not so unreasonable as to desire it.”—“Your letters, my dearest H.
give me mingled pleasure and pain. There is nothing in this world I
value so much, as your esteem and affection: Your very kind expressions
of regard, and concern for my health, would therefore make me happy, if
it were not for our unfortunate situation. But we have long since talked
of the necessity of reconciling ourselves to the prospect of a
separation,—perhaps for years: this, I fear, you have still made little
progress in doing, if I may judge from your letters. Nevertheless, the
dismal prospect still continues. I cannot, indeed, boast of much more
resolution myself. If providence has espoused the cause of our enemies,
for wise reasons unknown to us,—Heaven, nevertheless, is my witness,
with what integrity I have acted; and, that the virtue and happiness of
my fellow-creatures has always been my principal object. I am,
therefore, not at all distressed on my own account, confident of being
happy, in whatever part of the world my lot may be thrown: but how to
leave you exposed to the frowns of fortune; to leave you to the mercy of
an unfeeling world, rendered more callous by general distress; to leave
you thus, confiding only in the goodness of Providence, is what I have
still to learn. May kind Heaven render it unnecessary!
“I shall perhaps, before I seal this, appoint a time to meet you. In my
last, I partly promised to come and stay a fortnight with you: but I do
not now think it so safe, as I did then. In our present situation, I
should not think it prudent to stay above one night with you, as parties
of horse are employed to pick up particular persons. For this reason, I
would rather meet you at one of your brothers’, or at sister’s;[191] but
I apprehend the Schuylkill is, at present, difficult—if not dangerous—to
cross, on account of the ice.
-----
Footnote 191:
This sister of Mrs. Rittenhouse was the widow of Colonel Caleb Parry,
a gallant officer in the American service, who was killed at the
battle of Long-Island in July, 1776.
“Tuesday morning.—I am now nearly determined to appoint next Saturday
week, in the evening, to meet you at brother John’s;[192] and yet I fear
it may expose one or both of us to a very uncomfortable ride. I will,
however, be there, if the weather be tolerable and health permit; but do
not come, my dear H. if the weather should be bad; because if I do not
find you there, I shall proceed to brother Israel’s,[193] where I shall
be glad to find you on Sunday, in order to accompany you home. If you
can find any opportunity to write before then, I shall be glad to
receive a line.”
Footnote 192:
John Jacobs, Esq.—This gentleman was a brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.
Footnote 193:
Israel Jacobs, Esq.—Another brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.
-----
After experiencing the numerous and distressing privations incident to a
nine months banishment from his home and separation from his
family—during a period, too, of great calamity and suffering among his
countrymen, Mr. Rittenhouse most joyfully returned to Philadelphia, soon
after its abandonment by the hostile army; and there, once more, enjoyed
the solace of a reunion with his wife and children; amidst whose tender
embraces, and the mutual congratulations of his friends and
fellow-citizens, especially of the returning exiles, he participated
largely in those delightful sensations with which such an occasion, and
such scenes, must have inspired a virtuous heart.
In Philadelphia, Mr. Rittenhouse resumed the discharge of his official
functions, as treasurer of the state; an office, in the execution of
which there were very numerous and complicated duties, arising out of
the novel system of finance and paper-credit, pursued by both the
general and state governments during the war: consequently, his
attention to this business engrossed so much of his time, as to leave
him little leisure for pursuits more congenial to his mind.
In a very short time after Mr. Rittenhouse’s return to Philadelphia he
received a letter from Mr. Jefferson, congratulating him on that happy
event: and expressing, in very forcible terms, the exalted sense that
gentleman entertained of our Philosopher’s genius, talents, and
usefulness. It indicates, also, the solicitude felt by its writer, lest
the Orrery of Mr. Rittenhouse’s invention and construction, belonging to
the College of Philadelphia, had been either removed or injured by the
British forces, while they occupied that city. On this head, however,
the apprehensions conceived by Mr. Jefferson proved to be groundless:
for, not only was the Orrery not removed from its proper station; but,
at the instance of the Rev. Dr. Smith, the provost of the College, the
apartment in the College edifice which contained the invaluable machine,
was closed up by order of Sir William Howe, to prevent its being
injured; and no person was permitted to enter that apartment to view the
Orrery, without the Provost’s consent; on which occasions he uniformly
attended in person, with the keys kept in his possession. The means thus
used, to secure from any injury property so inestimable to the friends
of science, is a circumstance that certainly reflects much honour upon
the parties by whom they were effected,—even though one of them was, at
that time, necessarily viewed in the character of an “enemy.”
But, in order that the reader may be enabled to form his own judgment,
on Mr. Jefferson’s estimate of genius, and concerning the rank and
privileges to which the distinguished writer conceives men of great
philosophical talents are entitled, the letter, just referred to, is now
presented to him: it is as follows.
“_Monticello in Albemarle, Virginia, July 19, 1778._
“Dear sir,
“I sincerely congratulate you on the recovery of Philadelphia, and
wish it may be found uninjured by the enemy. How far the interests of
literature may have suffered by the injury or removal of the Orrery
(as it is miscalled), the public libraries, and your papers and
implements, are doubts which still excite anxiety. We were much
disappointed in Virginia generally, on the day of the great
eclipse,[194] which proved to be cloudy in Williamsburg, where it was
total. I understand, only the beginning was seen at this place, which
is in Latitude 38° 8′ and Longitude West from Williamsburg, about 1°
45′ as is conjectured; eleven digits only were supposed to be covered.
It was not seen at all till the moon had advanced nearly one-third
over the sun’s disc. Afterwards, it was seen at intervals through the
whole. The egress particularly was visible. It proved, however, of
little use to me, for want of a time-piece that could be depended on;
which circumstance together with the subsequent restoration of
Philadelphia to you, has induced me to trouble you with this letter,
to remind you of your kind promise of making me an accurate clock,
which being intended for astronomical purposes only, I would have
divested of all apparatus for striking, or for any other purpose,
which by increasing its complication might disturb its accuracy. A
companion to it, for keeping seconds, and which might be moved easily,
would greatly add to its value. The theodolite, for which I spoke to
you also, I can now dispense with, having since purchased a most
excellent one.
-----
Footnote 194:
This eclipse, which happened on the 24th day of June, 1778, was
observed in Philadelphia, by Dr. Rittenhouse, the Rev. Dr. W. Smith,
John Lukens, Esq. and Mr. Owen Biddle, at the College in that city.
The result of the joint observations made by those gentlemen on that
occasion, as drawn up by Dr. Smith, but never before published, will
be found in the Appendix. W. B.
-----
“Writing to a Philosopher, I may hope to be pardoned for intruding
some thoughts of my own, though they relate to him personally. Your
time for two years past has, I believe, been principally employed in
the civil government of your country. Though I have been aware of the
authority our cause would acquire with the world from its being known
that Yourself and Doctor Franklin were zealous friends to it, and am
myself duly impressed with a sense of the arduousness of government,
and the obligation those are under who are able to conduct it; yet I
am also satisfied there is an order of geniuses above that obligation,
and therefore exempted from it. Nobody can conceive that nature ever
intended to throw away a Newton upon the occupations of a crown. It
would have been a prodigality for which even the conduct of Providence
might have been arraigned, had he been by birth annexed to what was so
far below him. Co-operating with nature in her ordinary economy, we
should dispose of and employ the geniuses of men according to their
several orders and degrees. I doubt not there are in your country many
persons equal to the task of conducting government: but you should
consider that the world has but one Rittenhouse, and that it never had
one before. The amazing mechanical representation of the solar system
which you conceived and executed, has never been surpassed by any but
the work of which it is a copy. Are those powers then, which, being
intended for the erudition of the world, are, like air and light, the
world’s common property, to be taken from their proper pursuit to do
the common-place drudgery of governing a single state, a work which
may be executed by men of an ordinary stature, such as are always and
every where to be found? Without having ascended Mount Sinai for
inspiration, I can pronounce that the precept, in the decalogue of the
vulgar, that they shall not make to themselves the ‘likeness of any
thing that is in the heavens above,’ is reversed for you, and that you
will fulfil the highest purposes of your creation by employing
yourself in the perpetual breach of that inhibition. For my own
country in particular, you must remember something like a promise that
it should be adorned with one of them. The taking of your city by the
enemy has hitherto prevented the proposition from being made and
approved by our legislature. The zeal of a true whig in science must
excuse the hazarding these free thoughts, which flow from a desire of
promoting the diffusion of knowledge and of your fame, and of one who
can assure you truly that he is with much sincerity and esteem your
most obedient and most humble servant.
TH. JEFFERSON.
“P. S. If you can spare as much time as to give me notice of the
receipt of this, and what hope I may form of my Clock, it will oblige
me. If sent to Fredericksburg, it will come safe to hand.”
In the commencement of the year 1779, our benevolent Philosopher had an
opportunity of testifying the friendly interest he took in the
prosperity of his brother-in-law the Rev. Mr. Barton, and his family.
This gentleman was then, with Mrs. Barton,[195] in the city of New-York;
to which they went towards the close of the year 1778, in pursuance of a
permission granted for that purpose by the government of Pennsylvania,
under certain conditions. All Mr. Barton’s children excepting the
eldest, (the writer of these Memoirs), who was then abroad, remained in
Pennsylvania; those in their minority, being six of the seven so
remaining, having been previously placed under the charge of suitable
persons. After a long absence of the eldest son from his native country,
he returned to Pennsylvania the beginning of the year 1779. Immediately
after his arrival at Lancaster, he received a letter from Mr.
Rittenhouse, dated in Philadelphia, January 24th 1779, in which he
says—“I most sincerely congratulate you on your safe arrival, and
impatiently expect the pleasure of seeing you here. I received yours
from Baltimore, ten days after the date, and immediately wrote to your
father,[196] supposing him to be still at New-York;[197] though we
cannot be certain as to that matter.” The Rev. Mr. Barton, on the 15th
of February, acknowledged the receipt of his brother-in-law’s letter to
him, which, although dated the 16th of January, did not reach him until
the 13th of the succeeding month. In this answer, Mr. Barton says;—“To
see, and to be united with my children, is my most earnest wish; but how
that happy event is to be obtained, I know not: If my son should choose
to come to Elizabeth-Town, perhaps I might be indulged with a flag, to
have an interview with him there.”[198]
-----
Footnote 195:
To this lady, who is yet living, Mr. Barton was married in the year
1776. She remains his widow, and enjoys the very affectionate respect
of Mr. Barton’s descendants and relatives, to which her great worth
and many virtues justly entitle her.
Footnote 196:
Colonel Samuel J. Atlee, formerly a parishioner of the Rev. Mr.
Barton, had written two letters to him, to inform him of his son’s
arrival. The second of these only had got to hand, and was
acknowledged at the same time as Mr. Rittenhouse’s. Col. Atlee, who
was a steady friend of Mr. Barton’s family, was a valuable officer in
the American army, in the earlier period of the war; and afterwards
served as a delegate in congress, for the state of Pennsylvania.
The difficulty of Mr. Barton’s returning to Pennsylvania, and which he
alludes to, in his letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, arose from the terms of
his passport to New-York, from the Supreme Executive Council of
Pennsylvania: it permits him to go to New-York, “not to return.” A
letter which Mr. Barton wrote to John De Hart, Esq. of Elizabeth-Town
in New-Jersey, on the 30th of January, 1779, will sufficiently explain
the conscientious scruples which actuated the writer’s conduct; and
they were such as, it is presumed, will have weight, when
dispassionately and liberally considered.
In addressing Mr. De Hart, Mr. Barton says:—“I received your favour of
the 22d instant, by Mr. Alexander. The papers with which you entrusted
me, gave me no trouble, except that of my not being able to serve you
in the manner which was first proposed. You may depend on their safety
in my hands; subject to such directions as you shall be pleased to
give me.” “I wish for an opportunity to oblige you, and if any should
offer, I beg you will employ me without any apology.
“I am just informed that my son has returned to his native country,
after an absence of between three and four years. How melancholy and
distressing is my situation! separated from eight children, and three
congregations, to whom I am bound by duty, gratitude, and every tie of
affection! ‘A parent only knows a parent’s woes;’ and such will feel
for me. You are kind enough to tell me, that my son requests me to
return to my parish. What he can mean by this request, I am totally at
a loss to understand: could the matter have been determined by my
option, I should never have left my parish, for any prospect of
preferment that could offer. But no choice was left me, but either to
take the oath, or to suffer a painful separation from my dearest
connexions; as well as from a country which always had, since I have
known it, my predilection and best wishes; a country to which, I can
declare (with an appeal to heaven for the truth of the declaration,) I
never did, or wished to do, ‘any act or thing prejudicial or
injurious:’ and though my heart assures me, that many conscientious
and good men have conformed to the test-act, yet my own conscience
always revolted at the abjuration part of it, and prevailed with me to
surrender every worldly consideration, that should come in
competition, or tempt me to a violation of it. This, sir, was the only
crime (if a crime it be) for which I now suffer banishment from all
that are most dear to me; with an interdict, “not to return again.” I
cannot therefore comprehend, how I can consistently return, before
this interdict is cancelled; or some assurance given me, that I may
again unite and live quietly with my family, without being subject to
an abjuration, which I cannot take. The proper duties and profession
of a minister of the gospel should, in my opinion, never lead him into
the field of politics. In conformity to this opinion, every man who
knows me can testify, that I never degraded my function by
intermeddling, directly or indirectly, in the present unhappy contest:
so that my own scruples would be a stricter tie upon me, than any that
could be made by oaths or tests. You will excuse my troubling you on
this subject, when I tell you, that the kind manner in which you
address me has drawn it upon you.”
Footnote 197:
It was Mr. Barton’s intention, when he left Pennsylvania, to embark at
New-York for England or Ireland: but his ill state of health, which
soon after ensued, prevented his leaving New-York.
Footnote 198:
This indulgence was obtained in April, 1780, from the Supreme
Executive Council of Pennsylvania, chiefly through the friendship of
the late general Joseph Reed, then president of that body; and, in
pursuance of this passport, sanctioned by general Washington, the
desired interview was had with Mr. and Mrs. Barton, at Elizabeth-Town,
a very short time before the death of Mr. Barton.
-----
In the autumn of the same year, Mr. Rittenhouse again manifested his
friendly attachment to Mr. Barton’s family, on an occasion which
offered, relating to the writer of these Memoirs personally. Soon after
the appointment of the late Henry Laurens, Esq. to be envoy to Holland,
Mr. Rittenhouse applied to that gentleman for the purpose of obtaining
for the writer, who was well known to him, the secretaryship to that
mission: but Mr. Laurens had determined to appoint no secretary; at
least before he should arrive in Holland. In a letter to the writer of
this, communicating the result of his application, Mr. Rittenhouse
says—“I wish you could obtain some handsome thing of this kind; but
there are such numbers of humble suitors to, and dependants on, members
of congress, that every thing is snapped up, before you or I know any
thing of the matter.”
In consequence of a territorial dispute which had arisen between
Pennsylvania and Virginia, Mr. Rittenhouse was appointed by the
legislature of the former, in the year 1779, one of the commissioners
for settling that controversy: his colleagues, on that occasion, were
George Bryan, Esq. and the reverend Dr. Ewing.
These commissioners, thus nominated on behalf of their own state, were
authorised “to meet and agree with other commissioners, on the part of
Virginia, upon the western boundary.” They accordingly met Dr. James
Madison, president of the college of William and Mary, (late bishop of
the protestant episcopal church in Virginia), and Robert Andrews,
professor of mathematics in that institution, the commissioners
appointed by Virginia,—for the purposes of their respective
appointments. This meeting was held on the 31st day of August, 1779. The
propositions for an amicable adjustment of the boundary line in dispute,
were first made by Pennsylvania: and, at the meeting thus held, in
consequence of, Virginia having acceded to those propositions, the joint
commissioners of the two states entered into the following agreement:
“We, George Bryan, John Ewing, and David Rittenhouse, commissioners from
the state of Pennsylvania, and we, James Madison and Robert Andrews,
commissioners for the state of Virginia, do hereby mutually, in behalf
of our respective states, ratify and confirm the following agreement,
viz. To extend Mason’s and Dixon’s line, due west, five degrees of
longitude, to be computed from the river Delaware, for the southern
boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian, drawn from the western
extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said state, be the
western boundary of Pennsylvania for ever.”
This agreement, signed by the respective commissioners of the contending
states, was, on the 19th of November ensuing, unanimously ratified and
confirmed by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, and its ratification
duly transmitted to the government of Virginia.
But this agreement, thus solemnly concluded, did not quiet the
pre-existing disputes. Divers persons, deriving authority, or pretending
so to do, under the government of Virginia, proceeded to Fort Byrd in
the county of Westmoreland, thirty miles at least within the line agreed
on by the commissioners,—and upon lands originally settled under
Pennsylvania, and long held as being within its unquestionable
jurisdiction; and these intruders there exercised a summary and
arbitrary authority, tending to the dispossession of the grantees under
Pennsylvania; vexing and disturbing them, greatly, in the peaceable
possession of lands which they had honestly purchased, and cultivated
for a long course of years. Such injustice and outrages, on she part of
the Virginia intruders, induced congress to interpose the little
authority they possessed, for the purpose of tranquillizing the
contending parties, at a period when the harmony of the citizens of the
several states was highly important to the safety of the whole
confederacy. Accordingly, in December, 1779, and nearly four months
after the adjustment of the before disputed boundary by the persons duly
empowered to settle the same, congress passed a resolution, attested by
their secretary, in these words:
“_In Congress, December 27, 1779._
“Whereas it appears to congress, from the representation of the
delegates of the state of Pennsylvania, that disputes have arisen
between the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia, relative to the
extent of their boundaries, which may probably be productive of
serious evils to both states, and tend to lessen their exertions in
the common defence: Therefore,
“_Resolved_, That it be _recommended_ to the contending parties, not
to grant any part of the disputed land, or to disturb the possession
of any persons living thereon; and to avoid every appearance of force,
until the dispute can be amicably settled by both states, or brought
to a just decision by the intervention of congress; that possessions
forcibly taken be restored to the original possessors, and things be
placed in the situation in which they were at the commencement of the
present war, without prejudice to the claims of either party.”
It is evident from the face of this resolution, that congress were not
disposed to notice this controversy, otherwise, than with extreme
delicacy: and so cautious were they, under all existing circumstances,
of interfering with the merits of this dispute between two great and
powerful states, that they speak of the controversy as one then actually
in existence, between those states; although, in regard to their
respective governments, it had been settled long before. However, the
day after the date of the resolution of Congress, the president and the
supreme executive council of Pennsylvania issued a proclamation,
requiring all officers, civil and military, and others, subjects of the
state, to pay due obedience and respect to that resolution; and also
encouraging the several grantees claiming under Pennsylvania to continue
in the cultivation and improvement of their several estates and
possessions, as well as in their allegiance and fidelity to the
state,—notwithstanding any claims or pretences set up by the state of
Virginia, or any other foreign jurisdiction; and assuring them of the
protection and support of their own state, while so continuing in duty
and obedience to its laws and government.
Notwithstanding all these proceedings, this extraordinary controversy
was not terminated until long afterwards. In consequence of a resolution
of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, of the 28th of August, 1783,
the supreme executive council of that state passed, on the 11th day of
the succeeding month, a resolution on their part, stating,—that, as many
of the objections which had hitherto prevented the determination of the
boundary-line, in question, were then removed, it became necessary to
close that business with all possible accuracy and dispatch; and that,
to this end, four commissioners should be immediately appointed, with
directions to provide the necessary astronomical apparatus, and to
correspond with those appointed by the state of Virginia for the same
purpose: they therefore appointed the Rev. John Ewing, D. D., David
Rittenhouse, Esq. treasurer of the state and Thomas Hutchins, Esq. to
perform that duty.
The arduous service thus assigned to these gentlemen, all of them
possessing great abilities, was accordingly executed; and a law was
thereupon passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 1st of
April, 1784; which, after reciting that the boundary-line agreed on by
the former commissioners, on the 31st of August, 1779,—and which is
therein stated to have been unanimously confirmed by Pennsylvania on the
23d of September, 1780, with the condition attached thereto by
Virginia,[199]—was by this law finally confirmed.
-----
Footnote 199:
The conditions proposed by the state of Virginia (and which
Pennsylvania considered as having a tendency to countenance
unwarrantable claims that might be made under the state of Virginia,
in consequence of pretended purchases or settlements, pending the
controversy,) were these; viz:—That the line, commonly called Mason
and Dixon’s line, be extended due west, 5° of long. to be computed
from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania,
and that a meridian, drawn from the western extremity thereof, to the
northern limits of the said states, respectively, be the western
boundary of Pennsylvania, for ever: on condition, that the private
property and rights of all persons, acquired under, founded on, or
recognized by the laws of either country, previous to the 31st of
August, 1779, should be saved and confirmed to them, although they
should be found to fall within the other; and that in the decision of
disputes thereon &c. (see act of 1st April, 1784.)
-----
Mr. Rittenhouse bore so conspicuous a part, in negociating and executing
this long-depending and important business, that the writer of his life
could not deem it improper to introduce into it, this historical detail
of a transaction of so much moment, which originated in 1779 and was not
completed until 1784; and, more particularly, as (to use the words of
Dr. Rush,) “to his talents, moderation and firmness, were ascribed, in a
great degree, the satisfactory termination of that once alarming
controversy.”
The death of the Rev. Mr. Barton, which occurred in the spring of
1780,[200] put a period to the sincere and intimate friendship between
that gentleman and Mr. Rittenhouse, which had subsisted almost thirty
years. This friendship, which may be said to have commenced almost in
the youth of both parties, continued without interruption until the year
1776; when the declaration of American independence produced, unhappily,
some abatement of it on each side; at least, so far as related to that
great political measure, respecting which they entertained different
opinions: For, although Mr. Barton was, in truth, warmly attached to the
principles of the English whigs; and had, on various occasions,
manifested his zeal for the liberties of the American people and rights
of the colonists;[201] his opinions were conscientiously opposed, and
only these, to the expediency of that measure. Yet it is believed, that
the personal friendship of these intimate relatives was far from having
ever subsided: the ties that early united them, were of the strongest
kind; that union was of long continuance; and they were mutually
sensible of each other’s worth and talents.
-----
Footnote 200:
He died at New-York, the 25th of May, 1780, aged only fifty years; and
was interred in the chancel of St. George’s Chapel, in that city.
Footnote 201:
As Mr. Barton’s deportment and services, very early in life, evinced
his devotion to the happiness of his adopted country, the writer hopes
he may be permitted, without being chargeable with great impropriety,
to adduce the following evidences, among many which might be
exhibited, of the usefulness and public spirit of a person, who was,
during a long course of years, intimately connected with, and a
confidential friend of David Rittenhouse.
Annexed to a printed copy of “A letter, concerning the office and duty
of Protestant ministers, especially in times of public danger, written
to a clergyman on the frontiers of Pennsylvania, on general Braddock’s
defeat,”[201a] there is the following note:
“The gentleman to whom this was addressed,[201b] as well as some
ministers of other denominations, did, a few months after this, find
it necessary to appear at the head of their people, and were signally
instrumental in preventing some of the frontier counties from being
totally abandoned by their inhabitants.” See the Appendix to
“Discourses on public occasions in America: By William Smith, D. D.
Provost,” &c. who was the writer of the letter. It is dated,
“Philadelphia, August 21, 1755.”
Extract of a letter, dated London, January 10th, 1759, from the Hon.
Thomas Penn, Esq. to the Rev. Thomas Barton:—
“Since I received your last letter, I paid a visit to the present
Archbishop,[201c] and mentioned to him what you wished me to do. I
found he did not approve of your contemplated removal; but he
proposed, that twenty pounds sterling per annum should be added to
your salary: for, his grace observed, that a person so capable as you
are, to advise and assist the people in your neighbourhood,[201d]
could not be spared for any other mission: And, on that consideration,
the society[201e] had agreed to this augmentation of your salary.”
On the 17th of June, 1767, Mr. Penn again wrote to Mr. Barton, from
London; as follows:
“I am much concerned to find, that the missionaries have suffered so
much, and that you are so uneasy in your situation as to have asked
leave to move into Maryland. The society has offered, or intend to
offer, an addition to your salary, or some other encouragement, if you
stay in Pennsylvania: and I have desired Mr. Hamilton,[201f] who is
upon his return, to talk to you on this affair, before you take your
resolution; as I hope and intend to make you a present from me,[201g]
if you do not put that design into execution.”
Footnote 201a:
This letter is contained in a volume of Dr. Smith’s Sermons, &c.
published in England in two editions, in the years 1759 and 1762; and
is also comprehended in an elegant edition of the Doctor’s works,
republished in Philadelphia a few years since.
Footnote 201b:
The Rev. Mr. Barton.
Footnote 201c:
Dr. Thomas Secker, then lately translated from the diocese of Oxford
to the archi-episcopal see of Canterbury: “a name,” as the author of
the _Pursuits of Literature_ has justly observed, “never to be uttered
but with reverence, as the great exemplar of metropolitan strictness,
erudition, and dignity.” This excellent prelate, after most worthily
sustaining the highest station in the English church more than ten
years, died in the year 1768.
Footnote 201d:
Mr. Barton’s residence was, at that time, in Redding township, York
county, then a frontier settlement of Pennsylvania.
Footnote 201e:
The Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts.
Footnote 201f:
James Hamilton, Esquire.—This gentleman was lieutenant-governor of
Pennsylvania from the year 1748 to 1754—again, from 1759 to 1763—and
president of the proprietary and governor’s council, from the 6th of
May, 1771, to the 16th of October in the same year. He was a liberal
patron of learning and science.
“Est et Hamiltonus nomen venerabile, cujus
Intemerata fides.”——J. Beveridge, A.M.
Footnote 201g:
Mr. Penn actually gave to Mr. Barton, not long afterwards, the use of
a valuable farm, on which were three tenants, situated in the
neighbourhood of Lancaster. This farm, which was part of one of the
proprietary-manors, Mr. Barton held during his life.
-----
The name of the Rev. Mr. Barton, which has hitherto been so often
introduced in the course of these Memoirs, is closely connected with
that of Mr. Rittenhouse, in many of the more striking traits of his
Life: the writer cannot, therefore, restrain himself from acknowledging,
that he is happy in having this fair opportunity of rendering some small
tribute of respect—and, for himself, of filial veneration—to the memory
of a man distinguished by his virtue, his talents, and his learning;
one, who, independently of those considerations, alone, which arose out
of the American revolution, long enjoyed the friendship and esteem of
many of the most prominent characters in America, by reason of his
abilities and usefulness, as well as the urbanity of his manners. To
have said _less_ of this person, would be doing injustice to the life
and character of Mr. Rittenhouse: to say _more_, would perhaps be deemed
irrelevant to the subject; if not indecorous, as it regards the writer.
To return, however, more particularly to Mr. Rittenhouse. On the 10th
day of March, 1780, he was elected, by the general assembly of
Pennsylvania, a trustee of the loan-office of the state.
The institution here mentioned was a measure of financial policy, which
had its origin in Pennsylvania, at an early period of the provincial
government: and, from an experience of its beneficial effects, it was
not only continued, at various intervals of time, from the year 1723, to
the termination of that government; but was resorted to, and for some
time continued, by the state legislatures after the revolution. The
scarcity of gold and silver, among the earlier settlers of the province,
subjected them to many and great inconveniences, and suggested to the
legislature the necessity of adopting some rational and efficient means
of remedying the evil. The expedient was, the emiting, and making
current, bills of credit; which were loaned to cultivators of the soil
on the security of their lands, and repayable with interest, in annual
payments, within an assigned term of years. The first act of assembly
for this purpose was passed the 11th of May, 1723; and the preamble to
that law is expressive of its object: it states, that, “Forasmuch as
through the scarcity of money, the trade of this province is greatly
lessened and obstructed, and the payment of the public debts of this
government rendered exceeding difficult, and likely so to continue,
unless some medium in commerce be by law made current, instead of money:
for remedy whereof, may it please the governor that it be enacted, and
be it enacted by Sir William Keith, baronet, Governor, &c.” This act
then goes on to direct the emission of “fifteen thousand pounds, current
money of America, according to an act of Parliament made in the sixth
year of Queen Anne, for ascertaining the rates of foreign coins in the
Plantations;” and provides for the loaning of these bills, by persons
thereby appointed “trustees of the general loan-office;” to be loaned
out, upon the security of mortgages of real estates, within the
province, of at least three times the value of the sums lent: which sums
so loaned were made repayable in those bills, in eight years, in annual
payments of one-eighth part of the amount of the principal with the
addition of an interest of five per cent. per annum. The act also
contains a provision (but one which was omitted in the subsequent
loan-office laws,) for lending these bills upon the security of plate
also, for the term of one year. This paper-money, thus established upon
indubitable funds,[202] was made a legal tender in the payment of
debts;—and it never suffered any depreciation of its nominal value.[203]
-----
Footnote 202:
While the credit of the loan-office bills of credit, emitted in
moderate sums by the assembly of Pennsylvania, was fully supported,
during the course of seventy years, the quantities of paper-money
issued at different times, by the legislative body of Massachusetts,
down to the year 1748, had then depreciated that currency, for want of
it being bottomed on sufficient funds, to one-eleventh part of its
nominal value. Fortunately, about that period, a large sum in specie
arrived from England, having been granted by the British parliament to
reimburse the monies expended by the colonists in the expeditions
against Louisburg and Canada. In Massachusetts, this money was wisely
applied by its legislature to the redemption of the bills of credit of
that colony, then in circulation; which were sunk, in the succeeding
year, at the rate of fifty shillings, in those bills, for one ounce of
silver. Thus, the mint-price of an ounce of sterling silver being five
shillings and two pence, the bills were redeemed at the rate of nearly
nine shillings and eight pence, of their nominal value, for one
shilling in English coin.
Footnote 203:
How different, in this respect, from that species of paper-credit,
which, during the American war, succeeded it, under the denomination
of _continental money_! But this had nothing but the faith of
government pledged for its redemption; while the loan-office bills of
credit were bottomed (as all government-paper ought ever to be) on an
appropriated, sufficient, and substantial fund. For want of such a
foundation, Dr. Morse remarks, that “The whole history of the
continental paper is a history of public and private frauds. Old
specie debts,” says he, “were often paid in a depreciated currency;
and even new contracts, for a few weeks or days, were often discharged
with a small part of their value. From this plenty, and the
fluctuating state of the medium, sprung hosts of speculators and
itinerant traders, who left their honest occupations for the purpose
of immense gains in a fraudulent business, that depended on no fixed
principles, and the profits of which could be reduced to no certain
calculations.” See his Geographical work.
-----
Hence, an interesting fact is presented to the view of the reader; that,
ninety years ago, so small was the population, and so slender were the
agricultural and commercial resources of Pennsylvania, that the scanty
amount of a sum equivalent to forty thousand dollars, was deemed
adequate to the relief of the public and private difficulties in the
province, arising from the want of a sufficient circulating medium at
that time. Yet such was the increase of population and trade, and such
were the improvements in agriculture, in Pennsylvania, in half a century
afterwards, that the last loan-office law, under the provincial
government,[204] directed the emission of ten times the original sum; to
be applied, in aid of land-improvements, in loans for the term of
sixteen years; and repayable in like manner, with an annual interest of
six per centum.
-----
Footnote 204:
Passed 26th February, 1773.
-----
The same policy was pursued by the independent government of
Pennsylvania. Under the first loan-office law of that state,[205] the
sum of fifty thousand pounds was issued in bills of credit; and eight
years afterwards, a further sum of half a million of dollars (or
187,500_l._) was appropriated for the purposes of a loan-office on
similar principles, in pursuance of a law of the state.[206] But, as the
individual state-governments were prohibited by the constitution of the
United States, then recently established, from emitting bills of credit,
or making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of
debts,—the money to be employed in loans, on mortgages of real estates,
was to be borrowed, according to the provisions of the law last
mentioned, from the bank of Pennsylvania; a power which the state had
reserved, for that express purpose, in the act to incorporate the
subscribers to that bank.[207]
-----
Footnote 205:
Passed 4th April, 1785.
Footnote 206:
Passed 11th April, 1793.
Footnote 207:
Passed 30th March, 1793.
-----
This loan-office law was, however, the last in Pennsylvania.[208] The
establishment of banks, for facilitating the purposes of trade, together
with the great improvements and wealth to which the landed interest of
the state had attained, by means of a widely extended foreign commerce,
coming in aid of the benefits which the cultivators had previously
derived from the loan-office system, superseded, in a great degree, the
utility of this institution. In one year after the last loan-office was
erected, the law for that purpose was repealed; the repealing act
declaring—that it had been found inexpedient, and not to answer the
purposes intended by the legislature. In fact, the establishment of
banks in the interior of the country, not only supplies the place of a
loan-office, in relation to the farmer, but greatly facilitates the
extensive inland trade of the state. Experience has demonstrated, that,
operating in this way, they are productive of all the important
advantages of the loan-office system: and of this institution, the late
governor Pownall speaks in these remarkable words—“I will venture to
say, that there never was a wiser or a better measure; never one better
calculated to serve the uses of an increasing country; that there never
was a measure more steadily pursued, or more faithfully executed, for
forty years together,[209] than the loan-office in Pennsylvania, formed
and administered by the assembly of that province.”[210]
-----
Footnote 208:
Mr. Rittenhouse continued to hold the place of a trustee of the
loan-office more than ten years; but on the 1st of April, 1790, a law
was passed, by which all the powers and duties of the trustees of that
institution were transferred to, and vested in, the treasurer of the
state.
Footnote 209:
The loan-office system was kept up, in Pennsylvania, thirty years
after governor Pownall wrote.
Footnote 210:
Paper-money was not so well managed in some of the other colonies,
where it was issued in too large quantities, and its credit not
established on funds sufficiently stable and secure;[210a] a
circumstance which induced the parliament of Great-Britain to
interdict, for a time, further emissions of that sort of money, called
bills of credit, by the provincial legislatures.
Although the last emission of loan-office bills of credit, under the
colonial government of Pennsylvania, was made in the beginning of the
year 1773, the want of this succedaneum for gold and silver, as a
circulating medium of commerce commensurate to the encreased
population and trade of the country, was experienced some considerable
time before. In a letter written by the Hon. Mr. T. Penn to the Rev.
Mr. Barton, dated, London, June 17, 1767, the writer says:
“Your account of the increase of the growth of hemp, gives me great
pleasure; and I think the demand there has been for wheat, since the
date of your letter, must have made the country people rich, even
those who were poor before: it will prevent people being under the
necessity of parting with their lands, and going to Carolina. Their
produce will always bring them money at Philadelphia, notwithstanding
there may be some more need for paper-money; yet, when trade is brisk,
it circulates faster, and a less quantity will carry on a greater
trade: however, I hope, in the next session of parliament, we may get
the law which prohibits our making any more, repealed.”
The parliamentary restriction was, in fact, afterwards taken off; and
an effort was made, in the beginning of the year 1770, by the
legislature of Pennsylvania, to enact a loan-office law, for the
purpose of putting in circulation a further emission of paper-money:
but the measure then miscarried, in consequence of some disagreement
between the governor and the general assembly respecting the right
they severally claimed, of appointing the trustees of the proposed
loan-office.
Footnote 210a:
See Note 202.
-----
In the year 1782, Mr. Rittenhouse was elected a Fellow of the Academy of
Arts and Sciences, of Boston: his certificate bears date the 30th of
January, in that year. This academy, which Dr. Morse ranks among the
first literary institutions in the state of Massachusetts, holds a very
respectable station in relation to science: yet it was not established
till so lately as May 4, 1780. The end and design of the institution are
stated to be—“to promote and encourage the knowledge of the antiquities
of America, and of the natural history of the country, and to determine
the uses to which its various natural productions may be applied: also,
to promote and encourage medical discoveries, mathematical
disquisitions, philosophical enquiries and experiments; astronomical,
meteorological and geographical observations, improvements in
agriculture, arts, manufactures, commerce, and the cultivation of every
science that may tend to advance a free, independent and virtuous
people.”[211]
-----
Footnote 211:
The number of members in the Boston Academy is never to exceed two
hundred, nor to be less than forty. By being limited to so moderate a
number as the former, for the greater extreme, this academy will be
likely to select suitable persons for the honour of fellowship, with
the more discriminating circumspection.
-----
It is supposed to have been somewhat about this time, that Mr.
Rittenhouse exercised his ingenuity upon an object, which, though not of
great importance, is nevertheless a matter of considerable utility and
some curiosity; the invention of an Hygrometer, made wholly of wood. The
simplicity of the construction of this instrument, renders it easily
attainable by almost every one; and as it is found to answer, very well,
the end for which more expensive instruments are often employed, it may
be considered as being more generally useful. Descriptions of the
construction, and principle of operation, of this Hygrometer, having
been furnished to the writer through the obligingness of two of his
friends,[212] a very concise account of it, drawn up from those
descriptions, is given in the Appendix.
-----
Footnote 212:
Robert Patterson, Esq. Director of the Mint, and David Rittenhouse
Waters, Esq. a gentleman bred to the law, and a grandson of the late
Dr. Rittenhouse.
The decease of Mr. Waters happened soon after: he died on the 4th of
September, 1813, at the premature age of twenty-two years. Although he
had just entered on the threshold of the world, this excellent young
man exhibited many proofs of extraordinary attainments in literature
and science, as well as of a superior genius. He appeared to have
inherited from his maternal grandfather, congenial talents. In his
life, his amiable disposition endeared him to all who had an
opportunity of knowing his virtues: in his death, not only have his
relatives and friends experienced an afflicting bereavement, but his
country has sustained the loss of a citizen of great promise.
-----
A circumstance shall be noticed in this place, which, although trivial
in itself, will serve to shew the grateful sense entertained by our
Philosopher of the merits of General Washington. It appears, that just
about the time when the provisional articles of peace, concluded on
between the United States and Great-Britain, were made known in America,
Mr. Rittenhouse had forwarded to the General, at the head-quarters of
the army, a pair of spectacles, and reading glasses,—as a small
testimonial of his respect for the character and services of that great
man. The terms of the letter that accompanied this little present, are
not known to the writer of these memoirs; but, of what complexion they
were, may be inferred from the General’s answer, which is in these
words:
“_Newburgh, 16th Feb. 1783._
“Sir,
“I have been honoured with your letter of the 7th, and beg you to
accept my sincere thanks, for the favor conferred on me, in the
Glasses—which are very fine; but more particularly, for the flattering
expressions which accompanied the present.
“The Spectacles suit my eyes extremely well—as I am persuaded the
Reading-Glasses also will, when I get more accustomed to the use of
them. At present, I find some difficulty in coming at the proper
focus; but when I do obtain it, they magnify perfectly, and shew those
letters very distinctly, which at first appear like a mist—blended
together and confused. With great esteem and respect, I am, Sir, your
most obedient and humble servant,
“GO. WASHINGTON.
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE, Esq.”
The grinding and polishing of the glasses were of Mr. Rittenhouse’s own
workmanship; and they were made for the purpose. This circumstance,
added to the manner and occasion of their being presented, could not
fail of being highly acceptable to the General.
In the year 1784, Mr. Rittenhouse was employed on the part of
Pennsylvania, for the purpose of determining the western extension of
that state; and was associated in that business with Mr. Lukens, Dr.
Ewing, and Capt. Hutchins: the commissioners in behalf of Virginia were
Dr. (afterwards bishop) Madison, Mr. Ellicott,[213] Mr. J. Page, and the
Rev. Mr. R. Andrews. A record of the astronomical observations which
were made on this occasion, and on similar ones of an important nature,
will be found detailed in a letter, under the date of April 2, 1795,
addressed by Mr. Ellicott to Mr. Patterson, in the fourth volume of the
Am. Philos. Society’s Transactions. Among the observations contained in
the first part of that letter, are those of the immersions of the
satellites of Jupiter, taken at Wilmington on the Delaware, by Messrs.
Rittenhouse, Lukens, Page and Andrews, at divers days from the 1st to
the 23d of August, in the year 1784; together with those taken at the
western observatory by Messrs. Ellicott, Ewing, Madison and Hutchins, at
divers days from the 17th of July to the 19th of August; also, the
emersions of those satellites by the same eastern observers, from the
29th of August to the 19th of September; and by the same western
observers, from the 27th of August to the 19th of September; all in the
same year.
-----
Footnote 213:
Although Mr. Ellicott is a native of Pennsylvania, and was a citizen
of that state until the British army took possession of Philadelphia,
in 1777, he resided in Baltimore county about eight years after that
event.
-----
“After the determination,” says Mr. Ellicott, “we completed the southern
boundary of Pennsylvania; it being likewise the north boundary of
Maryland, and a part of Virginia; and which had been carried on some
years before,[214] by Messrs. Mason and Dixon, the distance of 242
miles.” This line is in the parallel of 39° 43′ 18″ North latitude.[215]
-----
Footnote 214:
In the years 1767 and 1768.
Footnote 215:
The difference of 16′ 42″, between the latitude above mentioned and
the beginning of the 40th degree of north latitude, (which was the
southern limit assigned to Pennsylvania, by her charter,) was gained
by Mr. Penn, as far as the northern boundary of Maryland extended
westward, in consequence of a compromise entered into by him and Lord
Baltimore; whereby the latter obtained some advantage on his part in
return. From the western extremity of this northern boundary of
Maryland, the line between Pennsylvania and Virginia was continued,
westward, in the same parallel of latitude, (instead of these coming
back to the 40th deg. of N. lat.) by virtue of an agreement between
these two states; the former, in consideration of that privilege,
relinquishing her right to run her western boundary line parallel to
the meandrings of the river Delaware.
-----
It was at the close of this year, that the college of William and Mary,
in Virginia, complimented Mr. Rittenhouse with an honorary degree of
Master of Arts, by an unanimous vote of the rectors and faculty of that
institution. His diploma, which is a special one, and wherein he is
styled the Chief of Philosophers,[216] has a place in the Appendix.
-----
Footnote 216:
“Principem Philosophorum,” in the original:—Such was the appellation
(Principes Philosophorum) by which Cicero honours Pythagoras,
Democritus, Plato, Xenocrates, Zeno, Cleanthes, Diogenes the Stoic;
men, among others, whose usefulness (he observes) old age might
diminish, but not destroy.
-----
The college of William and Mary was founded in the joint reign of the
king and queen of those names, who endowed it with twenty thousand acres
of land, besides a small duty on certain exported tobaccoes, granted by
stat. 25 Ch. II: in addition to which, the assembly of Virginia also
gave to it, by temporary laws, a duty on liquors imported, and on skins
and furs exported. And from these resources, its funds amounted, on a
medium, to more than 3,000_l._ Virginia currency, (or $10,000,) per
annum. The Hon. Robert Boyle,[217] of England, had also made a liberal
donation to this college, for the purpose of instituting a
professorship, called the Brafferton, (the name of the English estate,
purchased with the money granted by him to the college,) for the purpose
of compensating missionaries, to instruct the Indian natives and to
convert them to Christianity. After the revolution, the constitution of
the college of William and Mary underwent a considerable change: three
of the six original professorships, that is to say, two of Divinity, and
one of the Greek and Latin languages, were abolished; and three others,
namely, one for Law and Police—one for Anatomy and Medicine—and a third
for Modern Languages, were substituted in their stead; the Brafferton,
it is presumed, has been diverted into other channels, if not wholly
neglected.
-----
Footnote 217:
Mr. Boyle was the seventh son of Richard, the first earl of Cork, in
Ireland, and first earl of Burlington, in England; and was born at
Lismore in Ireland, the 26th of January, 1627. This eminent
philosopher and sincere Christian established, by his will, in the
year 1691, a perpetual fund, equivalent to about two hundred and
twenty-two dollars per annum, for instituting a course of eight
sermons or lectures, to be delivered annually; designed to prove the
truth of Christianity, generally, without engaging in any of the
controversies subsisting among its professors: And to this
establishment, denominated _Boyle’s Lectures_, the world are indebted
for many able and elaborate defences both of natural and revealed
religion. In addition to several extensive benefactions, for
charitable and religious purposes, of this great and excellent man,
besides his donation to the College of William-and-Mary (which,
according to Mr. Jefferson, was “considerable” in its amount,) he
gave, in his lifetime, a sum equivalent to thirteen hundred and
thirty-three dollars, towards propagating the Christian Religion in
America. So great was his veneration for the name of God, that he
never pronounced it without a discernible pause: he was steady in his
secret addresses to the throne of heaven: and, amidst all his
enquiries into nature, his chief design seemed to be that of
continually elevating his own mind, and the minds of others, by
contemplating the Glory, the Wisdom, and the Goodness of God. Were
this illustrious man to be considered in no other point of view, than
that of a benefactor to America, his memory would be entitled to
respect in this country: but his virtues, his talents, and the
services he has rendered to mankind in general, will for ever endear
his name to the good and wise of all nations. He died the 30th of
December, in the year 1691.
-----
This once respectable college, or university, is at present in an
unprosperous condition; and will not probably soon, if ever, regain its
former reputation. A country of which a large portion of the population
consists of slaves, is ill suited for the site of an extensive seminary
of learning, and for the education of youth: nor can it be expected,
that where an almost despotic sway of masters over their slaves[218] is
daily exhibited to the view of both young and old, the children of those
masters will submit to that degree of subordination, and to that
exercise of authority by their literary preceptors, which the discipline
of an academic education renders indispensable. The late Bishop Madison
contributed much by his abilities, his suavity of manners and his
prudence, to maintain a due degree of order in this institution, over
which he long presided with distinguished reputation; but the death of
that respectable man, it is feared, augurs ill for the future prosperity
of the seminary.
-----
Footnote 218:
The author of a poem, entitled, ‘The Dying Negro,’ has introduced
these lines into that poem:[218a]
“Oft have I seen them, at the break of day,
“Rous’d by the lash, go forth their cheerless way.”
No man ever held the slave-trade, and the condition of the hapless
people who are the objects of that nefarious traffic, in greater
abhorrence, than the benevolent Rittenhouse: a passage in his Oration,
fully evinces his sentiments on this subject.
In addition to this highly respectable testimony against Negro
Slavery, let it be remembered, that one of the last acts, of a public
nature, in which our philosopher’s predecessor[218b] was concerned,
was to sanction with his name the Memorial presented to the government
of the United States, on the subject of the Slave-Trade, by “The
Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the
relief of free Negroes, unlawfully held in Bondage;” of which Society,
that distinguished man was the President.
Footnote 218a:
It was written by Mr. Day, the friend of Mr. Darwin.
Footnote 218b:
Dr. Franklin.
-----
In the year following, the tracing of a meridian, northward, for the
western boundary of Pennsylvania,—and, consequently, the eastern
boundary of part of Virginia,—was commenced, from the western end of the
southern line of Pennsylvania before mentioned. On this occasion, Mr.
Rittenhouse addressed the following letter to Mr. Ellicott.
“_Philadelphia, April 28th, 1785._
“Dear Sir,
“For some months past I had not the least apprehension of being
obliged to visit the Ohio, this spring; but our affairs have taken
such a turn, that at present it is probable I shall meet you, at the
time and place appointed. Capt. Hutchins has been sent for to New
York, by Congress, as the trustees of the university will not consent
to Dr. Ewing’s absence. One or other of us will certainly set off in a
few days, to meet you: our waggons are already gone.
“I have earnestly recommended to council to commission you to act in
behalf of Pennsylvania,[219] after we pass the Ohio; and the president
directs me to inform you, that they mean to send you a commission for
the purpose: I hope it will suit your convenience.
“I ought long since to have informed you, that you were elected a
member of our Philosophical Society—I wish you would favour us with a
communication, on any subject you please. Pray let me hear from you,
before you leave Baltimore. Have you any account from Virginia? I am,
dear sir, yours with respect and sincerity.
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.
“ANDREW ELLICOTT, Esq. Baltimore.”
-----
Footnote 219:
Mr. Ellicott being a commissioner for Virginia, his powers would have
ceased, as soon as the boundary-line between that state and
Pennsylvania had reached the river Ohio. The object, therefore, was to
enable him to complete it, to its western extremity.
-----
This boundary-line was begun in May, 1785, by Messrs. Rittenhouse,
Ellicott, Porter, and Nevill; assisted by the present Dr. Benjamin Smith
Barton, then a youth about nineteen years of age, whose medical and
other scientific acquirements rendered him, even at that early period of
life, an useful associate of the commissioners. Mr. Nevill (who was
employed on the part of Virginia) left the other commissioners late in
August; and Mr. Rittenhouse, about the middle of September.[220] Dr.
Barton remained until some time in October, when these operations ceased
for that season. The line then wanted about 55⅓ miles of being
completed: and this part of it, to its intersection of the margin of
Lake Erie, was finished in the following year, by Col. Porter and
Alexander Maclain, Esq.[221]
-----
Footnote 220:
The following report of the progress of their work was made by the
commissioners, to the government of Pennsylvania, between three and
four weeks before Mr. Rittenhouse set out on his return to
Philadelphia: it is entered on the journal of the general assembly of
that state, under the date of Nov. 2, 1785.
“We the subscribers, commissioners, appointed by the states of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, to ascertain the boundary between the said
states, do certify, that we have carried on a meridian line from the
south-west corner of Pennsylvania, northward, to the river Ohio; and
marked it, by cutting a wide vista over all the principal hills
intersected by the said line, and by falling or deadening a line of
trees, generally, through all the lower grounds. And we have likewise
placed stones, marked on the east side, P. and on the west side, V. on
most of the principal hills, and where the line strikes the Ohio;
which stones are accurately placed in the true meridian, bounding the
states as aforesaid.”
“Witness our hands and seals, this 23d day of August, 1785. (Signed,)
DAVID RITTENHOUSE, ANDREW PORTER, Pennsylvania; ANDREW ELLICOTT,
JOSEPH NEVILL; Virginia.”
Footnote 221:
Mr. Rittenhouse had probably a reference to the expected completion of
this line, perhaps to the whole business, generally, when, in a letter
to Mr. Ellicott, of the 31st of Jan. 1786, he says; “I shall be able,
some time hence, to write to you more fully about the boundary lines.”
-----
It will be readily conceived, that a person of Mr. Rittenhouse’s
delicate constitution, and regularity in his mode of living when at
home, must have experienced much inconvenience and felt many privations
of comfort, while climbing rugged mountains, traversing vast
uncultivated forests, and sleeping in a tent, for successive months, as
he was necessarily obliged to do, when employed on occasions of this
kind. For, although the government afforded to the gentlemen engaged in
these arduous services, very liberal accommodations, there were,
nevertheless, numerous conveniencies which the nature of the duty to be
performed rendered unattainable. Yet it is a fact, that Mr. Rittenhouse
always returned from these excursions with a better stock of health,
than he sat out with; notwithstanding the hardships he sometimes
endured, and the many unpleasant circumstances in regard to weather,
diet, bedding, &c. which he was compelled to encounter. The two
following letters, written by him to his wife, while he was engaged in
the service of establishing the boundary-line last mentioned, will
enable the reader to form a pretty good judgment of the kind of life he
then passed. They will at the same time serve to shew, in some degree,
the bent of his mind and the disposition of his heart.
The first of those letters, dated at “Wheeling Creek,” June 30th 1785,
is in these words.
“My dearest H,
“I have not heard one word from Philadelphia, since I left you. About
a month ago I wrote to you from Union Town, and I promise myself a
letter from you by the first messenger from that place, who is now
daily expected. To-morrow Mr. Armstrong sets off for Hanna’s Town,
where he expects to meet brother Isaac Jacobs, so that I write in
confidence of my letter reaching you.
“If I were to view only the dark side of my situation, I should
complain that I am here secluded from the society of those I love,
deprived of books and every other of my most favourite amusements;
confined to homely fare by day, and a hard bed at night; and obliged,
by our business, to take rather too much exercise. But these
inconveniences are in some measure counterbalanced by several
advantages: I am not condemned to hear that eternal din for money,
which it pains me to think you are every day perplexed with;[222]
politics have no existence here; constant and regular exercise causes
me to sleep much better at nights, than I did at home;—we have a woman
to cook for us, so that our bread is good, and every thing else
tolerable. Colonel Porter is attentive, and cousin Benjamin[223] has
recommended himself as an agreeable companion, to all of us; and I
could almost call Mr. Ellicott a congenial soul.
“I ever delighted in a wild uncultivated country; this is truly
romantic, and, at this season of the year, beautiful and luxuriant in
the highest degree. A few days ago, I walked up a little rivulet, in
company with Mr. Ellicott, for a considerable distance, in order to
enjoy the romantic scene. It was bounded on each side by steep hills
of an immense height: its bottom was finely paved with large
flag-stones, rising in steps, with, every now and then, a beautiful
cascade. The further we went, the more gloomy and cool we found it. At
last, I advised Mr. Ellicott that we should proceed no further; for,
if we did, we should in all probability find some of the
water-goddesses,—perhaps stark naked and fast asleep. Mr. A—— went
with us, for company-sake; but neither the nymphs nor their shady
bowers have any charms for _him_.[224]—Nothing but your company was
wanting to me, to heighten the enchanting scene.
“Deer are incredibly plenty here—I was the first that caught a young
fawn, and hoped to have sent the beautiful little animal a present to
H****. We kept it about a week, and it became quite tame; but our cows
ran away, and it was starved for want of milk. Col. P. called it F——
B——, and says H**** shall at least have the skin. We have all been
very healthy; my cough diminishes slowly, my old complaint is less
troublesome, and I have no other.
“I am not yet determined, as to the time of my return. Later than
September, I have no thoughts of staying; perhaps the fear of riding
in hot weather may induce me to stay till then.
“We have, hitherto, made so slow a progress, that I am much
dissatisfied with it; but do not know how to help it. Our greatest
difficulty arises from the nature of the ground; and the idleness of
the people of the country, is not the least. We have had about thirty
men employed, and are not yet able to go more than a mile per day. I
was about writing to the Vice-President, on this subject; but, on
second thoughts, concluded it best not to do it: I wish, however, that
council would, by some official letter, urge us to proceed with all
the dispatch consistent with the accuracy they expect.
“I wish to write to B***** and H****; but you will not readily imagine
how little leisure I have: Tired of the exercise of the day, I rejoice
at the approach of night; and, after a cup of tea, generally lie down
to rest as soon as it is dark, unless we have observations to make;
and then we have generally half a mile to walk, through dark woods,
from the place of observation to our encampment: this, however, does
not happen above once in a fortnight.
“Sun, gallop down the western skies;
Go quick to bed, and quickly rise;”
Until you bring round the happy day, that will restore me again to the
dear woman and children I so much love.
“Give my love to my children, and the few friends that are really
concerned for my welfare. God bless you, and make you at least as
happy as I am; and then, I am sure, you will not complain. Your ever
affectionate
“D. RITTENHOUSE.
“Mrs. HANNAH RITTENHOUSE.”
-----
Footnote 222:
Mr. Rittenhouse, being then treasurer of the state, alludes to those
incessant demands on the treasury for money, which, by reason of the
financial embarrassments of the government, at that period, could not
be always punctually paid. The activity, and the very intelligent mind
of Mrs. Rittenhouse, both prompted and enabled her to relieve her
husband from much of the perplexity, which at that time attended the
duties of state-treasurer. Indeed, it was owing to the great attention
of that excellent woman to some of the more important transactions of
the office, and her capability to manage and superintend the current
business of that department of the public affairs, in the absence of
her husband from home, or when incapacitated by bodily indisposition
from personally attending, that the government was enabled to avail
itself, in several instances, of the talents and services of Mr.
Rittenhouse, in matters of high importance to the community, which
required the aid of his abilities. On such occasions, he ever found
Mrs. Rittenhouse a competent, as well as a most faithful assistant, in
the business of the treasury.
Footnote 223:
So he then used to call his nephew, the present Professor Barton.
-----
Footnote 224:
Mr. A. was a worthy and pleasant man: but, he was an old bachelor.
-----
---
The other letter, dated at the “Head Waters of Buffalo,” the thirteenth
of July, is as follows.
“My dearest H,
“I need not say how much I feel for you, on account of the
disagreeable situation in which you last wrote. The only advice, I
believe, which I thought it necessary to give you, at leaving you, was
to keep up your spirits and endeavour to bear the fatigues of the
office. What will you say, or what will you think, when I tell you, I
believe it scarcely possible for any thing to contribute so much to
reconcile me to your absence, as the aversion I have to the plagues of
that same office.
“You have heard the reports concerning the Indians. We are still
ignorant of the true state of matters; but, from every information we
can get, it seems very improbable that we shall cross the Ohio this
summer: on this side of the river, we do not apprehend the least
danger.
“On Saturday last, we suddenly emerged from the gloomy, uncultivated
desert, into a habitable country; and encamped with joy in an open
field where we could once more see the heavens around us,—a sight we
had not been blest with, for five weeks past. Wheat, rye, and
Indian-corn, growing, afforded a very pleasing sight; even the barking
of dogs and crowing of cocks were agreeable. The next day being
Sunday, several of the neighbours, their wives and daughters, paid us
a visit; and amongst them, at least one spruce young lady, bred at the
metropolis, Fort-Pitt.[225] But would you believe it? such is my
unreasonable and incurable aversion to company, that their visits soon
became irksome. They hindered me from enjoying a lonely walk, or some
passage in Milton,—or, perhaps, a loll on my bed. Nay, even our
fellow-commissioners, the Virginians, I mean; I sometimes wish their
wine was better, and flowed more plentifully: not that I might enjoy
it with them; but that I might enjoy myself the more, alone.
“Whether you will believe me or not, I do not know; but my health is
really much better. As I told you in my last, my old complaint is the
only one I have; and this is, and has been for several weeks,
infinitely more supportable, than I have known it for months together.
I do not, indeed, flatter myself with a cure; it is, in all
probability, fixed for life: but an alleviation of the pain I have
usually felt, is to me of much importance.
“We have, for three weeks past, had a much greater proportion of dry
weather; and in this country, when it does not rain, the sky is always
fair, of a beautiful blue, and the air serene. There has been nothing
like a storm, nor scarce a puff of wind, since we came here. Though
thunder, lightning, and rain, are so very frequent, they are never
attended with high winds, nor scarcely a perceptible motion of the
air. For a month past, we had a very decent woman to cook for us, but
some little family broils obliged us to pack her home again. Our boys
have, however, learnt from her to bake good bread, and to cook much
better than they did. I mention this, because you will be pleased with
any thing that can contribute to my comfort.
“I expect several opportunities of writing, before we reach the Ohio,
none of which shall be neglected. I must lay down the pen, to retire
to rest after the fatigues of the day. Wishing you a very good night,
I conclude, &c. your ever affectionate
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.
“MRS. RITTENHOUSE.”
“P. S. Having mentioned the fatigues of the day, I must assure you
that I find my strength fully equal to them: As to walking up the
hills, I never pretend to it, having always a horse to ride—Col. P. is
every thing I could wish; I mean, so far as is necessary to me.”
-----
Footnote 225:
Now the flourishing borough of Pittsburgh, situated at the confluence
of the rivers Allegany and Monongahela, which form, by their junction,
the commencement of the great river Ohio.
This place, which is distant about thirty-five miles, eastward, from
the western boundary-line of Pennsylvania, was the site of a fort,
formerly erected by the French, which they called Fort Du Quesne; but
on its reduction by the English, it was named by them Fort-Pitt; and
by this name the place is still recognized by many people.
-----
---
This arduous business of determining the territorial limits of several
great states, which commenced before the American revolution, was not
terminated until some years afterward. And on every occasion of that
kind, where Mr. Rittenhouse’s situation, in respect to health and
official duties, admitted of his being employed, his talents placed his
services in requisition.
He had been at home but a few weeks, after being engaged in running the
Western boundary of Pennsylvania, before he was elected by Congress,
together with the Rev. Dr. Ewing, and Thomas Hutchins, Esq. afterwards
Geographer of the United States, a commissioner “for running a line of
jurisdiction between the states of Massachusetts and New-York,
conformably to the laws of the said states.” This appointment was made
on the 2d day of December, 1785.[226] It was not, however, until the
year 1787, that the legislature of New-York ceded to the state of
Massachusetts all the lands within their jurisdiction, Westward of a
meridian to be drawn from a point in the Northern boundary of
Pennsylvania, eighty-two miles West from the river Delaware; excepting
one mile along the Eastern side of the Niagara river; and also ten
townships between the Chenengo and Owegy rivers; reserving the
jurisdiction to the state of New-York: a cession which was made to
satisfy a claim of Massachusetts, founded upon their original charter.
-----
Footnote 226:
By an agreement, entered into, on the 18th of May, 1773, between
commissioners appointed by the legislatures of New-York and
Massachusetts, respectively, for the settlement of a partition-line of
jurisdiction between those (then) provinces, on the eastern part of
New-York, and from the southern to the northern boundaries of
Massachusetts, (then called Massachusett’s Bay;) in compliance with
the king’s recommendations, which had been previously signified to sir
Henry Moore, and Francis Barnard, Esq. the then governors of those
provinces. The commissioners, on the part of New-York, were John
Watts, Robert R. Livingston, and William Nicoll, Esq’rs. and on that
of Massachusetts, William Brattle, Joseph Hawley, and John Hancock,
Esq’rs. These gentlemen met, in pursuance of their appointment, at
Hartford in the (then) province of Connecticut, where, after divers
conferences, they concluded on the following line, as the one which
should, at all times thereafter, be the line of jurisdiction between
Massachusetts and New-York, wheresoever the latter, on its eastern
boundary, should adjoin on the former: that is to say, beginning at a
place fixed upon by the two governments of New-York and Connecticut,
about the year 1731, for the north-western corner of a tract of land
commonly called the Oblong, or Equivalent Land; and running from that
corner, north, 21° 10′ 30″ east (as the needle then pointed,) to the
northern line of Massachusetts. This agreement was ratified by the
governors of Massachusetts and New-York, on the same day; and
commissioners were accordingly appointed by both provinces, before the
revolution, to run the line thus defined. It was, in part, then
effected; but those commissioners not having been able to proceed, by
reason of an eventual disagreement between them, this line was finally
run out, surveyed, ascertained and marked, by the commissioners
appointed by congress, whom the two governments concerned had
empowered to make such appointment.
-----
This line was accordingly run, in the year 1787, by the commissioners so
appointed for the purpose:—And “this last business, which was executed
with his usual precision and integrity”—says Dr. Rush, speaking of Mr.
Rittenhouse,—“ was his farewell peace-offering to the union and
happiness of his country.”
It was not until the year 1786, that the American Philosophical Society
were enabled to publish a second volume of their Transactions:[227] it
then made its appearance. Into that volume is introduced a letter to the
Society, in the original Latin, (accompanied with an English
translation,)[228] from the celebrated C. Mayer, the Elector
Palatine’s[229] Astronomer at Manheim, dated so long before as the 24th
of April, 1778. The receipt of that letter had been acknowledged by Mr.
Rittenhouse, according to a special order of the Society, so early as
the 20th of August, 1779; and the answer, it is presumable, was duly
transmitted to Mr. Mayer. Yet, although there was a lapse of seven
years, from the date of Mr. Rittenhouse’s letter to the time of Mr.
Mayer’s communication being printed in the Society’s Transactions, the
former was, by some unaccountable circumstance, omitted and unnoticed!
Nor will the reader’s surprise on this occasion be diminished, when he
learns, that a member of the Society, having obtained from Mr.
Rittenhouse a copy of his letter, had it read at their stated meeting on
the 16th of March, 1792,—twelve years and a half after its date; that it
was, thereupon, “referred to the committee of selection and
publication:” and, notwithstanding, by some other fatality, that letter
remained unpublished until now; being twenty-one years afterwards!
-----
Footnote 227:
In the beginning of the same year, Mr. Rittenhouse was elected one of
the twelve Counsellors of the American Philosophical Society; an
office in that institution, created by the incorporating act of the
15th of March, 1780.
Footnote 228:
There was some unaccountable mismanagement in the whole of this
business, on the part of the society. Mr. Mayer’s letter is published
entire, in the original Latin: but the translation ends, abruptly, in
the middle of a paragraph. When Mr. Rittenhouse was directed by the
society to answer that letter, he requested the writer of these
memoirs to furnish him with an English translation of it, for the
purpose of comparing with it one which he had himself attempted. That
translation (which, by Mr. Rittenhouse’s desire, was made to conform
pretty closely to the original,) is inserted in the Appendix, entire,
together with the hitherto unpublished answer.
Footnote 229:
Charles Theodore, Duke of Bavaria, who is denominated by Lalande, “an
illustrious patron of the sciences.”
It is about fifty years since this prince built an observatory near
the gardens of Schwetzingen, two leagues from the city of Manheim; and
there Father Christian Mayer pursued his astronomical labours for
several years. But about the year 1772, the same prince erected
another and a more magnificent edifice (of 108 Rhenish feet in
height,) at Manheim, for the same purpose: where Father Mayer made
numerous and highly estimable observations; as may be collected from
his work, entitled, _De novis in Cælo Siderio Phænomenis_. Lalande
places this observatory in N. Lat. 49° 29′ 15″.
-----
On a perusal of the answer to Mr. Mayer’s communication (in the
Appendix,) it will be found, that the “eminent utility,” which he
expected to result, at some future day, to astronomical science, from a
prosecution of such discoveries as he had recently made among the fixed
stars, had been long before anticipated by our Astronomer. In that
answer Mr. Rittenhouse mentions, that he is induced to request his
correspondent’s acceptance of a copy of the Oration he had delivered
before the American Philosophical Society, “some years”
before:—“because,” says the writer, “I therein gave my opinion, that the
fixed stars afforded the most spacious field for the industry of future
astronomers; and expressed my hopes, that the noblest mysteries would
sometime be unfolded, in those immensely distant regions.”
This early opinion of his own concerning the fixed stars, to which Mr.
Rittenhouse refers in his letter, is expressed in his Oration, in this
short paragraph: “If astronomy shall again break those limits that now
confine it, and expatiate freely in the superior celestial fields,—what
amazing discoveries may yet be made among the fixed stars! That grand
phænomenon the Milky way, seems to be the clue, that will one day guide
us.”
Such were the expectations entertained by our Philosopher, more than
three years before the date of Mr. Mayer’s communication of his
discovery to the Philosophical Society;—a discovery which Mr.
Rittenhouse, in his letter to that great astronomer, styles “excellent;”
and one that proves his own “presage” to have been well founded. He, at
the same time, modestly suggests to Mr. Mayer, the institution of a
comparison between the many observations he had already made, in order
to determine, whether the several changes observed will agree with any
imagined motion of our system; remarking, that those he had
communicated, seemed to favour such a supposition.
How important soever, in relation to astronomy, the phænomena observed
by Mayer may be, the honour of first discovering them certainly belongs
to him. Mr. Rittenhouse was not the discoverer: nor had he ever access
to so complete and expensive an astronomical apparatus, as that used by
Mayer on the occasion, and with which he was furnished by means of
princely munificence. But all candid men of science will, nevertheless,
be disposed to allow the American Astronomer no inconsiderable share of
merit for the early “presage,” which his deep-discerning and vastly
comprehensive mind enabled him to suggest, of some such future
discoveries.
The writer of these memoirs deemed it his duty to do justice to the
memory of the subject of them, by giving publicity to these interesting
circumstances; and the performance of this duty is the more gratifying
to the writer, because he alone possesses a knowledge of all the facts
he has stated, concerning them.
The late discoveries of Dr. Herschel, among the fixed stars, in addition
to those previously made by Mr. Mayer, have in a greater degree realised
the expectations which were formed, many years before either, by our
Astronomer; such, indeed, as are almost entitled to the character of
prescient annunciations, respecting that portion of the heavens which
should, some time or other, be the scene of the most important
astronomical discoveries. According to Herschel, the Milky Way is an
immense nebula, near one of the sides of which, is placed the solar
system; and he imagines, that each nebula, of which he had observed more
than nine hundred, consists of a group of suns, with their attendant
planets!
Mr. Rittenhouse never possessed the means of acquiring such stupendous
and costly telescopes, as those used by Herschel, for the purpose of
exploring the heavens. But the penetrating genius of our countryman
seems to have contemplated, by anticipation, the actual existence of
those sublime phænomena, some of which the vastly superior instruments
of the Germano-Anglican Astronomer have since manifested; when, in
language apparently prophetic, but certainly dictated by the most
exalted pre-conceptions of the grandeur of celestial objects which were
yet undiscovered, the American Philosopher observes, as he does in his
Oration,—that “all yonder stars innumerable, with their dependencies,
may perhaps compose but the leaf of a flower in the Creator’s garden, or
a single pillar in the immense building of the Divine Architect.” Well
might he exclaim, with rapturous extacy, after so beautiful and sublime
a reflection,—“Here is ample provision made for the all-grasping mind of
man!”
It will be evident to such as duly reflect on this subject, that those
expectations which occupied the mind of Mr. Rittenhouse, so long since
as the year 1775—concerning the “amazing discoveries” which should, at
some future period, be made among the fixed stars, were not mere
conjectures or vague hypotheses; but, that they were rational
anticipations of realities, founded on the most acute observation and
laborious research, as well as the profoundest philosophical judgment.
As Newton is said to have revealed those truths in physics, which his
predecessor, Bacon, had preconceived; so, that great practical
astronomer, Herschel, and some other eminent observers of our day,[230]
have been enabled, by means of the very important improvements recently
made in astronomical instruments,[231] to verify a grand hypothesis in
his favourite science, which had long before been conceived by the
towering genius of Rittenhouse.
-----
Footnote 230:
Among those who have observed, since Dr. Herschel’s discovery of the
Georgium Sidus, new phænomena in the heavens, may be ranked the
following:
M. Piazzi, a Sicilian astronomer, who, on the 1st of January, 1801,
discovered a small planet revolving round the sun, between the orbits
of Jupiter and Mars, named Ceres: Dr. Olbers, of Bremen, who, on the
28th of March in the following year, discovered another small planet,
to which he gave the name of Pallas, which revolves round the sun
nearly at the same distance, and in the same time, as Ceres; and
afterwards, viz. on the 29th of March, another planet, which he called
Vesta; similar to the others, both in its position and magnitude: and
Mr. Harding, of Lilienthal, who, between these two last mentioned
periods, viz. on the 1st of September, 1804, discovered a fourth
planet (but the third in the order of time,) also small, to which he
gave the name of Juno; resembling Pallas in a great excentricity of
its orbit, and the inclination of this to the ecliptic, and placed at
nearly the same distance from the sun.
The Georgium Sidus was not discovered until about fifteen years before
Dr. Rittenhouse’s death; and the first discovered of the four last
mentioned planets was not known in America, for almost five years
after that event.
Footnote 231:
“There is perhaps no individual of the present age,” (says the writer
of the article “Astronomy,” in the New Edinburgh Encyclopædia, now
publishing under the direction of Dr. Brewster,) “to whom practical
astronomy owes deeper and more lasting obligations, than to Mr. Edward
Troughton. The great improvements which he has made upon astronomical
instruments, and the extreme accuracy with which he divides them, have
rendered his name celebrated in every part of Europe, and have
inspired the practical astronomer with a confidence in his
observations, which he had hitherto been unaccustomed to feel. There
is scarcely an observatory of any consequence, either in this country”
(Great-Britain,) “or the continent, that does not contain some of Mr.
Troughton’s instruments; and there are few series of observations, in
which they have not been used. The admirable observations of Mr. Pond,
on the declinations of the principal stars, were made with an azimuth
circle of Mr. Troughton’s construction. The mural circle, which Mr.
Groombridge of Blackheath uses, in his numerous and accurate
observations, was made by the same artist. The splendid mural circle,
of 6 feet 2 inches radius, which Mr. Troughton is at present preparing
for the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, will cost 700_l._”
(equivalent, in money of the United States, to $311111/100,) “and will
be one of the most magnificent and accurate instruments that has ever
been erected.”
-----
From the time our astronomer became established in Philadelphia, until
the year 1787, he resided in a house belonging to the late Mr. Thomas
Clifford, at the south-east corner of Arch and (Delaware) Seventh
streets: But the mansion which Mr. Rittenhouse had erected for himself,
the preceding year, on his Observatory-lot at the diagonal corner of
those streets, being then compleated, he removed thither; and there
continued his residence, during the residue of his life. It was about
this time, perhaps towards the close of the year 1786, that he was
compelled by the duties of his office, as sole trustee of the
loan-office, to put in suit the bonds which accompanied the mortgages of
sundry delinquent loanees. The bonds were placed in the hands of the
Writer of these Memoirs, for that purpose; with instructions to treat
the delinquents with every reasonable degree of forbearance. This lenity
was observed, agreeably to Mr. Rittenhouse’s desire; few suits were
instituted, and payment of the monies due, or the greater part of them,
was not long after obtained.
Early in the year 1787, the expected appearance of a new comet in that
year, engaged Mr. Rittenhouse’s attention: and on that occasion he
addressed the following letter to Mr. Ellicott.
“_Philadelphia, Feb. 12, 1787._
“Dear Sir,
“The elements of the new Planet have been pretty well determined by
several European astronomers. The following I have extracted from the
Almanack[232] for 1787.
Mean Longitude 4^h 2° 21′ 58″ } To Dec. 31,
Mean Anomaly 4 8 53 56 } 1787, at noon,
Place of Aphel. 11 23 28 2 } Paris.
Ascending Node 2 12 52 54 }
Mean Motion in Long. in 365 days 4° 19′ 47″
in 30 days 21′ 21″
in 24 hours 42″.7
“The Aphelion and Nodes move according to
the precession of the Equinoxes; that is 50″.3 per ann.
Inclination of the Orbit 46′ 13″
Log. of greatest distance from the Sun 6.3007701
Log. of least distance 6.2594052
The Log. of the Earth’s mean dist. from ☉
being 5.0000000
“Dr. Halley’s Table of the equation of ♃’s orbit will do very well for
computing the place of Herschel’s planet, only subtracting 1/16 part
of the equation there found; the greatest equation of this planet
being 5° 27′ 16″. So, if from the Log. to any degree of anomaly, in
the Table for Jupiter, we subtract 1/76 part of the excess of that
Log. above the least, and to the remainder add the constant Logarithm
.5647750, we shall have the Log. for ♅ sufficiently accurate. On these
principles, I have computed the Right Ascension of ♅, and find both
agree with my own observation, to a few seconds.
“I am sorry you have engaged the notice of *******. Men of his
principles, with a printing-press at command, are the greatest pests
of society.
“My very bad state of health, and a multiplicity of business, have
prevented my answering yours as soon as I wished to have done it. I
am, Dear Sir, your Friend and Humble Servant,
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.
“ANDREW ELLICOTT, ESQ. Baltimore.”
-----
Footnote 232:
The Nautical Almanack.
-----
The correctness of the calculations respecting the Georgium Sidus,
stated in this letter, is noticed in the following extract from one of
Mr. Ellicott’s Almanacks.
“The reader will find in this Almanack a continuation of the planet ♅.
The elements on which the calculations were made, appear by
observation to be very accurately determined, not only by the
astronomers in Europe, but by my ingenious friend Mr. Rittenhouse,
whose knowledge of the theory and practice of astronomy, is not
surpassed in the old world.”
From this time, until his resignation of the treasurership of
Pennsylvania in the autumn of 1789[233], Mr. Rittenhouse appears to have
continued to be pretty much engaged in the duties of that office. A
short time before this event, the Writer of these Memoirs visited the
city of New-York; where the first congress, chosen under the present
constitution of the United States, were then convened, having commenced
their session on the fourth day of March preceding: and on that
occasion, Mr. Rittenhouse addressed a letter to General Washington, then
President of the United States, recommendatory of his friend and nephew.
Delicacy forbids this relative to present to public view that portion of
the letter, which more especially relates to himself: but the
introductory part of it is here presented to the reader, for the purpose
of testifying the continuance of the high esteem entertained for the
truly great man to whom it was addressed, by one who never disguised his
sentiments. This extract is as follows:
“_Philadelphia, Aug. 14, 1789_[234]
“Sir,
“However unwilling I am to add to that multitude of letters which must
encroach so much on your precious time, I cannot altogether forbear,
without doing violence to my feelings. As we have, all of us, through
the course of life, been greatly indebted to the good offices of
others; so we are no doubt under obligations to perform the same in
our turn, as well with respect to our particular friends, as society
in general.
“Mr. William Barton, my sister’s son, knowing that you have heretofore
honoured me with your acquaintance, I might, perhaps, say friendship,
is willing to believe that any thing I can say in his favour, might
have some weight with your Excellency.—
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
“Wishing your Excellency every happiness, I have the honour to be,
Sir, with the greatest respect, your most obedient humble servant,
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.
“His Excellency the President of the U. States.”
-----
Footnote 233:
In this interval, that is to say, towards the close of the year 1788,
Dr. Rittenhouse’s eldest daughter was married to the late Jonathan
Dickinson Sergeant, Esq. of Philadelphia.
Footnote 234:
A few days after this date (about the 20th of August,) the writer of
these memoirs was nominated by the president to the senate, and by
their advice and consent thereto was appointed, to be one of the
judges of the western territory (now the state of Ohio, &c.): the
other judges, nominated and appointed with him, were Samuel Holden
Parsons and John Cleves Symmes, Esquires. Major-General Arthur St.
Clair, who may, in some respects, be considered as a modern
Bellisarius, was at the same time appointed, in like manner, to be
governor of that territory.[234a] The writer declined the honour
intended for him by this appointment, which was unsolicited on his
part: he resigned it in a day or two after.
The promptitude with which this mark of president Washington’s
approbation of the person recommended to him by Mr. Rittenhouse, was
bestowed, is an evidence of the respect in which the president held
that gentleman’s recommendation; and it is the more so, as Mr.
Rittenhouse’s letter was the only one addressed to the president on
that occasion.
Footnote 234a:
For many interesting particulars concerning the sufferings and
ill-requited services of this respectable veteran—of a man who once
filled the chair of congress, and uniformly possessed the friendship
and confidence of WASHINGTON, see his _Narrative_, lately published.
-----
On the 10th of November, 1789, the following letter from Mr.
Rittenhouse, offering his resignation of the office of treasurer of the
state, was presented to the general assembly; and, after having been
twice read, was, by order of the house, entered on their minutes.
_November 9, 1789._
“Sir,
“On account of the very unfavourable state of my health, as well as
because I most earnestly wish to devote some of the few remaining
hours of my life to a favourite science, I find myself under the
necessity of declining the office of treasurer.
“I have now held that office for almost thirteen years, having been
annually appointed by the unanimous voice, so far as I know, of the
representatives of the freemen of this state; a circumstance I shall
ever reflect on with satisfaction, and which does me the greatest
honour.
“I will not pay so ill a compliment to those I owe so much, as to
suppose the principal motive in these repeated appointments was any
other than the public good; but I am nevertheless very willing to
believe, that a regard to my interest was not wholly out of view. And
I shall, perhaps, never have another opportunity of expressing, with
so much propriety, my sincerest gratitude to the representatives of my
countrymen, whose favour I have indeed often experienced on other
occasions.
“I accepted the treasury, when it was attended with difficulty and
danger, and consequently when there was no compensation for it. Soon
afterwards, a depreciated currency, prodigiously accumulated, made it
extremely burthensome, without any prospect of profit.
“In a more favourable situation of our affairs, it might have been
lucrative, had not the very small commissions allowed by law, been
scarcely equal to the risk of receiving and paying. In 1785, my
commissions were increased, and the office was for some time
profitable; but the difficulties or remissness in collecting the
public revenues, again reduced it to a very moderate compensation.
“If, however, the embarrassments of the office have, in general, been
little understood by those not immediately concerned in it; if the
emoluments of it have been greatly exaggerated in the public opinion;
I am still the more obliged to the several assemblies, who, under
these impressions, have nevertheless continued me so long their
treasurer.
“The confidence of the public I have ever esteemed so invaluable a
possession, that it has been my fixed determination not to forfeit it,
by any voluntary act of impropriety. Where my conduct has been
deficient in the discharge of my duty, I hope it will be imputed to
want of ability, and not of integrity.
“Fully sensible of the importance of the office I have the honour to
hold, I cheerfully commit it into the hands of those who properly are,
and ever must be, the guardians of the public good. I am, sir, with
great respect, your most obliged and very humble servant—
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE
“The honourable the Speaker of the Assembly.”
From the commencement of the year 1777, at which period Mr. Rittenhouse
was invested with the treasurership of his native state, until the month
of September following, when its capital was actually possessed by the
British army, that city was in imminent danger of an hostile invasion.
When it was reduced to a moral certainty, that the speedy occurrence of
such an event was inevitable, he had retired with the treasury (as
before noticed) to Lancaster, as a place of security; where he remained
until the succeeding summer: when, after the evacuation of the capital
by the British forces, he returned thither, and replaced the treasury in
its ancient seat. The time, therefore, at which he accepted the office
of treasurer, was truly one of “difficulty and danger.”
That it was not, for many years, a lucrative place, must be apparent
from the ever memorable circumstance of the great and unexampled
depreciation of that species of paper-currency, called continental
money;[235] which was the only circulating medium of the United States,
until the year 1782, when the bank of North America went into operation.
The vast accumulation in the treasury, of that depreciated and daily
depreciating substitute for money, must necessarily have been “extremely
burthensome” to the treasurer, and could not have afforded him “any
prospect of profit,” during the first five years of his tenure of the
office. And it was not, in fact, until those last few years, which
constituted the interval between the time of augmenting the commissions
and his retirement from the office, that the treasurership was
profitable to him. During the greater part of the time he held it, the
profits of the office did not enable him to employ even a clerk: nor
could he have performed the numerous and laborious duties of that
station (such as they then were,) had he not been greatly assisted by
the assiduity, care and abilities, of an excellent woman—Mrs.
Rittenhouse. Singular as this circumstance may appear, this notice of it
seems due to the memory of an highly meritorious wife; while, on the
other hand, it must be acknowledged, that it does not reflect any honour
on the liberality of a great, wealthy, and populous state. Such a man as
David Rittenhouse ought to have been otherwise employed, by a generous
and enlightened public: the exercise of his transcendent talents, in
works of great and permanent public utility, would not only have
constituted services which would have entitled him to a bountiful
remuneration; but such as would have conferred great additional benefits
and honours on his country.
-----
Footnote 235:
According to Dr. Ramsay, “the depreciation began at different periods
in different states; but, in general, about the middle of the year
1777, and progressively increased for three or four years.” In the
first four or five months of 1780, it depreciated to 50 or 60 for one.
“Its circulation,” continues Dr. Ramsay, “was afterwards partial; but,
where it passed, it soon depreciated to 150 for one. In some few
parts, it continued in circulation for the first four or five months
of 1781; but in this latter period, many would not take it at any
rate, and they who did, received it at a depreciation of several
hundreds for one.”
_Hist. Am. Revol._
In October, 1779, it was resolved by congress, that no further sum in
this paper-money should be issued, on any account whatever, than
would, when added to the sum then in circulation, amount to 200
millions of dollars. In their circular letter of the 13th of September
preceding, addressed to their constituents, congress asserted the
practicability of redeeming all the continental bills at par, with
gold and silver; and rejected, with indignation, the supposition that
the states would ever tarnish their credit by violating public faith.
“These strong declarations in favour of the paper-currency,” says Dr.
Ramsay, “deceived many to repose confidence in it, to their utter
ruin.” In addition to the amount of many millions of dollars, in
paper-emissions of the several states, congress, soon after, actually
continued to issue their own paper, until it amounted in the whole to
the enormous sum of 200 millions of dollars! That which was of little
value before, now became of less, and soon afterwards good for
nothing. The inevitable consequence was, that thousands of meritorious
citizens were entirely ruined, and others greatly injured in their
property.
-----
That he should have had, in thirteen years, successively, an unanimous
annual vote for the office of treasurer, is a very strong testimonial of
the exalted sense which his countrymen entertained of his integrity: it
would have been so, under a popular government, at any period. But when
it is considered, that, during the whole of the time he held the
treasurership, the people of Pennsylvania were divided into two opposing
parties, which sprung into existence with the adoption of the
state-constitution of 1776, the unanimity of their representatives in
favour of this individual, is still more conclusive evidence of his
merits. Most of those men in the community, best acquainted with human
nature, and practically versed in the science of politics, very early
pointed out the radical defects of the new frame of government; and
predicted the utter incompetency of that instrument, as they conceived,
to promote the true interest and happiness of civil society. In a single
legislative body, a plural executive, and in a limited duration of the
judicial authority—consequently, an undue dependence of the judges on
the executive for their re-appointment,—they foresaw those evils, which
were too soon realized: and in a septennial council of censors, such as
that constitution provided for,[236] they beheld a political chimera, at
variance with common sense and the experience of mankind. Men
entertaining these views, formed, of course, one of these parties.
-----
Footnote 236:
The judiciary is the only department of government, in a republic, the
officers of which ought (conformably to the principles of that form of
government) to be permanent in their stations. Judges, in order to
secure their independence, and thereby enable them to administer
justice faithfully and impartially, should hold their offices _quamdiu
se bené gesserint_: and, should they violate the condition of this
tenure, the constitution should provide, as that of Pennsylvania, in
conformity to those of the union as well as her sister states, does,
that they should no longer continue in office. Thus, this branch of
the government would have formed the only safe and effectual check,
against such unconstitutional attempts as might be made upon the
chartered rights of individuals or the public, by either the
legislative or executive power. But, unfortunately, the dependent
nature of the judiciary, under the constitution of 1776, rendered it
incompetent to that end. Hence, as was noticed by the writer of these
memoirs on a former occasion,[236a] “the framers of the first
constitution of the state of Pennsylvania discovered the indispensable
necessity of providing some tribunal for preserving the constitution
entire. They accordingly instituted a periodical body, in the nature
of a judicial inquest, and styled the council of censors; whose duty
it was, “to enquire whether the constitution had been preserved
inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive
branches of government had performed their duty, as guardians of the
people, or exercised other or greater powers, than they were entitled
to by the constitution.” “This censorial tribunal was, however, ill
calculated to answer the purposes of its institution. It was, itself,
a temporary body, appointed immediately by the people. In the
alternation, and casual ascendency, of different parties in the
country, a contingency inseparable from the nature of a popular
government, the council of sensors became the representatives of the
passions, the prejudices, the political interests, of whatever party
might happen to be the predominant one at the moment of their
election. If this should prove to be the same party with that which
had borne the sway, during the seven years immediately preceding their
election, they would be disposed to sanction the proceedings of that
party: otherwise, they would be likely to censure and pronounce
unconstitutional, the official measures of an adverse party, without
just cause, impelled thereto by a spirit of party-hostility.
“Under a government thus constituted, all would be uncertain and
insecure. From the deficiency of one stationary and independent
department in its administration, the rights of the people and the
best interests of the state would, eventually, become the sport of
opposite and contending parties; these rights and interests would be
sacrificed at the shrine of some desperate and unprincipled faction;
the constitution itself, destitute of any steady disinterested support
against their machinations, would be overthrown: till, finally, the
people, having no longer any rallying point of security for their
persons or property, would be driven from anarchy and licentiousness
into the arms of despotism.
“It is further worthy of remark, that the council of censors was an
inefficient and a nugatory tribunal, in one most important particular:
Numerous unconstitutional acts of the legislature might have been
carried into effect, and have had their complete operation, attended
by the most unjust and ruinous consequences, before they could be even
pronounced unconstitutional.”
Footnote 236a:
In a pamphlet, entitled “The Constitutionalist; addressed to men of
all parties in the United States”—published in Philadelphia, in the
year 1804.
-----
The other was composed of the projectors of the constitution of 1776,
and other speculative politicians; together with all those whom they
were enabled to influence, through the medium of their prejudices, their
inexperience or their interests.
These two parties continued to divide the state, until the adoption of
the fœderal constitution. The great and multiplied evils which resulted
to the people of the United States, after the restoration of peace, and
which had also been severely felt during the greater part of the war,
from the inefficacy of the original confœderation of the States, had
convinced all thinking men of the necessity of forming a more energetic
national government, as the only remedy for those evils. And the actual
formation of such a government, aided by the long experience which the
citizens of Pennsylvania had then acquired, of the injurious effects of
their own existing constitution, disposed them soon after to establish
the present constitution of the state, which was done in convention on
the 2d of September 1790; a form of government, free from the palpable
errors of the preceding one, and much more consonant to the genius and
spirit of the fœderal constitution.
It is, then, a very extraordinary circumstance, and one that reflects
great honour on the character of Mr. Rittenhouse, that, in the long
course of years during which the people of Pennsylvania were thus
divided into two contending parties, he alone could unite the favourable
opinion of both parties, respecting his superior claims to hold one of
the most important offices in the government.
Although little more than six years and an half intervened, from the
time of Mr. Rittenhouse’s resigning the treasurership of the state,
until the period of his decease, literary and other public honours then
flowed in upon him. He enjoyed, likewise, the satisfaction of
experiencing, during that short interval, multiplied proofs of the
esteem in which his abilities and character were held, both at home and
abroad. And, notwithstanding it appears to have been his wish, when he
retired from the treasury, to decline for the future any official
situation, or public employment of any kind, not connected with science;
in order that he might, without interruption, devote the remainder of
his life to his favourite pursuits; a variety of public trusts, some of
them requiring arduous duties, were constantly pressed upon his
acceptance.
Shortly before he resigned the treasurership, the degree of Doctor of
Laws was conferred on Mr. Rittenhouse, by the College of New-Jersey: his
diploma bears date the 30th of September, 1789. This respectable
seminary had given him the degree of Master in the Arts, seventeen years
before[237]; and this new honour was a further pledge of the high
estimation in which he continued to be held by the regents of the
institution. His diploma for the Doctorate has a place in the Appendix.
-----
Footnote 237:
In September, 1772.
-----
The College at Princeton, in New Jersey, then possessed—as she still
does—the first Orrery constructed by Dr. Rittenhouse; a monument of his
genius and abilities, that seemed to give him a just claim to this
highest academical honour, appropriate to his character, which the
college could confer.
This institution, called Nassau Hall, was founded about the year 1738;
but its original charter was enlarged by Governor Belcher, in 1747. The
president and trustees of Nassau Hall possessed a power, by their
charter, of granting to “the students of the college, or to any others
thought worthy of them, all such degrees as are granted in either of the
universities, or any other college, in Great Britain.” This privilege,
it is believed, was not enjoyed generally—if at all, in any other
instance[238], by the American colleges, before the revolution; as it is
supposed they were restricted, prior to that era, to the conferring of
degrees in the Arts only. But all the superior seminaries of learning,
in the United States, now possess the right of creating Bachelors and
Doctors, in Divinity, Law, and Medicine: and it is greatly to be wished,
that they may always dispense these high academic honours with
impartiality and a due discretion.
-----
Footnote 238:
Unless, perhaps, in that of King’s College (now Columbia College,) in
New-York.
-----
The college-edifice at Princeton is a stately and durable one,
constructed of stone; and it will afford satisfaction to the reader, to
be informed, that in this building is deposited the Rittenhouse Orrery.
He will derive additional pleasure from learning, that this grand
machine has, lately, been repaired in some considerable degree, and at a
great expence, by the ingenious Mr. Henry Voight, of the Mint: by whom,
that belonging to the University of Pennsylvania, has likewise been put
in good order. Neither of these Orreries appeared to have suffered any
material injury from the British troops, during the war of the
revolution; though it has been generally believed, they did. The
libraries, indeed, and some of the apparatus, belonging to both the
colleges in which the Orreries are placed, experienced great losses from
the presence of an hostile army in their vicinity: but the officers of
that army seem to have respected these greater works of human
ingenuity.[239]
-----
Footnote 239:
Dr. Morse observes, that, before the American war, the College of
New-Jersey was furnished with a philosophical apparatus, valued at
more than thirteen hundred dollars; “which, except the elegant Orrery
constructed by Mr. Rittenhouse,” says the Doctor, “was almost entirely
destroyed by the British army, in the late war; as was also the
library, which now” (this was in 1789) “consists of between two and
three thousand volumes.”
With a view to the obtaining, with greater certainty, information
respecting the condition &c. of the Orrery in Princeton College, the
writer of these memoirs addressed a letter on the subject, to his
worthy and much respected friend, the Rev. Samuel Stanhope Smith, D.
D. then president of that institution:[239a] To that letter the
learned president promptly returned the following answer:
_Princeton_, May 3d, 1812.
“Dear Sir,
“I just redeem a moment, before the closing of the mail, to inform
you, that Dr. Rittenhouse’s Orrery cost at first 300_l._ Pennsylvania
currency. It was his own moderate price, and immediately paid him by
Dr. Witherspoon,[239b] on behalf of the College.
“The Orrery was very much injured during the revolutionary war: but
has been since partly repaired by a gentleman in your city,[239c] who
formerly worked with Dr. Rittenhouse, and under his direction, in its
fabrication. The injuries which it received were comparatively small,
by the British soldiery. A guard was set to protect it: and the
officers were said to be contemplating its removal to England; this,
at least, was the general report and opinion. The principal injury was
produced by our own militia, when the college was appropriated as a
barrack for them. Many of the wheels were seen to be taken off, as
handsome curiosities. This, however, was no more than was to be
expected from a number of ignorant men, so imperfectly disciplined as,
at that time, they were.”
“I am, dear Sir,
Your friend and very humble serv’t.
SAMUEL S. SMITH.”
Footnote 239a:
The Rev. Ashbel Green, D. D. of Philadelphia, has since been appointed
to the Presidentship of the College at Princeton, on the resignation
of Dr. Smith.
Footnote 239b:
The President of the College.
Footnote 239c:
Mr. Henry Voight.
-----
On the first day of January, 1790,[240] Dr. Rittenhouse was elected one
of the Vice-presidents of the American Philosophical Society; his
colleagues, in this office, being the Rev. William Smith, D. D. and John
Ewing, D. D. both of them able and distinguished astronomers.
-----
Footnote 240:
It was in the autumn of this year that the second (and youngest
surviving) daughter of Dr. Rittenhouse was married to the late
Nicholas Baker Waters, M. D. of Philadelphia.
-----
This appointment he held but one year; in consequence of the death of
Dr. Franklin,[241] on the 17th day of April following.[242]
-----
Footnote 241:
A very eloquent and interesting Oration on this occasion, being an
eulogium on Dr. Franklin, was delivered on the 1st of March, 1791,
before the American Philosophical Society and agreeably to their
appointment, by the Rev. William Smith, D. D. then one of the
vice-presidents of the society; for which the orator received their
unanimous thanks.
In a note addressed to the public by Dr. Smith, and prefixed to this
eulogium in the first volume of his works, the Doctor acknowledges the
assistance derived by him, in its composition, “from the friendly
communications of some of his learned colleagues, among the officers
of the American Philosophical Society:” viz. David Rittenhouse, Esq.
LL.D. President of the Society; Thomas Jefferson, Esq. LL.D. one of
the Vice-Presidents; Jonathan Williams, Esq. one of the Secretaries;
and Benjamin Rush, M. D. one of the Council. To Dr. Rittenhouse, he
makes his acknowledgements, “for sundry papers, which have been
digested into the account of Dr. Franklin’s _Electrical and
Philosophical Discoveries_;” which occupy six or seven pages of the
printed eulogium.
Dr. Rittenhouse was well acquainted with the principles of
Electricity; at least, so far as they appear to be hitherto
understood. It is believed that, pretty early in life, he acquired a
knowledge of this branch of science; which he occasionally cultivated
afterwards. A letter written by Dr. Franklin to Mr. Landriani, on the
utility of electric conductors, will serve to shew, that “our
astronomer” (as Franklin styled him) had employed the instrumentality
of his “telescope,” in observing some of the effects of lightning.
This letter, which is dated “Philadelphia, Oct. 14, 1787”, is in these
words:
“I have received, sir, your excellent dissertation on the utility of
electric conductors which you have had the goodness to send me, and I
have read it with much pleasure. I beg leave to return you my sincere
thanks for it.
“I found, on my return to this country, that the number of conductors
was much increased, the utility of them having been demonstrated by
several experiments, which shewed their efficacy in preserving
buildings from lightning. Among other examples, my own house one day
received a severe shock from lightning: the neighbours perceived it,
and immediately hastened to give assistance, in case it should be on
fire; but it sustained no damage: they found only the family much
frightened by the violence of the explosion.
“Last year, when I was making some addition to the building, it was
necessary to take down the conductor: I found, upon examination, that
its copper-point, which was nine inches in length and about one third
of an inch in diameter in the thickest part, had been almost entirely
melted, and very little of it remained fixed to the iron rod. This
invention, therefore, has been of some utility to the inventor; and to
this advantage is added, the pleasure of having been useful to others.
“Mr. Rittenhauss,[241a] our astronomer, has informed me, that having
observed with his excellent telescope several conductors which were
within his view, he perceived that the points of a certain number of
them had been in like manner melted. There is no instance where a
house furnished with a complete conductor has suffered any
considerable damage; and those even which had none have been very
little injured, since conductors have become common in the city.”
Footnote 241a:
So written by Dr. Franklin.
Footnote 242:
The body of Dr. Franklin was interred in the cemetery belonging to
Christ-Church in Philadelphia, under a plain marble tomb-stone,
inscribed with only his name, the time of his decease, and his age.
But the following epitaph on himself was written by him, many years
before his death. As it contains a pretty allusion, typically
expressed, to his belief in the Immortality of the Soul, it may not be
deemed superfluous to add, on the present occasion, the testimony of
this philosopher in concurrence with Rittenhouse’s, on that subject.
If the doctrine had needed any further verification than before
established it, the suffrages of two such men as FRANKLIN and
RITTENHOUSE could scarcely fail to remove the doubts of the most
sceptical. This epitaph is copied from Stuber’s Continuation of the
Life of Franklin.
THE BODY
of
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, _Printer_,
(Like the Cover of an old Book,
It’s Contents torn out,
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding,)
Lies here, food for worms;
_Yet the Work itself shall not be lost_,
For it will (as he believed) appear once more,
In a new
And more beautiful Edition,
Corrected and amended
by
THE AUTHOR.
XX
-----
In supplying the vacancy which had thus occurred in the Presidentship of
the Society, the members of that body could not hesitate in selecting,
for that honourable station, a suitable successor to their late
venerable patron and chief: the eyes of all were immediately directed
towards Dr. Rittenhouse. He was accordingly elected to be President, at
the stated annual meeting of the Society for the purpose of chosing
their officers, held in January, 1791. On being notified of this
appointment, he addressed the following letter to Mr. Patterson, one of
the secretaries of the Society.
“_Philadelphia, Jan. 22 1791._
“Sir,
“I am extremely sensible of the honour the members of the
Philosophical Society have done me, by electing me their President, in
the room of that very worthy patron of the Society, the late Doctor
Franklin.
“They have, by this act of theirs, laid an additional obligation on me
to promote the interests of the institution, by the best means in my
power, to which I shall ever be attentive; though my ill state of
health will frequently deny me the pleasure of attending the stated
meetings.
“I send you, herewith, two letters which you will please to
communicate to the society.—I am, Sir, your very humble servant.
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.”
---
“In this elevated situation, the highest that Philosophy can confer in
our country,” says his learned and eloquent Eulogist,[243] “his conduct
was marked by its usual line of propriety and dignity.”—“Never,”
continues his Eulogist, “did the artificial pomp of station command half
the respect, which followed his unassuming manners in the public duties
of this office. You will,” says he, “often recollect, Gentlemen, with a
mixture of pleasure and pain, the delightful evenings you passed in the
Society, every time he presided in your meetings. They were uniformly
characterized by ardour in the pursuits of science, urbanity, and
brotherly kindness.”
-----
Footnote 243:
Benjamin Rush, M. D.
-----
About the time of Dr. Rittenhouse’s elevation to the Presidency of the
Philosophical Society, and indeed pretty generally afterwards, the
delicate state of his health confined him much to his house and his
observatory. On a dry day, he would, occasionally, walk a little abroad;
in the proper seasons, he would now and then recreate himself in a
pretty little flower-garden adjoining his house, which Mrs. Rittenhouse
took pleasure in decorating. His evenings were uniformly passed at home;
except at the times of the stated meetings of the Philosophical Society,
when he usually attended, if the weather permitted.
Besides a few of his most intimate friends, who were in the habit of
visiting him pretty often towards the close of the day[244], many
strangers of distinction, and persons who had no particular claims upon
him on the score of friendship, made him occasional visits at other
times: but in such portions of his time as he could retrench from these
avocations, he was much employed in reading; and the books he read
comprehended works of literature, taste, and science. He blended the
_utile cum dulci_, in the choice of his subjects; and while he devoted
some of what might be called his leisure hours, such as were abstracted
from his more appropriate pursuits, to works of amusement, he did not
neglect studies of a more serious and important nature. He was at no
loss for books: independently of his own collection, he had ready access
to two valuable and extensive public libraries[245]; those of several
literary gentlemen were open to him; and some of his friends
occasionally supplied him with new publications. The following note
addressed to him by Mr. Jefferson, in the beginning of the year 1791,
will shew that Dr. Rittenhouse then devoted some attention to chemistry,
and that he continued to read works of natural science, in French, as
well as in his own language.
-----
Footnote 244:
Of those gentlemen who were among Dr. Rittenhouse’s more particular
acquaintances, and with whom he maintained the closest friendship,
few, if any, visited him more frequently than the late Francis
Hopkinson, Esq.
Mr. Hopkinson was a man of genius, taste and learning. He possessed an
exuberance of refined and genuine wit, rarely to be met with; and his
vein for satire, which was always applied to useful ends, was almost
unrivalled. His knowledge of music was correct and extensive, both in
the theory and practice of that art; and he had also a critical
acquaintance with painting, as well as a good judgment, in relation to
the fine arts in general. These qualifications and attainments, united
with a vivacious temper, a knowledge of mankind, and a love of virtue,
rendered him a pleasing companion: but the more solid acquirements in
literature and science, of which, also, he possessed a very
considerable share, made his society not less interesting than
agreeable. No one set an higher value on Dr. Rittenhouse’s talents and
virtues, than this gentleman; their esteem was mutual; and a constant
and intimate friendship long subsisted between them.
Mr. Hopkinson held an appointment in the Loan-office of Pennsylvania,
for some years. He afterwards succeeded George Ross, Esq. in the
office of Judge of the Admiralty, for that state. In this station he
continued until the year 1790; when President Washington, by whom he
had the honour to be much esteemed, conferred on him the place of
Judge of the District Court of the United States, for Pennsylvania:
which important office he held during the remainder of his life. A
collection of Judge Hopkinson’s writings, on various subjects, was
made after his death, and published in the year 1792, in three octavo
volumes; constituting a curious and entertaining miscellaneous work.
He died on the 8th of May, 1791, in the fifty-third year of his age,
and somewhat more than five years before his venerated friend,
Rittenhouse.
Mr. Hopkinson was one of the executors of Dr. Franklin’s Will; but he
survived the Doctor little more than a year.
Footnote 245:
Belonging to the Library Company of Philadelphia, and to the American
Philosophical Society.
-----
“TH. JEFFERSON sends to Mr. Rittenhouse Bishop Watson’s essay on the
subjects of chemistry, which is too philosophical not to merit a half an
hour of his time, which is all it will occupy. He returns him Mr.
Barton’s papers[246], which he has perused with great pleasure; and he
is glad to find the subject has been taken up by so good a hand: he has
certainly done all which the scantiness of his materials would admit. If
Mr. Rittenhouse has done with the last number of the Journal de
Physique, sent him by Th. J. he will be glad to receive it, in order to
forward it on to Mr. Randolph: if not done with, there is no hurry.
“Monday morning.”
-----
Footnote 246:
The papers, referred to by Mr. Jefferson, were “Observations on the
probabilities of the Duration of Human Life, and the progress of
Population, in the United States of America;” addressed, in the form
of a Letter, to Dr. Rittenhouse, Presid. of the Am. Philos. Society,
and afterwards published in the third volume of the Society’s
Transactions.
-----
---
The relation in which Dr. Rittenhouse now stood to the American
Philosophical Society, of which he had attained to the honour of being
the President, renders it proper that some account should be given, in
this place, of an institution heretofore distinguished by its
Transactions. The following are the leading features in its history.
This Society was instituted on the 2d day of January, 1769, by an union
of two literary societies that had subsisted some time previously, in
Philadelphia. In the same year this united body petitioned the general
assembly of the province to grant them the privilege of erecting a
building, suitable for their accommodation, on some part of the
State-House square. But the Library Company of Philadelphia, also a very
useful and respectable institution and a much older corporation, having
about the same time made a similar application to the legislature, in
their own behalf, the prayer of neither was then granted. The latter
have, long since, erected for their accommodation a large, commodious
and elegant structure[247], on a lot of ground purchased by them for the
purpose, in the immediate vicinity of the public square originally
contemplated for its site.
-----
Footnote 247:
In a niche, over the entrance into the edifice, is placed a Statue, in
white marble, of Dr. Franklin; presented to the Library Company by the
late William Bingham, Esq. of Philadelphia.
-----
A second petition was presented to the general assembly by the
Philosophical Society, for the same purpose, soon afterwards; though
without success. But, finally, in pursuance of another application to
the state legislature by the Society, for the same object, a law was
enacted on the 28th of March, 1785; by which a lot of ground (being part
of the State-House Square) was granted to them, for the purpose of
erecting thereon a Hall, Library, &c. “for their proper accommodation.”
The ground appropriated by the legislature, for this purpose, contains
seventy feet in front on (Delaware) Fifth-Street, (and nearly opposite
the Hall of the Philadelphia Library-Company,) and fifty feet in depth;
on which the Society erected, between the years 1787 and 1791, a neat,
convenient, and spacious edifice: it was completed under the direction
and superintendence of Samuel Vaughan, Esq. formerly a vice-president of
the Society; and by means of this gentleman’s disinterested exertions,
principally, somewhat more than $3500 were obtained from about one
hundred and fifty contributors, towards defraying the expense of the
building. Dr. Franklin gave at sundry times, towards this object, nearly
$540 in the whole amount.[248]
-----
Footnote 248:
The Doctor also made, at different times, valuable donations to the
Society, in Books and some other articles.
-----
The act of assembly of 1785 having, however, restricted the corporation
of this Society, not only from selling or transferring, but from
leasing, any part of the ground thus granted to them, or of the
erections to be made on it, a supplement to that act was obtained, on
the 17th of March, in the following year; authorizing the Society to let
out any part of their Building, for such purposes as should have an
affinity to the design of their institution; but restricting the profits
arising from any such lease to the uses for which the Society was
originally instituted. The cellars and some of the apartments in the
house, have been leased accordingly; and the profits arising from these
leases constitute a considerable part of the Society’s funds, which are
of very moderate extent. The resident members pay to the Treasurer a
small annual assessment, fixed by a by-law of the Society: these
payments, in addition to occasional donations in money, made by members
and others,[249] form the residue of the funds of the Society; besides
which, they receive from time to time valuable presents, in books,
astronomical and other instruments, &c. Their library, philosophical
apparatus, and collections of various kinds, are now respectable.
-----
Footnote 249:
It is due to the liberality of the general assembly of 1782-3, to
notice in this place, that on the 16th of February, 1783, that
legislative body of Pennsylvania made a grant to the American
Philosophical Society, of four hundred dollars.
-----
The objects of this institution are readily comprehended, from its name;
the style of the corporation being—“The American Philosophical Society
held at Philadelphia, for promoting Useful Knowledge:” And with this
view, in its formation, the fundamental laws (passed on the 3d day of
February, 1769,) direct, that “The members of the Society shall be
classed into one or more of the following committees:
1. Geography, Mathematics, Natural Philosophy and Astronomy.
2. Medicine and Anatomy.
3. Natural History and Chemistry.
4. Trade and Commerce.
5. Mechanics and Architecture.
6. Husbandry and American Improvements.”
The same original laws and regulations of the Society indicate the style
of the several officers of the institution, and prescribe the duties of
their respective stations: they likewise direct the manner in which the
general economy of the Society shall be managed, and their proceedings,
in the more appropriate business of their institution, arranged and
conducted. “These Rules,” say the Society (in an Advertisement prefixed
to the first volume of their Transactions,) “were adopted from the Rules
of that illustrious Body, the Royal Society, of London; whose example
the American Philosophical Society think it their honour to follow, in
their endeavours for enlarging the sphere of knowledge and useful arts.”
The Officers of the Philosophical Society are—a patron, who is the
governor of the state for the time being—a president—three
vice-presidents—a treasurer—four secretaries, and three
curators,—together with twelve counsellors; which last board of officers
was created by an act of the legislature, in the year 1780, and the same
law designates the duties of their appointment.
The number of members of this Society is not limited: it consisted of
three hundred, forty years ago; and, probably, now amounts to about four
hundred and fifty. Of this number, however, a large proportion is made
up of foreigners; many of whom are eminent personages, and men of the
most distinguished abilities in various departments of science, in
different parts of the world.
The Proceedings, hitherto, of this very respectable association of
literary and scientific characters, have been published in six[250]
quarto volumes, denominated the “Transactions” of the Society: Besides
which, several learned and ingenious Orations—including two or three of
much eloquence, under the title of Eulogiums—have been delivered before
the Society and by their appointment, by members of their body.
-----
Footnote 250:
Part the 1st of the 6th volume was published in the year 1804, and a
continuation of that volume, in 1809.
-----
These outlines will serve to furnish the reader with some ideas of the
nature, condition, and character of an institution, which has, in many
respects, reflected honour on the country to which it belongs. Its
usefulness,[251] it is earnestly to be wished, will not be suffered to
diminish, by any declension of that noble ardour in cultivating, that
public spirit in promoting, learning and science, which, while they
adorn the names of individuals, contribute to the glory of a nation. Let
a hope be still cherished, that notwithstanding the tumult, the folly,
and the distractions, which at the present day pervade a large portion
of the civilized world, the period is not remote, when tranquillity,
good sense and order, shall resume their blest dominion over the conduct
of the too many now infatuated nations of the earth.—Let a belief be yet
encouraged, that under the guidance of a benign Providence, not only the
rising generation will be found zealous to emulate the fair fame of a
FRANKLIN and a RITTENHOUSE; but even, that good and rational men in our
own time, and among ourselves, will continue to cultivate the arts of
peace, and to promote those objects of literature and science, which, at
the same time they meliorate the heart and elevate the mind, contribute
to the happiness of the individual and the general welfare of mankind.
-----
Footnote 251:
At the death of Hevelius, as Lalande remarks, Europe abounded with men
of science, whose various nations disputed the glory of important
discoveries, and of perfecting those which had been already made. The
Academy of Sciences at Paris and the Royal Society of London produced,
above all, as the same learned writer further observes, that
revolution (as he is pleased to term it,) by the great number of
illustrious men and celebrated astronomers, which they gave to Europe.
The Royal Society was instituted in the year 1660; and it is deserving
of notice, that this was the period at which the English nation was on
the eve of a restoration of their legitimate and orderly government,
after the boisterous and unhappy times of Cromwell and his pretended
Commonwealth: The Academy of Sciences was established in 1666; not
long after France had likewise been distracted by domestic factions;
but, when the great Colbert had restored the finances of the state,
and not only invigorated but improved every department of that
powerful monarchy. Lalande designates this period, as an era
distinguished for the renewal of astronomy, by the establishment of
Academies. Such are the proofs of the usefulness of institutions of
this nature.
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse’s attachment to the interests of the institution of
which he had been thus recently elected President, was amply manifested
soon after. In the month of November, of the same year, he presented to
the Society, the sum of 308_l._ (equivalent to 821⅓ dollars,) for the
purpose of discharging a debt due by their corporation to the estate of
the late Francis Hopkinson, Esq. the treasurer, then deceased. This
liberal donation was thankfully received; and the acknowledgments of
their grateful sense of it were made to the donor, by the following
address,—expressive as well of their feelings on the occasion, as of the
high opinion they entertained of his merits and character.
“To DAVID RITTENHOUSE, Esq. LL.D. President of the American
Philosophical Society, held at Philadelphia, for promoting Useful
Knowledge.
“Sir,
“The American Philosophical Society embrace the present occasion of
a meeting for stated annual business, to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter, dated Nov. 15th, addressed to their treasurer; in which you are
pleased to inform him, that you have paid the 308_l._ due to the late
Judge Hopkinson, and will lay the bond and mortgage before the Society;
expressing your hopes, that this benefaction, on your part, may
“encourage the Society to exert themselves to get rid of some other
heavy debts and incumbrances.”
“This renewed instance of your liberality joined to the consideration of
the illustrious part which you have taken in their labours, for many
years past, has made such an impression upon them, that they are at a
loss in what manner they can best express their gratitude, or their
respect and veneration for your name.
“At any time, and in any country, such a “brilliant present” would
indicate a mind that can feel the inseparable connection between
Learning and Human Felicity: But in the present state of our finances,
it is a most important benefaction; and a noble specimen of Literary
Patronage in a young empire, where many other improvements must share
with the Arts and Sciences, in the public attention and bounty.
“We are sensible of the necessity of extinguishing the other heavy debts
of the Society, with all possible speed, and have appointed a proper
committee for that purpose.
“Signed in behalf, and by order, of the Society, at a meeting held the
16th day of December, 1791.
“JOHN EWING, WILLIAM SMITH, TH. JEFFERSON, _Vice Presidents_.
“JAMES HUTCHINSON, JONATHAN WILLIAMS, SAMUEL MAGAW, _Secretaries_.”
To which address, Dr. Rittenhouse returned this answer.
“Gentlemen,
“The satisfaction I feel, in contributing something towards promoting
Science, the interests whereof are, I am persuaded, inseparable from
those of humanity, is greatly increased by your very polite approbation.
“My sincerest wishes are, that you may ever merit public encouragement,
and enjoy the patronage of the generous and the good.”
In the spring succeeding Dr. Rittenhouse’s election to the Presidency of
the Philosophical Society, his name was included, jointly with those of
Thomas Willing, Esq. and the late Samuel Howell, Esq. in a commission to
receive subscriptions, in Pennsylvania, to the Bank of the United
States. This appointment was made by President Washington, on the 26th
of March, 1791.
Soon after, he was commissioned by Governor Mifflin to be one of three
joint “Agents of Information,” relating to the business of opening and
improving certain roads, rivers and navigable waters, in Pennsylvania.
His colleagues in this commission were the Rev. Dr. William Smith and
William Findley, Esq. and this board of commissioners, whose appointment
bears date the 10th of May, 1794, was erected in pursuance of an act of
assembly, passed the 13th of April, preceding. These gentlemen, it
appears, proceeded on that service; for, about two months after their
appointment, monies were advanced to them, towards defraying the
expences to be incurred in executing the duties of their commission.
These duties, it is believed, were in some way connected with an
investigation of the most practicable route for a turnpike-road between
Philadelphia and Lancaster. A company, which had been formed some time
before, for the purpose of constructing such a road, were incorporated
by the governor of the state, by virtue of a law passed the 9th of
April, 1792. Dr. Rittenhouse was a member of that company, and he
actually superintended the surveyors, who were employed in tracing one
of the then contemplated routes: Dr. Ewing was likewise engaged in the
same service. Neither of those gentlemen held any appointment for such
purposes, from the managers of the turnpike-company, nor received any
compensation from them, for their services: it is therefore presumed,
that Dr. Rittenhouse officiated under the commission last mentioned; and
perhaps Dr. Ewing acted, also, under a similar commission.[252] The
former, however, was himself one of the board of managers; in which
capacity he acted as a member of several committees, particularly in
1792: but at the end of that year, he declined to continue any longer a
manager.[253]
-----
Footnote 252:
Since the above was written, more satisfactory information has been
obtained on the subject. The agency of information, to which Dr.
Rittenhouse was appointed (together with the Rev. Dr. Smith and Mr.
Findley,) in May, 1791, was unconnected with the appointment
respecting the turnpike road. It appears, that on the 10th of October,
1791, David Rittenhouse, Esq. the Rev. Dr. John Ewing, and Mr. John
Nancarrow, were appointed by Governor Mifflin, Commissioners to view
and mark out a road, from the middle ferry on Schuylkill to the
borough of Lancaster, by courses and distances, as near to a straight
line as the nature of the ground and other circumstances would admit;
and also to view and lay out, in a general plan, the great road at
that time leading from the city of Philadelphia to the same borough,
(and now called the old road:) with topographical observations
thereon, having reference to the practicability and comparative
circumstances necessary to making turnpikes on the then existing and
proposed roads; in which, expense and materials were to be attended
to; together with the plans of the surveys, in profile, of the said
road or roads: agreeably to a resolution of the general assembly,
passed on the 30th of September, in the same year. Under commissions
thus designating their duties, these gentlemen, assisted by surveyors
and the necessary attendants, proceeded on this service, and
established that great and important public highway, known by the name
of the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike Road: their compensation
for this service, was consequently drawn from the treasury of
Pennsylvania.
The author was favoured with this information by John Hall, Esq. who
acted as one of the surveyors on the occasion.
Footnote 253:
These particulars, respecting Dr. Rittenhouse’s connection with the
Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike-Company, were obligingly furnished
to the Memorialist by Mr. William Govett, secretary to the board of
managers of that company.
-----
It has been before noticed, that, on the elevation of the College of
Philadelphia to the grade of an University, by an act of assembly passed
in November, 1779, Dr. Rittenhouse was one of the trustees of the new
institution, created by that law. On the 30th of September, 1791, almost
twelve years afterwards, a compromise was effected between the
respective advocates of the old and the new institution; a law of the
state being then passed, “to unite the University of the state of
Pennsylvania, and the College, Academy and Charitable School of
Philadelphia, &c.” By this act, the then existing trustees of each
institution were to elect twelve trustees; and the twenty-four persons
who should be thus chosen, together with the governor of the state for
the time being, as president of the board, were to be the trustees of
this united seminary, under the denomination of “The Trustees of the
University of Pennsylvania.”
On this occasion, Dr. Rittenhouse was again chosen a member of the
corporation, on the part of the University, the election having been
made the 3d of November, 1791; at which time, Bishop White was president
of the board of the College trustees, and Dr. M‘Kean, late governor of
Pennsylvania, of that of the University. By an act of assembly, passed
the 6th of March, 1789, so much of the act erecting the University, as
affected the charters, franchises and estates of the College of
Philadelphia, had been repealed, and the powers of the former trustees
revived: but by the act of 1791, all the estates of the two institutions
were vested in this one, composed of both.
The union of the separate interests of those seminaries, it may be
reasonably expected, will eventually prove a fortunate circumstance:
because, by its extinguishing the jealousies and rivalship[254] that
heretofore subsisted between the friends of each, which must, too, have
continued to operate, had they remained separate; and, by consolidating
their estates and pecuniary resources into one fund, greatly encreasing
the sphere of their usefulness, beyond the ratio in which they could
have been enjoyed separately; the important interests of literature
might be expected to be proportionably advanced. A doubt can not be
entertained, that this was an object very desirable by the benevolent
Rittenhouse, as well as by the trustees, generally, of these conjoint
institutions.[255]
-----
Footnote 254:
By the legislative act of the 27th of November, 1779, the charter
granted to the Academy and Charitable School of Philadelphia, by the
Proprietaries, on the 30th of July, 1753, together with the one
granted to the College on the 14th of May, 1755, were declared void,
and David Rittenhouse, Esq. was one of the twenty-five trustees of the
University, then appointed. Twelve of these twenty-five
newly-appointed trustees, were such _ex officio_. Dr. Franklin, who
was one of them, never qualified under this act; and some of the
others afterwards withdrew.
By the law of the 30th of September, 1791, the old College and the new
University were incorporated: twelve trustees were to be appointed by
each of these institutions, and reported to the governor before the
1st of December succeeding, which was accordingly done; and thus the
union of the two institutions was happily completed.
Footnote 255:
Between the years 1762 and 1774, there were collected for the use of
the College, chiefly by the agency and zealous exertions of the
Provost, between fifty and sixty thousand dollars; the much greater
part of which amount was obtained from contributors in Great-Britain
and Ireland.
It is not precisely known to the writer, what is the present condition
of the University of Pennsylvania, with which the original College of
Philadelphia and its appendages are incorporated; but it is believed
to be prosperous: its medical department is, certainly, in a most
flourishing state.
The persons who may be considered as the Founders of the College, when
the original institution was incorporated by the name of “The Academy
and Charitable School of Philadelphia,” were Benjamin Franklin, James
Logan, Thomas Lawrence, William Allen, John Inglis, Tench Francis,
William Masters, Lloyd Zachary, Samuel M‘Call, junior, Joseph Turner,
Thomas Leech, William Shippen, Robert Strettel, Philip Syng, Charles
Willing, Phineas Bond, Richard Peters, Abraham Taylor, Thomas Bond,
Thomas Hopkinson, William Plumsted, Joshua Maddox, Thomas White and
William Coleman. The names of these respectable men, (the meritorious
promoters of that institution which fostered the genius of a
Rittenhouse, and with which his name and talents were associated,)
were deemed deserving of record, as early patrons of learning in
Pennsylvania. Of this College, the _Alma Mater_ of the memorialist, he
trusts it will not be thought presumptuous to speak in the language,
and with the grateful feelings, of one of her Sons,[255a] in an early
period of his life:
“Blest Institution! Nurse of Liberty!
My heart, my grateful heart shall burn for thee.
No common pride I boast, no common joy,
That thy instructions did my youth employ:
Tho’ not the first, among thy sons, I prove;
Yet well I feel, I’m not the last in love.
O may’st thou still in wealth and pow’r encrease,
And may thy sacred influence never cease!”
Footnote 255a:
The late Francis Hopkinson, Esq. See his Poem entitled, _Science_;
inscribed to the Trustees, Provost, Vice-Provost, and Professors of
the College of Philadelphia, A. D. 1762.
-----
It has been already noticed, that the first academic honour conferred on
Dr. Rittenhouse, was obtained from the College of Philadelphia: he might
therefore consider it as being his _Alma Mater_; and his attachment to
that seminary must have been strengthened, by the circumstance of one of
his (only two) Orreries having been acquired by it, and its being
deposited in the college-edifice. But, besides these considerations, he
officiated, for some time, as Vice-provost and a professor in the
institution, after it became an University. To the first of these
stations, he was elected on the 8th of February, 1780; having been
unanimously appointed professer of astronomy, the 16th of December
preceding: a salary of one hundred pounds per annum was annexed to the
vice-provostship, and three hundred pounds per annum to the professor’s
chair. These places Dr. Rittenhouse resigned, the 18th of April 1782.
Thus attached to, and connected with, this very respectable seminary of
learning, as Dr. Rittenhouse was, the following occurrences in the
history of its origin and advancement, will not be deemed uninteresting,
by the reader.
The Academy and Charitable School, of Philadelphia, originated in the
year 1749. This institution, which was opened in that year, was
projected by a few private gentlemen; and many others, of the first
respectability, gave their countenance to it, as soon as it became
known: some of them were, on its first establishment, appointed trustees
of the infant seminary.
The persons on whom the charge of arranging and digesting the
preparatory measures for this important undertaking, were Thomas
Hopkinson,[256] Tench Francis,[257] Richard Peters and Benjamin
Franklin, Esquires.[258] The last mentioned of these distinguished and
patriotic gentleman draughted and published the original proposals; and
on the opening of the Academy, another of them, Mr. Peters, (afterwards
D. D. and rector of Christ’s-Church and St. Peter’s in Philadelphia,)
who long officiated as provincial secretary, preached an appropriate
sermon—on the 7th of January, 1751—from these words (St. John, viii.
32.) “_And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free._”—“This reverend and worthy gentleman” said Dr. Smith, in his
account of this institution, first published among his works in the year
1762 “(who, amid all the labours of his public station, as well as the
private labours in which his benevolence continually engaged him, has
still made it his care to devote some part of his time to classical
learning, and the study of divinity, to which he was originally bred,)
took occasion, from these words of our blessed Saviour, to shew the
intimate connexion between truth and freedom,—between knowledge of every
kind, and the preservation of civil and religious liberty.”
-----
Footnote 256:
A lawyer of eminence.
Footnote 257:
Then attorney-general of Pennsylvania.
Footnote 258:
In selecting the twenty-four trustees for the proposed Academy, as
well as in the formation of his plan, Dr. Franklin consulted, besides
the three gentlemen named with him, in the text, Dr. Phineas Bond, a
physician of eminence in Philadelphia and a worthy character. The
trustees, whose names were inserted in the contributions, and which
were subscribed on the 13th of Nov. 1749, were among the most
respectable citizens of Philadelphia. The plan of the then projected
Academy was adapted to “the state of an infant country;” Dr. Franklin
having considered it as only “a foundation, for posterity to erect
(thereon) a seminary of learning more extensive, and suitable to
future circumstances.”
-----
The Rev. William Smith, M. A. (afterwards D. D.) was inducted, on the
25th of May, 1754, as head of this seminary, under the title of Provost,
with the professorship of natural philosophy[259] annexed to that
station.
On the 14th of May, 1755, an additional charter was granted by the
Proprietaries to this seminary, by which a College was engrafted upon
the original Academy: a joint government was agreed on for both, under
the style of “The College, Academy and Charitable School, of
Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania;” and this enlarged institution became
invested with a power of conferring degrees, and appointing professors
in the various branches of the arts and sciences.
-----
Footnote 259:
He was, afterwards, also professor of astronomy and rhetoric; and he
gave lectures in these branches, in addition to natural philosophy.
-----
The first commencement, in this College and Academy, was held the 17th
of May, 1757;[260] on which occasion, an excellent charge was delivered
to the graduates, by the Provost. One passage in that charge is so
patriotic and impressive, as to merit attention at all times, in a
country that boasts of a free constitution of government; its
introduction at this time, and on the present occasion, cannot be
considered improper: it is the following animated and eloquent
exhortation to active patriotism, in times of misrule, popular delusion,
and public danger:—
“Should your Country call, or should you perceive the restless tools of
faction at work in their dark cabals, and ‘stealing upon the secure hour
of Liberty;’ should you see the corruptors, or the corrupted, imposing
upon the public with specious names,—undermining the civil and religious
principles of their country, and gradually paving the way to certain
Slavery, by spreading destructive notions of Government;—then, Oh! then,
be nobly roused! Be all eye, and ear, and heart, and voice, and hand, in
a cause so glorious! Cry aloud, and spare not,—fearless of danger,
regardless of opposition, and little solicitous about the frowns of
power, or the machinations of villany. Let the world know, that Liberty
is your unconquerable delight; and that you are sworn foes to every
species of bondage, either of body or of mind. These are subjects for
which you need not be ashamed to sacrifice your ease and every other
private advantage. For, certainly, if there be aught upon earth suited
to the native greatness of the human mind, and worthy of contention,—it
must be to assert the cause of Religion, and to support the fundamental
rights and liberties of mankind, and to strive for the constitution of
your country,—and a government of laws, not of Men.”
-----
Footnote 260:
The following is an extract from the Salutatory Oration delivered by
Mr. Paul Jackson,[260a] at the first Commencement held in the College
of Philadelphia; when a Master’s degree was conferred on that
gentleman, and on him only.
After making his salutations of respect to the professors generally,
the orator thus addressed the Rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Smith, the
Provost:
“Præcipué, Te, collegii et academiæ hujus Præefecte venerande! summâ
benevolentiâ a nobis observari par est. Tu gressus nostros, dum
subtilioris sapientiæ recessus curiosé indagamus, direxisti. Tu nobis,
mansuetioribus musis operam impendentibus, orationis simplicis ac
perspicuæ regulas, venusta ornamenta ac veneres accuraté eleganterque
explicuisti. Tu, quid sit magnificum tum in verbis, tum in sententiis,
tum in figuris, edocuisti, omnesque sublimitatis fontes, ipsius
Longini majestatem et acumen feliciter æmulatus, auditoribus tuis
admirantibus retexisti. Qui vult fieri disertus, scripta tua, tanquam
præceptorum exempla luculenta, sæpius versato; animum intendat ad
argumenta multifaria, quæ tam varié, tam numerosé, tam abundanter, tam
illuminaté, tum rebus tum verbis tractasti.”
Footnote 260a:
Mr. Jackson was professor of languages and master of the Latin school,
in the college, until the spring of the year 1758; when he accepted of
a captaincy in the provincial service, in the expedition under general
Forbes, against the French and their Indian allies. On the resignation
of his professorship, Mr. Jackson was succeeded by Mr. Beveridge.
-----
In the year 1765, the original plan of this institution was greatly
enlarged, by the addition of the Medical School;[261] with the
appointment of Professors,[262] for reading lectures in anatomy, botany,
chemistry, the materia medica, the theory and practice of physick, and
also for delivering clynical lectures in the Pennsylvania Hospital.[263]
Since that period, and after the erection of the whole of the
College-establishment into an University, the Medical department has
been still further extended, by the creation of other Professorships in
the Schools of Medicine, and filling these new chairs—as well as those
originally instituted—with men of distinguished learning and abilities:
By which means, the Medical School in Philadelphia, connected with the
University of Pennsylvania, now justly vies with that of Edinburgh, in
celebrity.
-----
Footnote 261:
Dr. William Shippen, the younger, who first filled the anatomical
chair in the College of Philadelphia, (afterwards, the University of
Pennsylvania,) and which he continued to occupy for almost forty-three
years with great respectability, may be justly considered as the
founder of the medical department of that institution. The
establishment of a medical school in his native city, had long been
contemplated by this distinguished lecturer, as a most desirable
object: but, in the execution of such a plan, serious difficulties
were to be encountered at the commencement. In the language of-his
anonymous eulogist,[261a] “the enterprize, arduous in itself, was
rendered abundantly more so, in consideration of its novelty: for, as
yet, the voice of a public lecturer in medicine had never been heard
in the western world. In order, therefore, to test the practicability
of the measure, and to pave the way for a more regular and extensive
establishment, he determined to embark in the undertaking himself, by
delivering, in a private capacity, a course of lectures on anatomy and
surgery: this he did in the winter of 1762-3, being the first winter
after his return from his studies and travels in Europe.”
Dr. Shippen’s success, as a private lecturer, demonstrated the
expediency of engrafting a medical school on the College; and, in
consequence, he was unanimously elected the professor of anatomy and
surgery, on the 17th of September, 1765. This able teacher held that
chair until his death,[261b] which occurred the 11th of July, 1808, in
the seventy-fifth year of his age.
Footnote 261a:
Said to be Dr. Caldwell, of Philadelphia. See the _Port Folio_.
Footnote 261b:
Casper Wister, M. D. Professor of Anatomy and Surgery in the
University of Pennsylvania, was, for some years before the death of
Dr. Shippen, his adjunct professor in the same chair; to which
station, this eminent teacher in those branches of medicine was
appointed by the trustees of the university, at the request of his
late colleague.
Footnote 262:
William Shippen, jun. M. D. just mentioned, was the professor of
anatomy; Adam Kuhn, M. D. a distinguished pupil of the celebrated
Linnæus, was professor of botany, united with the materia medica;
Benjamin Rush, M. D. a learned and able professor of the theory and
practice of physick, then held the chemical chair; and Dr. Thomas
Bond, an ingenious and eminent physician, gave clynical lectures in
the Pennsylvania Hospital. In the year 1789, the trustees of the
College of Philadelphia instituted a professorship of natural history
and botany; which was then conferred on Benjamin Smith Barton, M. D.
Dr. Kuhn had formerly delivered several courses of lectures on botany,
in the College of Philadelphia; but natural history had never before
been taught there. On the union of the College with the University, in
the year 1791, Dr. Barton’s former appointment was confirmed by the
trustees of the united institution; and in the year 1796, he was
further appointed by them to the professorship of materia medica; that
chair having been then vacated by the resignation of the late
professor of that branch of medical science.
The other chairs, in the Medical Department of the University, are
filled as follows; viz. that of Anatomy, by Casper Wister, M. D.—of
the Theory and Practice of Physick, by Benjamin Rush, M. D.[262a]—of
Chemistry, by John Redman Coxe, M. D.—of Materia Medica, Botany and
Natural History, by Benjamin Smith Barton, M. D.—of Surgery, by Philip
Syng Physick, M. D. and John S. Dorsey, M. D.—and of Midwifery, by
Thomas Chalkley James, M. D.
Among these collegiate-chairs in medicine, appertaining to the
University of Pennsylvania, the only one which appears to be deficient
in a suitable appendage to its institution—and this, too, such an
appendage as may be considered almost indispensably necessary to it—is
the Professorship of Botany. To this chair, a _Botanical Garden_ ought
to be appurtenant: and accordingly we find, that this requisite for
rendering a Botanical Professorship complete, in most Universities, is
the establishment of such a Garden, for the use of the Teacher and his
Pupils.
The importance that is attached to institutions of this kind, in
foreign seminaries of learning, will be perceived from the following
sketches of those in three of the most celebrated universities of
Europe.
The Botanical Garden (called the “Physick Garden”) of the university
of Oxford, contains five acres of ground. It is surrounded by a noble
wall, with portals in the rustic style, at proper distances. The
passage to the grand entrance is through a small court: this principal
portal is of the Doric order, ornamented with rustic work, and adorned
with a bust of Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby, the founder; besides
statues of the kings Charles I. and II.
The ground is divided into four quarters. On each side of the
entrance, is a neat and convenient green-house, stocked with a great
variety of exotics. The quarters are filled with indigenous plants,
properly classed; and without the walls is an admirable hot-house,
filled with various plants, the production of warm climates.
These fine and spacious gardens were instituted by Lord Danby, so
early as the year 1632; and this nobleman having supplied them with
the necessary plants, for the use of the students of Botany in the
university, endowed the establishment with an annual revenue, for its
support. The Gardens were afterwards much improved by Dr. Sherrard,
who assigned a fund of 3000_l._ sterling, for the maintenance of a
professor of Botany. Over the grand entrance into the Gardens is this
inscription: “_Gloriæ Dei Optimi, maximi honori Caroli I. Regis, in
usum Academieœ et Reipublicæ, Henricus Comes Danby, anno 1632_.”
The Botanic Garden, at Cambridge, consists of nearly five acres, well
watered. The ground, with a large house for the use of the governors
and officers of the Garden, was purchased at the expense of about
1600_l._ sterling, by Dr. Richard Walker.
An handsome green-house, one hundred feet in length, and having an
hot-house (or, what is called a stove,) appurtenant to it, were
erected by subscription. These are furnished with an extensive variety
of curious exotics: the plants are all arranged according to the
Linnæan system, and a catalogue of them is printed.
These Gardens are under the government of the chancellor or
vice-chancellor of the university, the heads of three of the colleges,
and the regius professor of physick; and they are superintended by a
lecturer or reader, and a curator.
There is, besides, a Professorship of Botany, in this university; as
there is also at Oxford.
The Botanical Garden belonging to the university of Edinburgh, is
about a mile from the city, It consists of a great variety of plants,
exotic and indigenous. The Professor is botanist to the king, and
receives an annual salary of 120_l._ sterling, for the support of the
Garden. A monument to the memory of Linnæus was erected here, by the
late Dr. Hope, who first planted the Garden and brought it to
perfection.
The Garden of Plants, at Paris, now termed the Museum of Natural
History, comprises a space of many acres. It dates its origin as far
back as the year 1640, during the reign of Louis XIII. In 1665, it
bore the name of _Hortus Regius_, and exhibited a catalogue of four
thousand plants. From that period, it made but slow progress, until
Louis XV. placed it under the direction of the Count de Buffon, the
celebrated naturalist; to whose anxious care and indefatigable
exertions, it owes its present extent and magnificence: it is now
under the patronage of the government.
But this institution comprehends, in addition to the Botanical Garden,
an extensive chemical laboratory, a cabinet of comparative anatomy, a
cabinet of preparations in anatomy and natural history, a large
library, a museum of natural history, and a menagérie well stocked.
Besides the lectures delivered in the Amphitheatre, erected in these
Gardens, the Professors of Botany give their peripatetic lessons, in
good weather, to a numerous train of disciples.
“When I have been seated at noon, on a fine day, in the month of
August, or in the commencement of May, under one of the majestic ash
of the Garden of Plants, with this Elysian scene before me, in the
midst of a most profound silence, and of a solitude interrupted only
by the occasional appearance of the Professor of Botany and his
pupils, I have almost fancied myself,” says the writer of _Letters on
France and England_—(see Am. Rev. No. ii.) “among the groves of the
Athenian Academy, and could imagine that I heard the lessons of the
“divine” Plato. Here, as well as in the spacious and noble works and
gardens of Oxford, which are so admirably calculated for the exercises
both of the mind and body, the fancy takes wing, and readily
transports the student of antiquity to those venerable seats of
knowledge, where the sublime Philosophy of the Greeks was taught, and
the masters of human reason displayed their incomparable eloquence:”—
——“the green retreats
Of Academus,[262b] and the thymy vale,
Where, oft enchanted with Socratic sounds,
Ilyssus,[262c] pure, devolv’d his tuneful stream
In gentle murmur.”
Akenside’s _Pleasures of Imagination_.
The importance of establishing a Botanical Garden at Philadelphia is
obvious: it has, in fact, become a necessary institution, towards
completing a medical education; according to the system of teaching
medicine, pursued in the medical department of the University of
Pennsylvania. In this respect, New-York has taken the lead of
Philadelphia. Dr. David Hosack, professor of botany in the Medical
School of New-York, established a Botanic Garden of about twenty
acres, called the Elgin Botanic Garden, in the vicinity of that city,
in the year 1801. This Garden is skirted around by forest-trees and
shrubs, within the substantial enclosure of a stone wall; and on these
grounds are erected extensive, commodious, and well constructed
conservatories and hot-houses, which are furnished with a variety of
plants, exotic and indigenous. The whole of this establishment was
purchased from Dr. Hosack, by the state, in the year 1810: It is now
under the direction of the regents of the University of that state.
Six years ago, the general assembly of Pennsylvania made some
provision for such an institution: By a law passed the 19th of March,
1807, towards the close of Governor M‘Kean’s administration, three
thousand dollars were granted to the trustees of the University of
Pennsylvania, “out of the monies they owe the state; for the purpose
of enabling them to establish a Garden for the improvement of the
science of Botany, and for instituting a series of experiments to
ascertain the cheapest and best food for plants, and their medical
properties and virtues.” But no application of this fund has yet been
made, to the purposes contemplated by the legislature in their
appropriation of it.
Mr. John Bartram, F. R. S. a distinguished botanist, though
self-taught, is understood to have been the first anglo-American who
executed the design of a Botanic Garden in this country. He laid out,
and planted with his own hands, on his farm, pleasantly situated on
the west bank of the Schuylkill and about four miles below
Philadelphia, a garden of five or six acres; which he furnished with a
great variety of curious, useful and beautiful vegetables, exotic as
well as American. He acquired the greater part of the latter, in
travelling through many parts of the continent, from Canada to the
Floridas. His proficiency in his favourite science was, at a pretty
early period, so great, that Linnæus pronounced him, in one of his
letters, to be the greatest natural botanist in the world. This Garden
is now in the tenure and under the management of his son, the
ingenious Mr. William Bartram, a well known cultivator of Natural
History and Botany. Although this respectable man is above seventy
years of age, he continues the most sedulous attention to his
favourite pursuits. For a further account of Mr. John Bartram, see Dr.
Barton’s _Medical Journal_.
Mr. Bartram was born near Darby, in the (then) county of Chester,
Pennsylvania, in the year 1701. He held the appointment of Botanist,
for America, to King George III. until his death, which occurred in
September, 1777, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.
Footnote 262a:
Since deceased.
Footnote 262b:
Academus was an Athenian hero, from whom the original Academists, or
that sect of philosophers who followed the opinion of Socrates, as
illustrated and enforced by Plato, derived their name; Plato having
taught his disciples in a grove, near Athens, consecrated to the
memory of that hero.
Footnote 262c:
The Ilyssus is a rapid, but, when not swollen by rains, a small
stream, of pure and limpid water, in the vicinity of Athens; and near
the margin of which, in a vale at the foot of Mount Hymettus, is
supposed to have stood the Grove, dedicated to Academus, in which the
Socratic Philosophy was taught in its greatest purity.
Footnote 263:
This highly important and well conducted institution owes its rise to
the liberal contributions of several humane, charitable and
public-spirited persons, aided by a legislative grant of two thousand
pounds, Pennsylvania currency, (equivalent to $5333⅓ in the beginning
of the year 1751: the first design, it is believed, was suggested by
the late Dr. Thomas Bond, long an eminent physician in Philadelphia;
and heretofore an active and useful member of the Philosophical
Society, as well as sometime one of the vice-presidents of that body.
By a law passed the 11th of April, 1793, the general assembly
liberally granted ten thousand pounds ($26,666,) out of the funds
accruing to the loan office of February 26, 1773; to enable the
managers of the Hospital to make additions to their buildings,
conformably to the original plan; and so to extend it as to comprehend
a Lying-in and a Foundling Hospital,[263a] so soon as specific funds
for those purposes should be obtained.
The first twelve managers (whose names deserve to be held in
remembrance, as prominent benefactors to their country,) were Joshua
Crosby, Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Thomas Bond, Samuel Hazard, Richard
Peters, Israel Pemberton, (then styled junior,) Samuel Rhoads, Hugh
Roberts, Joseph Morris, John Smith, Evan Morgan and Charles Norris;
and John Reynell officiated as treasurer: all of these were gentlemen
of most respectable characters.
In order to obviate some objections, that were at first made, to the
contemplated expense of the medical department of the institution, and
which it was apprehended might obstruct the passage of the bill then
depending in the legislature, by which the grant of the two thousand
pounds, before mentioned, was obtained from the public, Dr. Thomas
Bond, together with his brother Dr. Phineas Bond, and Dr. Lloyd
Zachary, generously offered to attend the Hospital, gratuitously, for
the term of three years.
The Hospital establishment is now very complete, according to the
original plan of this valuable institution; and, indeed, much beyond
what was at first contemplated, in some respects: yet its utility
might be much increased, by a further extension of the design. In its
present condition, however, it reflects great honour on Pennsylvania,
justly celebrated, as she is, for her charitable, literary,
scientific, and other useful institutions; and the conduct of the
managers has been uniformly such, as to entitle them to the gratitude
of the community.
The Students in the Medical School of the University pay ten dollars
per annum, for the privilege of attending the Hospital-practice, which
is of very important advantage to them: and the physicians, with the
managers, have generously appropriated a fund out of the monies, thus
obtained, for the purpose of founding a Medical Library, and of
purchasing the late Dr. Abraham Chovet’s most curious anatomical
preparations.[263b] By these means, in addition to Dr. John
Fothergill’s valuable present, and other donations, this Hospital,
with little expense of its more immediate funds, already possesses the
most useful as well as ornamental collection, of the kind, that is to
be found any where in America: and when the superbly magnificent
painting, representing Christ healing the sick, (now in a train of
execution by Mr. West, in London, and intended to be a donation from
him to this Hospital,) shall have been received, this _chef-d’œuvre_
of the sublime artist will constitute there, not only a noble monument
of his liberality, benevolence, and attachment to his native country,
but a splendid and admirably well-suited ornament to the institution
possessing it. It is scarcely sixteen years since the hospital-tickets
of the medical pupils amounted to only about three hundred dollars per
annum. This fund has been since increasing; the annual income to it
being at present estimated at fifteen hundred dollars: it is now amply
sufficient to supply the library belonging to the Hospital with new
books, and to keep in good preservation the anatomical casts, &c.
As Dr. Franklin was eminently instrumental in promoting the
establishment of the Pennsylvania Hospital, so he likewise bore a
conspicuous part in the formation of the Library-Company of
Philadelphia; an institution which holds a distinguished rank, for its
usefulness, among the many that do honour to the capital of
Pennsylvania. A public Library was first set on foot in Philadelphia
by Franklin, about the year 1731; at which time he was scarcely
twenty-six years of age. Fifty persons then subscribed forty shillings
each, and agreed to contribute ten shillings annually, for that
purpose. Some other companies for similar purposes had been formed in
that city, after the one here mentioned; but these were soon after
united with “The Library Company of Philadelphia.” This Company now
possess many thousand valuable books; and their stock is continually
deriving accessions from donations, as well as from purchases. Besides
the marble statue of Dr. Franklin, presented to the company by the
late William Bingham, Esq. of Philadelphia, (which decorates the front
of the Library-edifice,) and many other considerable benefactions to
the institution, from time to time, “the Penn family” (as the late
ingenious Dr. Henry Stuber, the continuator of the Life of Franklin,
has remarked,) “distinguished themselves by their donations” to it.
The Loganian Library was, a few years since, placed under the same
roof with that of the Philadelphia Company; though in a distinct
apartment. It consists of an extensive collection of curious, rare and
valuable books, in various branches of ancient and modern learning:
and for this noble benefaction to his native country, the public are
indebted to James Logan, Esq. many years an eminent citizen of
Philadelphia, and well known, not only throughout America, but in the
old world, for his erudition and talents.
Dr. Rittenhouse’s intimate connexion with the College, and afterwards
with the University of Pennsylvania, rendered it improper, in the
opinion of the Memorialist, not to notice those institutions in the
manner he has done: and in doing this, he could not without injustice
omit a similar mention of the Hospital, so nearly allied to them
through the Medical School of the former; nor of the Philadelphia
Library Company, which bears a close affinity to them all.
The name of Mr. West having been introduced on this occasion, the
writer conceives it will not be thought foreign to the design of these
Memoirs (though only incidentally connected with the present article),
to make some further mention of a native American, whose name must
ever hold a most conspicuous place in the history of the fine arts, in
relation to this country.
This celebrated Artist is the youngest of ten children of John West, a
person descended from very respectable ancestors, and a native of
England. John early embraced the tenets of the people called Quakers.
Migrating, in the year 1714, to Pennsylvania, where some members of
the same family had arrived with William Penn about fifteen years
before, he married and settled in the vicinity of Philadelphia; and
there his son Benjamin was born.
This gentleman’s residence has been in England, during the last
forty-five years: but he left his native country some considerable
time prior to that period; having first visited Italy, and some other
schools of painting on the continent. When a Society of Artists was
instituted in London, a few years after the accession of the present
king to the throne, Mr. West (who had then recently arrived in
England, on his return from Italy,) became a member of that body.
Their exhibitions of painting, sculpture and architectural designs,
became objects of attention to men of taste in the fine arts;—“the
young Sovereign,” says Mr. West (in a letter to Mr. C. W. Peale,
written in 1809,[263c]) “was interested in their prosperity.” After
the dissolution of that society, the king desired Mr. West and three
other artists to form a plan for a Royal Academy; which having been
approved by his majesty, he directed that it should be carried into
execution. “Thus,” continues Mr. West, “commenced the institution of
the Royal Academy of London[263d]:” And again, speaking of this
patronage, he says;—“his majesty, by his regard for the arts, gave a
dignity to them, unknown before in the country.” Referring to this
meritorious patronage of the fine arts by the present king of England,
Mr. Latrobe (in his Anniversary Oration before the Society of Artists
in Philadelphia, in May, 1811,) makes this just remark: “Nor ought we
to omit mention of the name of George III. by whose patronage, our
illustrious countryman, West, has become the first historical painter
of the age.”
Footnote 263a:
Towards the incorporation of either one or the other of these
institutions with the present establishment of the Pennsylvania
Hospital, the managers possess, also, sixteen shares of stock in the
Bank of Pennsylvania, bestowed by the First Troop of Cavalry in
Philadelphia. The product of this noble and very valuable donation,
and which is considered as being equivalent to a capital stock of
$8503.33, will, most probably, be wholly applied to the support of a
Lying-in Hospital, as part of the great institution.
Footnote 263b:
Thirty pounds a year were payable to Mrs. Abington, a daughter of Dr.
Chovet, during her life, on account of this purchase. That annuity has
very recently been extinguished, by the death of the annuitant.
Footnote 263c:
See the _Port Folio_, for January, 1810.
Footnote 263d:
When this Academy was first established, the celebrated Dr. Samuel
Johnson was appointed ‘Professor of Ancient Literature’ in the
institution; an office merely honorary.
-----
The whole of the literary and scientific institution, thus formed—which,
besides the Medical Schools, was composed of the College, the Academy
and the Charitable School, continued under the provostship of the Rev.
Dr. Smith, assisted by able teachers and professors,[264] from his
induction in the year 1754, until the establishment of the University,
in 1779:[265] during which time, comprehending a period of twenty-five
years, this seminary increased in reputation and flourished; and indeed
it was indebted for much of its respectability and usefulness to the
zeal,[266] the talents and the services of Dr. Smith.
Footnote 264:
Of these, Francis Alison, D. D. a learned and worthy presbyterian
clergyman, was vice-provost, and professor of moral philosophy; the
Rev. Ebenezer Kinnersley, M. A. an eminent electrician and an amiable
man, was professor of English and oratory; John Beveridge, M. A. an
excellent scholar in the learned languages (some of whose Latin
epistolary writings, in metrical language, after the manner of Horace,
possess a considerable portion of merit and discover much classical
purity of style,) was professor of languages; and Hugh Williamson, M.
A. (now M. D.) a gentleman of distinguished talents, was professor of
mathematics.
The last mentioned of these eminently meritorious characters is yet
living. He enjoys the respect and esteem due to a man who, in the
course of a long life, devoted much of his time and talents to the
promotion of learning, useful knowledge, and the welfare of his
country. Of the other three, who have, long since, passed on to “that
bourn from which no traveller returns,” the following circumstances
are worthy of being preserved in remembrance, by those who shall
hereafter record the history of literature and science, in this
country.
Dr. Alison was one of the first persons in the middle colonies, who,
foreseeing the ignorance into which this part of the country seemed
inclined to fall, set up a regular school of education here. He was
long employed in the education of youth at New-London Cross-roads, in
Pennsylvania, before his appointment to the vice-provostship of the
college of Philadelphia; and many persons, who afterwards made a
distinguished figure in this country, were bred under his tuition. The
University of Glasgow, being well informed of the pious and faithful
labours of this valuable man, in propagating useful knowledge in these
then untutored parts of the world, created him a Doctor of Divinity:
He was honoured with this degree, without any solicitation whatever on
his part.
Mr. Kinnersley possessed great merit, in the estimation of the learned
world, “in being the chief inventor of the Electrical Apparatus, as
well as author of a considerable part of those discoveries in
Electricity, published by Mr. Franklin, to whom he communicated them.
Indeed Mr. Franklin himself mentions his name with honour; though he
has not been careful enough to distinguish between their particular
discoveries. This, perhaps, he may have thought needless, as they were
known to act in concert. But, though that circumstance was known here,
it was not so in remote parts of the world, to which the fame of these
discoveries has extended.” The passage here quoted, is copied from an
account of the college and academy of Philadelphia, published in
October, 1758.
Dr. Franklin’s experiment with the electrical kite—which established
the theory on which the metallic conductors of lightning were
introduced, for the security of buildings, and those within them, from
injury by that element—was made in June, 1752; and his letter, giving
an account of it, is dated the 19th of October following. But Mr. de
Romas, a Frenchman, to whom his countryman the Abbé Bertholon ascribes
the honour of the experiment with the kite, made his first attempt on
the 14th of May, 1753: he did not succeed, until the 7th of the next
month; a year after Dr. Franklin had completed his experiments, and
then generally known in Europe. It is noticed by the late ingenious
Dr. Stuber, of Philadelphia, in his continuation of the Life of
Franklin, that “his (Dr. Franklin’s) friend, Mr. Kinnersley,
communicated to him a discovery of” (what Dr. Stuber terms) “the
different kinds of electricity, excited by rubbing glass and sulphur.”
This, it is said, was first observed by Mr. Du Faye; though afterwards
not attended to, for many years. It seems, however, that the
electricians of Europe, with Du Faye himself, had conceived a mistaken
notion on this subject; and that Franklin had, at first, adopted their
doctrine. “But,” says the continuator of his Life, “upon repeating the
experiments, he perceived that Mr. Kinnersley was right; and the
vitreous and the resinous electricity of Du Faye were nothing more
than the positive and negative states which he had before observed;
that the glass globe charged positively, or encreased the quantity of
electricity on the prime conductor,—whilst the globe of sulphur
diminished its natural quantity, or charged negatively.”
Mr. Beveridge, who was appointed by the trustees of the college and
academy of Philadelphia, in June, 1758, professor of languages in that
institution, was one of the ablest masters of the Latin tongue; and
wrote many poetical pieces in that language, in a style of superior
purity and elegance. This excellent Latin scholar originally taught a
grammar-school in Edinburgh, under the patronage of the celebrated Mr.
Ruddiman. While in that station, he taught the Latin to Mr. Thomas
Blacklock, the well-known blind poet; and it was during this time,
that Blacklock wrote his fine paraphrase of Psalm CIV. which his
friend Beveridge afterwards rendered into Latin verse. A collection of
Mr. Beveridge’s poetical pieces, under the title of _Epistolæ
Familiares et alia quædam miscellanea_, was published at Philadelphia,
in the year 1765.
Footnote 265:
A Law Professorship was instituted in the College of Philadelphia, in
the year 1790, and the Hon. James Wilson, LL.D. (late one of the
associate judges of the supreme court of the United States,) was
appointed the first professor: the first course of lectures, under
this appointment, was delivered in the winter of 1790-1. In April,
1792, when the College and University became united into one seminary,
under the latter title, a Professorship of Law was erected in the new
seminary; when Judge Wilson was again appointed to fill that chair:
but no Law-lectures were afterwards delivered.
The lectures composed by the able and very learned Judge, for this
department of the institution, are given entire in his works,
published in three volumes octavo, in the year 1804, by his son Bird
Wilson, Esq. president of the seventh judicial district of
Pennsylvania.
It is much to be regretted, that this important chair in the
University has remained unoccupied, since the death of its late
eminent incumbent: For, as he has justly observed, in his
_Introductory Lecture_, “The science of Law should, in some measure
and in some degree, be the study of every free citizen, and of every
free man. Every free citizen and every free man has duties to perform,
and rights to claim. Unless, in some measure, and in some degree, he
knows those duties and those rights, he can never act a just and an
independent part.”
Footnote 266:
In an Account of Dr. Smith, prefixed to his posthumous works, the
respectable Editor observes—that “Dr. Smith was actuated by a “zeal
bordering on enthusiasm” (as he himself expressed it), in his devotion
to the dissemination of literature and science.”
This gentleman was educated in the university of Aberdeen,[267] in
Scotland, where he graduated as Master of Arts. He soon after obtained
clerical orders, in the Church of England; and, in the year 1759, he was
honoured with the degree of Doctor in Divinity, from the University of
Oxford, on the recommendation of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the
bishops of Durham, Salisbury, Oxford and St. Asaph.[268] About the same
time, he received a similar degree from the University of
Trinity-College, Dublin. Dr. Smith died the 14th of May, 1803, at the
age of seventy-six years.
-----
Footnote 267:
This University was founded in the year 1480; it consists of two
colleges, called the Marischal and the King’s College, under the name
of the University of King Charles. The library belonging to this
ancient university is large; and in both the colleges, the languages,
mathematics, natural philosophy, divinity, &c. are taught by able
professors.
Footnote 268:
These prelates were, respectively, the Doctors—Secker, Trevor, Thomas,
Hume, and Egerton.
-----
On the 10th of April, 1792, an act was passed by the general assembly of
Pennsylvania, for the purpose of enabling the governor to incorporate a
company for opening a canal and water-communication between the rivers
Delaware and Schuylkill: and by this act, David Rittenhouse, William
Moore, Eliston Perot, Cadwallader Evans, jun. and Francis Johnston,
Esquires, were appointed commissioners to receive subscriptions of
stock, for constituting a fund for this purpose.
Thus, after having been engaged in the course of eleven years, at a
prior period, in the improvement of a great natural highway of his
native country, he was again employed, in conjunction with others, by
the legislative body of that country, after a lapse of nineteen years
from the time of his first appointment to a similar duty, in forwarding
the great design of uniting more intimately, and more beneficially for
the purposes of agriculture and commerce, the waters of the beautiful
stream near whose banks he was born, with those of the majestic
Delaware.
This comparatively inconsiderable appointment was presently after
succeeded by a most important one. Dr. Rittenhouse was commissioned to
be Director of the Mint, by President Washington, the 14th of April,
1792; but he did not take the requisite qualifications for that office,
until the 1st of July following. He entered upon the duties of this
arduous and very respectable station with great reluctance: it was,
indeed, pressed upon him; not only by Mr. Jefferson, then secretary of
state, with whom Dr. Rittenhouse had long been in habits of intimate
friendship; but (through the means of Mr. Secretary Hamilton, of the
Treasury,) by the illustrious President himself, who always entertained
the highest regard for him: and this esteem was mutual, notwithstanding
some “shades of difference” in the political tenets of these two great
and good men; for no person could hold a more exalted opinion of the
integrity, abilities, and public services of Washington, than Dr.
Rittenhouse uniformly did. Such was the extreme diffidence with which
our Philosopher accepted this appointment thus honourably conferred on
him, that he declined, for a considerable time, to be sworn into office;
until, finally, on applying to the writer of these memoirs, he obtained
his promise to render such assistance to him as he should be able to do,
in the event of his own incapacity, from want of health or by reason of
any incidental circumstance, to devote a sufficient portion of his time
to the duties of the station. Although the writer was never required to
act in the capacity thus proposed to him, circumstances not occurring to
render it necessary, he shall always consider the arrangement then made
upon the subject, on the voluntary proposition of Dr. Rittenhouse, as an
estimable testimonial of his confidence in his friend and relative: yet
the writer would have introduced the mention of these particulars, into
the present work, with greater hesitation than he does, did he not
conceive that a statement of facts of this kind will evince the delicate
sensibility of Dr. Rittenhouse, on the occasion.
As soon as he had determined to accept the Directorship of the Mint, he
began to make suitable arrangements for carrying the institution into
operation. Towards this end, he suggested to the secretary of state the
expediency of purchasing two contiguous houses and lots of ground,
conveniently situated, for the establishment; in preference to taking
buildings upon lease, for a purpose that seemed to require something
like a permanent position. His proposal relative to this matter, it
appears, was communicated to the secretary of state, for the purpose of
being submitted to the consideration of the President: for, on the 9th
of June, 1792, his approbation of the plan was expressed in the
following note to the secretary.
“Dear Sir,
“I am in sentiment with you and the Director of the Mint, respecting
the purchase of the lots and houses which are offered for sale, in
preference to renting—as the latter will certainly exceed the interest
of the former.
“That all the applications may be brought to view, and considered, for
Coining &c., Mr. Lear will lay the letters and engravings before you,
to be shewn to the Director of the Mint:—I have no other object or
wish in doing it, than to obtain the best. Yours, &c.
“G^o. WASHINGTON.
“Mr. JEFFERSON.”
---
Dr. Rittenhouse executed this high trust with great ability and
unimpeachable integrity, during three years; at the expiration of which
he resigned it, on the 30th of June, 1795. He had, long before,
expressed his anxious wish to retire from this station; but continued in
office until that time, on the solicitation of the President and at the
earnest desire of Mr. Jefferson.
As he was the first person appointed to that office, after the
institution of the Mint under the present federal government of the
Union, the duties that devolved upon him, in conducting it, were arduous
and complicated. He directed the construction of the machinery; made
arrangements for providing the necessary apparatus; and, in daily visits
to the Mint, whenever his health permitted, personally superintended,
with the most sedulous fidelity, not only the general economy of the
institution, but its operations in the various departments;—duties,
which his love of system and order, his extensive knowledge, and his
practical skill in mechanicks, eminently qualified him to perform with
peculiar correctness. At those times when he was prevented, by
indisposition, from attending at the Mint in person, reports were made
to him by the proper officers, either verbally or in writing, of the
state of the institution and the progress of its business; and those
officers received from him, on such occasions, the instructions
requisite for their several departments.
In conducting the affairs of the Mint, Dr. Rittenhouse was seconded by
capable and trusty officers; among whom was Mr. Voight, the Chief
Coiner, with whose ingenuity and skill, as an operative mechanic, he was
well acquainted, having long before employed him in that capacity, while
he was engaged in constructing one of his Orreries and carrying on other
branches of his professional business. Dr. Nicholas Way, a physician of
some eminence, officiated at the same time as Treasurer of the Mint; and
that respectable co-adjutor of the then Head of this important
institution in the national economy, has borne testimony to his
scrupulous attention to the public interests, in its direction:—“I have
been informed by his colleague in office, Dr. Way,”—says Dr. Benjamin
Rush,[269] who succeeded that gentleman in the Treasurership of the
Mint,—“that, in several instances, he,” (speaking of the Director) “paid
for work done at the Mint out of his salary,[270] where he thought the
charges for it would be deemed extravagant by the United States.[271]
-----
Footnote 269:
See his Eulogium on Rittenhouse.
Footnote 270:
His salary was two thousand dollars per annum.
Footnote 271:
A particular instance, of a similar kind, occurred within the
knowledge of the Memorialist. Mr. Peter Getz was, lately, a
self-taught mechanic of singular ingenuity, in the borough of
Lancaster; where he many years exercised the trade of a silver-smith
and jeweller, and was remarkable for the extraordinary accuracy,
elegance, and beauty of the workmanship he executed. This person was a
candidate for the place of chief coiner or engraver in the mint; and,
on that occasion, he offered to present to Dr. Rittenhouse, in the
summer of 1792, a small pair of scales—such as are commonly called
gold-scales—of exquisite workmanship as well as great exactness, as a
specimen of his skill as an artist. The Director conceived, that an
instrument equally well suited to the use for which this was designed,
though less ornamental, could be procured for the mint, if desirable,
for less money than this was worth as a matter of curiosity; he would
not, therefore, purchase it for the mint: but being determined not to
accept it as a present, and desirous at the same time to make
compensation to the artist for his work, he insisted on his receiving
twenty dollars for the instrument; on payment of which, he retained it
himself.
-----
When Dr. Rittenhouse resigned the Directorship of the Mint, in June
1792, he was succeeded in that office by Henry William De Saussure, Esq.
of South Carolina, a gentleman of distinguished talents and
respectability. But Mr. De Saussure did not long hold the appointment:
Some invidious and illiberal, as well as ill-founded insinuations, were
soon cast upon the establishment and the manner in which it was
conducted, by certain persons in the government, who had very early
evinced an hostility to the institution itself; and it is not
improbable, that some of this description were also influenced in their
inimical views towards it, by personal considerations. Mr. De Saussure,
disgusted with such unworthy conduct, retired from the Directorship,
after having held that office only a few months; during which short
period, he executed his trust in such a manner, as to obtain the
approbation of President Washington, and entitle him to the public
esteem.
The following letter, which was addressed by Mr. De Saussure to the
editors of the Charleston City Gazette, and published in that paper,
soon after his resignation, will serve to elucidate this subject: as a
vindication of that gentleman, and also of his predecessor, from the
injurious aspersions so unjustly thrown out against the institution of
the Mint by its enemies, that publication is entitled to a place in the
Memoirs of Rittenhouse; it shall now close the narrative of Dr.
Rittenhouse’s connexion with the Mint.
“Messrs. Freneau and Payne,
“I was filled with no less indignation than surprise, on reading the
debates in the house of representatives of the United States, on
Tuesday the 19th of January, respecting the Mint, to find that a good
deal of censure had been thrown out by some of the members against the
management of that establishment, in such general and indiscriminating
terms as might be deemed to implicate me, during the short time I was
in the Directorship.
“Several members spoke in hasty and unguarded terms; and one member,
whose name the printer had not given, passed all the bounds of
moderation. He is represented as having said, “that the institution is
a bad one, and is badly conducted: it had been most scandalously
carried on, and with very little advantage to the public. If the
institution is not better carried on than it has been, it ought to be
thrown aside.”—If I could tamely endure these imputations, which in
their generality may be supposed to reach me, I should be unworthy the
esteem of my fellow-citizens.
“It ought, perhaps, to be sufficient for me to produce to the public
eye the entire approbation which the President of the United States
was pleased to express of my conduct, when quitting the office of the
Director. I laid before him a full and exact state of the situation of
the Mint, and of the coinage prior to, and during my being in office.
His approbation is contained in a letter which he wrote me at the
moment of my leaving Philadelphia,—dated the 1st of Nov. 1795; from
which these words are an extract—“I cannot, at this moment of your
departure, but express my regret, that it was not accordant with your
views to remain in the Directorship of the Mint: Permit me to add
thereto, that your conduct therein gave entire satisfaction; and to
wish you a pleasant voyage, and a happy meeting with your friends in
South Carolina.”
“To those who know the President of the United States well,—who know
the caution with which he is accustomed to speak, and that he
possesses the talent of correctly estimating, as well as vigorously
overcoming, the difficulties which present themselves in every
circumstance of business,—this would rescue any character from the
unqualified censure of the members of the house of representatives.
But I will go further, and will shew the grounds on which the
President formed his judgment, so that every man may form his own
opinion.”
The Writer then proceeds with some details, respecting the condition of
the Mint on his coming into office, and at the time he left it; in the
course of which he states some difficulties, and unavoidable
obstructions to the progress of the coinage, which existed in the time
of his predecessor, and some of which could not be obviated while he
remained in the direction: and to this statement he annexes a table,
exhibiting an account of the gold and silver coinage at the Mint, from
its establishment to the close of October, 1795; at the foot of which he
remarks, that “there never was any period at which the Mint was supplied
with bullion, in a state for coinage, sufficient to keep it regularly
and fully employed for any considerable time; except,” continues the
writer, “near the close of my direction; to wit, from the 1st to the
24th of October.” Mr. De Saussure thus concludes his very satisfactory
letter on this subject:
“Whilst I am vindicating myself from the censure, indiscriminately
thrown upon the management of the Mint, I do by no means concede that
the censure is justly applicable to my respectable predecessor. The
solid talents of Mr. Rittenhouse will be remembered with pride, and
his mild virtue recollected with tenderness, by his countrymen, when
many of his censors will be forgotten in the silent dust. His lofty
and correct mind, capable alike of ascending to the sublimest heights
of science, and of condescending to regulate the minute movements of
mechanical machinery, organized the Mint, and created the workmen and
the apparatus; amidst the complicated difficulties from which the most
persevering minds might have shrunk without dishonour. A very long and
debilitating state of ill health prevented him from giving the
establishment all the activity of which it was susceptible; and he
long wished to retire before he was permitted. His country suffered
him to retire, without remembering, that it was the duty of a liberal
nation to provide an independent retreat in his old age, for one of
the noblest of her Philosophers; and to this neglect, it is attempted
to add unmerited obloquy.
“I quit the ungrateful theme with disgust. I am consoled by the
approbation of _him_, by whom to be approved, will gladden the heart
through a long life. I rejoice that I quitted an office which subjects
its holder to such unjust censure, by the advice of my friends, who in
prophetic spirit told me, ‘that such offices were suited to men who
could bear up against censure, though they did not deserve it,’ which
they did not believe me formed to endure.”
“HENRY WM. DE SAUSSURE.
Charleston, S. C. Feb. 5. 1796.”
---
A national coin having been always considered as a proper, if not an
absolutely necessary, attribute of the sovereignty of a state,[272] the
establishment of a Mint, for the United States, was pretty early
contemplated. A plan for that purpose was brought into the view of
congress, in the last year of the war; although no national coinage was
instituted until ten years afterwards. The early part of the year 1780
was extremely disastrous to the affairs of the United States. The fall
of Charleston, S. C. depressed the spirits of the country: and the
almost total failure of public credit, accompanied by a want of money,
and other means of carrying on the war, about that period, paralyzed the
measures of the government. Such was the apathy of the public mind, in
regard to the perilous condition of the country at that crisis, that
many members of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, which was convened
on the 10th of May, in that year, came thither with petitions from their
constituents, praying to be exempt from the payment of taxes.
-----
Footnote 272:
“Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty: to transfer its
exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign.”
See a Report made to congress, in the year 1790, by Thomas Jefferson,
Esq. then secretary of state, on certain Proposals for supplying the
United States with Copper Coinage, offered by Mr. John H. Mitchell, a
foreign artist.
-----
But while this assembly were in session, a letter was received from
General Washington by the Supreme Executive Council of the state, and by
them confidentially communicated to the legislative body, in which the
distressed condition of the army was faithfully described. Among other
things the General stated, that, notwithstanding his confidence in the
attachment of the army to the cause of their country, the distresses of
the soldiery, arising from a destitution of those necessaries which were
indispensable, had become extreme; insomuch, that appearances of mutiny
were so strongly marked on the countenances of the army, as to occasion
in his mind hourly apprehensions of the event.
This appalling information, and from such a source, elicited some
latent sparks of public spirit. Voluntary contributions were
immediately begun; and Robert Morris, Esq. a merchant of the highest
credit—as well as a man whose patriotism, talents and enterprize,
inspired confidence—contributed two hundred pounds, Pennsylvania
currency, in (what was then called) _hard money_. This subscription
commenced the 8th of June, 1780: but it amounted, in the whole to only
200_l._ hard money, and 101,360_l._ in the public bills of credit, or
paper-money, denominated _continental_.
On the 17th of the same month, however, a meeting of the contributors to
this fund (which was intended as a donation, towards carrying on the
recruiting service,) and of others, was convened in Philadelphia: with a
view to promote the object more extensively. At this meeting it was
resolved—“to open a security-subscription, to the amount of 300,000_l._
in real money; the subscribers to execute bonds to the amount of their
subscription, and to form a Bank thereon, for supplying the army.”
This was the origin of the “Bank of North-America,” which thus took its
rise from an association of “a number of patriotic persons” in the city
of Philadelphia. The plan they formed for the purpose was communicated
to congress by the secretary at war, on the 20th of June; and the next
day they were honoured with a vote of thanks.
On the 20th of February, 1781, Mr. Morris was unanimously elected by
congress to the office of Superintendant of Finance, then first created.
This gentleman arranged, in the spring following[273], the system of the
present Bank of North-America; whereupon, many of the subscribers to the
first-formed bank transferred their subscriptions to this institution.
These were incorporated by an ordinance of congress[274], passed the
31st of December, 1781; and in the beginning of the succeeding year,
this Bank commenced its operations in Philadelphia. By the incorporating
ordinance, the following gentlemen were nominated by congress to be the
president and directors of the institution, until a choice of a new
direction should be made by the stockholders; namely, Thomas Willing,
Thomas Fitzsimons, John Maxwell Nesbitt, James Wilson, Henry Hill,
Samuel Osgood, Cadwalader Morris, Andrew Caldwell, Samuel Inglis, Samuel
Meredith, William Bingham, and Timothy Matlack, Esquires. Mr. Willing, a
merchant of high credit and respectability, was president of the board.
-----
Footnote 273:
The plan of the Bank of North-America, which was submitted to congress
by their order, was approved by them on the 26th of May, 1781.
Footnote 274:
When the question, respecting the incorporation of the Bank of
North-America was taken in congress, twenty members voted in the
affirmative and only four in the negative. But the votes were then
taken by states; and of these, the delegates from New-York and
Delaware were absent, Pennsylvania (having only two members of her
delegation present) was divided, Massachusetts (having also but two
members present) voted in the negative: all the southern states were
in the affirmative, with the single exception of Mr. Madison’s vote,
his three colleagues (from Virginia) being on the affirmative side of
the question.
-----
Some doubts having arisen, respecting the right of congress, under the
then existing confederation, to exercise the power of erecting any
corporate body, an act was passed by the general assembly of
Pennsylvania, the 1st of April, 1782, to incorporate this Bank, in order
to obviate such doubts. That act was repealed, the 13th of September,
1785; but on the 18th of March, 1787, the charter was renewed for the
term of fourteen years, and has been since further continued.
It was by means of this establishment, that Mr. Morris, the
superintendant of the finances, was enabled to support the public
credit, and, in the words of Dr. Gordon, “to keep things in motion,” at
a most critical period of the American affairs, and when the national
credit was in the lowest possible state of depression.[275]
-----
Footnote 275:
Whatever failings (and these were of a venial nature) may have
appeared in the transactions of Mr. Morris, as a private citizen, in
the latter part of a life long devoted to honourable and useful
pursuits, yet the eminent services which he rendered to his country,
in times of her greatest peril, entitled him to the gratitude of his
compatriots; for, in his numerous and important official and other
public negotiations, his honour and integrity were alike
irreproachable. His merits ought not only to rescue his name from
oblivion, but they give him a just claim to be placed in the list of
American worthies; while his subsequent misfortunes —— —— —— —— ——
but,
“No further seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from his dread abode,
(There they alike in trembling hope repose,)
The bosom of his Father and his God.”
_Gray._
Mr. Morris, who was long distinguished for his talents and his
services in this country, was a native of Lancashire, in England. He
died in Philadelphia on the 8th of May, 1806.
-----
The establishment of a Mint seems to be a necessary appendage to that of
a national Bank. Accordingly, Mr. Morris, in his capacity of
superintendant of the finances, addressed a letter to congress, on the
15th of January 1782, “touching the establishment of a Mint.” On the
21st of the succeeding month, they approved his proposal,—directing him,
at the same time, “to prepare and report to congress a plan:” But
nothing further appears to have been done in this business, until the
16th of October 1786, when congress passed “An Ordinance for the
establishment of the Mint of the United States,” &c.
About two years, however, after the commencement of the present federal
government (viz. March 3. 1791,) a resolution of congress was passed,
concerning the establishing of a Mint, under such regulations as should
be directed by law. Previously to this, the late Alexander Hamilton,
Esq. had communicated to the house of representatives, by their order,
the result of his enquiries and reflexions on the subject, in a diffuse
and masterly official report. In his report, this able financier, alike
distinguished as a statesman and a soldier,[276] remarked, that “the
unequal values allowed in different parts of the Union to coins of the
same intrinsic worth; the defective species of them, which embarrass the
circulation of them in some of the states; and the dissimilarity in
their several monies of account, are inconveniences, which if not to be
ascribed to the want of a national coinage, will at least be most
effectually remedied by the establishment of one; a measure that will at
the same time give additional security against impositions, by
counterfeit as well as by base currencies.”—“It was with great reason,
therefore,” continues the Secretary, “that the attention of congress,
under the late confederation, was repeatedly drawn to the establishment
of a Mint; and it is with equal reason that the subject has been
resumed; now that the favourable change which has taken place in the
situation of public affairs, admits of its being carried into
execution.”
-----
Footnote 276:
“The task of re-creating public credit,” (says Chief Justice Marshal,
in his _Life of Washington_,) “of drawing order and arrangement from
the chaotic confusion in which the finances of America were involved,
and of devising means which should render the revenue productive, and
commensurate with the demand, was justly classed among the most
arduous of the duties which devolved on the new government[276a]. In
discharging it, much aid was expected from the head of the treasury.
To Colonel Hamilton[276b] was assigned this important, and at that
time intricate department.
“This gentleman was a native of the island of St. Croix, and, at a
very early period of life, had been placed by his friends in New-York.
Possessing an ardent temper, he caught fire from the concussions of
the moment, and with all the enthusiasm of youth, engaged first his
pen, and afterwards his sword, in the stern contest between the
American colenies and their parent state. Among the first troops
raised by New-York was a corps of artillery, in which he was appointed
a captain. Soon after the war was transferred to the Hudson, his
superior endowments recommended him to the attention of the commander
in chief, into whose family, before completing his twenty-first year,
he was invited to enter. Equally brave and intelligent, he continued
in this situation to display a degree of firmness and capacity which
commanded the confidence and esteem of his general, and of the
principal officers in the army.
“After the capitulation at York-Town, the war languished throughout
the American continent, and the probability that its termination was
approaching daily increased.
“The critical circumstances of the existing government rendered the
events of the civil, more interesting than those of the military
department, and Colonel Hamilton accepted a seat in the congress of
the United States. In all the important acts of the day, he performed
a conspicuous part, and was greatly distinguished among those
distinguished characters whom the crisis had attracted to the councils
of their country. He had afterwards been active in promoting those
measures which led to the convention at Philadelphia, of which he was
a member, and had greatly contributed to the adoption of the
constitution by the state of New-York. In the distinguished part he
had performed, both in the military and civil transactions of his
country, he had acquired a great degree of well merited fame; and the
frankness of his manners, the openness of his temper, the warmth of
his feelings, and the sincerity of his heart, had secured him many
valuable friends.
“To talents of the highest grade, he united a patient industry, not
always the companion of genius, which fitted him in a peculiar manner
for the difficulties to be encountered by the man who should be placed
at the head of the American finances.”
The disastrous death of this celebrated man happened on the 12th day
of July, 1804, at the age of about forty-seven years.
Footnote 276a:
This was in the year 1789.
Footnote 276b:
Afterwards promoted to the rank of Major-General.
-----
The Mint has been continued in Philadelphia, ever since its
establishment,—a great commercial city being very properly considered
the most suitable situation for such an institution; its operations have
been conducted, for many years past, with activity; and there are few
coins superior in beauty, to those of the American Mint.
In less than a year after Dr. Rittenhouse had engaged himself in the
duties appertaining to the Directorship of the Mint, he was again called
upon to assist his countrymen, by the aid of his talents, in effecting
an important water-communication, inland, which was then contemplated.
An association, called “The Conewago-Canal Company,” was formed in
Philadelphia, in pursuance of a law enacted the 13th of April, 1791; by
which the sum of fourteen thousand dollars was appropriated, for the
purpose of improving the navigation of the river Susquehanna, between
Wright’s Ferry (now the thriving town of Columbia) and the mouth of the
Swatara. This company consisted of seventeen members, of whom Dr.
Rittenhouse was one: and they were incorporated by an act of assembly,
passed the 10th of April, 1793.
Just about this period, an occurrence took place at Philadelphia, then
the seat of the national government, which excited much public feeling
at the time, and—contrary to the expectations of some good men of
sanguine dispositions—became the source of many political evils,
afterwards. This was the formation of what was called the Democratic
Society; a political association, produced by the effervescences of the
French revolution, while that all-important event was yet viewed in a
favourable light by free nations: and of this society, Dr. Rittenhouse
was elected President.
That Dr. Rittenhouse should have been selected as the President of the
Democratic Society, and chosen for that station, can be readily
accounted for. This gentleman had evinced, from the commencement of the
troubles between the American colonies of Great-Britain and the parent
country, an ardent attachment to the cause of his native land. The
benevolence of his disposition rendered him the well-wisher of all
mankind: hence every thing that, in his view, bore the semblance of
oppression, was odious to him. But the wrongs which the country of his
nativity, more particularly, experienced, from the unconstitutional
claims of the British Parliament, roused those feelings of patriotism,
with which his virtuous breast was animated, at the beginning of the
American discontents: he was, therefore, an early and decided Whig; and
the same principles that induced him to become such, continued to
actuate him throughout the contest between the two countries.
The benignity of his temper must, nevertheless, have induced him to be
truly rejoiced at the return of peace. When that happy event took place,
he had too much goodness of heart to remember past injuries, too much
understanding to be influenced by unworthy and mischievous prejudices;
he had not a particle of malignity in his nature. At the period of the
Declaration of American Independence by Congress, he believed, with a
great majority of his countrymen, that necessity justified the
separation: and from that epocha, he was heartily disposed to hold the
mother-country, as his compatriots then declared they did the rest of
mankind,—“enemies in war, in peace friends.”
When the French revolution commenced, the benevolence of his feelings
led him to believe, as almost every American then did, that it would
meliorate the condition of a great nation, whose inhabitants constituted
a large portion of the population of the European world;—a nation,
which, by the rigourous policy of its government, under a long
succession of ambitious and arbitrary monarchs, anterior to the one then
on the tottering throne of that ill-fated country, had become extremely
corrupt among the higher orders of the people; and in which, the
inferior classes were subjected to great oppression. The American people
having, on their separation from the mother-country, instituted for
themselves, as an independent nation, a constitution wholly republican;
they were disposed to attribute the vices of the French government,
before the revolution, to the circumstance of its being a monarchy, and
the sufferings of the people of France, as necessarily resulting from
the monarchial system of rule over them. When, therefore, a republican
form of government was erected in France on the ruins of the throne; the
excesses, and even the atrocities of the people, which attended the
demolition of the ancient government of that country, and the
establishment of political institutions entirely new to its inhabitants,
found palliatives in the dispositions of most good men among us: they
were ascribed to the strong conflicting passions naturally produced
between the great body of the people, on the one part, and their rulers
on the other; excited by the long sufferings of the former, and an
unwillingness to part with power, in the latter. Great enormities were
considered as the inevitable consequences of these opposite interests,
when brought into action amidst a population of many millions of men,
whose national characteristic is that of levity of temper and vehement
passions; and a conflict, wherein all the malign dispositions of the
most depraved characters, actuated by motives the most flagitious,
intermingled themselves with the designs of those who meant well. Such
men, freed from all the restraints of government and law, and utterly
disregarding all the obligations of either religious or moral duties,
had then an opportunity of giving a full vent to their views, whether of
ambition, avarice or personal resentments; and they did not fail to
embrace it. While, on the one hand, demagogues fanned the popular flame
by the vilest artifices; put on the semblance of patriotism, and by
practising the most detestable hypocrisy, professed themselves to be the
friends of the people, whom they were deluding into premeditated ruin.
Even virtuous Frenchmen, and many of them possessing no inconsiderable
share of discernment, soon fell victims to the machiavelian policy of
these pretended patriots. These, in their turn, were sacrificed under
the denunciations of their compeers, or other aspiring villains; and
thus, others still in succession: until, finally, a fortunate military
usurper, restored the monarchy in his own person, with absolute sway;
and by substituting an horrible military despotism, in the place of a
most sanguinary anarchy, confounded all ranks of his subjects in one
vast mass of miserable slaves; who have been since employed in
destroying the peace, freedom and happiness of their fellow-men, in
other countries. Such have been, hitherto, the fruits of the French
revolution; from which, at its commencement, myriads of good men fondly
anticipated an issue precisely the reverse.[277]
-----
Footnote 277:
The deleterious, though—as it might almost be called—fascinating
influence, of the revolution undertaken by the people of France,
extended itself far and wide, prior to the murder of their king, even
in countries under the milder forms of government: many characters of
great worth were every where misled by the plausibility of the avowed
designs of its authors and supporters; and in no country was the
infatuation more general, than in the United States. In England
itself, it begat a kind of political frenzy; and, had not the wise and
salutary writings of the celebrated Burke arrested its progress, in
good time, the most fatal consequences must have ensued. Among the
literary and scientific men in Britain, who became deeply infected by
the revolution-mania of that day, was Dr. Erasmus Darwin, Miss Anna
Seward (one of his biographers) remarks, that the Doctor has
introduced into his _Botanic Garden_ an allegory, representing
_Liberty_ “as a great form, slumbering within the iron cage and marble
walls of the French Bastile, unconscious of his chains; till, touched
by the patriot flame, he rends his flimsy bonds, lifts his colossal
form, and rears his hundred arms over his foes; calls to the good and
brave of every country, with a voice that echoes like the thunder of
heaven to the polar extremities;
“Gives to the winds his banner broad, unfurl’d,
“And gathers in its shade the living world!”
In consequence of Darwin’s use of this grossly misapplied figure;—as
the issue of the French revolution too fatally proves it to have
been,—Miss Seward offers the following apology for the subject of her
friendly pen:
“This sublime sally of a too-confiding imagination, has made the poet
and his work countless foes. They triumphed over him,” says his fair
biographer, “on a result so contrary,—on the mortal wounds given by
French crimes to real Liberty. They forget, or choose to forget, that
this part of the poem (though published after the other) appeared in
1791, antecedent to the dire regicide, and to all those unprecedented
scenes of sanguinary cruelty inflicted on France, by three of her
republican tyrants; compared to whom, the most remorseless of her
monarchs was mild and merciful.”
-----
Notwithstanding the criminal excesses committed by many of the French
revolutionists, before the institution of their short lived and
turbulent republic, it was hoped by most true Americans, attached by
fidelity as well as principle to that system of government, which was
then the legitimate one in their own country, that its ultimate
establishment in France would produce permanent benefits, to that
country at least, which would infinitely overbalance what were
considered, by zealous republicans, as temporary and partial evils, such
as seemed to be unavoidable, in bringing about a radical change in the
fundamental institutions of a great and powerful empire. Many Americans
were not, indeed, so sanguine in their expectations: but such were,
nevertheless, the prevailing sentiments of the citizens of the United
States,—even among the best-informed men.
The deliberative and cautionary proceedings (as they purported to be) of
the more prominent revolutionary characters in France, in their minor
popular assemblies, prior to the establishment of their national
constitutional form of government, were judged of, in the United States,
with respect to their objects and utility, as similar assemblies, under
the denominations of councils of safety, committees of safety, &c. were
considered by their own citizens, at the commencement of the American
revolution: they were deemed to be necessary agents of the people in
each country, respectively, during the interregnum which succeeded the
abandonment of their ancient governments.
The Jacobin Club of Paris was one of these political engines of the
French revolution, for some time after its commencement; and, perhaps,
that assembly contained many worthy members, originally, although it
afterwards became notoriously infamous, by the monstrous enormity of the
crimes it countenanced and produced.
Chief Justice Marshall has observed (in his _Life of Washington_,) that
“soon after the arrival of Mr. Genet,[278] a Democratic Society was
formed in Philadelphia, which seems to have taken for its model the
Jacobin Club of Paris:”—“Its organization,” continues the historian,
“appears to have been completed on the 30th of May, 1793.”
-----
Footnote 278:
Mr. Genet arrived in Philadelphia the 16th of May, 1793; and in the
evening of the same day a meeting of the citizens was held at the
state-house, when a committee was appointed to draw up an address to
this minister from the republic of France: Mr. Rittenhouse was the
first named on that committee. At a meeting of the citizens held the
next day, he, as chairman of that committee, reported an address
accordingly; which, being adopted by the persons then assembled, was
presented to the new minister, the ensuing morning.
The president’s proclamation of neutrality had then been issued
between three and four weeks:[278a] the addressers therefore say,
keeping this in their view; “Earnestly giving to the national
exertions (of France) our wishes and our prayers, we cannot resist the
pleasing hope, that although America is not a party in the existing
war, she may still be able, in a state of peace, to demonstrate the
sincerity of her friendship, by affording very useful assistance to
her sister republic.”—The “useful assistance,” here alluded to, and
which it was supposed France might derive from this country, “in a
state of peace,” did not contemplate any infringement of the
neutrality of the United States: Nor could Mr. Genet, himself,
consider the language of the address in any other than its true sense;
for, in his extempore answer, (a written one was also returned,) he
says, “From the remote situation of America, and other circumstances,
France does not expect that America should become a party in the war;
but remembering that she has already combated for your liberties, (and
if it was necessary, and she had the power, would cheerfully again
enlist in your cause,) we hope, (and every thing I hear and see
assures me our hope will be realized,) that her citizens will be
treated as brothers, in danger and distress.” This declaration of the
French minister, made immediately after his arrival at the seat of the
American government, forbad the addressers to believe, that either he
or any other agent of the French government would afterwards undertake
to violate the neutrality of the United States.
Footnote 278a:
It is dated the 22d of April, 1793.
-----
It will nevertheless be recollected, that, about that period, the shock
given to the humane feelings of the American people, by the murder of
Louis XVI. their benefactor during the war in this country, and by the
death and sufferings of his queen and family, had mostly subsided. The
great American public still continued warmly and sincerely attached to
what was then viewed as the cause of the French people: and therefore,
whatever may have been the real design of setting up a Democratic
Society in Philadelphia, at that point of time—a design only known to
its founders,—it is certain, that many highly estimable and meritorious
citizens, and firm friends of the existing government, were elected
members of that society, without any previous intimation being given to
them of such an intention: some of those persons never attended any of
the meetings of the society; and others soon discontinued their
attendance. If it were actually formed on the model of the Jacobin Club
of Paris, by some of those with whom the scheme originated, it cannot be
rationally presumed that men of great purity of reputation, in public as
well as private life, would either seek admission into such an assembly,
knowing it had any criminal views; nor would they, if chosen members of
it without their knowledge and consent, participate in its proceedings,
should these be found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or dishonourable.
Yet it is a matter of notoriety, that persons of such characters were in
some instances enrolled among the members of the Democratic Society in
Philadelphia, at its commencement and soon after its organization, in
the spring of 1793.
It may be readily supposed, that such of its members as meant well,
would be desirous of placing at the head of that body, a man of
unimpeachable patriotism and integrity; and it is equally reasonable to
conclude, that, had there been a majority of its members, whose secret
designs were inimical to the true interest of the country or the
well-being of the government,—even these would wish to disguise their
intentions, under the nominal auspices of a character universally
respected and esteemed. Such a man was Dr. Rittenhouse; and therefore
was he selected by the Philadelphia Democratic Society, as their
President. At the time of his election to that station, he held the
highly important office of Director of the Mint, under a commission from
President Washington; for whose public and private character he always
entertained the most exalted respect, besides the personal regard, which
the writer of these Memoirs knows to have subsisted between them. It is
not presumable, taking all considerations into view, that Dr.
Rittenhouse suffered any serious diminution in the esteem of that
virtuous and discerning statesman, by the circumstance of the Doctor
being placed at the head of the Democratic Society: for he not only
continued to hold the Directorship of the Mint, but, when he offered his
resignation of that high trust, two years afterwards, the President’s
reluctance to accept it yielded only to the Doctor’s urgent solicitation
to decline a further continuance in the office.
Whatever, therefore, may have been the real views and intentions of some
of the members of the Democratic Society which was formed in
Philadelphia, in 1793,—even if those of a majority of their number were
highly unjustifiable,—no imputation, unfavourable to Dr. Rittenhouse’s
character, either as a good citizen or an upright man, could in the
smallest degree be attached to him, by reason of his having been chosen
a President of that body, at the time of its organization.[279]
-----
Footnote 279:
Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same licentious
writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist, declared, in
the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He asserted, not only
that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of the Democratic
Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed the
inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged the
malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the
“inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body,
on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse, but
by another person, as “President pro tem.”
-----
That Dr. Rittenhouse was a zealous advocate for the liberties of
mankind, is unquestionable: but, much as he abhorred slavery and
oppression of every kind, did he deprecate turbulence and licentiousness
in the people, and wars of ambition, avarice or injustice, undertaken by
their rulers. He was decidedly friendly to those measures of civil
government, which are best calculated to maintain order, tranquillity,
and safety in the state, on just and honourable principles. It can
scarcely be doubted by any one, intimately acquainted with his
character, that he must have concurred in sentiments similar to those
attributed by the biographer of Washington to that great man, or this
subject,—in the following observation: “Between a balanced republic and
a democracy the difference is like that between order and chaos. Real
liberty, he thought, was to be secured only by preserving the authority
of the laws, and maintaining the energy of government. Scarcely did
society present two characters which, in his opinion, less resembled
each other, than a patriot and a demagogue.”
Mr. Rittenhouse, it must be rationally supposed, was less acquainted
with mankind, than General Washington was known to be: he had much fewer
and more limited opportunities of studying human nature; and professions
of pretended patriots were, therefore, more likely to impose on the
unsuspecting honesty of his nature. He may even have been deceived, for
a while, and ere the plausible fallacies of theorists in matters of
civil polity, emanating from the philosophy of the French school, had
yet been manifested to the world. A practical philosopher himself, he
must have contemplated with pity, if not with indignation, the doctrines
of the followers of Pyrrho: with whom it was a fundamental principle,
that there is nothing that can be denominated true or false, right or
wrong, honest or dishonest, just or unjust; or, in other words, that
there is no standard beyond law or custom; and that uncertainty and
doubt are attached to all things. Nevertheless, on these doctrines of
the sceptical philosophers of antiquity are founded that monstrous and
wicked tenet of most of the modern sceptics, that _the end justifies the
means_!—a principle destructive of all the foundations of religion and
morals. Well might the Abbé le Blanc exclaim, when noticing this
mischievous sect of philosophers, seventy years ago,—“Is it not
surprising, that men should endeavour to acquire the esteem of the
public, by striving to break the most sacred band of all societies; in
declaring their opinion to others, that there is neither virtue nor
vice, truth nor doubt.”—“Our modern philosophers,”[280] says the learned
Abbé in another place, “have been _too confident_.”
-----
Footnote 280:
The Abbé le Blanc (or the writer who assumed that appellation) names,
of this metaphysical tribe, Hobbes, Lord Shaftesbury, Tindal and
Collins, all Englishmen; though his own country has long been the
superlatively prolific soil of infidelity in religion, and chimerical
theories in every department of science: such philosophers abound in
France. He observes very justly, however, that “there is nothing so
improperly made use of, as the name philosopher.” See _Le Blanc’s
Letters on the English and French Nations_.
-----
This is certainly correct, in one point of view; although the assertion
seems to imply a contradiction in terms, so far as it applies to the
metaphysical scepticism of many, assuming the honourable appellation of
Philosophers, without being entitled to the true character. What were
the sentiments of Dr. Rittenhouse, concerning the tenets of men of this
description, may be fairly inferred, not only from the manner in which
he has introduced the names of Berkeley and Hume into the Oration which
he pronounced before the Philosophical Society, in the year 1775, but
from other observations and reflexions contained in that discourse, as
well as from the general tenure of opinions expressed by him on various
occasions.
At an early period of the French revolution, a circumstance occurred,
which, from its connexion in some particulars with the life of our
Philosopher, is here entitled to notice.
On the 7th of August 1783, and after peace had been proclaimed, congress
unanimously passed a resolution in the following words——“Resolved, That
an equestrian statue of General Washington be erected at the place where
the residence of Congress shall be established;—that the statue be of
bronze: the General to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a
truncheon in his right hand, and his head, encircled with a laurel
wreath. The Statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to
be represented, in _basso relievo_, the following principal events of
the war, in which General Washington commanded in person: the evacuation
of Boston;—the capture of the Hessions, at Trenton;—the battle of
Princeton;—the action of Monmouth;—and the surrender of York.—On the
upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be engraved as follows: “The
United States in Congress assembled ordered this Statue to be erected,
in the year of our Lord 1783, in honour of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the
illustrious Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States of
America, during the war which vindicated and secured their Liberty,
Sovereignty and Independence.”[281]
-----
Footnote 281:
The legislature of Virginia, in their first session after the
resignation of the Commander in Chief, passed the following
resolution:—
“Resolved, that the executive be requested to take measures for
procuring a Statue of General Washington, to be of the finest marble
and best workmanship, with the following inscription on its pedestal.
“The general assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia have caused this
statue to be erected as a monument of affection and gratitude to
GEORGE WASHINGTON, who, uniting to the endowments of the HERO, the
virtues of the PATRIOT, and exerting both in establishing the
Liberties of his Country, has rendered his name dear to his
fellow-citizens, and given the world an immortal example of true
glory.”
This resolution was afterwards carried into effect: the statue which
it decreed was executed by Houdon, and occupies a conspicuous place,
in a spacious area in the centre of the capital at Richmond, in
Virginia.
-----
This was an honourable testimony of the gratitude and affectionate
respect of the nation, towards the Hero and Patriot, who so eminently
merited both; and it was a sincere effusion of the heart, in the
representatives of the American people, while the transcendent virtues
of a WASHINGTON, and his then recent services in his country’s cause,
yet inspired every generous breast with a faithful remembrance of his
worth: It was a laudable proof of the patriotism that actuated the
public mind, at a period, when, in the words of an enlightened
historian,[282] “the glow of expression in which the high sense
universally entertained of his services was conveyed, manifested a
warmth of feeling seldom equalled in the history of man.”
-----
Footnote 282:
Chief-Justice Marshall, in his _Life of George Washington_.
-----
The fascination which the revolution of France spread over a large
portion of Europe and America, for some time after its commencement, and
during the time it yet bore the semblance of a virtuous cause,—while it
seemed to enchant the true friends of freedom every where; and the
oft-resounded and captivating _name_ of “Liberty,” produced in men of
ardent tempers, and speculative notions, ideas of its _reality_ of the
most extravagant nature, and in numerous instances of very mischievous
tendency.
Among those of the latter description was Joseph Ceracchi, an Italian
artist of celebrity. Mr. Ceracchi was a statuary, of great eminence in
his profession; and to the manners and accomplishments of a gentleman,
he united much genius and taste. Though born and bred in the dominions
of the papal see, he fostered the principles of a republican. Conceiving
that the genius of a free government comported with these alone, he
became an enthusiastic admirer of the French _republic_. Finding the
turbulent state of France, at the beginning of her troubles,
unfavourable to the exercise of his art, in that country; and believing
as he did, that the tranquil and prosperous condition of the United
States would afford full employment for his talents, in a manner
congenial to his inclinations, as well as beneficial to his private
interest; he arrived, with his wife—a German lady of some distinction—at
Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government, sometime (it is
supposed) in the year 1793.
The great equestrian statue, which congress had, ten years before,
decreed to be erected in honour of General Washington, had not yet been
executed; and Mr. Ceracchi imagined that the gratitude of the American
republic would furnish, besides this primary work, ample scope for the
exercise of his talents, in erecting honorary memorials of some of the
more illustrious characters, which the American revolution had produced.
The aptitude, beauty and magnificence, which the artist designed to
display in some great public monuments of this kind, were exhibited in
models which he executed, for the purpose of testifying his abilities in
the art he professed: these were universally admired, as the productions
of superior genius, taste and skill. Yet Mr. Ceracchi remained
unemployed: the national council did not, even at that late day, avail
themselves of so favourable an opportunity of engaging him to erect the
statue _decreed_ to WASHINGTON,—a work which continues unexecuted at the
present moment[283]! and the talents of that eminent artist were, not
long afterwards, for ever lost to the country.
-----
Footnote 283:
“If the example of all the republics that have preceded us did not
authorize the hope, that history will not find us guilty of
ingratitude, but only of delay, the national neglect of the memory of
Washington would be sufficient to repress every sentiment of
patriotism and public spirit. Of this neglect, aggravated by the
solemn steps taken by congress to obtain a right to remove the body of
the Founder of our Liberties to a place of public and honourable
sepulture, and the abandonment of that right when obtained, it is
painful to speak—nor is it necessary. There is not wanting a general
sentiment of the disgrace which the nation suffers, while the body of
Washington rests upon a trussle, crouded into a damp and narrow vault,
in which the rapid decay of the wooden support must in a few years
mingle his ashes with those of his worthy but unknown relations.
Exertions not altogether worthy of the object, but such as the present
fashion of finance authorizes, are made, to give to his memory that
honour in other cities, which is denied him in the metropolis of the
Union.” [See the _Ann. Oration delivered before the Society of
Artists, in Philadelphia, in May, 1811, by B. H. Latrobe, Esq._]
-----
Among the gentlemen with whom Mr. Ceracchi became acquainted, in
Philadelphia, were some members of the Philosophical Society in that
city; and, on their recommendation of him, he was, himself, soon
associated with this institution.
In this body, as the Writer believes, Dr. Rittenhouse acquired a
knowledge of Mr. Ceracchi’s person and character. Both Dr. and Mrs.
Rittenhouse, from their kind and unceasing attentions to this gentleman
and his wife, appear to have considered them as persons of merit: the
Doctor, particularly, by his friendly deportment towards the husband,
during the time he continued his residence in this country, testified
the esteem he had conceived for this ingenious foreigner; heightened
too, perhaps, by a delicate sensibility towards him, on account of the
disappointment in his expectations of public patronage in his
profession, which he experienced while here. For it is known to the
Memorialist, that when, in consequence of such disappointment, Mr.
Ceracchi became embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, Dr. Rittenhouse
contributed liberally to his relief.
Some time in the summer of the year 1794 (if the Writer’s recollection
be correct,) our benevolent philosopher having occasion to view the
canal, intended to form a communication between the waters of the
Delaware and the Schuylkill, invited Mr. Ceracchi to accompany him, for
the purpose of examining the quality of the marble in the great quarries
of that material, situated near the margin of the latter river, in the
vicinity of the western end of the canal. The Memorialist joined in this
little excursion, during which, Dr. Rittenhouse was, as usual,
communicative, cheerful and instructive.
On inspecting the quarries just mentioned—so far as time then permitted
an examination of them,—Mr. Ceracchi seemed to think they contained only
laminated strata of stone; not massy blocks, without fissures or veins,
like the marbles of Carrara, and those in some other parts of Europe:
that, although this Schuylkill marble was generally of a good quality
and of a whiteness sufficiently pure, it could not be obtained in masses
thick enough for the larger subjects of fine statuary. Yet this artist
observed, that a large proportion of the slabs appeared to be of
dimensions suitable for various subjects of sculpture; and more
especially, that they furnished an excellent material for many purposes,
ornamental as well as useful, in public edifices and other
structures[284]. No other quarries of marble were viewed, on this
excursion: but it is probable Mr. Ceracchi would have found the marbles
of Hitner’s and Henderson’s quarries—which are at nearly the same
distance from Philadelphia, though not situated very near the river
Schuylkill—much better adapted in every respect, to the uses he
contemplated. This unfortunate man appeared to have possessed, in
addition to genius and fine professional talents, the exalted virtue of
gratitude. Dr. Rittenhouse was his benefactor; and the Philosophical
Society had elected him a member of their body: a fine bust of the
Philosopher in the antique style, was executed by Ceracchi in white
marble, and by him presented to the Society, on the 6th of February,
1795. It is supposed that he left America about twelve months after this
date; and it is said, that he afterwards perished on a scaffold, in
Paris, in consequence of its being alleged, that he was engaged in a
conspiracy against the life of Bonaparte.
Footnote 284:
Mr. B. H. Latrobe, in speaking of the great improvement in
architecture recently manifested in Philadelphia, notices the peculiar
advantages derived to that city, from the valuable marbles in its
vicinity. “The beautiful marble,” says he, “with which this
neighbourhood abounds, and the excellence of all other building
materials, give to Philadelphia great advantages in this branch of the
fine arts.” (See Mr. Latrobe’s _Annual Oration_, delivered before the
_Society of Artists, in Philadelphia_, May 8th, 1811.) The correct
taste and superior skill of this gentleman, as an Architect and Civil
Engineer, are well known in the United States. In Philadelphia, _the
Bank of Pennsylvania_ will, more especially, remain a lasting monument
of his talents in architectural science, as well as of the excellent
quality of the marble (for such purposes) of which that edifice is
constructed.
-----
In the spring of the year 1794, the Earl of Buchan, P. S. S. A. and
James Anderson, LL. D. both distinguished characters in Scotland, were
elected members of the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia:
and it appears probable, from a note addressed to Dr. Rittenhouse by
President Washington, that they had been put in nomination, or, at
least, that their election had been advocated by the former, at the
instance of the latter; the note is in these words—
“The President presents his compliments to Mr. Rittenhouse, and thanks
him for the attention he has given to the case of Mr. Anderson and the
Earl of Buchan.
“Sunday afternoon, 20th April, 1794.”
At the commencement of the following year, Lord Buchan[285] wrote to Dr.
Rittenhouse the following letter:
“_Dryburgh Abbey, Jan. 12, 1795._
“Sir,
“My worthy friend, Mr. John Miller, son of the eminent professor, John
Miller, of Glasgow, whom I recommend to your attention, has charged
himself with this letter, and will deliver to you a Writing-Box, which
I dedicate to your use, as President of the Philosophical Society at
Philadelphia, and to your successors in office, as a testimony of my
high esteem for your literary character and for that of the Society
over which you preside.
“This Box is made of Yew, of Black Cherry tree, and Acacia and
Barberry, and veneered with Holly; all the growth of my garden at this
place, and joined, fitted and finished, by my own joiner, in this
house.
“On the lid is an authentic picture of Copernicus, and in the inside
thereof is a similar one of Napier. That of Copernicus is from the
accurate copy of the Chancellor Hupazzuoski’s original picture, which
was sent by the learned Dr. Wolf, of Dantzic, to the Royal Society of
London; and this limning of mine is most faithfully delineated and
shaded, from a drawing made by Mr. Thomas Parke, of Picadilly,
formerly a pupil of Valentine Green, engraver at London, from the
picture in the Royal Society, on a scale proportional in all parts and
with great fidelity; so that I can assure you of my limning being a
fac simile, as to the features and countenance. That of Napier[286] is
indeed a most exquisitely beautiful piece, by John Brown, of
Edinburgh, executed with the black-lead pencil, from an original
portrait in the possession of Lord Napier; and, as a drawing with
black-lead, excels, I believe, every thing of the kind now extant: Mr.
Brown having by drawing, during twelve years in Italy, from statues,
obtained a super-eminent accuracy and beauty of design.
“I consecrate this interesting piece of furniture to American Science,
and to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia: willing, however,
that in consideration of the high esteem I bear to you personally, you
should have the custody and use of it in your own house, during your
life; producing it only to the Society for the use of the Secretary,
when you think proper. I have subjoined by way of postscript to this
letter, some particulars relating to the Residence of Copernicus, and
his Tomb; which I wish you to communicate to our Society.[287]
“Permit me to repeat my earnest request, that you should be kind and
attentive to the Bearer (and his Family,) who I hope will have the
happiness to obtain a literary establishment in the United States, and
prove of much utility to the public. I am, Sir, with esteem, your
obliged humble servant—
BUCHAN.”
“DR. RITTENHOUSE, Pres. of the Am. Phil. Society.”
-----
Footnote 285:
The Right Hon. David Stewart Erskine, is the present Earl.
Footnote 286:
John Napier, called Baron of Merchiston, in Scotland, was the eldest
son of Sir Archibald Napier, of Merchiston, and was born in the year
1550. As Lalande, in his _Astronomie_, observes—“he deserves to be
celebrated in a book on Astronomy, for his invention of Logarithms,
which he published in 1614. He had,” continues Mr. Lalande, “at first
concealed the principle of this discovery: but Kepler soon penetrated
it; and the son of Napier, in an edition of his father’s work, which
he published, explained the ground of the principles.”
The son here mentioned, Sir Archibald, was promoted to the peerage by
Car. I. in the year 1657, and was ancestor of the present Lord Napier.
An account of the Life and Writings of the Inventor of Logarithms was
published by the Earl of Buchan. W. B.
Footnote 287:
See this Postscript, in the Appendix.
-----
This really “interesting piece of furniture” was viewed by Dr.
Rittenhouse and the Philosophical Society, in the light it was intended
to be,—as a mark of the Donor’s good-will towards this institution, and
of his respect for the character of its President. The Box has been
disposed of, agreeably to his Lordship’s desire: it is inserted in the
list of Donations to the Society, prefixed to the fourth volume of their
Transactions, under the date of May 15, 1795, and it is, at present,
deposited in their Hall.
The friendship that subsisted between Dr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Jefferson,
was produced, in a great measure, by the congeniality of these gentlemen
in the concerns of science. The correct and penetrating mind of the
former knew how to estimate at their just value, without over-rating
them, the literary and scientific acquirements of the latter; while, on
the other hand, this last was fully capable of discerning the sublime
genius and most extraordinary talents of that man whom he greatly
admired. While Mr. Jefferson resided in Philadelphia, as secretary of
State, he made frequent visits to Dr. Rittenhouse: he thus became
intimately acquainted with his character, for which he conceived the
highest respect; and, as a mark of his esteem for him, he presented him
with his own bust, in the costume of the day, cast in plaster, from one
in marble executed by Houdon, of Paris.
Mr. Jefferson has testified to the world the exalted opinion he
entertained of our Philosopher. In his refutation of the Count de
Buffon’s preposterous theory, “of the tendency of nature to _belittle_
her productions on this side the Atlantic,” he makes the following
remarks, on the assertion of another French philosopher[288]—that
America has not produced “one able mathematician, one man of genius in a
single art or a single science:”—“In war,” says Mr. Jefferson, “we have
produced a WASHINGTON, whose memory will be adored while liberty shall
have votaries, whose name will triumph over time, and will in future
ages assume its just station among the most celebrated worthies of the
world: when that wretched philosophy shall be forgotten, which would
have arranged him among the degeneracies of nature. In physics,“
continues Mr. Jefferson, “we have produced a FRANKLIN, than whom no one
of the present age has made more important discoveries, nor has enriched
philosophy with more, or more ingenious solutions of the phænomena of
nature.—We have supposed Mr. RITTENHOUSE second to no astronomer living:
that in genius, he must be the first, because he is self-taught. As an
artist he has exhibited as great a proof of mechanical genius, as the
world has ever produced. He has not indeed made a world; but he has by
imitation approached nearer its Maker, than any man who has lived from
the creation to this day.”[289]
-----
Footnote 288:
The Abbé Raynal. The Count de Buffon had conceived an opinion, which
he endeavoured to establish by ill-founded arguments, that the animals
common both to the Old and the New World, are smaller in the latter:
that those peculiar to the New World, are on a smaller scale: that
those which have been domesticated in both hemispheres, have
degenerated in America: and, that, on the whole, this portion of the
world exhibits fewer species. But Raynal went further: he has applied
this “new theory” (as Mr. Jefferson calls it) of the ingenious French
Naturist, to the race of men, descendants of Europeans, in America.
Mr. Jefferson has shewn the erroneousness of these theories, founded
on palpably mistaken facts.
Footnote 289:
See Jefferson’s _Notes on Virginia_, written in the year 1781.
-----
Mr. Jefferson retained the highest esteem for Dr. Rittenhouse, during
his life; and it is believed this sentiment was mutual. Letters of
friendship were occasionally interchanged by them: part of one of the
latest of these, is as follows:
“_Monticello, Feb. 24, 1795._
“Dear Sir,
....[290]
“I am here immersed in the concerns of a farmer, and more interested
and engrossed by them, than I had ever conceived it possible. They in
a great degree render me indifferent to my books, so that I read
little and ride much; and I regret greatly the time I have suffered
myself to waste from home. To this, indeed, is added another kind of
regret, for the loss of society with the worthy characters with which
I became acquainted, in the course of my wanderings from home. If I
had but Fortunatus’s wishing cap, to seat myself sometimes by your
fireside, and to pay a visit to Dr. Priestly, I would be contented:
his writings evince, that he must be a fund of instruction, in
conversation, and his character an object of attachment and
veneration.
“Be so good as to present my best respects to Mrs. Rittenhouse; and to
accept, yourself, assurances of the high esteem of, dear sir, your
sincere friend and humble servant,
“TH. JEFFERSON.
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.”
-----
Footnote 290:
A considerable portion of this letter, in the beginning, is occupied
with matters of business.
-----
At this time, Dr. Rittenhouse still held the Directorship of the Mint,
though he resigned it a few months after; and from that period, his
health being then much on the decline, he seemed to be desirous of
passing the remainder of his days in tranquillity, and an abstraction
from all business and severe studies, in the society of his family and
a few particular friends. He now received numerous proofs of the
affectionate respect and high consideration, in which his person and
character were held; both among his own countrymen and in foreign
nations. Many of his fellow-citizens were assiduous in their
attentions to him: they frequently visited him; and, when he was
suffering in his health, he experienced repeated acts of friendship
and kindness:—President Washington often made calls upon him, and
enquiries concerning his health; and among his other friends, the late
Mr. Henry Hill and Mr. Robert Morris manifested towards him the
kindest attentions.
In the spring of the year 1795, our amiable Philosopher was admitted a
member of the Royal Society of London. He was apprized of this new mark
of distinction conferred on him, by the following note, addressed to him
by Phineas Bond, Esq. late the British Consul, resident in Philadelphia.
“_Chesnut Street, 15th June, 1795._
“Mr. Bond has the honour to inform Mr. Rittenhouse, that he has
received a letter from his friend Mr. George Chalmers, of the office
of the Lords of the Committee of Council for Trade, &c. at White-hall,
in which he requests him to apprize Mr. R. of his election as a Fellow
of the Royal Society of London, which took place on the 23d of April.
“Mr. B. begs leave to congratulate Mr. R. on this new honour, to which
his merits, as a Philosopher, so eminently entitle him.
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE, ESQ.”
It was not until towards the close of the summer, that Dr. Rittenhouse
received the certificate of his Fellowship, in the Royal Society. His
Diploma, for this honour, bears date the 16th of April, 1795;[291] and
was accompanied by the following letter:
“Sir,
“Having the honour to transmit to you the Diploma of your election
into the Royal Society, as a foreign Member, I beg leave to
congratulate you on this proof of the high esteem in which you are
held by that illustrious body. I have the honour to be, with the
greatest respect, Sir, your most obedient and very humble servant.
“CHARLES PETER LAYARD.
“R. Society’s Apartments, Somerset Place,
“London, July 3d, 1795.”
The Royal Society of London has dealt out the honour of Fellowship with
a sparing hand, to foreigners; and very few Americans have been admitted
into that body, at any time: the Writer does not recollect any others
than Dr. Franklin, Dr. Johnson, formerly of Connecticut, and the late
Dr. Morgan and Mr. John Bartram, of Philadelphia, who were Fellows of
the Royal Society before the American revolution; and since that period,
he believes Dr. Rittenhouse to have been one of but two or three native
Americans who have borne that mark of distinction.
-----
Footnote 291:
Mr. Bond must have been mistaken, in the date he has assigned to the
election of Dr. Rittenhouse; or, perhaps, the date of the diploma has
reference to the time of nomination: the variance in these dates is,
however, unimportant.
The diploma, which is in Latin, being done on copper-plate, is in the
usual form. It has the signatures of eight of the Fellows of the
Society, besides those of the President and one of the
Vice-Presidents.
-----
Soon after Dr. Rittenhouse became associated with that illustrious band
of scientific men, a letter was written to him by Mr. Lalande, the
celebrated Astronomer of France; of which the following translation is
given in this place, as it will be perused with interest by the reader
versed in astronomy.
“_Paris, at the College of France, May 14th, 1795._
“It is a long time, my dear Associate, since I have heard from you:
but Mr. Adet, our worthy ambassador, will probably procure for me that
satisfaction. You will see by the little history which I send you,
that the troubles of the revolution have not impaired my labours; and
that I have, now, twenty-seven thousand stars, observed.
“I have seen with great pleasure, in the transactions of your
Philosophical Society, the annular eclipse of 1791:[292] I have
calculated the conjunction 7^h 42′ 19″; but I have been obliged to
take one minute from the phases of the ring, and to suppose {6^h 49′
30″} / {6^h 53′ 47″}, in order to agree, either with your end of the
eclipse, or the difference of meridians, already known with sufficient
accuracy by the transit of Venus, which gives 9^h 10′ 6″; and your
eclipse gives, 9^h 10′ 3″, or 5^h 0′ 43″ in relation to Greenwich.
“What has given me still greater pleasure, is, that the duration of
the ring, as you observed it, agrees very well with the diameters of
the Sun and of the Moon, which T have adopted in the third edition of
my _Astronomy_ (1792), and the diminutions that I there propose for
eclipses; viz. 3″½ to be taken from the diameter of the Sun, and 2″
from that of the Moon.[293]
“I pray you to make many compliments for me, to the astronomers whom I
know, in your country, Mr. Willard at Beverley and Mr. Williams at
Cambridge: Is there any other astronomer, now, who applies himself
seriously to astronomy? I greet you with health and brotherhood.
“LALANDE.
“Professor of Astronomy, and Inspector of the
College of France,[294] Cambray Place.“
-----
Footnote 292:
The continuation of the 6th volume of the American Philosophical
Transactions (published in 1809) contains various observations on the
Annular Eclipse of the 3d of April, 1791, made at Greenwich, Paris,
Cambridge in New-England, Philadelphia, and George-Town in Maryland. A
recapitulation of the results of the longitudes of Philadelphia and
Cambridge, west from Paris, is made from the Transit of Venus, in
1769; the Transits of Mercury, in 1782 and 1789; this Annular Eclipse
of the Sun, in 1791, and a Solar Eclipse, in 1806; the mean results of
which, give
The Long. of Philadelphia, W. from Paris, 5^h 10′. 01″,2
Do. of Cambridge, Do. 4. 53. 53
These observations were communicated to the Philosophical Society by
Don Joseph J. Ferrer, of Cadiz, a very respectable astronomer, and a
foreign member of the Am. Philos. Society.
Footnote 293:
In the annular eclipse of the sun, on the 3d of April, 1791, as
observed at Philadelphia by Mr. Rittenhouse, the formation of the ring
is stated at 6^h 46′ 11½″ A. M. true time; and its rupture, at 6^h 50′
28″. “I have,” says Mr. Lalande (in his _Additions_, 1797,) “reduced
the conjunction of it to 7^h 41′ 19″, and the difference of meridians
5^h 10′ 3″, greater by 7″ than that given by Mr. Rittenhouse. This
duration of the ring, gives for the latitude in conjunction 44′ 57″,
which confirms the value of the diameters of the sun and of the moon,
that I have given in the 3d edition of my _Astronomy_, and the
diminution that I make in the eclipses, 3½″ for the ray of the sun,
and 2″ for that of the moon. I have subtracted one minute of the time
marked in the third volume of the Transactions of the Society of
Philadelphia, for the formation and the rupture of the ring; but this
correction was pointed out to me by the termination of the eclipse, as
well as by the difference of meridians, which was ascertained by the
Transit of Venus over the Sun.”
Footnote 294:
Mr. Lalande was first appointed to that station, in the year 1761.
“The College of France,” heretofore styled “The Royal College of
France,” was originally founded in the year 1530, by Francis I. but
letters patent were issued in favour of it in 1772, by the unfortunate
Louis XVI. The present edifice, finished in 1775, gave new activity to
the ancient establishment; and Lalande viewed it, when he wrote his
_Astronomie_, as having been one of the best schools in the world for
the sciences, but principally for astronomy.
-----
The mind of Dr. Rittenhouse, ever intent on doing, good, was always
zealously engaged on occasions which afforded him opportunities of
contributing to the rewards of merit and the promotion of beneficial
establishments, or useful undertakings of any kind.
Such an occasion presented itself, at the close of the year 1795. His
nephew Dr. B. S. Barton, to whom he was attached by the strongest ties
of friendship, then held the Professorship of Botany and Natural History
in the University of Pennsylvania: but a vacancy being at that time
expected in the chair of the Materia Medica, which branch of medicine
was then taught by Dr. Samuel Powell Griffitts, Dr. Rittenhouse exerted
himself to obtain that appointment for his nephew; upon whom it was
conferred soon after, in conjunction with the chair he already occupied.
With a view to the gratification of his anxious wishes, in the
attainment of this object, Dr. Rittenhouse addressed himself personally
to some of his colleagues in the board of trustees of the University:
and to Dr. M‘Kean, president of that board, he wrote the following
letter[295] on the subject.
-----
Footnote 295:
The original letter was politely presented to the author, by his
venerable friend, the profound Lawyer and distinguished Patriot to
whom it was addressed. On that occasion, Governor M‘Kean expressed
himself in terms of the highest respect and kindest regard for the
memory of Dr. Rittenhouse, as one of his friends, whom, while living,
he greatly valued for his talents and esteemed for his virtues.
-----
“_Philadelphia, Dec. 26th, 1795._
“Dear Sir,
“I am informed that Dr. Griffitts intends to resign his
Professorship in the University, sometime this winter. On this
occasion, I beg leave to recommend to your favourable notice my
nephew, Dr. Barton. He certainly has abilities sufficient to enable
him to be useful in any branch of medicine, and ambition enough to
induce him to make the greatest exertions: Besides, the Materia Medica
seems so nearly connected with Botany and Natural History, his
favourite studies, that I flatter myself he will be successful in his
intended application to the honourable Board of Trustees; yet I am
certain this will much depend on your interest. I am, Dear Sir, with
the sincerest affection and esteem, your most obedient Servant,
“DAVID RITTENHOUSE.[296]
(Superscribed.)
“Hon. Thomas M‘Kean, LL. D.
Chief Justice of Pennsylvania.”
-----
Footnote 296:
Dr. Rush has observed, in his _Eulogium_ on Rittenhouse, that “There
was no affectation of singularity in any thing he said or did. Even
his hand-writing,” said he, “in which this weakness so frequently
discovers itself, was simple and intelligible at first sight, to all
who saw it.” As a specimen of this, a _fac simile_ of the letter in
the text is presented to the reader.
-----
[Illustration: letter]
The affectionate regard and high respect which Professor Barton
uniformly cherished for the person and character of this worthy
relative,—who, on all occasions, evinced himself to be his sincere
friend,—cannot be better manifested, than by citing his own words. In
his dedication to Dr. Rittenhouse, of a dessertation, entitled, _A
Memoir concerning the fascinating faculty which has been ascribed to the
Rattle-Snake and other American Serpents_, is this passage—“In
inscribing this Memoir to you, dear sir, I follow the regular course of
my feelings, which, when I have received acts of friendship or kindness,
ever lead me to acknowledge them. Whilst your example early implanted in
me an ardent love of science, the assistance which you afforded me, by
removing many of the obstacles that have opposed my advancement in life,
has enabled me to devote a portion of my time to the cultivation of
science; and thereby to increase the quantity of my happiness:” This was
written just four months before the decease of our Philosopher. And in a
subsequent inscription by the same gentleman,—that of his _New Views of
the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America_,—dedicated to Mr.
Jefferson, and dated about a year after that event, he says: “The only
dedications I ever wrote, were to two persons[297] whom I greatly
esteemed and loved; the last, to a common friend, whose virtues and
science endeared him to his country, and whose removal from us, we shall
long have reason to deplore.”
-----
Footnote 297:
The first of these, in the order of time, was his eldest brother, the
writer of these memoirs; the other was his uncle, Dr. Rittenhouse.
-----
Soon after Dr. Priestley’s arrival in Pennsylvania, our Philosopher
became personally acquainted with him, and presently conceived for his
fellow-labourer in science a sincere esteem. This was reciprocal; and,
therefore, while the celebrated English philosopher remained in
Philadelphia, and also when he occasionally visited that city after his
removal to the town of Northumberland on the Susquehanna, he passed much
of his time in Dr. Rittenhouse’s family. So far as the pursuits of these
gentlemen, in matters of science, were congenial—for, in some respects
they were very dissimilar,—their opinions appeared to harmonize with
each other: but, how far their sentiments accorded on other subjects, or
whether at all, the Writer cannot undertake to pronounce; not possessing
the necessary means to enable him to do so with a sufficient degree of
certainty. Dr. Rittenhouse’s intercourse with Dr. Priestley, either
personal or epistolary, was, however, of short duration; being
terminated by the death of the former, in little more than two years
after the latter first came to Philadelphia. One of the last interviews
which Dr. Rittenhouse had with his friend Priestley, was very shortly
before our philosopher’s death: he was one of a select few whom the
writer had the pleasure of meeting at Dr. Rittenhouse’s, to dine, on the
18th of March, 1796.
That learned and eminent foreigner,—for Dr. Priestley never became a
naturalized citizen of the United States,—died at Northumberland in
Pennsylvania, at an advanced age, on the 6th day of February 1804.
The scanty remnant of life that yet remained to the great American
Astronomer and Mathematician, was neither uselessly, nor altogether
unpleasantly employed. In this interval of time, short as it was, such
portions of it as afforded him some respite from sickness and pain, were
either devoted to the society of his family and friends, or occupied in
study. From these sources of rational enjoyment, be derived much
comfort; and the solace he drew from them, was greatly heightened by the
endearing attentions, which, amidst the rapid decline of his health and
strength, he experienced, in an eminent degree, in the bosom of his
affectionate family and some surrounding relatives. He was fully
sensible of the approaching crisis of his disease; and he appeared to be
quite prepared to meet the awful stroke, with the fortitude which a
retrospective view of a well-spent life would naturally inspire; as well
as with the resignation, which an entire confidence in the goodness, the
wisdom, and the mercy of his omnipotent Creator, taught him to be a
duty. His elevated conceptions of the Deity, together with his decided
belief of the immortality of the soul, according at the same time with
the doctrines of a pure religion, animated him with the stedfast hope of
an happy futurity, worthy of a Christian and a Philosopher. His intimate
knowledge of the sublimest works of creation, rendered him highly
sensible of the wisdom and power of the Great Supreme; while that
knowledge, aided by the lights furnished by the Christian dispensation,
led him to ascribe suitable attributes to the Author of Nature,—a Being
infinitely good, as well as perfect: for, as he once familiarly
expressed himself,[298] he was “firmly persuaded, that we are not at the
disposal of a Being, who has the least tincture of ill-nature, or
requires any in us.”[299]
-----
Footnote 298:
In a letter written to the Rev. Mr. Barton, in Sept. 1755, when the
writer was little more than twenty-three years of age.
Footnote 299:
The extract from a letter to one of his friends, which Dr. Rush has
quoted in his _Eulogium_ on Rittenhouse, furnishes additional
testimony, if, indeed, any were wanting, of the exalted sense of
Divine Goodness, that was entertained by our pious philosopher: “Give
me leave,” says he, “to mention two or three proofs of infinite
Goodness, in the works of Creation. The first is, possessing goodness
in ourselves. Now it is inconsistent with all just reasoning to
suppose, that there is any thing good, lovely or praiseworthy, in us,
which is not possessed in an infinitely higher degree by that Being
who first called us into existence. In the next place, I reckon the
exquisite and innocent delight, that many things around us are
calculated to afford us. In this light, the beauty and fragrance of a
single rose is a better argument for Divine Goodness, than a luxuriant
field of wheat. For, if we can suppose that we were created by a
malevolent Being, with a design to torment us for his amusement, he
must have furnished us with the means of subsistence, and either have
made our condition tolerable, or not have left the means of quitting
it at pleasure, in our own power. Such being my opinions, you will not
wonder at my fondness for what Mr. Addison calls _The Pleasures of
Imagination_: they are all, to me, so many demonstrations of Infinite
Goodness.”
That such were also the sentiments of one of the greatest philosophers
of the seventeenth century, a man alike celebrated as a profound
Mathematician, and a learned and pious Divine, is apparent from the
following passage, in the first of Dr. Barrow’s two _Discourses on the
Goodness of God_.
“Every pleasant object we view, every sweet and savoury morsel we
taste, every fragrancy we smell, every harmony we hear; the wholesome,
the cheering, the useful, yea, the innocent and inoffensive qualities
of every thing we do use and enjoy,” said this excellent person, “are
so many conspicuous arguments of Divine Goodness.”
-----
It is an observation of a judicious biographer,[A] that “nothing can
awaken the attention, nothing affect the heart of man, more strongly,
than the behaviour of eminent personages in their last moments; in that
only scene of life where we are all sure, later or sooner, to resemble
them.” The writer of these Memoirs feels a sort of pensive
gratification, in having it in his power to announce the manner in which
the great American Astronomer deported himself, during the closing scene
of his life: The following information on this head, was communicated by
the writer’s brother, Professor Barton, the deceased’s nephew and
friend,—for some years, also, his family-physician; and who, in his
medical capacity, attended him in the whole of his last illness.
-----
Footnote A:
Mr. Mallet, in his Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon.
-----
---
“The last visit I ever received from Mr. Rittenhouse was about the
middle of June, 1796. He called at my humble habitation in Fifth street,
to inquire about my health, and to learn from me the result of the
experiments and inquiries in which he knew I was, at this time engaged,
concerning the mode of generation and gestation of our opossum, an
animal to whose economy and manners he had himself paid some attention,
and whose history he justly considered one of the most interesting in
the whole range of zoology.
“It was on this occasion, that our excellent friend first informed me,
that he had received a diploma from the Royal Society. He observed, with
a tone of voice and with a certain expression of countenance, which were
not calculated to afford me any pleasure, “that a few years ago, such a
mark of respect from that illustrious body would have been received by
him with pleasure and with pride.”
“In fact, Mr. Rittenhouse, now and for some months past, was strongly
impressed with the idea, that his career of usefulness and virtue was
nearly at an end. He had several times, during the preceding part of the
spring and summer, intimated to me (and doubtless to others of his
friends) his impressions on this head. In what precise condition of his
system, whether physical or intellectual, these impressions were
founded, I have only been able to form a distant, and unsatisfactory
conjecture.
“A few days after this interview, viz. on the 22d of June, I was sent
for to visit Mr. Rittenhouse. I found him in his garden, where he loved
to walk, and soon learned that he laboured under a severe attack of
cholera, accompanied, however, with more fever than we generally find
with this disease; and with a great increase of that violent pain and
sense of oppression at the region of his stomach, to which he had been
subject for at least thirty years. Notwithstanding his age, the debility
of his system, and the unfavourable state of the season, I ventured to
flatter myself, that the attack would not prove mortal. On the following
day, however, finding him no better, but rather worse, I requested
permission to call in the aid of another physician; and having mentioned
the name of Dr. Adam Kuhn, that gentleman accordingly visited our
friend, in company with me, during the remainder of his illness.
His febrile symptoms being very urgent, it was thought necessary to
bleed our patient; and notwithstanding his great and habitual repugnance
to the practice on former occasions, he now readily consented to the
operation, on condition that I would perform it myself. The blood which
was drawn, exhibited a pretty strong inflammatory crust; and the
operation seemed to give him a temporary relief from his pain. Soon
after this, his strength gradually declined; and on the third day of his
illness, it was but too obvious, that our illustrious relative was soon
to be separated from his friends. He expired without a struggle, and in
the calmest manner, ten minutes before two o’clock on the morning of
Sunday the 26th, in the presence of his youngest daughter, Mrs. Waters,
and myself. His excellent wife, who had ever been assiduous in her
attention on her husband, both in sickness and in health, had retired
from his chamber about two hours before, unable to support the awful
scene of expiring genius and virtue.
“There can be no doubt, I think, that Mr. Rittenhouse, from the first
invasion of his disease, or at least from the day when he was confined
to his bed or room, entertained but little hopes of his recovery. He
signed his will in my presence. He discovered no more solicitude about
his situation, than it is decorous and proper in every good or great man
to feel, when in a similar situation. During the greater part of his
illness, he manifested the most happy temperament of mind: and it was
only in the last hour or two of his life, that his powerful intellects
were disturbed by a mild delirium. About eight hours before he died, the
pain in the region of his stomach being unusually severe, a poultice
composed of meal and laudanum was applied to the part. In less than two
hours after the application, I called to see him, and upon asking him if
he did not feel easier, he calmly answered, in these memorable words,
which it is impossible for me to forget,—for they were the last he ever
distinctly uttered, and they make us acquainted with the two most
important features in his religious creed,—“Yes, you have made the way
to God easier!”
“Such were the dying words, as it were, of our illustrious relative and
friend. He was dear to us both, to all his relatives and friends; and to
his country. To me, let me add, he was _peculiarly_ dear. The most happy
and profitable hours of my life were passed in the society of this
virtuous man. I followed his foot-steps in the wilderness of our
country, where he was the first to carry the telescope, and to mark the
motions and positions of the planets. In the bosom of his family, I
listened to his lessons, as an humble disciple of Socrates, or Plato.
Science mixed with virtue was ever inculcated from his lips.—But to me,
Mr. Rittenhouse was more than a friend and preceptor. He was a father
and supporter. He laid the foundation of what little prosperity in life
I now, or may in future, enjoy: and if it shall ever be my fortune,
either by my labours or my zeal, to advance the progress of science, or
to reflect any honour upon my country, I should be the most ungrateful
of men, if I did not acknowledge, and wish it to be known, that it was
DAVID RITTENHOUSE who enabled me to be useful.”
---
Such was the death of DAVID RITTENHOUSE,—soon after his entrance into
the sixty-fifth year of his age:—“Thus, with a heart overflowing with
love to his family, friends, country, and to the whole world, he
peacefully resigned his spirit into the hands of his God.”[300] Thus did
his immortal soul gently pass away, from this transitory but variegated
scene; from a theatre of mingled afflictions and comforts, of privations
and enjoyments, of absolute certainty with respect to the
non-continuance of this state, and of equal incertitude as to our
possible knowledge of the term of its duration:—And it is most
confidently believed, that his departed spirit, while yet hovering on
the confines of time, devoutly relied on being “promoted to a more
exalted rank among the creatures of God.”[301]
-----
Footnote 300:
Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.
Footnote 301:
Ibid.
-----
THE CONCLUSION:
COMPREHENDING
A RETROSPECT OF THE LIFE
OF
DAVID RITTENHOUSE,
WITH
A DELINEATION OF HIS CHARACTER.
“It has been the fashion of late years,” says his eloquent
Eulogist,[302] “to say of persons who had been distinguished in
life,—when they left the world in a state of indifference to every
thing, and believing and hoping in nothing,—that _they died like
Philosophers_.” RITTENHOUSE did not, indeed, die like a disciple of that
new philosophy, referred to by the Eulogist,—like some of those modern
pretenders to _illumination_, who have been struggling to resuscitate
all the maddening dreams and absurdities of the Pyrrhonists of old: His
last hours were similar to those, which graced the departure from the
world, of a Newton and a Boyle, with very many illustrious Christians
besides, who truly deserved the name of Philosophers;—for, “_he died
like a Christian_, interested in the welfare of all around him—believing
in the resurrection, and the life to come, and hoping for happiness from
every attribute of the Deity.”[303]
-----
Footnote 302:
Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.
Footnote 303:
“Astronomy, like the Christian religion, if you will allow me the
comparison,” said our philosopher, “has a much greater influence on
our knowledge in general, and perhaps on our manners too, than is
commonly imagined. Though but few men are its particular votaries, yet
the Light it affords is universally diffused among us; and it is
difficult for us to divest ourselves of its influence so far, as to
frame any competent idea of what would be our situation without it.”
See Ritt. Orat.
In another part of his Oration is this passage—“Our Religion teaches
us what Philosophy could not have taught: and we ought to admire, with
reverence, the great things it has pleased Divine Providence to
perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for man, who is,
undoubtedly, the most noble inhabitant of this globe,” &c.
And in addition to these sentiments, uttered and published by our
philosopher himself, let the testimony of Dr. Rush, who had long and
intimately known him, be quoted, from the learned professor’s
_Eulogium_: “He believed in the Christian Revelation,” says the
Doctor; and then subjoins—“Of this he gave many proofs; not only in
the conformity of his life to the precepts of the Gospel, but in his
letters and conversation.”
-----
By his last will and testament, which was not executed till the day
preceding his death, Dr. Rittenhouse disposed of his estate in a very
equitable manner, between Mrs. Rittenhouse and his two daughters,
besides making a liberal provision for an amiable widowed sister, so
long as she should live.
It appears, from an estimate of his estate made by himself, (and
supposed to have been drawn up about a year before his death,) that all
the property he ever acquired, independently of his patrimony, which he
valued at one thousand pounds, actually cost him only 13,525_l._:[304]
and the whole of his estate was estimated, at the time of his decease,
at scarcely twenty thousand pounds. When it is considered, that the
talents of this very extraordinary man were actively and industriously
employed more than forty years, from the time he attained to manhood,
during many years of which period, he was engaged in various public
occupations, and some of them lucrative; that he was prudent and exact
in all his transactions, private as well as public, and economical in
his domestic expenditures; and that his family was small;—when all these
considerations are taken into view, they furnish matter of surprize that
he should not have accumulated a larger fortune! Indeed the moderate
amount of the estate he left, affords reasonable grounds for supposing,
that he devoted more of his property to purposes of beneficence, than
the world had any opportunity of becoming acquainted with.
-----
Footnote 304:
Equivalent to 36,066⅔ American or Spanish dollars.
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse survived both his sons-in-law; and their widows[305] are
his only remaining children. He constituted these daughters, with Mrs.
Rittenhouse, the executrices of his will.
-----
Footnote 305:
The elder of these ladies became, in the year 1788, the second wife of
Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, Esq. late an eminent lawyer in
Philadelphia, and sometime attorney-general of Pennsylvania. This
gentleman was one of the five persons delegated, on the 20th of
February, 1776, by the convention of New-Jersey (where he then
resided,) to represent that colony in congress: his colleagues were,
the late governor Livingston, and John de Hart, Richard Smith, and
John Cooper, Esquires. Mr. Sergeant died of the yellow fever in
Philadelphia, on the 8th of October, 1793; after having been many
weeks actively and benevolently employed, with a few other gentlemen
of humanity, in the prosecution of such measures, as the sufferings of
those of the citizens who had not fled, and the general welfare of the
city required, at that calamitous period. He left issue a son and two
daughters, by this marriage, besides several children by his first
wife.
The other daughter of Dr. Rittenhouse was married in the year 1790, to
Nicholas Baker Waters, M. D. of Philadelphia, a young physician of
respectable talents and amiable disposition. Dr. Waters died of a
pulmonary disease, in August, 1794, at a very early age, leaving one
son, an only child.
Dr. Rittenhouse named his second daughter, Esther, in compliment to
his sister Barton. In a letter to the Rev. Mr. Barton, written on the
occasion of the birth of this younger child, he says—“To me, it is a
matter of indifference, but to my Eleanor it was a great
disappointment, to have a girl, having promised herself a boy; and it
had long since been resolved that this child, if a son, should be
called Thomas, after yourself.” The eldest daughter was named
Elizabeth, after his own mother.
-----
The remains of our philosopher were deposited, agreeably to a desire he
had expressed long before his death, beneath the pavement within the
small Observatory which he erected many years before, in the garden
adjoining his house; and over the body was placed a plain slab of
marble, inscribed only with his name, the time of his decease, and his
age. Although it was intended that his interment should be attended by
his family-connexions alone,—in consequence of which, no other persons
were asked to the funeral,—a numerous body of his friends voluntarily
presented themselves on the occasion, as a mark of their respect for his
memory. The Rev. Dr. Green was one of the number; and this clergyman,
being then the pastor of the congregation in which the deceased had
often attended divine worship in the latter years of his life, delivered
a short but appropriate address to a surrounding auditory of mourning
and afflicted friends.—“_This_,” began the reverend orator, pointing to
the tomb of our philosopher, as just described,—“_This_ is,
emphatically, _the Tomb of Genius and of Science_! Their child, their
martyr, is here deposited,—and their friends will make his Eulogy, in
tears. I stand not here, to pronounce it; the thought that engrosses my
mind, is this;—how much more clear and impressive must be the views,
which the late Spiritual Inhabitant of that lifeless corpse now
possesses of GOD,—of his infinite existence, of his adorable attributes
and of that eternal blaze of glory which emanates from Him,—than when
she was blinded by her veil of flesh! Accustomed, as she was, to
penetrate far into the universe,—far as corporeal or mental vision here
can reach,—still, what new and extensive scenes of wonder have opened on
her eyes, enlightened and invigorated by death! The Discoveries of
RITTENHOUSE, since he died, have already been more, and greater, than
while he lived.[306] Yes; and, could he address us from the spiritual
world, his language would be—
“All, all on Earth is shadow, all Beyond
Is substance; the reverse is folly’s creed.”
Proceeding with a fervid expression of many excellent and pious
sentiments, excited by the occasion and well adapted to it, the orator
thus concluded:—“Filled with these reflections, let us go from this
Tomb, and resolve to aim at the high destiny of our nature. Rightly
aiming at this, we shall fill up life with usefulness and duty; we shall
bear its burdens with patience; and we shall look forward to its close
with pleasure: we shall consider death but as the birth of a new and
nobler existence,—as a dark but short passage to the regions of eternal
day; and, in the very agony of our change, we may exclaim in triumph,—‘O
Death, where is thy Sting! O Grave where is thy Victory!’—Thanks be to
God! who giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
-----
Footnote 306:
Dr. Rush has very beautifully expressed the same sentiment, in a
passage of his _Eulogium_ on our philosopher. After remarking, that
his bodily infirmities “contributed much to the perfection of his
virtue, by producing habitual patience and resignation to the will of
heaven, and a constant eye to the hour of his dissolution,” he says:
“It was a window through which he often looked with pleasure towards a
place of existence, where, from the increase and perfection of his
intuitive faculties, he would probably acquire more knowledge in an
hour, than he had acquired in his whole life, by the slow operations
of reason; and where, from the greater magnitude and extent of the
objects of his contemplation, his native globe would appear like his
cradle, and all the events of time, like the amusements of his infant
years.” Such, too, must have been the ideas, impressed on the mind of
Rittenhouse himself, when, in the morning of his life, he imagined the
angel Gabriel looking down from the seat of perfect knowledge, and
viewing, benignly, far from beholding with a smile of contempt, the
efforts of Newton, to demonstrate the actual motion of our earth. W.
B.
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse was, in his stature, somewhat tall; in his person,
slender and straight; and although his constitution was delicate, his
bodily frame did not appear to have been, originally, weak: his gait was
somewhat quick, and his movements in general were lively; insomuch, that
it is probable he possessed a good deal of corporeal activity, in early
life.
His face was of an oval form; his complexion, fair; and his hair, which
in his latter years became thinned and whitened, was brown. All his
features were good: his forehead was high, capacious and smooth; his
eyes, which were of a greyish colour, were alike expressive of
animation, reflection and good nature, and well placed under full,
arched brows; his nose was large, handsome, and inclined to the
aquiline; his mouth, well-formed, though a little prominent, and
corresponding with the general character of the face; and his chin,
broad and strong. In short, his whole countenance was indicative of
intelligence, complacency and goodness, even after its characteristic
marks had been in some degree impaired by sickness and years. Dr. Rush
observes, that his countenance was too remarkable to be unnoticed. “It
displayed,” says the Doctor, “such a mixture of contemplation,
benignity, and innocence, that it was easy to distinguish his person in
the largest company, by a previous knowledge of his character.”[307]
Such were, upon the whole, the figure and appearance of David
Rittenhouse; but more particularly, in his earlier life: and, as thus
described, he was generally considered an handsome man.
-----
Footnote 307:
See Eulog. on Ritt.
-----
Many indications of the respect and esteem entertained for the memory of
this distinguished man, appeared soon after his death: among others may
be mentioned the following.
Mr. Adet, then minister plenipotentiary from “The French Republic” to
the United States, and resident in Philadelphia, addressed a letter on
the subject of Dr. Rittenhouse, under the date of “19th Messidor, the
4th year of the French Republic” (answering to the 7th of July, 1806, of
the Christian Calendar,) to the writer of these Memoirs. This
gentleman—who was represented to be a man of considerable attainments in
science, and was besides a member of the American Philosophical Society,
professed, in that letter, _a great desire to make the name of
Rittenhouse known in his country_,—for so he expressed himself; meaning,
for that purpose, (as he said,) to transmit “to the National Institute
of France an historical notice of his life and labours.” With this view,
he accompanied his letter with a list of queries (twenty-five in
number,) requesting the Memorialist to furnish answers to them; which
was accordingly done, in a succinct manner: but whether the information
the answers contained was ever applied to the purpose for which the
querist stated them to be designed, the answerer has never ascertained.
He will, however, conclude his observations on this part of his subject,
with barely remarking, that the last of the proposed queries is in these
words——“How did he bear the approaches of death?—did he die like a
Philosopher?”
It is a matter of general notoriety, that Thomas Jefferson, Esq. of
Virginia, (late President of the United States,) succeeded Dr.
Rittenhouse in the Presidency of the American Philosophical Society;
having been first elected to that station on the 6th of January, 1797,
while he officiated as Secretary of State, and during his residence in
Philadelphia. Of this appointment, Mr. Jefferson was duly notified, by a
letter addressed to him by the Secretaries, in behalf of the society:
and, in his reply to that communication, the president-elect paid a just
tribute of respect to the character of his great and virtuous
predecessor, in these concise terms:—“Permit me to avail myself of this
opportunity of expressing the sincere grief I feel, for the loss of our
beloved Rittenhouse. Genius, science, modesty, purity of morals,
simplicity of manners, marked him as one of nature’s best samples of the
perfection she can cover under the human form. Surely no society, till
ours, within the same compass of time,[308] ever had to deplore the loss
of two such members as FRANKLIN and RITTENHOUSE.”
-----
Footnote 308:
About twenty-six years and an half.—Dr. Franklin was President from
the institution of the society, in Jan. 1769, until his death, on the
17th of April, 1790; and Dr. Rittenhouse, who succeeded him in Jan.
1791, continued in the office until he died, the 26th of June, 1796.
W. B.
-----
In England, the talents of Dr. Rittenhouse were well known, and his
worth duly appreciated. Of this, no better evidence can be required,
than the spontaneous admission of him, by the Royal Society of London,
into a Fellowship of their illustrious body. But, as a further proof of
the high respect in which his character was held in that country, the
obituary notice of him, which appeared in the _European Magazine_, (a
periodical work of merit and taste,) for July, 1796, is inserted in the
Appendix.
Besides other evidences which appeared, soon after the decease of our
most distinguished philosopher, demonstrate the high estimation in which
his character was held, by some eminent men in official stations,
several private gentlemen of worth and erudition, have, long since,
continued to manifest a laudable disposition either to erect, or to
institute, some respectable and suitable memorial in honour of his name:
and it can scarcely be doubted, that a grateful sense of his exemplary
virtues, his transcendent talents and important public services, will
yet effect the accomplishment of some such patriotic design. An
honourable effort of this kind by a number of liberal and public
spirited gentlemen of the county of Chester, in Pennsylvania, has
recently been made: and notwithstanding the failure of the attempt, it
is due to the merit of those individuals who were most zealous in their
endeavours to accomplish the object, to notice their benevolent
intentions on the occasion. In the autumn of the year 1811, the sum of
nearly eight thousand dollars was subscribed, towards the purpose of
erecting and endowing an Academy within the borough of West-Chester.
Doctor William Darlington, with some other friends of literature and
science in his neighbourhood, proposed to name the designed institution
“_The Rittenhouse Academy_:” but as the establishment of a similar one,
in a distant part of the same county, was at the same time contemplated;
and, as the subscriptions to that proposed to be established in
West-Chester, were, in the first instance, chiefly obtained in different
parts of the county, for an institution then proposed to be called “The
_West-Chester_ Academy”—thus locating its situation exclusively to that
borough; it was not deemed expedient to vary the chartered name of this
Academy, when it should be incorporated, from the one by which it was
originally designated.
Such were the causes of the disappointment, in relation to the proposed
_Rittenhouse Academy_: but they are evidently such as cannot in the
smallest degree detract from the meritorious intentions of those
gentlemen, who were desirous of giving the institution, in West-Chester,
that respectable name; nor are they less indicative of the respect which
was intended to be shewn to the memory of Rittenhouse.
In addition, however, to the evidence which has been tendered by others
to the exalted merits of our Philosopher, the memorialist is happy in
having an opportunity to introduce, on this occasion, the testimony of a
gentleman who was very long and intimately acquainted with Dr.
Rittenhouse—and, consequently, well knew his worth as a man. This
representation being likewise made by a person whose conspicuous
attainments in similar departments of science, and arduous employments
in practical pursuits of the same description, render him eminently
qualified to judge of his deceased friend’s talents, he is by these
means enabled to form a just estimate of his character. The person here
referred to, is Andrew Ellicott, Esq. a gentleman with whom the writer
of these Memoirs has been in habits of intimacy and friendship, many
years. The information on this subject, communicated by Mr. Ellicott,
being in the form of a letter addressed to the memorialist, he has given
that communication a place in the Appendix.
That Dr. Rittenhouse had failings, cannot be questioned; since, to
possess them, is the lot of every individual of our species. But his
foibles—of whatever description they may have been—may be compared to
some opaque spots, minute in size, which the prying eye of the
astronomer has discovered to exist even on the glorious orb of the Sun;
although these little _maculæ_ are scarcely discernible by the
generality of observers, by reason of the surrounding splendour of his
beams: so, the diminutive failings which may be supposed to have existed
in the character of our philosophical luminary, were rendered almost
imperceptible, by the resplendency in which his great and numerous
virtues were enveloped. It was said of that sublime artist, Sir Joshua
Reynolds, by the late celebrated Edmund Burke, that he did “not know a
fault or weakness of his, that he did not convert into something that
bordered on a virtue, instead of pushing it to the confines of a
vice.”[309] Dr. Rittenhouse, in like manner, was perfectly
uncontaminated by any vice; while “his virtues furnish the most shining
models for imitation:” and, in regard even to his foibles, the
declaration of his Eulogist, just quoted, that his virtues “were never
obscured, in any situation or stage of his life, by a single cloud of
weakness or vice,”[310] may be fairly received in the same liberal
sense, as Mr. Burke’s expression concerning his worthy friend, Reynolds.
-----
Footnote 309:
See Mr. Malone’s Account of the Life and Writings of Sir Joshua
Reynolds, prefixed to the works of Sir Joshua.
Footnote 310:
See Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.
-----
If a retrospect be now taken of the whole Life of our Philosopher, in
whatever points of view it may be contemplated, the following
characteristic traits will be found to be faithfully delineated;
although it is at the same time acknowledged, that the portrait is still
too incomplete to afford a perfect resemblance to the excellent
character of the original.
In his temper, Dr. Rittenhouse was naturally placid and good-humoured;
yet sometimes grave, and inclined to pensiveness. He was occasionally,
though seldom, animated by a considerable degree of warmth: but he did
not suffer himself to be influenced, on any occasion, by impetuous
passions; nor did any man ever possess a temper more placable. His
general deportment was gentle, unassuming and cheerful; such as
corresponded with his modesty of disposition and the delicacy of his
feelings.[311] He possessed a good share of constitutional firmness of
mind; and was seldom either much or long depressed, by such misfortunes
or afflictions as bore chiefly upon himself: still, however, the great
benevolence of his temper rendered him extremely sensible to the
sufferings of others. The bodily infirmities of such as came within his
more immediate notice, and the privations occasioned by helpless
indigence, more especially of aged persons, often experienced in him a
consoling friend and a liberal benefactor; provided they appeared to be
objects worthy of charitable assistance. But where the sufferings or
wants of others evidently resulted either from confirmed inebriety or
other vicious habits, or from indolence or censurable improvidence, he
was not accustomed to extend the hand of charitable bounty with the same
cordiality. His means of affording pecuniary assistance to such of his
fellow-men as needed it, were circumscribed by bounds of moderate
extent: yet, in proportion to his resources, his acts of charity were
laudable in their degree, as well as in regard to the objects of his
benevolence, and entirely destitute of ostentation: they were dictated
both by the humanity of his heart and a sense of moral duty.
-----
Footnote 311:
“His manners were civil and engaging, to such a degree, that he seldom
passed an hour, even in a public house in travelling through our
country, without being followed by the good wishes of all who attended
upon him.” Rush’s _Eulogium_ on Ritt.
-----
Notwithstanding the predominating mildness of his disposition, he was
capable of being roused on some occasions, to pretty strong emotions of
indignation; and nothing would excite these feelings in his mind more
readily, or in a higher degree, than instances of great cruelty,
oppression or injustice, whether of a public or private nature.[312]
-----
Footnote 312:
Dr. Rittenhouse’s brother Benjamin, in a written communication made to
the writer of these memoirs in the year 1796, observes, that the
Doctor, “when in health, was cheerful; and his passions, unless they
were excited by the abuses and knavery of men, either in public or
private life, were moderate: but where he conceived that the interest
or liberties of his country were endangered, he would, on those
occasions, express himself with great warmth and asperity.”
-----
His long continued habits of contemplation and study, and his seclusion
from the busy world until the full meridian of life, created in his mind
a fondness for tranquillity. This disposition, co-operating with his
humanity and love of justice, made him a friend to peace; insomuch, that
he deprecated a state of warfare, even in cases attended by colourable
pretexts of right and expediency, for engaging in it. Hence, he could
not refrain from attaching to the late warlike Sovereign of Prussia,
“the mighty Frederick,” the appellation of “Tyrant of the North and
Scourge of Mankind;”[313] believing, as he did, that this monarch was
more influenced by an unfeeling personal ambition and thirst of military
fame, than either by the justness of his cause or a desire to promote
the happiness of his subjects.
-----
Footnote 313:
See his _Oration_.
-----
With such feelings and such views of the subject as these, our
Philosopher could not consider that as a justifiable cause of war,
which has not for its object, either the defence of a country against
an hostile invader, or the security of the state and the support of
the liberties of the people, against treasonable domestic
insurrections.[314]
-----
Footnote 314:
It was publicly declared by the same acrimonious writer who charged
Dr. Rittenhouse with being an atheist, (namely, Mr. William Cobbett,)
and with an equal disregard of truth, as has been already shewn, that
the Doctor signed “the inflammatory Resolutions” of the Democratic
Society against the Excise-law, which, as he alleged, produced the
Western Insurrection in Pennsylvania, in the year 1794. Dr.
Rittenhouse, it is well known, did not even attend the meetings of
that society. This is admitted by Mr. Cobbett himself, in the
following invidious paragraph, extracted from a pamphlet written and
published by the late William L. Smith, Esq. of South-Carolina, and
republished by Cobbett in his own works: it is in these
words—“Rittenhouse was a great philosopher; but the only proof we have
had of his political talents, was, his suffering himself to be
wheedled into the presidency of the democratic society of
Philadelphia; a society with which he was even ashamed to associate,
though cajoled and flattered into the loan of his name.”
-----
His habits and manners were such as comported with the honest sincerity
of his heart, the amiable simplicity of his whole character,[315] and
the nature of his pursuits in life. He loved quiet and order, and
preferred retirement to the bustle of the world: and these dispositions
endeared to him the comforts of domestic society. He considered
ambition, pomp and ostentation, as being generally inconsistent with
true happiness. His sentiments respecting luxury are expressed in very
energetic language, in his Oration: he viewed it as the constant
forerunner of tyranny; and both, as being, eventually, the means of
destroying useful science, though professing to be its friends. Yet he
was far from being inimical to that mutual “exchange of benefits,”[316]
which is effected by means of foreign commerce; or to those intercourses
of society, which augment our rational enjoyments: he was, in truth, a
friend to beneficial trade, and approved of those “social refinements,
which really add to our happiness, and induce us with gratitude to
acknowledge our great Creator’s goodness.”[317] But he justly
distinguished between that sort of commerce with foreign nations, that
conduces to the well-being of mankind, and such as is obviously immoral
in itself, or deleterious in its consequences. Of both these latter
descriptions, he considered the slave-trade; a traffic, against which he
bore his testimony more than thirty-seven years ago: and, as Dr. Rush
has emphatically observed in respect to what he had advanced in favour
of Christianity, “the single testimony of David Rittenhouse,” on the the
one side, “outweighs the declamations of whole nations,” on the other.
Commerce of an injurious nature, he viewed to be such as ministers more
to the debauching luxuries of mankind, than to their necessities,
conveniencies and substantial comforts.
-----
Footnote 315:
The memorialist cannot deprive himself of the gratification of
introducing, on the present occasion, a little anecdote communicated
to him by his friend, Francis Johnston, Esq. characteristic of our
philosopher’s amiable simplicity and benevolent disposition.
Circumstances as unimportant in themselves, as the one here related,
sometimes make us acquainted with the true character of individuals.
Colonel Johnston, who was bred a scholar, and held with reputation the
rank of a colonel in the American service in the war of the
revolution, was, at an early period of his life, a zealous admirer of
the character of Rittenhouse. But long afterwards, and while the
Doctor officiated as state-treasurer, that gentleman held the next
great office in the financial department of the state. The connexion
of those offices occasioned almost daily visits from the colonel to
the state-treasury, and intercourse with the treasurer himself; and
this produced a reciprocal friendship between the two gentlemen. “For
a time,” says Col. Johnston, “Dr. Rittenhouse managed the business of
his office with the utmost attention and assiduity: but his
all-capacious mind could no longer be restrained from its native
pursuits; his money and his counter, therefore, he resigned into the
hands of his beloved wife, who, although possessed of all the feminine
virtues, performed the arduous duties of the office with a masculine
understanding, with accuracy and unwearied attention.”
“My intimacy with Dr. Rittenhouse,” continues the colonel, “introduced
between us a concern in some property, in the western part of the
city, which often induced us to walk out together, to visit it. That
part of the property which laid on the main street, belonged to me;
and being more exposed to the depredations of the disorderly people
who then inhabited that neighbourhood, was consequently often injured
in the fences or board-inclosures. More than once, I have seen this
philosopher, who never thought it any degradation of philosophy, to
bow at the shrine of friendship, marching along my line of fence, and
most industriously, and in a most masterly manner, with his own hammer
and nails, mending or repairing the same.”
“This anecdote I mention thus particularly,” adds the worthy colonel,
“with a view of shewing, that in addition to Dr. Rittenhouse’s other
virtues, humanity and friendship were leading traits in his excellent
character.”
Footnote 316:
In expressing his admiration of “that dispositions of lands and seas,
which affords a communication between distant regions, and a mutual
exchange of benefits,” Dr. Rittenhouse unquestionably had in view a
commercial, as well as social, intercourse between the inhabitants of
different climes: he was too enlightened a man, not to have been aware
of its “benefits.” “A civilized nation, without commerce,” (as the
writer of these memoirs had occasion to observe in a former
publication,[316a]) “is a solecism in politics. It is in the rudest
state of mankind, only, that a people can exist, without any
communication with other societies or commercial intercourse among
themselves, every one supporting himself by his own labour. Indeed, so
absolute a state of nature can only be conceived; but has scarcely
existed in reality. The wants, the fears, the weakness, nay the very
nature of man, constitute him a social animal: and, in the very origin
of society, their mutual necessities, with the various talents, means,
and opportunities of individuals for supporting them, must have
produced a reciprocity of services, and an occasional interchange with
one another of that property, which each had acquired by his own
exertions.”
Footnote 316a:
The true interest of the United States, and particularly of
Pennsylvania, considered: published in 1786.
Footnote 317:
See his Oration.
-----
No man had less of “the gloomy spirit of misanthropy,” than Dr.
Rittenhouse: his whole life evinced, “with what ardour,” to use his own
words, “he wished for the happiness of the whole race of mankind.” And,
that he detested penuriousness, the contemptuous manner in which he has
treated the character of the miser, in his Oration, is sufficient to
testify. A manly spirit of independence, on the one hand, and a
disposition, on the other, to partake rationally of what are called the
good things of the world, induced him to pursue, in his style of living,
a middle course, between extreme parsimony and a prodigality equally
censurable. He was therefore, an economist. “His economy,” as Dr. Rush
has justly remarked, even “extended to a wise and profitable use of his
time:” for he was, when most in health, an early riser; and devoted much
of his time to reading and other studies, when not otherwise engaged or
usefully employed. So inestimable did our Philosopher deem this gift of
heaven to man, that, says his Eulogist, he observed on a certain
occasion, “that he once thought health the greatest blessing in the
world, but he now thought there was one thing of much greater value, and
that was time.”[318]
-----
Footnote 318:
In the year 1756, he made an eight-day clock, for his brother-in-law,
Mr. Barton; over the dial-plate of which, was engraven this mementory
motto—_Tempus fugit_; and underneath, this blunt but too often
necessary precept—_Go about your business_.
On one description of the continental bills of credit, issued by
congress during the American war, were represented a sundial and a
meridian sun over it: above, the word “Fugio;” and beneath, these
words—“Mind your Business.” And on the reverse of a copper one cent
piece, struck in the year 1787, in pursuance of a resolve of congress
of the 6th of July in that year, are impressed the same device and
mottoes as those last mentioned; corresponding with those adopted by
our Philosopher, when only twenty-four years of age: a circumstance
that shews, how early in life he had formed a just estimate of the
value of time.
It may not be improper here to observe, that the various devices
affixed to the continental money, as it was called, were much admired
for their appropriate significancy; and that they were generally
supposed to be the production of the late ingenious Judge Hopkinson,
an intimate friend of Mr. Rittenhouse.
-----
Though rather plain and simple than otherwise, in all his domestic
arrangements, he lived well,—in the common acceptation of the phrase.
Nor was he in any respect deficient in that decorum in his personal
appearance, and in the modest appendages of his household, which
corresponded with his character and station in society. There was not
the least affectation of any thing like parade or splendour, in his
manner of living. In his dress he was remarkably neat, correct and
gentlemanlike: his house, with its furniture were of a corresponding
style of propriety; the mansion itself, with every thing appurtenant to
it, seemed to denote its being the residence of good sense, elegant
simplicity, and genuine comfort.
Neither the delicate state of his constitution, nor his almost unceasing
employment, either in business or study, when enjoying his ordinary
portion of health, permitted Dr. Rittenhouse to participate in the
society of his friends, at his table, in that manner which an hospitable
disposition and a desire to mingle in the conversation of estimable men,
led him to wish. Yet he occasionally had a very few friends to dine with
him; and on those occasions, he avoided every thing that could bear the
least appearance of ostentation. He received, however, frequent visits
in the evening, from persons whom he respected and esteemed,—at the time
of taking tea, a beverage which was very grateful to him. It was on such
occasions, more particularly, that he would unbend; he would then bear
his part in reciprocations of amusement, as well as instruction, with
great good humour, sometimes even pleasantry, if he were tolerably well.
“As a companion,” says Dr. Rush, “he instructed upon all subjects:” an
observation, of which the Writer of these Memoirs has, indeed, very
often experienced the correctness; and there have been few men, perhaps,
who ever had an opportunity of knowing his communicative disposition,
from a personal acquaintance with him, that have not been either
gratified or improved by his conversations.
But the same causes that prevented his seeing his friends, beyond the
circle of his family-connections, at his own table, as often as the
sociability of his temper must have prompted him to do, imposed on him
the necessity of very frequently declining the acceptance of invitations
from others; more especially, for large dining parties, and companies of
formal visitors: his habits of great temperance, a dislike of much
ceremoniousness, and an economical disposition of his time, were further
inducements to his declining, very generally, such invitations.
In domestic life his whole conduct was perfectly exemplary. No man was
ever a better husband or father, or a more indulgent master; nor was
there ever a kinder relative. He educated his children very liberally;
and in the society of these, together with his wife, a woman of
excellent understanding, he enjoyed in an high degree, and for some
years, the delights of a rational and endearing intercourse. In this
little family-society, he experienced a large portion of domestic
happiness, no otherwise alloyed than by the bodily sufferings he
occasionally endured. And, as Dr. Rush observes,[319]—“when the
declining state of his health rendered the solitude of his study less
agreeable than in former years, he passed whole evenings in reading or
conversing, with his wife and daughters.”—“Happy family!” exclaims his
Eulogist, “so much and so long blessed with such a head!—and happier
still, to have possessed dispositions and knowledge to discern and love
his exalted character, and to enjoy his instructing conversation!”
-----
Footnote 319:
See Eulog. on Ritt.
-----
In his friendship, as in all his social affections, he was perfectly
sincere; for, his ardent love of truth led him to detest every species
of dissimulation. He was warmly attached to many estimable characters,
among those with whom he was acquainted; and he enjoyed, in return,
their friendship and respect: besides which, he possessed in an high
degree the esteem of all his fellow-citizens, to whom his name and
character were well known. With not a few persons, who were either
distinguished by literature and science, or by ingenuity, and
information on general topics or particular subjects of useful
knowledge, he was in habits of intimacy: in the list of these, might be
placed several of the most eminent and dignified characters in America.
Dr. Rittenhouse’s epistolary correspondence, even with his personal
friends, was by no means extensive: indeed the most of these, after his
removal to Philadelphia, were there his fellow-citizens. His almost
incessant employment, either in public or private business, occupied his
time so fully as to allow him little leisure, when in the enjoyment of
health; and sensible of the repeated inroads which the privation of this
blessing made on his profitable time, he was covetous of every hour, in
which his industry could be most conveniently as well us usefully
engaged. He therefore, like the celebrated Dr. Bradley,[320] published
little. Possibly, too, this circumstance in relation to both these great
astronomers, may have been, in some degree, occasioned by similar
motives, a natural diffidence in their own faculties, extraordinary as
others knew them to be. The English philosopher is even said to have
been apprehensive, that a publication of his works might prove injurious
to his reputation; and, therefore, he suppressed many of his papers: but
whether our astronomer made preparations for publishing any large
systematic work, in his favourite science, cannot be ascertained; the
probability however is, that he did not, for want of time and health to
engage in such an undertaking.
-----
Footnote 320:
An eulogy of this great astronomer, celebrated for his discovery of
the aberration and nutation, will be found in the History of the
French Academy, for the year 1762. He was born in 1692; and died at
Greenwich, in 1762, at the age of seventy years.
-----
That the world possess so few of Dr. Rittenhouse’s philosophical papers,
is a matter truly to be regretted: because records extensively
promulgated, of the results of his numerous and laborious researches,
concerning the most sublime and interesting operations of nature, would,
beyond any doubt, have greatly added to the stock of human knowledge.
And this regret is enhanced by the reflexion, that if the government of
Pennsylvania could have conveniently pursued the plan proposed to them
by the Philosophical Society, in the year 1775;[321] or, had that or
some such measure been adopted eight or ten years afterward, when the
revolutionary war interposed no impediment to an important public
arrangement of that nature; the world would, in all probability, at this
day be in the possession of many additional productions of his vastly
comprehensive genius. His astronomical discoveries and other fruits of
his prolific mind, recorded by his pen, would in such case, it may be
reasonably presumed, have redounded to the honour of his country and the
benefit of mankind. But, that an American citizen of slender fortune,
one who was (to use the strongly expressive terms of the Philosophical
Society, on the occasion just mentioned,) “indebted for bread to his
daily toil,”—that a man, thus circumstanced, could be expected to
contribute a large portion of his inestimable time, wholly unrewarded,
either to the public interests or the acquisition of personal fame,
would be an impeachment of his prudence. Dr. Rittenhouse was not
gratuitously furnished with a complete Observatory and Astronomical
apparatus;[322] nor, besides, recompensed by a liberal compensation from
the public purse; in order that he might be enabled to devote himself to
the public service, in scientific pursuits: Flamstead, Halley, Bliss,
Bradley and Maskelyne, were so rewarded. Each of these eminent
astronomers held, at different periods, the lucrative and honourable
place of Regius Professor, or Astronomer Royal, at Greenwich.[323]
-----
Footnote 321:
See the Memorial of the Society to the General Assembly, dated the 6th
of March, 1775; introduced in the foregoing pages.
Footnote 322:
Observatories are indispensably necessary to the cultivation of
astronomical science. There are many celebrated institutions of this
kind, in various parts of Europe; and of these, the British isles may
justly boast of possessing a large proportion in number, admirably
fitted up with all the necessary apparatus. Some account of these will
be found in other parts of this work.
Besides the liberal and honourable provision made for eminent
astronomers in Great-Britain, many of the most distinguished men of
the same class, on the continent of Europe, have experienced the
bounty of their respective princes and states. Such, among others,
were the celebrated C. Mayer, Astronomer to the Elector Palatine and
duke of Bavaria, at Manheim; Zach, Astronomer to the Duke of
Saxe-Gotha, at Gotha; and Lalande, Professor of Astronomy and
Inspector of the College of France, at Paris. These great philosophers
have had splendid astronomical establishments provided for them, by
their sovereigns; as is more particularly noticed in other parts of
these memoirs. And the extensive work of Mr. de Zach, entitled,
_Tabulæ Motuum Solis novæ et correctæ_, &c. (a large quarto volume in
the Latin language,) was printed under the patronage and at the
expense of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, in the year 1792, and distributed
gratis among many of the learned of the old and new world; an example
of munificence worthy of imitation by all sovereign princes and
states, who know how to estimate, as they deserve, such importantly
useful productions of men eminent in science.
The time, in which the transcendent talents of such philosophers as
have been here named, was employed, together with the products of
their labours, were rightfully, under such patronage, the property of
the public; while the time of our astronomer was with equal justice
his own, and consequently the fruits of his time, genius, and labour,
were, at least primarily, due to himself and his family.
Footnote 323:
The famous English Observatory near Greenwich Hospital, and in the
immediate vicinity of the town of Greenwich in Kent, (erected, on a
commanding eminence one hundred and sixty feet above the level of the
river Thames, in the year 1676, by order of King Charles II.) is still
called Flamstead-House; Mr. Flamstead having been the first person
appointed Regius Professor there.
-----
Notwithstanding Dr. Rittenhouse’s published writings are, for the
reasons that have been assigned, not very extensive, his philosophical
publications on various subjects, chiefly astronomical, are far from
being inconsiderable in number; and some of them are highly important,
while others discover the activity and force of his genius.[324] The
following is a list of his papers communicated to the Am. Philosophical
Society, and published in their Transactions; arranged according to the
dates at which they were severally read in the Society: viz.
1. The first volume, printed in the year 1771,[325] contains—“A
Description of a new Orrery; planned, and now nearly finished, by David
Rittenhouse, A. M. of Norriton, in the county of Philadelphia:”
communicated by Dr. Smith. Read, March 21. 1768.
2. “Calculation of the Transit of Venus over the Sun, as it is to
happen, June 3d 1769, in Lat. 40° N. Long. 5^h. W. from Greenwich:”
communicated 21st of June, 1768.
3. An Account of the Transit of Mercury over the Sun, Nov. 9. 1769, as
observed at Norriton, in Pennsylvania, by Dr. Smith, and Messrs. Lukens,
Rittenhouse, and O. Biddle, the committee appointed for that purpose by
the Am. Philos. Society: drawn up and communicated, by direction and in
behalf of the committee, by Dr. Smith—July 20. 1769.
4. Observations on the Comet of June and July, 1770; with the elements
of its motion and the trajectory of its path; in two letters from David
Rittenhouse, M. A. to William Smith, D. D. Prov. Coll. Philad.[326]
Communicated, Aug. 3. 1770.
-----
Footnote 324:
It is said of the celebrated Roger Cotes, by his friend and patron,
the learned Dr. Richard Bentley, in his inscription upon the tomb of
that great philosopher, at Cambridge, that—
“_Pauca quidem Ingenii sui pignora reliquit,
Sed egregia, sed admiranda_:”
In like manner, though the writings of Dr. Rittenhouse are neither
numerous nor extensive, some of his works are, nevertheless, so
excellent and admirable in their nature, they exhibit such proofs of
transcendent genius, that they will immortalize his name. And, as
Cotes was prematurely taken away by death, or, as expressed in his
epitaph,
“_Immaturâ Morte præreptus_;”—
so, the actual term of Rittenhouse’s life may be considered as having
been much shortened by sickness. Franklin, who lived twenty years
longer than our astronomer, published little in philosophy; yet this
circumstance does not derogate from his claims to the character of a
philosopher.
Footnote 325:
A second edition of the first volume was published in the year 1789,
in consequence of the extraordinary demand for that book, by reason of
the very important papers respecting the Transit of Venus, contained
in it.
Footnote 326:
Some further remarks respecting this comet, than those contained in
Dr. Rittenhouse’s communication, here referred to, will be found in an
extract which has already been given, of his letter to the Rev. Mr.
Barton, under the date of July 30, 1770.
-----
5. An easy method of deducing the True Time of the Sun’s passing the
Meridian, per clock, from a comparison of four equal altitudes, observed
on two succeeding days; by David Rittenhouse, A. M.[327] Communicated by
William Smith, D. D. Prov. Coll. Philad.—Aug. 17. 1770.
-----
Footnote 327:
Mr. Francis de Zach (Astronomer to the duke of Saxe-Gotha,) in the
explanation and use of his table, No. 38, entitled, “Correctio horæ
meridianæ prodeuntis ex altitudinibus correspondentibus Solis,”
says—“Tradit Clarissimus DAV. RITTENHOUSE, in Transactionibus
Americanis (vol. 1. p. 155. edit. 2.), Methodum novum correctionis
horæ meridianæ, absque tabulis, ex solâ observatione deducendæ; sed
requiruntur, ad hoc, duorum dierum subsequentium altitudines quatuor
æquales: id est, sub eadem altitudine manè et vesperi factæ, ad
assequendam ex his, correctiones meridiei, Regulæ Clariss. Authoris
sunt sequentes:” Mr. de Zach then lays down Dr. Rittenhouse’s Rules,
which will be found in the Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, already referred to; and adds—“Exempla hoc perspicuum
reddent:” he next states two examples, from which he deduces proofs of
the accuracy of Dr. Rittenhouse’s method. See “_Tabulæ Motuum Solis,
novæ et correctæ, ex Theoriâ Gravitatis et Observationibus
recentissimis erutæ, &c. auctore Francisco de Zach_:” printed at
Gotha, in 1792.
-----
6. Account of the Terrestrial Measurement of the difference of Longitude
between the Observatories of Norriton and Philadelphia; drawn up by the
Rev. Dr. Smith, in behalf of Mr. Lukens, Mr. Rittenhouse and himself,
the committee appointed by the Am. Philos. Society, for that purpose,
agreeably to the request of the Astronomer-Royal of England. Dated, Aug.
17. 1770.
7. The second volume, printed in the year 1786, contains—An Explanation
of an Optical deception. Read, March 3. 1780.
8. An Account of some Experiments on Magnetism; in a letter from Mr.
Rittenhouse to John Page, Esq. of Williamsburgh. Read, Feb. 6. 1781.
9. A letter from David Rittenhouse, Esq. to John Page, Esq. in answer to
one from Mr. Page;) concerning a remarkable Meteor, seen in Virginia and
Pennsylvania, on the 31st of Oct. 1779. Read, May 2. 1783. (N. B. Mr.
Rittenhouse’s letter is dated Jan. 16. 1780.)
10. Observations on a Comet lately discovered; communicated by David
Rittenhouse, Esq.[328] Read, March 19. 1784.
-----
Footnote 328:
This Comet was observed by John Lukens, Esq. of Philadelphia, on the
20th of January, 1784. This respectable practical astronomer
communicated his discovery of it to Dr. Rittenhouse the next day, on
the evening of which, (“assisted by Mr. Lukens and Mr. Prior,”) he
ascertained the then apparent place of this comet. Dr. Rittenhouse’s
communication to the society, on this subject, gives also the apparent
place of the comet on the 17th of February, being the last time the
weather permitted him to see it: the result of his intermediate
observations is also stated.
-----
11. A new Method of placing the Meridian Mark; in a letter to the Rev.
Dr. Ewing, Provost of the University. Read, November. 1785.
12. An Optical Problem, proposed by Mr. Hopkinson, and solved by Mr.
Rittenhouse. Read, Feb. 17. 1786. (N. B. Mr. Hopkinson’s letter is dated
March 16, 1785: the answer is without date.)
13. Astronomical Observations; communicated by Mr. Rittenhouse. Without
date.[329]
-----
Footnote 329:
These observations were made in Philadelphia, by Dr. Rittenhouse, at
sundry times in the years 1784, 1785, and 1786, on the new planet, or
Georgium Sidus; and on the Transit of Mercury over the Sun’s disk, on
the 12th of November, 1782. The same communication also states the
geocentric places of the Georgium Sidus, at several different dates
between the 1st of April, 1762, and the 14th of March, 1784, both
included; as observed by Mr. James Six, at the city of Canterbury in
England.
-----
14. The third volume, printed in the year 1793, contains—An Account of
several Houses, in Philadelphia, struck with Lightning on the 7th of
June, 1789; by Mr. D. Rittenhouse and Dr. John Jones. Read, July 17.
1789.
15. An Account of the Effects of a stroke of Lightning on a House
furnished with two Conductors; in a letter from Messrs. David
Rittenhouse and Francis Hopkinson, to Mr. R. Patterson. Read, October
15. 1790.
16. Astronomical Observations made at Philadelphia: viz. of a Lunar
Eclipse, on the 2d of November, 1789; of the Transit of Mercury over the
Sun’s disk, on the 5th of November, 1789; of an Eclipse of the Moon, on
the 22d of October, 1790; of an Eclipse of the Sun, on the 6th of
November, 1790; and of an Annular Eclipse of the Sun, on the 3d of
April, 1791:[330] with an Account of corresponding Observations of the
two first of these Phænomena, made at the University of William and Mary
in Virginia, by the Rev. Dr. Madison; and of the second, alone, made at
Washington-College in Maryland, by the Rev. Dr. Smith: communicated by
D. Rittenhouse. Read, February 4. 1791.
-----
Footnote 330:
This eclipse was observed by Andrew Ellicott, Esq. at the city of
Washington, as follows; viz.
{ 6.^h 39′. 1″,25 } Annulus completed }
April 3d. { 6. 43. 15,25 } Do. broken } M. Time.
{ 7. 55. 37,75 } End of Eclipse. }
A letter from the celebrated French Astronomer, Lalande, to Dr.
Rittenhouse, on the same subject, has been already given.
-----
17. A Letter from Dr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Patterson, relative to a Method
of finding the Sum of the several Powers of the Sines, &c. Read, May 18.
1792.
18. An Account of a Comet, (first observed by Mr. Rittenhouse, on the
11th of January, 1793:) in a letter from D. Rittenhouse to Mr.
Patterson.[331] Read, February 15. 1793.
-----
Footnote 331:
In this letter, Dr. Rittenhouse merely informs Mr. Patterson, in
general terms, of the time when he first observed this comet, its then
place, and its course through several of the constellations, until the
8th of February; on the evening of which day, he saw it for the last
time. It is presumed that Dr. Rittenhouse’s state of health, at that
period, would not admit of his making more definite observations on
this comet.
-----
The fourth volume, printed in the year 1799, (three years after Dr.
Rittenhouse’s death,) contains—
19. A paper, “On the Improvement of Time-keepers;” by David Rittenhouse,
LL. D. Pres. Am. Philos. Society. Read, November 7. 1794.[332]
-----
Footnote 332:
This _desideratum_ in astronomical science had long engaged Dr.
Rittenhouse’s attention; and it is confidently said by one of his
intimate friends, that, in the latter part of his life, he had
actually written much on the subject of Pendulums; intended, probably,
for publication. But, unfortunately, the manuscript-book, which
contained what he had thus written, can not now be found.
In the paper mentioned in the text, he remarks, that “the invention
and construction of time-keepers may be reckoned among the most
successful exertions of human genius. Pendulum-clocks especially,”
says he, “have been made to measure time with astonishing accuracy;
and, if there are still some causes of inequality in their motions,
the united efforts of mechanism, philosophy and mathematics, will
probably, in time, remove them.”
Indeed no man has done more, none perhaps so much, towards removing
the imperfections in chronometers, to which he alludes, as this great
mechanician himself. His admirable time-piece, now in the possession
of the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, constructed by him, on
an improved plan of his own, affords ample proof of the “astonishing
accuracy” (as he expresses it) to which the pendulum-chronometer may
be brought. A description of the mechanism of this extremely accurate
time-piece, as well as of the principles on which its superior
correctness depends, is inserted in the Appendix.
-----
20. A paper, “On the Expansion of Wood by Heat;” in a letter from David
Rittenhouse, LL. D. Pres. Am. Philos. Society. Dated, May 15. 1795.
21. A Method of raising the common Logarithm of any number immediately;
by D. Rittenhouse, LL. D. Pres. Am. Philos. Society. Read, August 12.
1795.
22. A communication, “On the Mode of determining the true Place of a
Planet, in an eliptical Orbit, directly from the mean Anomaly by
Converging Series;” by David Rittenhouse, Pres. Am. Phil. Society. Read,
February 5. 1796.
---
This last communication was made to the Society, within five months of
the time immediately preceding Dr. Rittenhouse’s death.
It is a strong evidence not only of our Philosopher’s industry, but of
his attachment to that institution of which he was so great an ornament,
that, in the course of the twenty-six years during which he was a member
of it, he could find sufficient leisure,—almost constantly employed, as
he was, in important public business, and frequently bereft of
health,—to contribute so many valuable papers as he did, to the too
scanty stock of its published Transactions. Dr. Franklin, who was a
member of the Philosophical Society, and their president, for twenty-one
years, furnished them with only eight communications during that time:
and Mr. Jefferson, who has nominally occupied the president’s chair[333]
in the same Society above sixteen years, has favoured them with only two
or three, within this period.
-----
Footnote 333:
The appropriate location of “The American Philosophical Society” is
the city of “Philadelphia,” where their meetings must be held in
conformity to their charter. Monticello, Mr. Jefferson’s residence in
Virginia, is situated at the distance of about two hundred and seventy
miles from the capital of Pennsylvania.
-----
Had Dr. Rittenhouse enjoyed leisure to write, there are sufficient
reasons to induce a belief, that his compositions would have been highly
estimable; not solely for the subject matter of them, but for their
manner also. It is true, he laboured under the privations of a liberal
education: his style might therefore, perhaps, have been deficient in
some of the ornamental appendages of classical learning. Nevertheless,
the native energy of his mind, the clearness of his perceptions, the
accuracy with which he employed his reasoning faculties,—in fine, the
very extraordinary intellectual powers he displayed, when they were
directed to the attainment of any species of human knowledge;—these
would, doubtless, have supplied him with those beauties of language,
which are usually, as well as most readily, derived from academic
instruction. And in addition to all these, the sublimity of the objects
which he so ardently and frequently contemplated, could scarcely fail to
have communicated to his literary productions a due portion of an
elevated style, when treating on subjects of a corresponding character.
Dr. Rush, in noticing the address delivered by Rittenhouse before the
Philosophical Society in the year 1775, observes, that “the language of
this Oration is simple, but” that “the sentiments contained in it are
ingenious, original, and in some instances sublime:” in another place,
the learned Eulogist styles it an “eloquent performance.” It is
presumed, that these characteristic features of that little work are not
unaptly applied; and it will be found, on perusal, to be also strongly
tinctured, throughout, with a vein of exalted piety[334] and universal
benevolence.
-----
Footnote 334:
It is difficult for a sound and contemplative mind to form any
conception of the character of a philosopher, according to the true
meaning of the term, more especially of an astronomer, of a man
observant of the works of nature and acquainted with her laws; and yet
wanting in a due sense of religion. And hence Dr. Young has declared,
that—
“An undevout Philosopher is mad.”
Instances, however, of this kind of mania, are known to have existed;
produced by that presumptuous pride, which is too often engendered by
a sophistication of true philosophy with the wild fantasies of some
modern metaphysical sects, affecting extraordinary illumination. By
thus engrafting a bad scion upon a good stock, pernicious fruit is
propagated: or, to drop metaphorical allusions, by attempting to blend
into one system, principles so discordant in their nature, as those of
the experimental philosopher and the visionary theorist who deals in
abstract speculations and reasonings _â priori_, the appropriate
powers of the mind are weakened, while its moral faculty is at the
same time, and by the same means, greatly deteriorated.
An extraordinary but deplorable instance of this kind was exhibited to
the world by the justly celebrated astronomer Lalande, in his own
conduct and character, towards the concluding part of a long life.
These are so well portrayed in the very interesting _Letters on France
and England_, published in _The American Review of History and
Politicks_, that the writer of the present memoirs cannot forbear
presenting to his reader the following extract from Letter III.
“Lalande, if not the most profound and original, was certainly the
most learned astronomer of France, and the principal benefactor of the
science to which he was so passionately devoted. He was remarkable for
the most egregious vanity, and for the broadest eccentricities of
character, and almost equally eminent for the most noble virtues of
the heart. By a very singular perversion of intellect, he became a
professed atheist, about the commencement of the revolution;
pronounced, in the year 1793, in the Pantheon, a discourse against the
existence of a God, with the red cap upon his head; and displayed, on
this subject, the most absolute insanity, during the rest of his life.
This monstrous infatuation betrayed him into the most whimsical acts
of extravagance, and particularly into the publication of a Dictionary
of Atheists, in which he enregistered not only many of “the
illustrious dead,” but a great number of his cotemporaries, and among
these, some of the principal dignitaries of the empire.
“This circumstance led to an occurrence in the Institute, which that
body will not soon forget. At an extraordinary sitting of all the
classes, convoked for the purpose, when Lalande was present, a letter
from the Emperor was announced and read aloud, in which it was
declared, that Mr. Lalande had fallen into a state of dotage, and was
forbidden to publish, thereafter, any thing under his own name. The
old astronomer rose very solemnly, bowed low, and replied, that he
would certainly obey the orders of his majesty. His atheistical
absurdities deserved, no doubt, to be repressed; but, besides the
singularity of this form of interdiction, there was an unnecessary
degree of severity in it, as the end might have been attained without
so public a humiliation. Lalande was notoriously superannuated, and
not therefore a fit object for this species of punishment. Some
consideration, moreover, was due to his many private virtues, to his
rank in the scientific world, and to the large additions which he had
made to the stock of human knowledge. His atheistical opinions arose,
not from any moral depravity, but from a positive alienation of mind
on religious topics. He was not the less conspicuous for the most
disinterested generosity; for warm feelings of humanity; for the
gentleness of his manners; for the soundness of his opinions on
questions of science, and for a certain magnanimity with regard to the
merits of his rivals and detractors. The extravagance of his opinions
and his manners during his dotage, rendered him an object of almost
universal derision in Paris, and subjected him to the most cruel and
indecent mockery. It became fashionable, even among those who had
derived their knowledge from his lessons and experienced his bounty,
to depreciate his merits both as an astronomer and as a man. Lalande
had the misfortune of living to see a maxim verified in his own
regard, which has been exemplified in every age and country, that some
disciples may become superiour to their masters. But he was,
nevertheless, at all times among the luminaries of science; and to him
astronomy was indebted for more substantial and unremitted services,
than to any one of his cotemporaries.”
This very Mr. Lalande, in the preface to the third edition of his
inestimable work entitled _Astronomie_, published at Paris so late as
the year 1792, shews, that astronomy furnishes most powerful proofs of
the being of a God. Yet this same man, in one year after, when in his
“dotage,” with a mind enfeebled by age, and corrupted by the delusions
of the new philosophy of his countrymen, became an object of
“derision,” and of “mockery,” even among Frenchmen; for his
absurdities, and his endeavours to set himself up as a champion of
atheism! Is it necessary to furnish the rational part of mankind with
a more striking, and at the same time a more lamentable proof, of the
deleterious effects produced by those illusions, which, under the
assumed name of “Philosophy,” have been conjured up by some modern
Theorists and Political Speculators? Certainly, it is not. The
instance, here adduced, may stand as a monument of the folly and
depravity of the Philosophy of the Gallican School.
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse, by the vigour of his mind, by the transcendent powers
of his genius, had surmounted the disadvantages of a defective
education, as some few other great men have done; but it may be fairly
inferred from the nature of things, that, had not that privation existed
in the case of our Philosopher, he would have shone with a still
superior lustre, not merely as a man of science, but as a literary
character.[335]
-----
Footnote 335:
“If,” (says a late anonymous writer,) “from the advantages of sound
learning to the state, we turn to its influence on the characters of
individuals, we will find its effects to be no less striking. We will
find, that although, without much learning, man may become useful and
respectable, yet that he cannot, without it, become polished,
enlightened and great; he cannot ascend to that grade in the scale of
his Creator’s works, to which his powers are intended to exalt him. If
to this rule, a Franklin, a Rittenhouse, and a Washington present
exceptions, they are to regarded as mere exceptions, and therefore do
not amount to an infraction of the rule. They were prodigies; which
necessarily implies a departure from, and an ascendency over common
principles.” See an _Account of Dickinson College, Carlisle_, in the
_Port Folio_, for March, 1811; supposed to be written by Professor
Cooper.
-----
The Writer of these Memoirs sincerely regrets, that he differs very
widely, indeed, on this head, from a gentleman who has, himself, been
distinguished in the literary world by his learning, as well as by his
genius and science. “In speaking of Mr. Rittenhouse,” says his eloquent
Eulogist, “it has been common to lament his want of what is called a
liberal education.”—“Were education what it should be, in our public
seminaries,” continues our ingenious Professor, “this would have been a
misfortune; but conducted as it is at present, agreeably to the systems
adopted in Europe in the fifteenth century, I am disposed to believe
that his extensive knowledge, and splendid character, are to be ascribed
chiefly to his having escaped the pernicious influence of monkish
learning upon his mind, in early life. Had the usual forms of a public
education in the United States been imposed upon him; instead of
revolving through life in a planetary orbit, he would probably” says his
Eulogist “have consumed the force of his genius by fluttering around the
blaze of an evening taper: Rittenhouse the Philosopher, and one of the
luminaries of the 18th century, might have spent his hours of study in
composing syllogisms, or in measuring the feet of Greek and Latin
poetry.” In another part of his Eulogium, (wherein he notices some fine
and benevolent reflections of Dr. Rittenhouse, arising from a
contemplation of particular works of nature,) Dr. Rush addresses an
invocation to that distinguished class of learned men, the clergy, in
terms corresponding with his sentiments just quoted:—“If such,” says he,
“be the pious fruits of an attentive examination of the works of the
Creator, cease, ye ministers of the gospel, to defeat the design of your
benevolent labours, by interposing the common studies of the schools,
between our globe and the minds of young people.”[336]
-----
Footnote 336:
Three years before Dr. Rush expressed these opinions, so generally
unfavourable to classical learning and an academic education, he seems
to have thought these necessary qualifications for a _physician_ at
least. In his Lecture on the Character of DR. SYDENHAM, delivered in
Dec. 1793, is this passage: “From the short records of his life, which
have been published by the different editors of his works, it appears
that his education in academical learning and medicine, was perfectly
regular. He became a scholar at Oxford, and a doctor of medicine at
the university of Cambridge. I mention these facts,” adds our learned
Professor, “in order to refute an opinion which has been introduced by
some lazy and illiterate practitioners of physic, that he was indebted
wholly to intuition for all his knowledge of medicine. Men may become
wise and distinguished by meditation or observation, in the science of
morals and religion; but education and study are absolutely necessary
to constitute a great physician.”
With all due deference to the abilities and judgment of the Professor,
the Memorialist presumes, that if “education and study are absolutely
necessary to constitute a great physician,” they are equally requisite
in the formation of a great astronomer: because a knowledge of
geometry and optics can no more be attained by intuition, than that of
anatomy and the materia medica; yet these sciences are, respectively,
indispensable in the formation of the two characters, to which they
severally relate.
Still, adds Dr. Rush, “It is true Dr. Sydenham did not adopt, or
follow, the errors of the schools in which he had been educated; but,
by knowing them thoroughly, he was able, more easily, to examine and
refute them.” Here, then, is an admission, that even an intimate
knowledge of such errors is eminently useful, by enabling a man of a
sound and cultivated mind to refute them: for, the refutation of
existing errors, affords a most important aid to the advancement of
true science.
Sydenham, it appears, received his collegiate education at both the
English universities. It may not therefore be improper, on this
occasion, to introduce a quotation from an invaluable elementary
work;[336a] in order to shew, what was the opinion entertained by a
learned and distinguished German, of the English Universities—on the
models of which, the higher seminaries of learning in the United
States are formed. “Of all the Universities of Europe,” says Baron
Bielfeld, “those of Oxford and Cambridge in England appear at present
to approach the nearest to perfection: The great men they produce, are
a better proof than any other argument.[336b] We could wish,” adds
this highly enlightened foreigner, “always to see an university a real
city of learning, a place consecrated entirely to the muses and their
disciples; that the Greek and Latin languages were there predominant;
and that every thing were banished from thence, which could cause the
least dissipation in those who devote themselves to letters.” “The man
who confines himself to his closet,”—says our author, in another
place,—“is but rarely visited by the sciences, the arts and the belles
lettres: to acquire their intimate acquaintance, he must seek them in
those places where Minerva, Pallas, Apollo, and the Muses, have fixed
their residence. Emulation, that strong impulse in the career of all
our pursuits, should constantly attend the man of letters from his
early youth to the last period of his life; in the school, at college,
at the university, in those employments to which his knowledge may
lead him, or in those academies of science to which he may be
admitted. Emulation is an animating faculty, that results from
society: and few there are, to whom nature has given a genius
sufficiently strong to attain an extensive erudition in solitude; who
are provided with wings that can bear them, without guides, without
models, without companions or supports, to the lofty regions of the
empyrean.”
Footnote 336a:
The Elements of Universal Erudition, containing an analytical
abridgment of the Sciences, Polite Arts, and Belles Lettres; by Baron
Bielfeld. In three 8vo. volumes; translated from a Berlin edition, by
W. Hooper, M. D. and printed in London, in the year 1770.
Footnote 336b:
The three great Universities of England and Ireland enjoy the right,
in addition to many other important privileges, of sending, each, two
members to represent them in parliament, Would to heaven! that there
were something like a representation of the interests of learning and
science, in the legislative bodies of our own country.
-----
If, indeed, the “monkish learning” of the fifteenth century was now
taught among us; if “composing syllogisms,” and “measuring the feet of
Greek and Latin poetry,” were now the sole objects of scholastic
instruction in this country; then might our learned Professor have
anathematized, with good reason, the system of teaching in our
Universities and Colleges. But it is well known, that the Aristotelian
Philosophy, and what is denominated the Learning of the Schools, has
been gradually declining in the European seminaries of learning, in the
course of the last two centuries;[337] and more particularly so, in the
great schools of Britain and Ireland: that the system of academic
instruction, deduced from the visionary theories of the philosophers of
antiquity, is there, as well as here, nearly, if not entirely exploded.
It is true, the Greek and Latin tongues are yet taught with great
assiduity and success, in the British Isles; as they have hitherto been,
among ourselves:[338] and it is confidently hoped, that those languages
will long continue to be cultivated with unabated zeal, in this country;
whatever may be their fate on the European continent, where it is said
they are rapidly declining, along with other branches of useful
learning, and accompanied by an evident decay of many social
refinements. Those languages are, in fact, valuable auxiliaries in the
attainment of many branches of useful science, and have ever been
considered the best _substratum_ of polite learning and literary taste.
-----
Footnote 337:
Bacon (the celebrated Viscount of St. Albans and Baron of Verulam)
published his great philosophical work, the _Novum Organum_, in the
year 1620. The learned and sagacious professor Cooper remarks, that
“Lord Bacon” (whom the honourable Mr. Walpole considers as the Prophet
of the Arts, which NEWTON came to reveal,) “was the first among the
moderns, who pointed out the way by which real knowledge was to be
obtained, and turned the minds of the learned from playing tricks with
syllogisms, and the legerdemain of words without ideas; and taught
them to rest theory upon the basis of experiment alone.” See the
Introductory Lecture of Thomas Cooper, Esq. Professor of Chemistry at
Carlisle College, Pennsylvania.
Footnote 338:
The Greek and Latin are called by way of pre-eminence, the learned
languages. Baron Bielfeld enumerates the advantages resulting from a
knowledge of the former; among which he notices that important one, of
its enabling us more readily and clearly to comprehend the meaning of
that almost boundless list of terms in the arts and sciences, used in
modern languages and styled technical, which are either altogether
Grecian, or derived from that language. He then makes this remark:
“From all that has been said, it is apparent how much utility attends
the study of the Greek tongue; and how much reason the English have,
for applying themselves to it, from their early youth.” “But,”
observes this learned and discriminating writer, “that which has given
the Latin an advantage over the Greek itself, that has rendered it
indispensable to every man of letters, and has made it the basis of
erudition, is, that during the middle age, and in general in all
modern times, the learned of all Europe have made it their common and
universal language; so that the Latin forms, if we may use the
expression, the natural language of the sciences.” _Elem. of Univ.
Erud._
-----
A man may, assuredly, be a profound astronomer; he may be eminently
skilled in other branches of natural science, or in the doctrines of
morals; he may be well versed in the polite arts; and yet may not
understand either Greek or Latin. Nevertheless, an intimate and
classical acquaintance with these languages cannot diminish the powers
of his mind, or render him less capable of excelling in other
departments of human knowledge. Bacon, Newton, Boyle, and Maclauren,
with a multitude of others, the most distinguished for genius, science
and learning, received an academical education; they were masters of the
Greek and Latin languages; and were also instructed, without doubt, even
in the formation of syllogisms:[339] yet these great men were not the
less eminent as philosophers. It is to be presumed, that, while at their
several schools and colleges, they were employed in acquiring the more
solid and useful parts of learning; as well as the ornamental and
polite. Both are taught in all the higher seminaries; and to the
Universities of the United States, as well as of Europe, are attached
Professorships[340] for such instruction.
-----
Footnote 339:
Although Mr. T. Cooper (before quoted) admits, that the “strict
adherence to the syllogistic mode of reasoning,” that which he calls
“playing tricks with syllogisms,” together with “the legerdemain of
words without ideas,” was carried much too far by some late
metaphysical writers of eminence; yet he is of opinion, that “in
modern times, this invention of Aristotle is abandoned more than it
deserves to be: For,” continues Mr. Cooper, “no man can so skilfully
analyse the argument of another, as one who is well acquainted with
the rules of scholastic logic, and accustomed to apply them. Good
reasoners there are and will be, who know nothing of these rules, but
better reasoners who do.”
Mr. Cooper doubts, whether metaphysical lectures should be delivered,
at all, in colleges; but thinks, that if metaphysics were to be there
taught, the writings of Beattie, Oswald and Gregory, would be unworthy
of notice. Much as the Writer of these Memoirs respects the talents
and ingenuity of the learned Professor of Chemistry, he can by no
means concur in this opinion: and he regrets, that he feels himself
obliged to differ still more widely, from a gentleman of such
acknowledged abilities, respecting the propriety of his recommending
to youth the study of the works of Hobbes, Leibnitz and Collins.
Now, what the complexion and tendency of the tenets of Hobbes,
Leibnitz, and other philosophers of the same class are, may be learnt
from the following passages, translated from a French work, entitled,
“_De la Philosophie de la Nature, ou Traité de Morale pour l’Epece
Humaine, tire de la Philosophie et fonde sur la Nature_;” a work
which, though anonymous in respect to its author, had passed through
three editions in the year 1777. The writer thus says:
“Of what importance to me are the names of Carneades, of Lysander, of
Hobbes, and the author of _The System of Nature_, names unhappily
celebrated, which the apostle of the moral indifference of human
actions alleges in favour of this atrocious extravagance?” (the
doctrines of Fatality, Moral Scepticism, &c.) “Carneades was an
arrogant Pyrrhonian, who doubted of every thing, excepting the
superiority of his own logic. Hobbes had the audacity to write a book
against the everlasting truths of geometry. Lysander, the enemy of the
liberty of Sparta, and the corrupter of the oracles of Delos and
Ammon, was one of those spirits of spleen and filth, who strive to
acquire a name by reducing wickedness to a system. As for the
anonymous Writer, whose licentious pen vents so much blasphemy on
Nature, in disavowing the existence of GOD, he has purchased the right
to deny that of Morality. He is equally silly with Salmonius, in
braving the thunderbolt destined to stifle the stings of conscience.”
Speaking of Leibnitz, in another place, this French Moralist observes,
that “the Philosopher of Leipsick made of the soul a monad, and
explained all the phænomena of its union with matter by a
pre-established harmony. One portion of Europe believed him; because
he set up a new system! and what is it but a metaphysical theory,
without system?” And again: “What names have we to oppose to those of
Descartes, Leibnitz, Pascal and Malbranch? The suffrage of NEWTON,
alone, is sufficient to crush their Materialism; if, in the humble
materials for the examination of human reason, the suffrage of one
great man is competent to balance a syllogism.”
Footnote 340:
The professorships, all well supported and endowed, which are
established at Oxford and Cambridge, (and, probably, there are similar
institutions in the universities of Scotland and Ireland,) are in the
following departments of literature and science: viz. Divinity,
Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Modern Languages, History (general,) Modern
History, Civil Law, Common Law, Physic, Anatomy, Botany, Chemistry,
Natural Philosophy, Experimental Philosophy, Astronomy, Mathematics,
Geometry, Moral Philosophy, Casuistry, Music.
-----
The able and learned editor of “The American Review of History and
Politics”[341] remarks, that, “for very obvious reasons it could not be
expected, that Philology would be duly appreciated, or cultivated to any
extent, by the American public in general. The state of society in this
country, so admirable under many points of view, renders this
impossible. We should not be surprised or discouraged at a general
ignorance of, and an almost universal indifference about the learned
languages: but this is not all; the public feeling is not confined to
mere apathy: it borders on hostility. Numbers are not wanting, persons
even of influence in the community, who industriously proclaim, not
simply the utter insignificance, but the pernicious tendency of
classical learning; and who would proscribe it as idle in itself, and as
dangerous to republicanism. At the same time, our progress in this
pursuit is far from being in a natural ratio with our advances in other
respects. Philology is in fact, even worse than stationary among us;
from what cause, whether from the influence of the extraordinary notions
just mentioned, or from the absence of all external excitements, we will
not now pretend to determine.”
-----
Footnote 341:
See the editorial review, in that work, of an “Historical Report upon
the progress of History and ancient Literature, since the year 1789,
and upon their actual condition,” &c. vol. iii. No 1.
-----
Should these judicious remarks of the respectable Reviewer be considered
as containing an indirect censure on such “persons of influence” as he
may be supposed to allude to, who “proclaim” the “pernicious tendency of
classical learning,”—it is much to be lamented by the friends of
literature and science, that there should be any just grounds for its
support.
Dr. Rittenhouse understood the German[342] and Low Dutch languages,
well; and had acquired a sufficient knowledge of the French, to enable
him to comprehend astronomical and other works written in that tongue.
These acquisitions, it has been observed, “served the valuable purpose
of conveying to him the discoveries of foreign nations, and thereby
enabled him to prosecute his studies with more advantage in his native
language.”[343]
-----
Footnote 342:
In the year 1789, Dr. Rittenhouse translated from the German of Mr.
Lessing, director of the theatre at Hamburg, a tragedy called _Lucia
Sampson_; which translation was printed; in the same year, by Mr.
Charles Cist, of Philadelphia. In the preface to it, the translator
says:—“This translation was attempted at the request of a friend; and
the many virtuous sentiments and excellent lessons of morality it
contains, will apologize for its being offered to the public. To young
ladies it may afford useful instruction, and will, from the nature of
the distress, be particularly useful to them: an elegant writer well
acquainted with the human heart, has observed, that the affection of a
father to his daughter unites extreme sensibility with the utmost
delicacy; and this sentiment is, no doubt, in a great degree
reciprocal.”
Footnote 343:
See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.
-----
But these were not the whole of his philological attainments. By the
dint of genius, and by that spirit of perseverance which he manifested
in every thing he undertook, he overcame in a great degree the
difficulties of the Latin tongue.[344] This he did for the same valuable
purpose that he had in view, in learning the German, Low Dutch and
French.
-----
Footnote 344:
The memorialist undertakes to say, on the authority of his father (the
late Rev. Mr. Barton,) that our philosopher was sufficiently well
versed in the Latin, to have read Newton’s _Principia_ in that
language, besides studying it in his native tongue: and further, that,
although he was very imperfectly acquainted with the grammatical
construction of the Greek language, he had so far familiarized himself
to a knowledge of its written characters and words, as enabled him to
consult a lexicon; which he frequently did, for the purpose of
ascertaining the true etymology of many of those technical terms,
derived from the Greek, that are in common use in our language,
particularly in relation to his favourite sciences.
-----
The reading of our Philosopher was extensive. It embraced every
department of polite literature, as well as many branches of what is
called, by way of distinction, useful knowledge. He appears to have been
more particularly attached to history, voyages and travels, and to the
poetick muse:[345] but the drama, ingenious productions of the
imagination, and other works of taste and fancy, likewise engaged a
portion of his attention.[346] Dr. Rush asserts, that he had early and
deeply studied most of the different systems of theology.[347] On this
head, no further information can be given by the writer of these
Memoirs: yet he thinks he has good reason for believing,—and such as are
independent of Dr. Rittenhouse’s known liberality, with respect to
various modes of faith and worship, that he never gave a very decided
preference to any one regular society of Christians, over others; he
loved that sort of Christianity, which inculcates sound morals: his
charity, in regard to theological opinions and other concerns of
religion, was great; and he felt no disposition to observe any thing
like a scrupulous adherence to such tenets or rites, as he deemed less
essential to the well-being of mankind. It was, in fact, the liberal
manner (and this alone) in which he sometimes expressed himself on
subjects of this nature, influenced by sentiments of the purest
benevolence, that induced some persons of more rigid principles, and
perhaps less candour, to doubt the soundness of his faith in revealed
religion: but the whole tenor of his life, and the religious sentiments
he had publicly and repeatedly avowed, shew how ill-founded such
suspicions were.[348] A mind so contemplative as his, so devoted to the
pursuit of truth, so boundless in its views, and so ardently attached to
virtue, would naturally lead him to an investigation of the principles
of Christianity; and it is evident from some passages in his Oration,
and also in his familiar letters to his friends, that he believed in the
fundamental articles of the Christian faith,[349] however he may have
doubted respecting some of the more abstract and less important tenets
of the church.
-----
Footnote 345:
In Hill’s Life of Dr. Barrow, it is remarked, that this great
Mathematician (as well as learned Divine) “was always addicted to
poetry, and very much valued that part of it which consists of
description.” In like manner, Dr. Rittenhouse delighted in poetic
effusions of genius and science. His Eulogist observes, that “the muse
of Thomson charmed him most:” indeed, an astronomer, and a man of
virtue and taste, could not but be charmed by the chaste and glowing
descriptions of that fascinating poet, blended, as they are, with
philosophical reflections. Our philosopher, however, greatly admired
Milton also: so that these two celebrated votaries of the muses seemed
to be his favourites. Why should not these partialities of Rittenhouse
be noticed?—when similar observations have been made respecting the
characters of other men, eminent in science; as, for example, that the
favourite author of Erasmus and the younger Scaliger, was Terence, and
that Grotius was an admirer of Terence, Lucan and Horace.
Footnote 346:
_Nec lusisse pudet_, is an observation which has, in particular
instances, been applied to the occasional conduct and disposition of
some of the wisest, best, and even gravest characters. Dr. Warton, in
remarking on this line of Mr. Pope, viz.
“Unthought-of frailties cheat us in the wise,”—
says; “Who could imagine that Locke was fond of romances; that Newton
once studied astrology; that Dr. Clarke valued himself for his
agility, and frequently amused himself, in a private room of his
house, in leaping over the tables and chairs; and that our author
himself (Mr Pope) was a great epicure.”
In our own country, the sage Franklin abounded in anecdote and humour,
and thought it not unwise to recreate his mind, at times, with the
game of chess: the conversation of Judge Hopkinson was replete with
sprightly wit, and he admired well written novels of no immoral
tendency; as did also the late Judge Wilson: the illustrious
Washington, in his earlier years, enjoyed the pleasures of the festive
board, in the society of men of understanding and worth: and no man
delighted more in cheerful conversation, and in reading works of fancy
and taste, than the philosophic Rittenhouse. The almost universal
tendency, in persons of all classes, to an occasional playfulness of
temper, even in cases which may sometimes be considered as bordering
on weakness, has given the force of a maxim to the observation of the
latinists—_Nemo omnibus horis sapit_. Indeed, as a biographer of the
celebrated Dr. Clarke has remarked, “to be capable of drawing
amusement from trivial circumstances, indicates a heart at ease, and
may generally be regarded as the concomitant of virtue.”
Footnote 347:
See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.
Footnote 348:
Sir Isaac Newton, it is well known, was thoroughly persuaded of the
Truth of Revelation: yet he did not escape the imputation of being an
Arian, Mr. Whiston having represented him as such. It is equally a
matter of notoriety, that similar opinions have prevailed respecting
Dr. Rittenhouse’s religious creed: nay, further, that doubts were
entertained by some, whether he believed at all in the fundamental
principles of the Christian religion. In one instance, indeed, a
virulent party-writer[348a] had the hardiness, one might say folly, to
proclaim him an “Atheist!” The publication in which this false and
shameful accusation was made, appeared about the time of Dr.
Rittenhouse’s death, and, it is believed, shortly after that event.
As a Biographer of such a man as Rittenhouse, the Author of these
Memoirs would do great injustice to his memory, did he not lay before
his readers, in a full and undisguised manner, that sort of testimony
concerning our Philosopher’s religious sentiments, which it is
presumed will eradicate every doubt or suspicion, that has heretofore
existed in the minds of some, on the subject. He is aware of the
influence, which the opinions of eminently wise and good men (or, of
such sentiments as are sometimes attributed to them,) have, in their
operation on society; and, in every point of view, he fully estimates
the importance of representing them to the world, in a strict
conformity to truth.
These considerations have induced the Memorialist to devote a larger
portion of his work to an elucidation of Dr. Rittenhouse’s real
opinions on the all-important subject of Religion, than he should have
thought proper, under other circumstances, to appropriate to that part
of his character.
Under these impressions, then, the Memorialist could not think it
consistent with his duty, to withhold from the public a letter
addressed to him by the Rev. Mr. Cathcart, a clergyman of much
respectability and pastor of a presbyterian congregation in the
borough of York. This letter (which will be found in the Appendix)
contains what may be fairly deemed conclusive evidence, even if such
had been before wanting, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “a firm Believer in
Christianity.” Bishop White had communicated to the Memorialist, in
conversation, the interesting facts stated in Mr. Cathcart’s letter;
the knowledge of which, the Bishop had derived, verbally, from that
gentleman: his letter was written in answer to one which the
Memorialist addressed to him, on the occasion, at the instance of the
Right Rev. Prelate.
Footnote 348a:
Mr. William Cobbett.
Footnote 349:
“Astronomy, like the Christian religion, if you will allow me the
comparison,” said our Philosopher, “has a much greater influence on
our knowledge in general, and perhaps on our manners too, than is
commonly imagined. Though but few men are its particular votaries, yet
the light it affords is universally diffused among us; and it is
difficult for us to divest ourselves of its influence so far, as to
frame any competent idea of what would be our situation without it.”
See _Ritt. Orat._
In another part of his Oration, is this passage: “Our Religion teaches
us what Philosophy could not have taught: and we ought to admire, with
reverence, the great things it has pleased Divine Providence to
perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for man, who is,
undoubtedly, the most noble inhabitant of this globe:” &c.
And in addition to these sentiments, uttered and published by our
Philosopher himself, let the testimony of Dr. Rush, who had long and
intimately known him, be quoted from the learned Professor’s Eulogium.
“He believed in the Christian Revelation,” says the Doctor: and then
subjoins, “Of this he gave many proofs; not only in the conformity of
his life to the precepts of the Gospel, but in his letters and
conversation.”
-----
As Dr. Rittenhouse never attached himself to the distinguishing dogmas
of any one sect of Christians; so, on the authority of a letter
addressed to the Memorialist by Mr. B. Rittenhouse, soon after his
brother’s decease, it may be asserted, that our Philosopher “was never
joined in communion with any particular religious society; though he
esteemed good men of all sects.” In his youth, it is probable he was
bred a Baptist; the sect to which his father (and, it is believed, his
mother also,) belonged: at subsequent periods, he entertained favourable
opinions of the church of England, and of the principles of the quakers
(so called.) In some of the latter years of his life, he and his family
pretty frequently attended divine service in a presbyterian
congregation, of which a very respectable and worthy gentleman then was
the pastor and until very lately continued to officiate as such.[350]
That church is situated in the same street wherein Dr. Rittenhouse
dwelt; and its then minister was one of many clergymen, belonging to
different churches, whom he personally esteemed.
-----
Footnote 350:
The Rev. Ashbel Green, D. D. This gentleman succeeded the Rev. Dr.
Sproat, an aged clergyman, of amiable disposition and unaffected
piety, for whose character our Philosopher entertained a great esteem,
and, during the latter part of whose ministry in that church, he first
attended it. Dr. Green has lately become President of the College of
New-Jersey, in consequence of the resignation of the learned and
eloquent Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D.
-----
Some of his letters to his confidential friends testify, nevertheless,
that he by no means embraced some of the doctrines of Calvinism: nor
did he, probably, approve of others, in their more rigid
interpretation.[351] In one of those letters, addressed to the Rev.
Mr. Barton, (an Episcopalian, of the English church,) from
Philadelphia, so early as September, 1755, he wrote thus: “I have been
here several days, and am fatigued and somewhat indisposed. You know
my spirits are never very high, and will therefore expect a melancholy
letter from me at present. I should be glad of opportunities to
receive letters from you, and to write to you oftener:—indeed, I am
desirous of disclosing to you some of my most serious thoughts.” It
can scarcely be doubted, from the complexion of this paragraph and the
character of the person to whom our then young philosopher was
writing, that these “most serious thoughts,” which he wished so much
to disclose to his clerical friend, related to some points in
divinity. After subjoining, in the same letter, some reflexions, of
such a cast as shew that his spirits were depressed by fatigue and
indisposition, as was usually the case with him, he proceeded thus: “I
assure you, notwithstanding, I am no misanthrope; but think good
society one of the greatest blessings of life. Whatever is said of
original sin, the depravity of our nature, and our propensity to all
evil; though men are said to be wolves to men; yet, think, I can see
abundance of goodness in human nature, with which I am enamoured. I
would sooner give up my interest in a future state, than be divested
of humanity;—I mean, that good-will which I have to the species,
although one half of them are said to be fools, and almost the other
half knaves. Indeed I am firmly persuaded that we are not at the
disposal of a Being who has the least tincture of ill-nature, or
requires any in us. You will laugh at this grave philosophy, or my
writing to you on a subject you have thought of a thousand times. But,
can any thing that is serious, be ridiculous? Shall we suppose Gabriel
smiling at Newton, for labouring to demonstrate whether the earth
moves or not, because the former plainly sees it move?”
-----
Footnote 351:
The following extract of a letter, which Professor Rusk was so
obliging as to address to the writer of these memoirs, in the spring
of the year 1812, in answer to some questions proposed by the
memorialist, favours the presumption, that our philosopher in some
points dissented from the opinions of very respectable Calvinistic
Divines, on the subject of religion. “I understood from the Rev. Dr.
Green,” says the learned Professor, that his late colleague, the Rev.
Dr. Sproat, had informed him, that in a visit he once paid to Dr.
Rittenhouse, they were led accidentally to converse upon a religious
subject, on which they held different opinions. Dr. Sproat, in
defending his opinions, quoted several texts of scripture; but
observed, after doing so; “Perhaps, Mr. Rittenhouse, you do not admit
of the validity of arguments derived from the bible.” “Pardon me,
Sir,” (said Mr. Rittenhouse,) “I admit the divine authority of the
contents of that book.” Another fact stated by Dr. Rush, at the same
time, and which was also communicated to the memorialist, by a very
near and dear friend of the deceased, is thus related by the Doctor:
“His late worthy companion, Mrs. Rittenhouse, informed me, that the
last sourse from whence he derived intellectual and moral pleasure,
was Dr. Price’s excellent sermon upon the _Goodness of God_, which she
read to him, at his request, on the two successive days before he
died.” It may not be thought unworthy of being remarked on this
occasion, that Mr. T. Dobson, of Philadelphia, republished Price’s
Sermons, in the year 1788, and that Mrs. Rittenhouse’s name appears in
the list of subscribers to that edition.
In Dr. Rush’s letter, just quoted, he introduces the subject in these
terms. “In answer to your question, relative to the religious opinions
of your late uncle and my excellent friend, Dr. Rittenhouse, I am
happy in being able to inform you, that I have no doubt of his having
been a sincere believer in the most essential doctrines of the
Christian religion: the ground upon which I formed this opinion, were
derived not only from many incidental remarks in its favour, that fell
from him in our conversations upon other subjects, but from the
testimony of persons upon whose correctness I have the fullest
reliance.”
Upon the whole it appears, that although our philosopher was, most
probably, not strictly Calvinistical in his religious creed, he was
nevertheless a pious man, and a sincere Christian in the fundamental
articles of his faith.
-----
This extract (the latter part of which constitutes a note to Dr. Rush’s
Eulogium,) expresses, in the concluding sentence, a beautiful and apt
allusion, in reference to the subject. It likewise contains a
finely-turned compliment to the superior knowledge he presumed Mr.
Barton to possess, on theological subjects; without its seeming to have
been intended, that it should comprehend himself also,—otherwise than as
he might be considered, for a moment, to be personating that branch of
science which he most assiduously cultivated. The compliment, so far as
it appeared to apply to himself, was unquestionably due to him; but his
modesty would have forbidden his using it, even to a brother-in-law,
could he have imagined at the instant of penning it, that a portion of
it might be referred to himself, personally.
The whole scope of the passage, just quoted, “shews,” however, as his
Eulogist has observed, “how early and deeply the principles of universal
benevolence were fixed in his mind.” And in his Oration, composed when
he was in the full meridian of life, our Philosopher has plainly
indicated, that the same philanthropic spirit, that species of
benevolence which is the basis of true religion, and that warmed his
youthful breast, continued to animate it with unabated fervency: “That
Being,” said he, “before whose piercing eye all the intricate foldings
and dark recesses of the human heart become expanded and illuminated, is
my witness, with what sincerity, with what ardour, I wish for the
happiness of the whole race of mankind; how much I admire that
disposition of lands and seas, which affords a communication between
distant regions, and a mutual exchange of benefits; how sincerely I
approve of those social refinements which really add to our happiness,
and induce us with gratitude to acknowledge our great Creator’s
goodness; how I delight in a participation of the discoveries made from
time to time in nature’s works, by our philosophic brethren in Europe.”
In the opinion of our Philosopher, “every enlargement of our faculties,
every new happiness conferred upon us, every step we advance towards the
perfection of the Divinity, will very probably render us more and more
sensible of his inexhaustible stores of communicable bliss, and of his
inaccessible perfections.”[352] He supposed, that, even in this world,
“wherein we are only permitted ‘_to look about us and to die_,’ there is
ample provision made for employing every faculty of the human mind; even
allowing its powers to be constantly enlarged through an endless
repetition of ages;” but admitting, at the same time, “that there is
nothing in it capable of satisfying us.”
-----
Footnote 352:
Dr. Rittenhouse had no more faith in the notion entertained by some
visionary men, of the attainment of the perfection of virtue, in this
life, than he had in the fantastic opinion, maintained also by some,
of the perfectibility of human reason. He supposed that we are
capable, by a progressive “enlargement of our faculties,” to “advance
towards the perfection of the Divinity;” not like those pretenders to
philosophy, who, as Mr. Voltaire expresses it, “took it into their
heads, by the example of Descartes, to put themselves into God’s
place, and create a world with a word!” Our philosopher knew, that
pure virtue and perfect reason do not belong to human nature.
-----
Similar indications of his extensive benevolence, and of the high sense
he entertained of the dignity of human nature, as well as of the
attributes of the Deity, are found every where in his writings; and the
“elegant and pious extract” (as it is termed by Dr. Rush, in his
Eulogium,) from a letter to one of his friends, quoted in another place,
affords a striking instance of the prevalence of that disposition in the
towering mind of Rittenhouse.
If “he believed political, as well as moral, evil, to be intruders into
the society of men,”[353] he was certainly too well acquainted with the
moral constitution of man and the evident nature of humanity, to
suppose, “that a time would come, when every part of our globe would
echo back the heavenly proclamation of universal peace on earth and good
will to man.”[354] Possessing a most benevolent disposition, he did
believe, “that a conduct in this life, depending on our choice, will
stamp our characters for ages yet to come.” He was so far from expecting
any thing like perfectibility here, that he thought, that man as a free
agent, in darkening his faculties by an unworthy application of them
here on earth, might “degrade himself to some inferior rank of being,”
hereafter; while, on the other hand, by “the exercise of virtue, and a
rational employment of those talents we are entrusted with,”—“we shall,
in a few years, be promoted to a more exalted rank among the creatures
of God—have our understandings greatly enlarged—be enabled to follow
Truth in all her labyrinths, with an higher relish and more facility;
and thus lay the foundation for an eternal improvement in knowledge and
happiness.” Our Philosopher acknowledged, that he was “not one of those
sanguine spirits who seem to think, that, when the withered hand of
death hath drawn up the curtain of eternity, almost all distance between
the creature and the creator, between finite and infinite, will be
annihilated.”[355] Yet, the Writer of these Memoirs has no hesitation in
expressing an opinion, with which a long and intimate acquaintance with
Dr. Rittenhouse has forcibly impressed his own mind; that this virtuous
man was inclined to believe, or rather, actually did believe, (with the
distinguished author of the Dissertation on the Prophecies,)[356] in a
final restitution of all things to harmony and happiness in another
state of existence.
-----
Footnote 353:
Dr. Rush’s Eulogium.
Footnote 354:
Ibid.
Footnote 355:
This quotation and the other passages, before which inverted commas
are placed in the margin, in the two last paragraphs of the text, are
extracted from Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration.
Footnote 356:
Dr. Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol.
-----
The learned Eulogist of our Philosopher, whom his present biographer has
already so often quoted with much interest and pleasure, (although he
is, on some points, so unfortunate as to be compelled to dissent from
him,) has remarked, that Dr. Rittenhouse “was well acquainted with
practical metaphysics.” He had, without doubt, attentively studied those
branches, at least, of this science, which embrace moral philosophy,
connected, as it is, with a rational system of natural religion:
probably, too, he had investigated its more abstruse and less useful
departments: and, perhaps, he had also directed his all-inquisitive
mind, in some degree, to a contemplation of those mental vagaries of the
modern philosophy, as it is termed, which neither subserve the purposes
of ethics or of natural theology: a system, if it deserve that
appellation, made up of such incongruous materials, such visionary
notions, as by their falsity alone, independently of their mischievous
operation in society, seem calculated to dishonour the name of
philosophy, and to depreciate the highly meritorious services rendered
to mankind by the votaries of true science. If, however, Dr. Rittenhouse
ever did condescend to employ any considerable portion of his valuable
time, in making himself acquainted with the delusive principles of this
multifarious sect of pseudo-philosophers, it has been already manifested
with what sentiments of disapprobation, if not of abhorrence, he
regarded their doctrines.[357]
-----
Footnote 357:
A late learned philosopher and eloquent divine, after adverting to the
irrational and infatuated notions of men of the class above referred
to, contrasted with doctrines founded in truth, and the awful gloom,
destitute of every ray of consolation, that must necessarily accompany
their reflections upon their own principles, addresses to them this
short but serious invocation: “When these things are fairly weighed,
as in nature they exist, I call on you, nay I challenge you, ye
boasting philosophists! to comfort yourselves, and be easy under your
dreary doctrine, or notion of being safe after death, in a state of
annihilation or future nothingness! I call on you, ye wise Illuminati!
of upstart name, to weigh these things seriously; and try whether you
can comfort yourselves, and remain easy, in considering, and striving
to make others consider, Death, as only an “everlasting Sleep,” from
which they will never be awakened, nor their ashes disturbed!” See
Sermon V. in _The Works of William Smith, D. D. late Provost of the
College and Academy of Philadelphia_.
In no instance have the impious and absurd doctrines of the
“Philosophists” and the “Illuminati,” of our times, been carried to
such a height of extravagance, as by the revolutionists of modern
France. These infatuated people undertook, in the year 1793, to
abolish by Law, a Futurity of Existence; having then decreed, that no
such state existed! They also decreed, that in every cemetery there
should be erected a figure representing Sleep, pointing towards the
tombs; and this Sleep of Death, the decree declared to be eternal!! It
is to this sort of wickedness and folly that an allusion is made, in
the foregoing quotation; as well as in the following lines, copied
from the _Pursuits of Literature_:
“Systems which laugh to scorn th’avenging rod,
And hurl defiance at the throne of GOD;
Shake pestilence abroad with madd’ning sweep,
And grant no pause—but everlasting Sleep!”
-----
It being presumed, therefore, that our Philosopher was, in the words of
his Eulogist, “well acquainted with practical metaphysics,” an inference
may thence be fairly made, that, with respect to metaphysical
deductions, “he could use them,” as has been said of Maclaurin, “with as
much subtlety and force as any man living; but”—also like that
celebrated philosopher—“he chose rather, in his conversation as well as
his writings, to bring the matter to a short issue, in his own way.”
Certain it is, however, that Dr. Rittenhouse reprobated, as did his
eminent predecessor just named, that subtile, vague and inconclusive
kind of ratiocination, the mode of reasoning, in matters of abstract
science, from causes to effects,[358] which so much characterize that
“cobweb philosophy,”[359] of which the mass of mere metaphysical systems
is made up. Rittenhouse was a practical philosopher: he held in contempt
the obscurity of mysticism, in every object of rational enquiry; viewing
it as being, always, either the parent or the offspring of error. He
loved “sober certainty,”[360] in philosophy; and therefore he pursued
Truth, in all his scientific researches, in that practical and rational
mode of philosophizing, which he deemed conformable to the nature of
truth itself, and best adapted to the construction and faculties of the
human mind.[361]
-----
Footnote 358:
“Let others creep by timid steps, and slow,
On plain experience, lay foundations low;
By common sense, to common knowledge bred;
And lost to nature’s cause through nature led:
All-seeing in thy mists, we want no guide,
Mother of Arrogance and source of pride!
We nobly take the high priori road,
And reason downward, till we doubt of GOD.”
_Pope’s Dunciad_, b. IV. l. 455.
The following observation, in the form of a note, is referred to, from
the lines above quoted, in a work which contains that extract, viz.
“Those, who, from the effects in this visible world, deduce the
eternal power and Godhead of the first cause, though they cannot
attain to an adequate idea of the Deity, yet discover so much of him,
as enables them to see the end of their creation and the means of
their happiness: whereas they who take “the high priori road,” as
Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, and some better reasoners, for one that
goes right, ten lose themselves in “mists,” or ramble after visions,
which deprive them of all sight of their end, and mislead them in the
choice of wrong means.”
Mr. Pope had put the above poetical lines into the mouth of one of his
Dunces, when addressing himself to the goddess Dullness. And as the
great Dr. Samuel Clarke had previously endeavoured to shew,[358a] that
the Being of a God may be demonstrated by arguments deduced _â
priori_, the Doctor conceived himself to be struck at, among those
“better reasoners” alluded to, in the note above mentioned.
Footnote 358a:
In his work entitled, “A Discourse concerning the Being and Attributes
of a God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the truth and
certainty of the Christian Revelation; in answer to Mr. Hobbes,
Spinoza, the Author of the Oracles of Reason, and other deniers of
natural and revealed Religion.”
Footnote 359:
See Ritt. Orat.
Footnote 360:
Ibid.
Footnote 361:
“Other systems of Philosophy have ever found it necessary to conceal
their weakness and inconsistency, under the veil of unintelligible
terms and phrases, to which no two mortals, perhaps, ever affixed the
same meaning. But the philosophy of Newton disdains to make use of
such subterfuges; it is not reduced to the necessity of using them,
because it pretends not to be of nature’s privy council, or to have
access to her most inscrutable mysteries; but, to attend carefully to
her works, to discover the immediate causes of visible effects, to
trace those causes to others more general and simple, advancing by
slow and sure steps towards the Great First Cause of all things.”
Ritt. Orat.
-----
What was the general bias of Dr. Rittenhouse’s opinions on the subject
of government, no one who knew him could doubt; and they are likewise
deducible, not only from his writings, but from the uniform course of
his public and official conduct. He was, in fact, from the dawn of the
American controversy with the government of the mother-country to the
year 1775, a whig, in his political principles. From the commencement of
hostilities in that year, his feelings, as a native of America,
prejudiced him strongly against the administration of the British
government; and the prejudices thus imbibed, were transferred, soon
after, from those men who administered that government—as well as their
measures, to the nature and form of the government itself. And finally,
on the establishment of the national independence of the United States,
in 1776, his opinions settled down, very decidedly, in favour of the
governmental system of a representative and elective republic.
But, until the arrival of that important epocha, when thirteen
North-American colonies of Great Britain solemnly announced to the world
their separation from the parent-state, Rittenhouse thought and acted,
in relation to political affairs, pretty much as his countrymen did.
“Previous to the American revolution,” as Ramsay the historian has
remarked, “the inhabitants of the British colonies were universally
loyal:” and another American writer[362] of respectability has
correspondently observed, that the proceedings of the first congress
were “cool, deliberate and loyal, though marked with unanimity and
firmness.” Indeed many months elapsed, after the appeal to arms was
actually made, before the strong attachment to the mother-country, which
the American colonists had always manifested, generally subsided. But,
after the middle of the year 1775, “the prejudices in favour of a
connexion with England and of the English constitution,” (to use the
words of Chief-Justice Marshall,[363] “gradually, but rapidly wore off;
and were succeeded by republican principles, and wishes for
independence.”
-----
Footnote 362:
Dr. Morse, the Geographer.
Footnote 363:
See his _Life of George Washington_.
-----
Such then, it is confidently believed, was the progress of political
sentiments in their operation upon the mind of Rittenhouse, in common
with a large majority of the American people.
The information must therefore have been wholly erroneous, upon which
Dr. Rush was induced to ground his assertion, that “the year of the
declaration of Independence, which changed our royal governments into
republics, produced no change in his (Rittenhouse’s) political
opinions,—for,” continues the Doctor, “he had been educated a republican
by his father.” The very reason which the able and zealous Eulogist has
here assigned for Dr. Rittenhouse’s political principles having
undergone no change in consequence of the American revolution, being
predicated upon an assumed but mistaken fact, it serves to invalidate
that allegation; and it would never have been made, had not Dr. Rush
been led into the error by misinformation on the subject. Because, those
who were personally acquainted with our Philosopher’s father, (Mr.
Matthias Rittenhouse,) must well know, that the old gentleman was
remarkable for his quiet, unoffending principles and conduct; that he
meddled very little, if at all, with public affairs; and that, although
a man of good judgment, he had never turned his attention to political
controversies or speculations on the science of government. He was in
truth a pious man, of great industry, plain manners and unambitious
temper; and he uniformly approved himself a peaceable and faithful
subject of that monarchy under which he lived seventy-three years, until
1776. On the other hand, the theory of government was a subject upon
which the son had, doubtless, thought and read much. It cannot,
therefore, be reasonably concluded, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “educated a
republican by his father.”
It is asked: “How could he (Rittenhouse) behold the beauty and harmony
of the universe as the result of universal and mutual dependance, and
not admit that Heaven intended Rulers to be dependant upon those, for
whose benefit, alone, all government should exist? To suppose the
contrary,” it is added, “would be to deny unity and system in the plans
of the great Creator of all things.”[364] But, with all due deference to
the genius and talents of the highly respectable gentleman here quoted,
the writer cannot persuade himself, that our Astronomer could have drawn
such inferences as the results of analogical reasoning, from the beauty
and harmony of the Universe, as those which the foregoing extract would
seem to impute to him. For, who are those, “for whose benefit, alone,
all government should exist?” The People: And in such a republic as the
United States—where there cannot exist, _constitutionally_, “a
privileged order of men”—the Rulers are, surely, a part of the People.
What, then, is the nature of this mutuality of dependence between Rulers
and People? If government should exist for the benefit of the People,
that is, all the members of the community, as most assuredly it ought to
do; then it should be conducted for the benefit of the Rulers, as well
as of those who are ruled; the former being a component part of the
entire community, under the comprehensive denomination of the People. It
is therefore conceived, that, on republican principles, the People and
their Rulers cannot be so contradistinguished as separate bodies of men,
as that the former, alone, should be dependant on the latter; but that
there ought to be between them, as constituting jointly and collectively
the People, that “mutual dependance,” of which the ingenious Eulogist
speaks: otherwise, a privileged order of men must be considered as
actually existing among us. Yet, even in the monarchical republic of
Great Britain,[365] the business of government is not wholly “limited”
to “a privileged order of men:”[366] One branch of the legislative body
is popular; and one branch, also, of the judicial department of that
government, the institution of juries, is purely republican.
-----
Footnote 364:
See the Eulogium on Rittenhouse.
Footnote 365:
The names ordinarily used to distinguish things, do not always truly
denote the nature of the things they are designed to signify: and it
is very evident, that any misapplication of a name, to which a
specific meaning has been appropriated, cannot alter or otherwise
affect the essence or inherent quality of the thing itself to which it
is wrongly applied.
A nation may be a republic, notwithstanding its chief executive
magistrate be denominated a king. A kingly government may be
essentially republican, provided the people be governed by known laws,
and their king be limited in his prerogative, by the constitution of
the state; not such a monarch as is vested with uncontrouled power. In
this sense, the British government may, as some modern writers have
shewn, be called a commonwealth, or republic: and under a similar
impression, Sir Thomas Smith, even in the reign of so rigid a prince
as Henry VIII. wrote his book _De Republicâ Anglicanâ_. The republic
of Poland was long governed by elective kings; and Shakespeare, (nay,
even the leveller Godwin,[365a]) appears to have considered Monarch,
King and President, as synonymous terms.
Footnote 365a:
The Memorialist can truly say, with the author of the _Pursuits of
Literature_:—“I have given some attention to Mr. Godwin’s work on
_Political Justice_, as conceiving it to be the code of improved
modern ethics, morality, and legislation. I confess I looked not for
the Republic of Plato, or even for the Oceana of Harrington; but for
something different from them all. I looked, indeed, for a
superstructure raised on the revolutionary ground of Equality, watered
with the Guillotine; and such I found it.” See _Pursuits of
Literature_, Dial. the third, note p. of the seventh Lond. edit.
Footnote 366:
“It belongs to monarchies,” says Dr. Rush, “to limit the business of
government to a privileged order of men.” See _Eulog._
-----
The learned professor, here referred to, is nevertheless an highly
estimable citizen of the American Republic, as his numerous and
important public services fully evince. In his “Address to the People of
the United States,” published shortly before the sitting of the Federal
Convention, he has pointed out two “errors or prejudices on the subject
of government in America, which,” as he very justly observes, “lead to
the most dangerous consequences.” The correctness of his sentiments on
the subject of those errors, does him honour: such of his observations
as are more particularly applicable to the present subject, are
contained in the following passages.
“It is often said, that ‘the sovereign power and all other power is
seated in the people.’ This idea is unhappily expressed. It should
be—‘all power is derived from the people.’ They possess it only on the
days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their Rulers;
nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of
importance to circulate this idea, as it tends to order and good
government.” And again:
“The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the word
Sovereignty: hence, each State pretends to be sovereign. In Europe, it
is applied only to those states, which possess the power of making war
and peace, of forming treaties, and the like. As this power belongs only
to Congress, they are the only sovereign power in the United States.”
The Memorialist is persuaded, that Dr. Rittenhouse would have fully
concurred in this construction of the nature of sovereignty, in an
elective government: and he has been the more diffuse on this subject,
in order both to prevent and remove, as much as possible, any
misconceptions respecting the political opinions of our Philosopher.
An unostentatious simplicity and strict integrity, with a due proportion
of dignity and firmness, in the administration of the public affairs; a
judicious economy, in the management and expenditure of the public
revenues; a zealous attention to the public interests and the happiness
of the people; a wise and faithful administration of justice among the
various members of the community, without any invidious distinctions; a
strict observance of good faith, in all relations with foreign states; a
sincere attachment to peace with its concomitant blessings, and
consequently, an abhorrence of unnecessary wars, whether provoked, or
undertaken, by means of the cupidity or the ambition of rulers; these
have been usually considered, in theory, as characteristics of
republican governments. Greatly is it to be desired, that they may
always prove to be so, in fact.
That both the Rittenhouses, father and son, should be attached to an
order of things in the commonwealth, established and conducted on the
principles just mentioned, may be readily conceived from a knowledge of
their characters. To a system of civil polity, productive of such
substantial benefits to all those under its immediate operation, Dr.
Rittenhouse would naturally have been inclined: his habits, manners and
principles, would so dispose him. Hence, after having indulged, for a
moment, the pleasing but fanciful hypothesis, that if the inhabitants of
the other planets resemble man in their faculties and affections; if,
like him, they were created liable to fall, though some of them might be
presumed to retain their original rectitude; he proceeds with supposing,
“that they are wise enough to govern themselves according to the
dictates of that reason which God has given them, in such manner as to
consult their own and each other’s happiness, upon all occasions. But
if, on the contrary,” said he, “they have found it necessary to erect
artificial fabrics of government, let us not suppose they have done it
with so little skill, and at such an enormous expence, as to render them
a misfortune, instead of a blessing. We will hope,” continues the
philanthropic Rittenhouse, “that their statesmen are patriots, and that
their kings, if that order of beings has found admittance there, have
the feelings of humanity.” He next deplores, in terms which evince the
strength of his feelings on the occasion, the folly as well as iniquity
of holding the Africans in bondage among us; national rapacity; the
scourges of war, then recently inflicted on the north of Europe; and,
finally, he deprecates in very impressive language, the inroads of
“luxury, and her constant follower, tyranny.”[367]
-----
Footnote 367:
See Ritt. Orat. before the Am. Philos. Soc. in 1775.
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse having entertained such sentiments as these, at the time
he penned his Oration, and it will be recollected, that this was only
two or three months before hostilities had actually taken place between
Great-Britain and her North-American Colonies, he was naturally enough
induced to believe, that many of the political evils which were, about
that period, experienced in civil society by a large portion of mankind,
arose from the nature of their respective governments. And, the
principal states of Europe, with the exception of the Dutch
commonwealth, were then governed under the monarchical form.
In the American continental colonies of Great-Britain, generally, it was
the prevalent opinion of the people at the commencement of the
revolution, that the grievances complained of by the colonists,
originated, almost as a matter of necessity, from the monarchical spirit
of the mother-country: consequently, many of those great public evils
which sprung from the genius, habits and pursuits, of the people
themselves, in the great monarchies of the old world, were generally
attributed to some peculiar vices inherent in that species of
government. It was the universality, almost, of these opinions; which
soon after obtained throughout the United Colonies, that produced a
determination in the people to establish, for themselves, republican
forms of government, as independent states. Such were accordingly
established; and the American people have long experienced their
efficiency in promoting the prosperity of the country.
Should it, nevertheless, unfortunately happen at any future period, that
the now existing national constitution should, by any means, be
perverted from its original design; should a system of government so
well planned—“in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;”[368] should
this well-defined Charter of American freedom, by means of
mal-administration or otherwise, eventually frustrate the patriotic
intentions of its illustrious framers; then, indeed, will the noblest
effort ever made by any people to institute a rational system of free
government, blast the best hopes of the advocates of republicanism. In
such event—which, may heaven avert! the often quoted couplet would be
too fatally verified, wherein the poet says:
“For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate’er is best administer’d, is best.”[369]
Pope’s _Essay on Man_.
-----
Footnote 368:
See the ordaining clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Footnote 369:
Mr. Pope was not singular in the opinion here expressed: one of the
most illustrious legislators and best practical statesmen the world
has ever known, appears to have entertained the same sentiment, when
he penned the following passages: they are extracted from the _Frame
of Government_ originally designed by William Penn, for Pennsylvania:
published in the year 1682.
“Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the
frame,) where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws;
and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, and confusion.”
“There is hardly one frame of government in the world so ill designed
by its first founders, that, in good hands, would not do well enough;
and story tells us, the best, in ill ones, can do nothing that is
great or good.” “I know,” continues Penn, “some say, Let us have good
laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them
consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good
laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men; but
good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones. It is here,
good laws have some awe upon ill ministers; but that is where they
have not power to escape or abolish them, and the people are generally
wise and good: but a loose and depraved people (which is to be the
question) love laws and an administration like themselves. That,
therefore, which makes a good constitution, must keep it, viz. men of
wisdom and virtue; qualities that, because they descend not with
worldly inheritances, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous
education of youth.”
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse was, undoubtedly, among those who entertained the most
sanguine expectations, that the political institutions in the United
States, formed as they are according to the republican model, would tend
to meliorate the condition of the people, and “promote the general
welfare.” He may at some time have even “believed political, as well as
moral evil, to be intruders into the society of men.”[370] But some
passages in his Oration plainly shew, that, as has been already
observed, he had no faith in the perfectibility of human reason,[371] in
this life. He was also too sound a philosopher not to know, that if, by
the best rules of philosophical ratiocination, many well known phænomena
in the natural world could not be reached, with respect to their nature
and causes, in such manner as to render these susceptible of
demonstrative proof,—nothing like certainty in the result, much less
perfection, could be calculated on, in putting the theories of a
science, such as government, to the test of experiment.
-----
Footnote 370:
See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.
Footnote 371:
About the middle of January, 1813, the Memorialist passed a very
pleasant evening, in company with an agreeable party of friends, at
the house of Dr. Rush. Among various subjects, which were then
discussed with much ingenuity and good humour, Redhefer’s pretended
discovery of what is called the Perpetual Motion, a thing which had
then, very recently, attracted a good deal of the public attention,
was brought upon the tapes: when Dr. Rush, addressing himself to the
Writer, who had just expressed his opinion decidedly against the
projector’s theory, as being utterly incompatible with established
principles of physics and well-known laws of the material world, said
quite emphatically; “Sir, I entirely agree with you: and let me
observe, there are four things, concerning which I have always been
completely sceptical, as I am sure your good uncle[371a] also was;
that is to say, the perfectibility of human reason; the possibility of
transmuting base metals into silver and gold; a panacea, in the
healing art; and a power, in any mortal, to give perpetuity of motion
to matter.” These were, substantially, the sentiments expressed by Dr.
Rush, on the occasion; and the Writer believes he is pretty accurate
in his recollection of the very words which the Doctor used.
Footnote 371a:
Dr. Rittenhouse.
-----
If it be asked: ‘Where are the _Works_ of Rittenhouse?’ a ready and
satisfactory answer to the question is at hand. Although he published no
ponderous volumes, he has left behind him great and honourable memorials
of his genius, his science and his skill; such as will long remain, as
Monuments of the extraordinary extent of his practical usefulness in his
day, and of his well-earned fame. “He has not indeed made a world,” as
Mr. Jefferson, in speaking of his Orrery, emphatically expresses
himself; “but he has, by imitation, approached nearer its Maker, than
any man who has lived from the creation to this day.”[372] As long, too,
as the geographical boundaries of Pennsylvania, connected in part with
those of the neighbouring states, shall continue to define the
respective jurisdictions of their local sovereignties and rights,
considered as members of a great confederated nation; so long will they
serve to distinguish the name of Rittenhouse.[373] Nay, some of the
rivers and canals, even some principal roads, in the country of his
nativity, bear testimony to his talents, his public spirit and his
industry. His inventions and improvements, in various specimens of
mechanism, conceived and executed by himself, fully manifest, that, “as
an artist, he has exhibited as great a proof of mechanical genius as the
world has ever produced.”[374] And, as a man of extensive and profound
science, his various philosophical papers, but more especially those
relating to his astronomical observations, justify Mr. Jefferson’s
remark, that he was “second to no Astronomer living,”—that he was, “in
genius the first, because self-taught.”[375]
-----
Footnote 372:
See _Notes on Virginia_.
Footnote 373:
All the boundary-lines, mentioned above, were determined by
astronomical observations. The manner in which the work was performed,
with an account of the instruments used on those occasions, will be
found in the fourth volume of the Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society. Some of Dr. Rittenhouse’s associates, in those
arduous undertakings, were men of high reputation in the same
departments of science; but his talents were principally relied on.
Footnote 374:
See _Notes on Virginia_.
Footnote 375:
Ibid.
-----
Such, then, were the “Works” of this truly great man. And it appears
that they were, in general, not only arduous in their execution, and
highly beneficial in their uses and effects; but that they were likewise
the productions of a lofty, penetrating and active genius, great
knowledge and skill, and the most indefatigable perseverance.[376]
-----
Footnote 376:
It will, perhaps, have occurred to the reader, that besides such of
the WORKS of Dr. Rittenhouse, as are referred to in the text, in some
of which, the blended effects of genius, philosophical science and
mechanical skill, were equally conspicuous, he put the Mint into
operation. In the language of his worthy successor in the direction of
that institution, “his lofty and correct mind, capable alike of
ascending to the sublimest heights of science, and of condescending to
regulate the minute movements of mechanical machinery, organized the
Mint, and created the workmen and the apparatus.” His agency in
directing the construction, and arranging the operative departments,
of this important establishment, though less indicative of
extraordinary mechanical genius than many of his other works, was
nevertheless an arduous undertaking: it was conducted, as Mr. De
Saussure very justly observed, “amidst complicated difficulties, from
which the most persevering minds might have shrunk without dishonour.”
-----
But though Dr. Rittenhouse published no great systematic literary work,
he communicated to others by his conversation, and by such of his
writings as have been given to the world, much valuable philosophical
information. He instructed, liberally, such persons as were desirous of
acquiring knowledge from a social intercourse with him. The elevated
station his character maintained, both for wisdom and integrity,
exhibited him to his cotemporaries as an example worthy of being
imitated:[377] and thus, in reality, his high reputation operated as a
powerful incitement upon many of his countrymen, to pursue similar
objects of science, inspiring them with a taste to cultivate the true
philosophy.
-----
Footnote 377:
Dr. Rush, in his Eulogium on Rittenhouse, has introduced a short
invocation, which aptly applies in this place: it is in these words;
“Come, and learn by his example to be good, as well as great. His
virtues furnish the most shining models for your imitation; for they
were never obscured by a single cloud of weakness or vice.”
-----
The reputation of this distinguished man, as a mathematician and
astronomer, was pre-eminently great, in every civilized part of the
western world. Perhaps no man’s philosophical talents were ever held in
higher estimation, nor more deservedly so, by those qualified to form a
proper judgment of them, wherever his name was known; not excepting
those of Newton himself. His celebrity was far from being confined
within the limits of his native country: his Orrery, with the
proceedings and results of the Observation of that phænomenon which so
greatly interested the principal astronomers of both hemispheres, the
Transit of Venus in 1769, had rendered him justly celebrated in Europe
as well as America, as a philosopher of the highest grade, at the age of
thirty-seven years.
The peculiar circumstances of his Life, which have been amply detailed
in these Memoirs, were of such a nature as to preclude him, in a great
measure, from opportunities of carrying on a correspondence with men of
science and letters, abroad: the extremely delicate, and oftentimes
infirm state of his general health, in addition to his numerous
avocations, his long continued, various, and important employments in
the public service, left him little leisure for literary pursuits of any
kind. Indeed, nothing less than the wonderful energy of his mind, and
his extraordinary industry, could have enabled him to write as much as
he has done.[378]
-----
Footnote 378:
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall makes an observation, in reference to
General Washington, which applies with equal force to Dr. Rittenhouse.
“To estimate rightly his worth, we must contemplate his difficulties:
we must examine the means placed in his hands, and the use he made of
those means.” Pref. to Marshall’s _Life of Washington_.
-----
Dr. Rittenhouse never attempted to amuse the world with any hypothetical
system of philosophy, or with opinions, merely speculative, on any
subject. The great objects of his pursuits, through life, were Certainty
and Truth: hence, he never advanced an opinion, concerning any thing
whatever, which he did not consider as being either susceptible of
verification by experiment and the evidence of our senses, or, where the
nature of the subject did not admit of such proof, capable of being
tested by the soundest principles of human reason. Yet, though this
profound investigator of nature viewed “sober certainty” as the great
desideratum in philosophy, he was by no means a dogmatist; even with
respect to that portion of natural science which is capable of
demonstration. Notwithstanding the opinion he entertained of the vast
extent to which the faculties of the mind may be enlarged by a proper
improvement of them, he was fully aware that its powers are limited.
Like his great predecessor, Maclaurin, “the farther he advanced in the
knowledge of geometry and of nature, the greater his aversion grew to
perfect systems, hypotheses, and dogmatizing: without peevishly
despising the attainments we can arrive at, or the uses to which they
serve, he saw there lay infinitely more beyond our reach.” Like him,
also, he considered “our highest discoveries as being but a dawn of
knowledge, suited to our circumstances and wants in this life; which,
however, we ought thankfully to acquiesce in, for the present, in hopes
that it will be improved in a happier and more perfect state.”[379]
Rittenhouse never supposed, that, (to use the words of Maclaurin’s
biographer[380]), “because demonstrative evidence is the most perfect,
it should be—as, by some, it has been—taken for granted, there is no
other.” On the contrary, our philosopher believed that there are many
truths, natural as well as moral, which are beyond the reach of
demonstration; consequently, not to be rejected, solely by reason of
their insusceptibility of this kind of proof. Hence, in his Oration he
says, “Our Religion teaches us what Philosophy could not have taught;
and we ought to admire, with reverence, the great things it has pleased
Divine Providence to perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for
man, who is undoubtedly the most noble inhabitant of this globe. But,”
continues this truly good man, “neither Religion nor Philosophy forbid
us to believe, that infinite Wisdom and Power, prompted by infinite
Goodness, may, throughout the vast extent of creation and duration, have
frequently interposed in a manner quite incomprehensible to us, when it
became necessary to the happiness of created beings of some other rank
or degree.”
-----
Footnote 379:
Mr. Maclaurin having noticed that the Author of Nature has made it
impossible for us to have any communication, from this earth, with the
other great bodies of the universe, in our present state; and after
remarking on some phænomena in the planetary system, makes the
following just reflections, which correspond with those expressed by
Dr. Rittenhouse, in the concluding pages of his Oration:—“From hence,
as well as from the state of the moral world and many other
considerations, we are induced to believe, that our present state
would be very imperfect without a subsequent one; wherein our views of
nature, and of its great Author, may be more clear and satisfactory.
It does not appear to be suitable to the wisdom that shines throughout
all nature, to suppose that we should see so far, and have our
curiosity so much raised concerning the works of God, only to be
disappointed in the end. As man is undoubtedly the chief being upon
this globe, and this globe may be no less considerable, in the most
valuable respects, than any other in the solar system, and this
system, for ought we know, not inferior to any other in the universal
system; so, if we should suppose man to perish, without ever arriving
at a more complete knowledge of nature, than the very imperfect one he
attains in his present state; by analogy, or parity of reason, we
might conclude, that the like desires would be frustrated in the
inhabitants of all the other planets and systems; and that the
beautiful scheme of nature would never be unfolded, but in an
exceedingly imperfect manner, to any of them. This, therefore,
naturally leads us to consider our present state as only the dawn or
beginning of our existence, and as a state of preparation or probation
for farther advancement: which appears to have been the opinion of the
most judicious philosophers of old. And whoever attentively considers
the constitution of human nature, particularly the desires and
passions of men, which appear greatly superior to their present
objects, will easily be persuaded that man was designed for higher
views than of this life. Surely, it is in His power to grant us a far
greater improvement of the faculties we already possess, or even to
endow us with new faculties, of which, at this time, we have no idea,
for penetrating farther into the scheme of nature, and approaching
nearer to Himself, the First and Supreme Cause.”
The striking coincidence of the foregoing sentiments, with those
expressed by Dr. Rittenhouse; in addition to the sublimity of the
conceptions; the cogency of the argument; and the weight of the
concurring opinions of two so great astronomers and mathematicians, on
a subject of such high importance to mankind; all plead an apology for
the length of this extract, from Maclaurin’s Account of Sir Isaac
Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.
Footnote 380:
Patrick Murdoch, M.A.F.R.S.
-----
Such were the pious reflections of a Christian Philosopher; the sublime
sentiments of an eminently distinguished Astronomer.
Should it be enquired: What was the system of Philosophy, to which Dr.
Rittenhouse adhered? though such a question can scarcely be anticipated,
after what has been already said; the answer may be furnished in a few
words: He was a thorough and zealous disciple of the Newtonian school.
He early embraced, and perseveringly cultivated, “the Philosophy of
Newton;” which “disdains to make use of subterfuges,” which “is not
reduced to the necessity of using them, because it pretends not to be of
nature’s privy council;” while “other systems of philosophy have ever
found it necessary to conceal their weakness and inconsistency, under
the veil of unintelligible terms and phrases, to which no two mortals
perhaps ever affixed the same meaning.”[381]
-----
Footnote 381:
The words between inverted commas, in the above paragraph, are quoted
from Rittenhouse’s Oration.
Notwithstanding the fanciful theories introduced into physics by
Descartes, concerning his _materia subtilis_ and _vortices_, and his
doctrine of a _plenum_, which were prostrated by the general adoption
of the Newtonian system, the improvements that had been made in the
mathematical sciences and some other branches of physics, by the
Cartesian system, produced a great revolution in the species of
philosophy which till then prevailed. The philosophy of Descartes,
erroneous and defective as, in some particulars, it was found to be,
triumphed, by its superior energy, over the crude and feeble systems
of the schools. The peripatetic doctrines which had revived in Europe,
after she emerged from the barbarism and gloom that succeeded the
final declension of the Roman empire, continued from that period to be
the prevailing philosophy; and tinctured, also, the whole mass of the
scholastic theology: but the systems of Descartes first dissipated
most of the useless subtleties of the schoolmen; while the truths
brought to light by the philosophy of Newton, still further exposed
their absurdities. According to Dr. Reid (in his _Essays on the
intellectual and active powers of Man_,) even the most useful and
intelligible parts of the writings of Aristotle himself had, among
them, become neglected; and philosophy was reduced to an art of
speaking learnedly and disputing subtilely, without producing any
invention of utility in the affairs of human life. “It was,” to use
the language of Dr. Reid, “fruitful in words, but barren of works; and
admirably contrived for drawing a veil over human ignorance, and
putting a stop to the progress of knowledge, by filling men with a
conceit that they knew every thing. It was very fruitful also in
controversies; but, for the most part, they were controversies about
words, or things above the reach of the human faculties.”
-----
With Newton, too, our Philosopher entertained the most exalted
conceptions of the Deity. He did not imagine, as his illustrious
predecessor was unjustly charged with having done, that infinite space
is an attribute of the Deity; that He is present in all parts of space,
by diffusion;[382] but, like that great man, he did believe, that the
Deity endures from eternity to eternity, and is present from infinity to
infinity; yet that He is not eternity or infinity, space or duration.
For, says Dr. Rittenhouse, “Nothing can better demonstrate the immediate
presence of the Deity in every part of space, whether vacant or occupied
by matter, than Astronomy does. It was from an Astronomer St. Paul
quoted that exalted expression, so often since repeated, ‘In God we
live, and move, and have our being.’”[383]
-----
Footnote 382:
The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson has remarked, that “Leibnitz
persisted in affirming that Newton called Space, _Censorium Numinis_,
notwithstanding he was corrected, and desired to observe that Newton’s
words were, QUASI _Censorium Numinis_. See Boswell’s _Journal of a
Tour to the Hebrides_.
Footnote 383:
This concise, yet beautiful and expressive sentence, is contained in
St. Paul’s address to the Athenians, cited in the 17th chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles.
-----
The terms of profound veneration, in which our Philosopher spoke, on all
occasions, of the character of Newton, demonstrate most clearly his
complete and undeviating attachment to the Principles of that
astonishing man.[384] Indeed, he appears to have taken him as his model;
and, certainly, he resembled him much, in many points of character.
Parallels have often been drawn between distinguished men; and in
comparatively a few instances, a strong resemblance has been discovered,
in some prominent features of character, between two or more persons.
Yet the infinite variety of talent, that appears throughout the human
race; the almost incredible difference in the grades of intellectual
endowment, distinguishing the sons of men from each other; and the
adventitious circumstances peculiar to each individual, which either
direct or controul his conduct, and seem to mark his destiny in life;
all these, taken together, produce such an endless diversity of
character in the species, as to render it impracticable, if not
absolutely impossible, to find any two men who greatly resemble each
other in many particulars.
-----
Footnote 384:
A strong proof of this veneration will be found in Dr. Rittenhouse’s
Oration, wherein he expresses himself in these remarkable words:—“It
was, I make no doubt, by a particular appointment of Providence, that
at this time the immortal Newton appeared.”
-----
There are, nevertheless, so many circumstances founded on natural
causes, that indicate an extraordinary similitude in the genius,
disposition and principles of Rittenhouse, and his great Prototype; so
many, moreover, of a singular nature, connected with events purely
adventitious, wherein the condition, occupations and pursuits of these
philosophers, with other eventual relations depending wholly on
accident, resembled each other; that an interesting parallel, between
them, might be attempted with no inconsiderable share of success.
In the course of these Memoirs, the Biographer of RITTENHOUSE has
endeavoured to furnish a faithful representation of the Philosopher and
of the Man. He was desirous of delineating his true character, in both
points of view; that the world may be enabled to make a just estimate of
the genius, the principles, and the conduct of a person, so celebrated
in name. But, in order that the more correct judgment might be formed of
his virtues and talents, and of the services he has rendered to society,
it became necessary to describe the sphere in which he moved; so far, at
least, as to present to view occasional sketches of the complexion of
the Times in which he lived, and of some of the more prominent
Characters who were his compatriots. The Memorialist has therefore
conveyed to the mind of his reader some idea of the moral, political,
and literary state of society, more particularly in the country of our
Philosopher’s residence, within the same period. This rendered it proper
to notice the rise, nature, and progress of certain Institutions, upon
which science and the arts, with many of the benefits of civil polity,
greatly depend; such as tend to diffuse useful knowledge throughout the
community, to promote the general weal, and to meliorate the condition
of the great family of mankind.
It has been already observed, that every individual in society is more
or less closely connected with it, in various ways: and it is obvious,
that an eminent citizen, one, especially, standing in relations of a
public nature in the community of which he is a member, usually has his
history and character so interwoven with those of his own times, that it
is difficult to understand the former thoroughly, without possessing a
competent knowledge of the latter. The Life of such a man as RITTENHOUSE
could not, therefore, in many respects, be either well comprehended or
duly estimated, unless there had been connected with it some account of
men and things, to which his private pursuits and public employments
were, directly or indirectly, related.
In whatever light, then, a retrospective view of Dr. RITTENHOUSE’S
character may be taken, it will be found to present a model worthy of
imitation. The mild and amiable virtues of domestic life, and similar
dispositions in the intercourses of private society, decorated his whole
deportment, as a man and as a citizen; the more stern qualities of the
patriot equally distinguished him as the friend of his native country,
in all his public relations; while the principles of genuine
philanthrophy impressed his heart with feelings of the most extended
benevolence. In all these respects, nevertheless, some have equalled,
though few, if any, have surpassed him. But when, united to virtues and
dispositions, such as these, the powerful genius, the extensive
philosophical talents and attainments, the self-acquired and
extraordinary mechanical skill of Dr. RITTENHOUSE, shall also have been
considered; it will be acknowledged, that the Memoirs of his Life,
commemorate a Man truly great. They recal to his surviving countrymen,
and to their posterity, a remembrance of his excellence and usefulness;
presenting to them such a specimen of worth and abilities, as is highly
deserving of being emulated. At the same time, they exhibit to the world
a faithful portrait of a Man, whose character had early acquired the
well-earned respect of the wise and good in other nations. During his
life, the name of RITTENHOUSE received due homage from some of the most
illustrious Philosophers of Europe. In his own country, that name cannot
cease to be venerated, so long as genius, science, and virtue, shall be
held in the high estimation to which they are entitled.
It has been observed by a noble author[385] of the present day, “that
the decline of public spirit in matters of Taste, is a certain
indication of political decay.” To whatever degree the justness of this
observation may extend, it will apply still more forcibly to any
country, wherein a disregard, consequently a declension of learning,
science and moral virtue, is perceived. RITTENHOUSE lived in an eventful
age. During a long period of his life, he witnessed a comparative
simplicity of manners and much integrity of character, among his
countrymen. He beheld a progressive course of useful knowledge, and an
advance in those arts and refinements of polished society, which
minister as well to the rational enjoyments as to the conveniences of
human life; and these he saw accompanied by almost every species of
public improvements, promoted by the liberal spirit of the people and
fostered by the benign genius of the government. Our Philosopher
himself, one-and-twenty years before his death, in speaking of the rapid
progress his countrymen had then made in almost every species of social
refinements, made this remark: “We have made most surprising, I had
almost said unnatural, advances towards the meridian of glory.”[386] But
this good man dreaded even at that time, what he always most earnestly
deprecated, that Luxury would, ere long, follow in the train of an
highly cultivated state of manners and too sumptuous a style of living:
for, he considered an excess of such refinements as leading to that
depravity of morals which often accompanies “Luxury,” and, as he has
expressed it, “her constant follower, Tyranny.”
-----
Footnote 385:
Lord Strangford, in his _Remarks on the Life and Writings of Camoens_.
Footnote 386:
See his Oration.
-----
The gloomy anticipations, which he sometimes entertained, of a future
depression of the interests of learning in his native country, from such
causes, he lived not to see realized. There is, indeed, ground on which
a reasonable hope may be founded, that, notwithstanding the operation of
some inauspicious circumstances, in these times, occasioned by the
present distracted state of the political world, literature, science and
the arts, will yet be successfully cultivated in the United States of
America. Dr. RITTENHOUSE had the good fortune to live in an age when
virtue and talents were honoured; when abilities to serve the country,
and an honest attachment to its best interests, were the surest
passports to the public confidence and esteem. In the latter years of
his life, it was a source of great gratification to him to know that his
country was prosperous; it being then in the full enjoyment of all the
arts of peace, and other blessings of a well-ordered society. He was
greatly respected and esteemed by his illustrious compatriot,
WASHINGTON; whose magnanimity taught him to spurn with disdain all petty
considerations, arising from such mere difference of opinion in the
speculations of politics, as could neither undermine the principles of a
Patriot, nor affect the fidelity of an honest Man. Very many
distinguished men, besides, were his contemporaries; and by persons of
this description, almost universally, as well as by all his countrymen
of every class, to whom his person or character was known, he was held
in the highest estimation: indeed, few men ever enjoyed a larger share
of the public regard.
Some years after the decease of Dr. Rittenhouse, it was judged expedient
to transfer his perishable remains from their first place of sepulture,
to another: they were accordingly removed; and interred in the cemetery
adjoining the Presbyterian church in Pine-street, Philadelphia, near the
body of his son-in-law, Mr. Sergeant. The grave of the celebrated
American Astronomer is enclosed, under a plain slab of marble, thus
inscribed:
IN MEMORY OF
DAVID RITTENHOUSE,
BORN APRIL 8th, 1732,
DIED JUNE 26th; 1796;
AND
HANNAH RITTENHOUSE,
HIS WIFE,
Who died October 15th,
1799,
Aged 64 years.
But, although no costly tomb contains the ashes of this
eminently-distinguished Man; although no sculptured cenotaph, in any
part of his country, blazons his genius or records his fame; and
notwithstanding the chisel of the statuary has never been employed in
obedience to the public voice, to produce a permanent resemblance of his
countenance and figure; yet a monument of more durable nature than any
of these, consecrates his virtues, his talents, and his usefulness. A
grateful remembrance of his modest worth is enshrined in the hearts of
the wise and the good of his own age and country; and the name of DAVID
RITTENHOUSE will be every where perpetuated with veneration and renown,
among the sons of science and the benefactors of mankind.
APPENDIX.
========================================
AN ORATION,
DELIVERED FEBRUARY 24, 1775,
BEFORE
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY,
HELD AT PHILADELPHIA,
FOR PROMOTING USEFUL KNOWLEDGE.
BY DAVID RITTENHOUSE, A. M.
MEMBER OF THE SAID SOCIETY.
(INSCRIBED)
To the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies, assembled in Congress,
at Philadelphia, to whom the future liberties, and consequently the
virtue, improvement in science and happiness, of America, are
intrusted, the following Oration is inscribed and dedicated, by their
most obedient and humble servant, the Author.
========================================
GENTLEMEN,
It was not without being sensible how very unequal I am to the
undertaking, that I first consented to comply with the request of
several gentlemen for whom I have the highest esteem, and to solicit
your attention on a subject which an able hand might indeed render both
entertaining and instructive; I mean Astronomy. But the earnest desire I
have to contribute something towards the improvement of Science in
general, and particularly of Astronomy, in this my native country,
joined with the fullest confidence that I shall be favoured with your
most candid indulgence, however far I may fall short of doing justice to
the noble subject, enables me chearfully to take my turn as a member of
the society, on this annual occasion.
The order I shall observe in the following discourse, is this: In the
first place I shall give a very short account of the rise and progress
of astronomy, then take notice of some of the most important discoveries
that have been made in this science, and conclude with pointing out a
few of its defects at the present time.
As, on this occasion, it is not necessary to treat my subject in a
strictly scientific way, I shall hazard some conjectures of my own;
which, if they have but novelty to recommend them, may perhaps be more
acceptable than retailing the conjectures of others.
The first rise of astronomy, like the beginnings of other sciences, is
lost in the obscurity of ancient times. Some have attributed its origin
to that strong propensity mankind have discovered, in all ages, for
prying into futurity; supposing that astronomy was cultivated only as
subservient to judicial astrology. Others with more reason suppose
astrology to have been the spurious offspring of astronomy; a
supposition that does but add one more to the many instances of human
depravity, which can convert the best things to the worst purposes.
The honour of first cultivating astronomy has been ascribed to the
Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and likewise to the Chinese;[A1]
amongst whom, it is pretended, astronomical observations are to be found
of almost as early a date as the flood. But little credit is given to
these reports of the Jesuits, who it is thought were imposed on by the
natives; or else perhaps from motives of vanity, they have departed a
little from truth, in their accounts of a country and people among whom
they were the chief European travellers.
-----
Footnote A1:
The reader will find a very learned and interesting dissertation on
the astronomy of these and other nations of antiquity, in Lalande’s
_Astronomie_, liv. ii. W. B.
-----
Not to mention the prodigious number of years in which it is said the
Chaldeans observed the heavens, I pass on to what carries the appearance
of more probability;[A2] the report that when Alexander took Babylon,
astronomical observations for one thousand nine hundred years before
that time were found there, and sent from thence to Aristotle. But we
cannot suppose those observations to have been of much value; for we do
not find that any use was ever after made of them.[A3]
-----
Footnote A2:
Our orator might well pass on, without noticing more particularly the
fabulous annals of the Chaldeans. They assigned to the reigns of their
ten dynasties, 432 thousand years: and Lalande observes, that this
number, 432, augmented by two or by four noughts, frequently occurs in
antiquity. This prodigious number of years expresses, according to the
notions of the inhabitants of India, the duration of the life of a
symbolical cow: in the first age, this cow, serving as a vehicle for
innocence and virtue, advances with a firm step upon the earth,
supported by her four feet; in the second, or silver age, she becomes
somewhat enfeebled, and walks on only three feet; during the brazen,
or third age, she is reduced to the necessity of walking on two;
finally, during the iron age, she drags herself along; and, after
having lost, successively, all her legs, she recovers them in the
succeeding period, all of them being reproduced in the same order.
The Bramins thus make up their fabulous chronological account of the
age of the world; viz.
The duration of the first age, 1,728,000 years
The second 1,296,000 do.
The third 864,000 do.
The fourth will continue 432,000 do.
—————————
Making the total duration of the world 4,320,000 years.
Mr. Lalande remarks, that these four ages have a relation to the
numbers 4, 3, 2, 1, which seem to announce some other thing than an
historical division. Therefore, to give this fabulous duration of the
world some semblance of truth. Mr. Bailly[A2a] rejects, in the first
place, the fourth age, of which, at present, (that is, when Lalande
wrote,) only 4887 years have passed: the residue of this duration
could not be considered by Bailly as any thing more than a reverie:
and as for the three first ages, he takes the years for days; in order
to shew, that, in reality, they reckoned by days, before they computed
by solar years. By these means, Bailly has reduced the pretensions of
the people of India to 12,000 years; and he identifies this
calculation for the Indians with that of the Persians, who give,
likewise, 12,000 years for the duration of the world. The accordance
thus produced in the two chronologies, seemed to Bailly to strengthen
the authenticity of the recital; and makes it appear, that these
notions prevailed alike among the Egyptians and the Chinese.
Such are the data, such the calculations, and such the reasoning of
Mr. Bailly, on this subject.
But, although Mr. Lalande has noticed the retrograde series of the
progressive numbers (1,) 2, 3, 4, in the Asiatic account of the age of
the world, a kind of mysterious constitution of the amount of the
years, in the several ages which make up the entire sum of its
duration, seems to have escaped the observation of that acute
philosopher; and probably the same circumstance passed also unnoticed
by Mr. Bailly: it may be considered as a species of chronological
_abracadabra_, engendered in the prolific brain of some eastern
philosopher: the following is the circumstance here meant. It will be
perceived, in the first place, that the arrangement of the numerical
figures, in making up the years allotted to the fourth age of the
world, is apparently artificial, and therefore, probably, altogether
arbitrary. It will then be seen, that the number of years in the third
age is double the amount of those in the fourth; that those in the
second is made up by adding together the years in the fourth and third
ages; and, that those in the first age are constituted by an addition
of the number of years in the fourth and second ages. This being the
fact, it does not seem to bear out Mr. Bailly, in his hypothesis, and
the calculations founded on it. W. B.
Footnote A2a:
Mr. Bailly was the author of a _History of Ancient and modern
Astronomy_. His _Essay on the Theory of Jupiter’s Satellites_, which
is said to be a valuable treatise, was published in the year 1766.
Both works are in the French language, and were printed in France.
Footnote A3:
Lalande observes that Mr. Bailly has gone back, in his astronomical
researches, to the first traditions of an antedeluvian people, among
whom there remained scarcely any traces of such knowledge; and that he
has presented us, in his work, with ingenious conjectures and
probabilities; or, more properly, appearances of truth,
(“vraisemblables,”) written with many charms of extensive information.
But, according to Mr. Lalande himself, all the ancient astronomy down
to the time of Chiron, which was about fourteen centuries before the
Christian era, may with probability be reduced to the examining of the
rising of some stars at different times of the year, and the phases of
the moon; since, long after that period, as this great astronomer
remarks, the Chaldeans and Egyptians yet knew nothing of either the
duration or the inequalities of the planetary movements. W. B.
-----
The Egyptians too, we are told, had observations of the stars for one
thousand five hundred years before the Christian era. What they were, is
not known; but probably the astronomy of those ages consisted in little
more than remarks on the rising and setting of the fixed stars, as they
were found to correspond with the seasons of the year;[A4] and, perhaps,
forming them into constellations. That this was done early, appears from
the book of Job, which has by some been attributed to Moses, who is said
to have been learned in the sciences of Egypt.[A5] “Canst thou bind the
sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou
bring forth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with
his sons?” Perhaps too, some account might be kept of eclipses of the
sun and moon, as they happened, without pretending to predict them for
the future. These eclipses are thought by some to have been foretold by
the Jewish prophets in a supernatural way.
-----
Footnote A4:
See the preceding note.
Footnote A5:
Some of the constellations appear to have been named, even before the
time of Moses, who was born 1571 years before Christ: but, probably,
most of them received their names about the time of the Argonautic
expedition, which took place in the year 1263, B. C
Hesiod and Homer who were co-temporaries, or, at least, flourished
nearly at the same time, that is to say, about nine centuries before
the Christian era, mention several of the constellations; and, among
the rest, the Bear and the Hyades: and it is noticed by Mr. Lalande,
that La Condamine says the Indians on the river Amazons gave to the
seven stars in the Hyades, the name of the Bull’s-head, as we do; and
that Father Lasitau tells us, the Iroquois called that assemblage of
stars to which we give the name of the Bear, by the same name; and
named the polar star “the star that does not move.”
These are interesting facts. There is not the least resemblance,
whatever, in the two constellations which have been mentioned, to the
animals whose names they bear. Is it not, then, a matter of great
curiosity, as well as one which may prove important in its result, to
enquire, why two great tribes of uncivilized men, (supposed, by some,
to be aborigines,) in the northern and southern sections of the
western hemisphere, should apply the same denominations to two
assemblages of stars, by which those constellations were known to
Hesiod and Homer, if not earlier, and at least twenty-five hundred
years before? W. B.
-----
As to the Arabians, though some have supposed them the first inventors
of astronomy, encouraged to contemplate the heavens by the happy
temperature of their climate, and the serenity of their skies, which
their manner of life must likewise have contributed to render more
particularly the object of their attention; yet it is said, nothing of
certainty can now be found to induce us to think they had any knowledge
of this science amongst them before they learned it from the writings of
Ptolemy, who flourished one hundred and forty years after the birth of
Christ.
But notwithstanding the pretensions of other nations, since it was the
Greeks who improved geometry, probably from its first rudiments, into a
noble and most useful science; and since we cannot conceive that
astronomy should make any considerable progress without geometry, it is
to them we appear indebted for the foundations of a science, that (to
speak without a metaphor) has in latter ages reached the astonishingly
distant heavens.
Amongst the Greeks, Hipparchus[A6] deserves particular notice; by an
improvement of whose labours Ptolemy formed that system of astronomy
which appears to have been the only one studied for ages after, and
particularly (as was said before) by the Arabians; who made some
improvements of their own, and, if not the inventors, were at least the
preservers of astronomy. For with them it took refuge, during those ages
of ignorance which involved Europe, after an inundation of northern
people had swallowed up the Roman empire; where the universally
prevailing corruption of manners, and false taste, were become as
unfavourable to the cause of science, as the ravages of the Barbarians
themselves.
-----
Footnote A6:
Hipparchus (of Nicæa, in Bithynia,) was a very celebrated
mathematician and astronomer of antiquity. Mr. Lalande styles him the
most laborious and most intelligent astronomer of antiquity, of whom
we have any record; and asserts, that the true astronomy which has
come down to us, originated with him. He divided the heavens into
forty-eight (some say forty-nine) constellations, and assigned names
to the stars. He is also said to have determined latitude and
longitude and to have computed the latter from the Canaries; and he is
supposed to be the first who, after Thales, calculated eclipses with
some degree of accuracy: but he makes no mention of comets. Hipparchus
died one hundred and twenty five years before the Christian era. W. B.
-----
From this time, we meet with little account of astronomical learning in
Europe[A7] until Regiomontanus,[A8] and some others, revived it in the
fifteenth century; and soon afterwards appeared the celebrated
Copernicus,[A9] whose vast genius, assisted by such lights as the
remains of antiquity afforded him, explained the true system of the
universe, as at present understood. To the objection of the
Aristotelians, that the sun could not be the centre of the world,
because all bodies tended to the earth, Copernicus replied, that
probably there was nothing peculiar to the earth in this respect; that
the parts of the sun, moon and stars, likewise tended to each other, and
that their spherical figure was preserved amidst their various motions,
by this power; an answer that will at this day be allowed to contain
sound philosophy. And when it was further objected to him, that,
according to his system, Venus and Mercury ought to appear horned like
the moon, in particular situations; he answered as if inspired by the
spirit of prophecy, and long before the invention of telescopes, by
which alone his prediction could be verified, “That so they would one
day be found to appear.”
-----
Footnote A7:
Friar Bacon is said to have been almost the only astronomer of his
age; he informs us that there were then but four persons in Europe who
had made any considerable proficiency in the mathematics.
Footnote A8:
Regiomontanus was born in the year 1436, at Kœnigsberg, a town of
Franconia, subject to the house of Saxe-Weimar. His real name was John
Müller: but he assumed the name of Regiomontanus from that of the
place of his nativity, which signifies _Regius Mons_.
This astronomer, who was greatly celebrated in his time, was the
first, according to Lalande, who calculated good Almanacks; which he
had composed for thirty successive years; viz. from 1476 to 1506. In
these (which were all published at Nuremberg in 1474, two years before
his death,) he announced the daily longitudes of the planets, their
latitudes, their aspects, and foretold all the eclipses of the sun and
moon; and these ephemerides were received with uncommon interest by
all nations. After noticing these, Lalande mentions the ephemerides
which are published annually at Bologna, Vienna, Berlin, and Milan;
but he pronounces the _Nautical Almanack_, of London, to be the most
perfect ephemeris that was ever published. Regiomontanus compiled
several other works, which greatly promoted his reputation, He died in
1476, at the age of forty years. W. B.
Footnote A9:
See some interesting particulars respecting this great man in Lord
Buchan’s account of the Tomb of Copernicus, and in the note thereto,
inserted in the Appendix. W. B.
-----
Next follows the noble Tycho,[A10] who with great labour and
perseverance, brought the art of observing the heavens to a degree of
accuracy unknown to the ancients; though in theory he mangled the
beautiful system of Copernicus. The whimsical Kepler, too, (whose
fondness for analogies frequently led him astray, yet sometimes happily
conducted him to important truths) did notable services to astronomy:
and from his time down to the present, so many great men have appeared
amongst the several nations of Europe, rivalling each other in the
improvement of astronomy, that I should trespass on your patience were I
to enumerate them. I shall therefore proceed to what I proposed in the
second place, and take notice of some of the most important discoveries
in this science.
-----
Footnote A10:
Tycho-Brahé, as Lalande remarks, was the first who, by the accuracy
and the number of his observations, prepared the way for the renewal
of astronomy. The theories, the tables, and the discoveries of Kepler,
are founded on his observations; and Lalande thinks, that their names,
after those of Hipparchus and Copernicus, ought to be transmitted with
immortal honour to posterity.
Tycho was born in the year 1546, at Knudsturp in Scania in Denmark, of
a noble family, which subsisted also in Sweden under the name of
Brahé, and to which the marshal count Lœwendahl was allied. He died in
1601, at the age of fifty-five years.
Frederick II, king of Denmark, gave to Tycho the little island of
Huen, called in Latin _Venusin_, towards the Sound, and about ten
leagues, northward, from Copenhagen: where that prince erected for him
a castle, named Uraniberg, and an observatory attached to it,
completely furnished with the best instruments. Yet only fifty-one
years after the death of Tycho, Mr. Huet, whose curiosity led him to
visit a place so celebrated could find no vestige of the observatory.
One solitary old man, who yet retained some recollection of it, told
him that the tempestuous winds to which they were subject along the
Sound, had demolished it. Even the name of Tycho was then unknown in
that savage island, as Mr. Lalande indignantly styles it: and Mr.
Picard, who was sent by the French academy, in 1671, to ascertain the
exact situation of the observatory, was obliged to have the earth dug
away, in order to discover its foundation. W. B.
-----
Astronomy, like the Christian religion, if you will allow me the
comparison, has a much greater influence on our knowledge in general,
and perhaps on our manners too, than is commonly imagined. Though but
few men are its particular votaries, yet the light it affords is
universally diffused amongst us; and it is difficult for us to divest
ourselves of its influence so far, as to frame any competent idea of
what would be our situation without it.[A11] Utterly ignorant of the
heavens, our curiosity would be confined solely to the earth, which we
should naturally suppose a vast extended plain; but whether of infinite
extent or bounded, and if bounded, in what manner, would be questions
admitting of a thousand conjectures, and none of them at all
satisfactory.
-----
Footnote A11:
“Certain it is,” says the learned and pious Dr. Samuel Clarke (in his
Discourse on the _Evidences of Nat. and Rev. Religion_,) “and this is
a great deal to say, that the generality, even of the meanest and most
vulgar and ignorant people,” (among Christians,) “have truer and
worthier notions of God, more just and right apprehensions concerning
his attributes and perfections, deeper sense of the difference of good
and evil, a greater regard to moral obligations and to the plain and
more necessary duties of life, and a more firm and universal
expectation of a future state of rewards and punishments, than, in any
heathen country, any considerable number of men were found to have
had.”
In like manner, Archdeacon Paley (in his _View of the Evidences of
Christianity_) observes:—“Christianity, in every country in which it
is professed, has obtained a sensible, although not a complete
influence, upon the public judgment of morals. And this is very
important. For without the occasional correction which public opinion
receives, by referring to some fixed standard of morality, no man can
foretell into what extravagances it might wander.” “From the first
general notification of Christianity to the present day,” says the
same ingenious writer, “there have been in every age many millions,
whose names were never heard of, made better by it, not only in their
conduct, but in their dispositions; and happier, not so much in their
external circumstances, as in that which is _inter præcordia_, in that
which alone deserves the name of happiness, the tranquillity and
consolation of their thoughts. It has been since its commencement, the
author of happiness and virtue to millions and millions of the human
race.” He then asks: “Who is there, that would not wish his son to be
a Christian?” W. B.
-----
The first discovery then, which paved the way for others more curious,
seems to have been the circular figure of the earth, inferred from
observing the meridian altitudes of the sun and stars to be different in
distant places. This conclusion would probably not be immediately drawn,
but the appearance accounted for, by the rectilinear motion of the
traveller; and then a change in the apparent situations of the heavenly
bodies would only argue their nearness to the earth: and thus would the
observation contribute to establish error, instead of promoting truth,
which has been the misfortune of many an experiment. It would require
some skill in geometry, as well as practice in observing angles, to
demonstrate the spherical figure of the earth from such
observations.[A12]
-----
Footnote A12:
Some of the commentators inform us, that Mahomet taught that the earth
is supported by the tip of the horn of a prodigious ox, who stands on
a huge white stone; and that it is the little and almost unavoidable
motions of this ox which produce earthquakes.
-----
But this difficulty being surmounted, and the true figure of the earth
discovered, a free space would now be granted for the sun, moon, and
stars to perform their diurnal motions on all sides of it; unless
perhaps at its extremities to the north and south; where something would
be thought necessary to serve as an axis for the heavens to revolve on.
This Mr. Crantz in his very entertaining history of Greenland informs
us, is agreeable to the philosophy of that country, with this difference
perhaps, that the high latitude of the Greenlander makes him conclude
one pole only, necessary: He therefore supposes a vast mountain situate
in the utmost extremity of Greenland, whose pointed apex supports the
canopy of heaven, and whereon it revolves with but little friction.
A free space around the earth being granted, our infant astronomer would
be at liberty to consider the diurnal motions of the stars as performed
in intire circles, having one common axis of rotation. And by
considering their daily anticipation in rising and setting, together
with the sun’s annual rising and falling in its noon day height,
swiftest about the middle space, and stationary for some time when
highest and lowest, he would be led to explain the whole by attributing
a slow motion to the sun, contrary to the diurnal motion, along a great
circle dividing the heavens into two equal parts, but obliquely situated
with respect to the diurnal motion. By a like attention to the moon’s
progress the Zodiac would be formed, and divided into its several
constellations or other convenient divisions.
The next step that astronomy advanced, I conceive, must have been in the
discovery attributed to Pythagoras;[A13] who it is said first found out
that Hesperus and Phosphorus, or the Evening and Morning Star, were the
same. The superior brightness of this planet, and the swiftness of its
motion, probably first attracted the notice of the inquisitive: and one
wandering star being discovered, more would naturally be looked for. The
splendor of Jupiter, the very changeable appearance of Mars, and the
glittering of Mercury by day light, would distinguish them. And lastly,
Saturn would be discovered by a close attention to the heavens. But how
often would the curious eye be directed in vain, to the regions of the
north and south, before there was reason to conclude that the orbits of
all the planets lay nearly in the same plane; and that they had but
narrow limits assigned them in the visible heavens.
-----
Footnote A13:
Pythagoras, who was one of the most celebrated among the Greek
philosophers, in the knowledge and study of the heavens, was born
about 540 years before the Christian era. It is believed that he was
the first who made mention of the obliquity of the ecliptic, and of
the angle which this circle makes with the equator; although Pliny
attributes this discovery to Anaximander, whose birth was seventy
years earlier. Among the remarkable things which Pythagoras taught his
disciples, was the doctrine that fire, or heat, occupied the centre of
the world; it is supposed he meant to say, that the sun is placed in
the centre of the planetery system, and that the earth revolves around
him, like the other planets. He also maintained each star to be a
world; and that these worlds were distributed in an ethereal space of
infinite extent. W. B.
-----
From a careful attendance to those newly discovered celestial
travellers, and their various motions, direct and retrograde, the great
discovery arose, that the sun is the centre of their motions; and that
by attributing a similar motion to the earth, and supposing the sun to
be at rest, all the phænomena will be solved. Hence a hint was taken
that opened a new and surprizing scene. The earth might be similar to
them in other respects. The planets too might be habitable worlds. One
cannot help greatly admiring the sagacity of minds, that first formed
conclusions so very far from being obvious; as well as the indefatigable
industry of astronomers, who originally framed rules for predicting
eclipses of sun and moon, which is said to have been done as early as
the time of Thales;[A14] and must have proved of singular service to
emancipate mankind from a thousand superstitious fears and notions,
which juggling impostors (the growth of all ages and countries) would
not fail to turn to their own advantage.
For two or three centuries before and after the beginning of the
Christian era, astronomy appears to have been held in considerable
repute; yet very few discoveries of any consequence were made, during
that period and many ages following.
-----
Footnote A14:
Thales, who died about five centuries and an half before the Christian
era, in the ninety-sixth year of his age,[A14a] first taught the
Greeks the cause of eclipses, He knew the spherical form of the earth;
he distinguished the zones of the earth by the mean of the tropicks
and the polar circles; and he treated of an oblique circle or zodiac,
of a meridian which intersects all these circles in extending north
and south, and of the magnitude of the apparent diameter of the sun.
Herodotus, Cicero, and Pliny, assert, as is noticed by Mr. Lalande,
that Thales had predicted, to the Ionians a total eclipse of the sun,
which took place during the war between the Lydians and the Medes, But
the manner in which Herodotus (who lived about one century, only,
after the time of Thales) speaks of this prediction, is so vague, that
one finds some difficulty in believing that it was fact, If it were
true, says Lalande, that Thales had actually foretold an eclipse of
the sun, it could be no otherwise, than by means of the general period
of eighteen years, of which he would have acquired a knowledge from
the Egyptians or the Chaldeans: for the period had not yet arrived,
when eclipses could be prognosticated by an exact calculation of the
motion of the moon. W. B.
Footnote A14a:
But, according to Dufresnoy, he was born in the first year of the 35th
Olympiad, and died the first year of the 52d, those periods
corresponding, respectively, with the years 640 and 572, B. C.: and if
so, he lived only sixty-eight years.
-----
The ancients were not wanting in their endeavours to find out the true
dimensions of the planetary system. They invented several very ingenious
methods for the purpose; but none of them were at all equal, in point of
accuracy, to the difficulty of the problem. They were therefore obliged
to rest satisfied with supposing the heavenly bodies much nearer to the
earth than in fact they are, and consequently much less in proportion to
it. Add to this, that having found the earth honoured with an attendant,
while they could discover none belonging to any of the other planets,
_they_ supposed it of far greater importance in the Solar System than it
appears to _us_ to be: And the more praise is due to those few, who
nevertheless conceived rightly of its relation to the whole.
Tycho took incredible pains to discover the parallax of Mars in
opposition; the very best thing he could have attempted in order to
determine the distances and magnitudes of the sun and planets. But
telescopes and micrometers were not yet invented! so that not being able
to conclude any thing satisfactory from his own observations, he left
the sun’s parallax as he found it settled by Ptolemy, about twenty times
too great. And even after he had reduced to rule the refraction of the
atmosphere, and applied it to astronomical observations, rather than
shock his imagination by increasing the sun’s distance, already too
great for _his_ hypothesis, he chose to attribute a greater refraction
to the sun’s light, than that of the stars, altogether contrary to
reason; that so an excess of parallax might be balanced by an excess of
refraction. Thus when we willingly give room to one error, we run the
risk of having a whole troop of its relations quartered upon us. But
Kepler afterwards, on looking over Tycho’s observations, found that he
might safely reduce the sun’s parallax to one minute; which was no
inconsiderable approach to the truth. Alhazen,[A15] an Arabian, had some
time before, discovered the refraction of light in passing through air;
of which the ancients seem to have been entirely ignorant. They were
indeed very sensible of the errors it occasioned in their celestial
measures; but they, with great modesty, attributed them to the
imperfections of their instruments or observations.
-----
Footnote A15:
Alhazen was one of the greatest of the Arabian astronomers. He went,
about the year 1100, to Spain, where many of his nation had
established themselves in the eighth century, and carried thither
their knowledge of astronomy; yet, from the year 800 down to about
1300, science remained shrowded with the darkest ignorance, throughout
Europe.
Mr. Lalande observes, that the theory of Refractions is an important
one, in astronomy; although it was considered of little consequence
until the time of Alhazen. W. B.
-----
I must not omit, in honour of Tycho, to observe that he first proved, by
accurate observations, that the comets are not meteors floating in our
atmosphere, as Aristotle,[A16] that tyrant in Philosophy, had determined
them to be, but prodigious bodies at a vast distance from us in the
planetary regions; a discovery the lateness of which we must regret, for
if it had been made by the ancients, that part of Astronomy (and perhaps
every other, in consequence of the superior attention paid to it), would
have been in far greater perfection than it is at this day.
-----
Footnote A16:
Aristotle, as though he had been of the race of the Ottomans, thought
he could not reign except he first killed all his brethren. Insomuch
as he never nameth or mentioneth an ancient author or opinion, but to
confute or reprove. _Bacon. Advancement._
-----
I had almost forgot to take notice of one important discovery made in
the early times of Astronomy, the precession of the equinoxes. An
ancient astronomer, called Timocharis, observed an appulse of the Moon
to the Virgin’s Spike, about 280 years before the birth of Christ. He
thence took occasion to determine the place of this star, as accurately
as possible; probably with a view of perfecting the lunar theory. About
four hundred years afterwards, Ptolemy, comparing the place of the same
star, as he then found it, with its situation determined by
Timocharis,[A17] concluded the precession to be at the rate of one
degree in an hundred years; but later astronomers have found it swifter.
-----
Footnote A17:
Timocharis of Alexandria endeavoured, with Aristillus, a philosopher
of the same school, to determine the places of the different stars in
the heavens, and to trace the course of the planets. Dr. Lempriere
places him 294 years before Christ; and the Abbé Barthelemy has
inserted his name in the list of illustrious men, who flourished in
the fourth century before the Christian era: he probably lived some
time after the commencement of that century. W. B.
-----
Whatever other purposes this great law may answer, it will produce an
amazing change in the appearance of the heavens; and so contribute to
that endless variety which obtains throughout the works of Nature. The
seven stars that now adorn our winter skies, will take their turn to
shine in summer. Sirius, that now shines with unrivalled lustre, amongst
the gems of heaven, will sink below our horizon, and rise no more for
very many ages! Orion too, will disappear, and no longer afford our
posterity a glimpse of glories beyond the skies! glittering Capella,
that now passes to the north of our zenith, will nearly describe the
equator:[A18] And Lyra, one of the brightest in the heavens, will become
our Polar Star: Whilst the present Pole Star, on account of its humble
appearance, shall pass unheeded; and all its long continued faithful
services shall be forgotten! All these changes, and many others, will
certainly follow from the precession of the equinoxes; the cause of
which motion was so happily discovered and demonstrated by the immortal
Newton: A portion of whose honors was nevertheless intercepted by the
prior sagacity of Kepler, to whom I return.
-----
Footnote A18:
By its peculiar situation it will continue to do so for a long time.
-----
Kepler’s love of harmony encouraged him to continue his pursuits, in
spite of the most mortifying disappointments, until he discovered that
admirable relation which subsists between the periodic times of the
primary planets, and their distances from the sun; the squares of the
former being as the cubes of the latter. This discovery was of great
importance to the perfection of Astronomy; because the periods of the
planets are more easily found by observation, and from them their
several relative distances may be determined with great accuracy by this
rule. He likewise found from observation, that the planets do not move
in circles; but in elipses, having the sun in one focus. But the causes
lay hid from him, and it was left as the glory of Sir Isaac, to
demonstrate that both these things must necessarily follow from one
simple principle, which almost every thing in this science tends to
prove does really obtain in Nature: I mean, that the planets are
retained in their orbits by forces directed to the sun; which forces
decrease as the squares of their distances encrease.
Kepler also discovered that the planets do not move equally in their
orbits, but sometimes swifter, sometimes slower; and that not
irregularly, but according to this certain rule; That in equal times,
the areas described by lines drawn from the planet to the sun’s centre,
are equal. This, Sir Isaac likewise demonstrated must follow, if the
planet be retained in its orbit by forces directed to the sun, and
varying with the distance in any manner whatsoever. These three
discoveries of Kepler, afterwards demonstrated by Newton, are the
foundation of all accuracy in astronomical calculations.[A19]
-----
Footnote A19:
According to Lalande, Kepler was as celebrated in astronomy by the
consequences he drew from the observations of Tycho Brahé, as the
latter was for the immense mass of materials which he had prepared for
him: and the Abbé Delaporte (in his _Voyageur François_) represents
him as precursor of Descartes in opticks, of Newton in physicks, and
as a law-giver (“_legislateur_”) in astronomy.
John Kepler, for this was the name of that famous mathematician, was
born at Wiel, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in the year 1571; and the
Abbé Delaporte says, his family was illustrious. He died at Ratisbon,
in 1630. W. B.
-----
We now come to that great discovery, which lay concealed from the most
subtle and penetrating geniuses amongst mankind, until these latter
ages; which so prodigiously enlarged the fields of astronomy, and with
such rapidity handed down one curiosity after another, from the heavens
to astonished mortals, that no one capable of raising his eyes and
thoughts from the ground he trod on, could forbear turning his
attention, in some degree, to the subject that engages us this evening.
Galileo, as he himself acknowledges, was not the first inventor of the
telescope, but he was the first that knew how to make a proper use of
it.[A20] If we consider that convex and concave lenses had been in use
for some centuries, we shall think it probable that several persons
might have chanced to combine them together, so as to magnify _distant_
objects; but that the small advantage apparently resulting from such a
discovery, either on account of the badness of the glasses or the
unskilfulness of the person in whose hands they were, occasioned it to
be neglected.
-----
Footnote A20:
The true invention of the telescope cannot be carried back to an
earlier date than the beginning of the seventeenth century. Johannes
Baptista Porta, a Neapolitan, in his _Natural Magic_, which was
published in the year 1589, says, “_Si utramque (lentem concavam et
convexam) recté componere noveris, et longinqua et proxima majora et
clara videbis_:” and he is said to have made a telescope, accordingly,
about the year 1594. But Porta is represented as having made this
discovery such as it was, by accident; and, as not well understanding
the proper use of his own invention.
According to Baron Bielfeld,[A20a] however, telescopes were first
constructed a long time after, in Holland; some say, by John
Lippersheim, a spectacle-maker at Middelbourg in Zealand; others, by
James Metius, brother to the celebrated professor Adrian Metius, of
Franeker. Although the invention of this instrument, of indispensable
use in astronomy, is sometimes attributed to the great Galileo, he has
himself acknowledged, in his treatise, entitled _Nuncius Siderius_,
that he took the hint from a report of a German having invented an
instrument, by means of which, and with the assistance of certain
glasses, distant objects might be distinguished as clearly as those
that were near. This is precisely what Porta had mentioned in his
book, in 1589; and therefore, if Galileo had not referred to a German,
he might be supposed to have had in his view the Neapolitan’s
conception of a telescope, announced long before such an instrument
was properly constructed.
Whatever may have been the merit of Porta’s discovery, or the
pretensions of Lippersheim, the spectacle-maker, and Metius, Peter
Borel (in his treatise _De vero Telescopii Inventore_) is of the
opinion that Zachariah Johnson, who, like Lippersheim, was a
spectacle-maker, and in the same city, made this discovery by chance,
about the year 1500; that Lippersheim imitated him, after making
numerous experiments; and that he instructed Metius. There are others,
who have been considered as having had some sort of claim to this
important invention; among whom were a Mr. Digges, of England, and a
M. Hardy, of France, both towards the commencement of the seventeenth
century.
It is certain, however, that Galileo in Italy, (who died in 1642, aged
seventy-eight years,) and, according to Bielfeld, Simon Marius in
Germany, were the first that applied the telescope to the
contemplation of celestial objects. W. B.
Footnote A20a:
_Elem. of Univ. Erud._ b. i. ch. 49.
-----
But Galileo, by great care in perfecting his telescope, and by applying
a judicious eye, happily succeeded; and with a telescope magnifying but
thirty times, discovered the moon to be a solid globe, diversified with
prodigious mountains and vallies, like our earth; but without seas or
atmosphere. The sun’s bright disk, he found frequently shaded with
spots, and by their apparent motions proved it to be the surface of a
globe, revolving on its axis in about five and twenty days. This it
seems was a mortifying discovery to the followers of Aristotle; who held
the sun to be perfect without spot or blemish.[A21] Some of them, it is
said, insisted that it was but an illusion of the telescope and
absolutely refused to look through one, lest the testimony of their
senses should prove too powerful for their prejudices.
-----
Footnote A21:
In treating of the astronomy of the Greeks, Lalande contents himself
with barely introducing the name of Aristotle, among their
philosophers; seeming to consider him as one who had done very little
for astronomical science. This philosopher (who died in the
sixty-third year of his age, and only 322 years B. C.) among his other
doctrines, not only maintained the eternity of the world; but, that
Providence did not extend itself to sublunary beings: and as to the
immortality of the soul, it is uncertain whether he believed it or
not. Bayle calls his logic and his natural philosophy, “the weakest of
his works:” and says, further; “It will be an everlasting subject of
wonder to persons who know what philosophy is, to find that
Aristotle’s authority was so much respected in the schools, for
several ages, that, when a disputant quoted a passage from this
philosopher, he who maintained the thesis durst not say, _Transeat_;
but must either deny the passage or explain it in his own way.” W. B.
-----
Galileo likewise discovered the four attendants of Jupiter, commonly
called his satellites:[A22] Which at first did not much please that
great ornament of his age, the sagacious Kepler. For by this addition to
the number of the planets, he found their Creator had not paid that
veneration to certain mystical numbers and proportions, which he had
imagined. Let us not blush at this remarkable instance of philosophical
weakness, but admire the candour of the man who confessed it.
-----
Footnote A22:
This discovery was made on the 8th of January, 1610. It was, as Mr.
Vince observes, a very important one in its consequences; as it
furnished a ready method of finding the longitude of places, by means
of their eclipses. W. B.
-----
Galileo not only discovered these moons of Jupiter, but suggested their
use in determining the longitude of places on the earth; which has since
been so happily put in practice, that Fontenelle does not hesitate to
affirm, that they are of more use to Geography and Navigation,[A23] than
our own moon. He discovered the phases of Mars and Venus; that the
former appears sometimes round and sometimes gibbous, and that the
latter puts on the shapes of our moon: And from this discovery, he
proved to a demonstration, the truth of the Copernican System.[A24] Nor
did that wonderful ring, which surrounds Saturn’s body, without touching
it, and which we know nothing in nature similar to, escape his notice;
though his telescope did not magnify sufficiently to give him a true
idea of its figure.
-----
Footnote A23:
Although both Geography and Navigation have been wonderfully improved
by the important discoveries made by the moderns in astronomy, they
have nevertheless, derived the most essential aid from the application
of the Compass to their purposes.
The invention of this instrument, which is of indispensible utility,
is almost universally ascribed to Flavio Gioia, a native of Amalfi in
the kingdom of Naples. He is called, by some writers, Flavio de Melfi,
(by which is meant, Flavio of Amalfi, this town being the place of his
nativity;) and his invention of the Compass is placed in the year
1302. But it is affirmed by others, that Paulus Venetus brought the
Compass first into Italy from China, in the year 1260. The Chinese
Compass, however, whatever may be its antiquity, appears to have been
a very imperfect instrument, compared with the modern Mariner’s
Compass; and, more especially, with the Azimuth Compass, as improved
by Dr. Knight and Mr. Smeaton. The Chinese Compass, now used, is
represented as being nothing more than a magnetic needle kept
floating, by means of a piece of cork, on the surface of water, in a
white china ware vessel, divided at bottom into twenty-four points.
It is worthy of observation, that the French have laid claim to the
invention of the Compass, upon no better foundation than the
circumstance of a _fleur de lys_ being always placed at the north
point of the chard; although it is known, that Gioia decorated the
north end of the needle with that flower in compliment to his own
sovereign, who bore it in his arms, as being descended from the royal
house of France. “It hath been often,” says Dr. Robertson,[A23a] “the
fate of those illustrious benefactors of mankind, who have enriched
science and improved the arts by their inventions, to derive more
reputation than benefit from the happy efforts of their genius. But,”
continues this eminent historian, “the lot of Gioia has been still
more cruel; through the inattention or ignorance of contemporary
historians, he has been defrauded even of the fame to which he had
such a just title. We receive from them no information with respect to
his profession, his character, the precise time when he made this
important discovery, and the accidents and enquiries which led to it:
the knowledge of this event, though productive of greater effects than
any recorded in the annals of the human race, is transmitted to us
without any of those circumstances which can gratify the curiosity
that it naturally awakens.” W. B.
Footnote A23a:
Hist. of America, vol. i, b. i.
Footnote A24:
Galileo Galilei was a strenuous defender of the system of Copernicus;
for which he was condemned by the inquisition, in the year 1635, under
Pope Urban VIII. This extraordinary man was a native of Florence, and
born in 1564. He died in 1642, aged seventy-eight years.
W. B.
-----
Amongst the fixed stars too, Galileo pursued his enquiries. The
Milky-Way, which had so greatly puzzled the ancient Philosophers, and
which Aristotle imagined to be vapours risen to an extraordinary height,
he found to consist of an innumerable multitude of small stars; whose
light appears indistinct and confounded together to the naked eye. And
in every part of the heavens, his telescope shewed him abundance of
stars, not visible without it. In short, with such unabated ardour did
this great man range through the fields of Astronomy, that he seemed to
leave nothing for others to glean after him.
Nevertheless, by prodigiously encreasing the magnifying powers of their
telescopes, his followers made several great discoveries; some of which
I shall briefly mention. Mercury was found to become bisected, and
horned near its inferior conjunction, as well as Venus. Spots were
discovered in Mars, and from their apparent motion, the time of his
revolution on an axis nearly perpendicular to its orbit, was determined.
A sort of belts or girdles, of a variable or fluctuating nature, were
found to surround Jupiter, and likewise certain spots on his surface,
whence he was concluded to make one revolution in about ten hours on his
axis; which is likewise nearly perpendicular to his orbit. Five[A25]
moons or satellites were found to attend Saturn, which Galileo’s
telescope; on account of their prodigious distance, could not
reach:[A26] And the form of his ring was found to be a thin circular
plane, so situated as not to be far from parallel to the plane of our
equator; and always remaining parallel to itself. This ring, as well as
Saturn, evidently derives its light from the sun, as appears by the
shadows they mutually cast on each other.
-----
Footnote A25:
It has been since ascertained that Saturn has seven satellites, as is
more particularly mentioned in the subsequent note. W. B.
Footnote A26:
It was about six years after the delivery of this oration, (viz. on
the 13th of March, 1781,) that Herschel discovered the Georgium Sidus.
And nearly eight years and an half after this first discovery, he made
two others: on the 28th of August, 1789, he was enabled to ascertain,
by means of his telescope of forty feet focal length, that Saturn has
a sixth satellite; and, on the 17th of September following, he found
that he has a seventh. The same celebrated astronomer has since made
several important discoveries. Thus, under the liberal patronage of
his sovereign, has the great Herschel succeeded, by his extraordinary
skill and industry in the making of very large _specula_, in
constructing telescopes, which, in the words of the learned Mr. Vince,
“have opened new views of the heavens, and penetrated into the depths
of the universe; unfolding scenes which excite no less our wonder than
our admiration.”
Many important discoveries (some of which are noticed in the foregoing
pages of these memoirs) have been made by other eminent astronomers,
since the date of Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration; some of them, indeed,
since his decease; among which are the discoveries of three new
planets. W. B.
-----
Besides several other remarkable appearances, which Hugenius[A27]
discovered amongst the fixed stars, there is one in Orion’s Sword,
which, I will venture to say, whoever shall attentively view, with a
good telescope and experienced eye, will not find his curiosity
disappointed. “Seven small stars, (says he,) of which three are very
close together, seemed to shine through a cloud, so that a space round
them appeared much brighter than any other part of heaven, which being
very serene and black looked here as if there was an opening, through
which one had a prospect into a much brighter region.” Here some have
supposed old night to be entirely dispossessed, and that perpetual
daylight shines amongst numberless worlds without interruption.
-----
Footnote A27:
The celebrated Huygens, who, in his Latin works, is styled _Hugenius_.
W. B.
-----
This is a short account of the discoveries made with the telescope. Well
might Hugenius congratulate the age he lived in, on such a great
acquisition of knowledge: And recollecting those great men, Copernicus,
Regiomontanus, and Tycho, so lately excluded from it by death, what an
immense treasure, says he, would they have given for it. Those ancient
philosophers too, Pythagoras, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Philolaus, Plato,
Hipparchus; would they not have travelled over all the countries of the
world, for the sake of knowing such secrets of nature, and of enjoying
such sights as these?
Thus have we seen the materials collected, which were to compose the
magnificent edifice of astronomical Philosophy; collected, indeed, with
infinite labour and industry, by a few volunteers in the service of
human knowledge, and with an ardour not to be abated by the weaknesses
of human nature, or the threatened loss of sight, one of the greatest of
bodily misfortunes! It was now time for the great master-builder to
appear, who was to rear up this whole splendid group of materials into
due order and proportion. And it was, I make no doubt, by a particular
appointment of Providence, that at this time the immortal Newton
appeared. Much had been done preparatory to this great work by others,
without which if he had succeeded, we should have been ready to
pronounce him something more than human. The doctrine of atoms had been
taught by some of the ancients. Kepler had suspected that the planets
gravitated towards each other, particularly the earth and moon; and that
their motion prevented their falling together: and Galileo first of all
applied geometrical reasoning to the motion of projectiles. But the
solid spheres of the ancients, or the vortices of Des Cartes,[A28] were
still found necessary to explain the planetary motions; or if Kepler had
discarded them, it was only to substitute something else in their stead,
by no means sufficient to account for those grand movements of nature.
It was Newton alone that extended the simple principle of gravity, under
certain just regulations, and the laws of motion, whether rectilinear or
circular, which constantly take place on the surface of this globe,
throughout every part of the solar system; and from thence, by the
assistance of a sublime geometry, deduced the planetary motions, with
the strictest conformity to nature and observation.
-----
Footnote A28:
Among the many eminent astronomers in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, mentioned by Mr. Lalande, in his _Astronomie_, with
interesting particulars concerning most of them, the only notice he
there takes of his ingenious countryman, who endeavoured to establish
the theory of Vortices which he had projected, is in these words:
“Descartes (René,) né en Touraine en 1596, mort à Stockholm en 1650.
Sa vie a été écrite fort au long par Baillet, à Paris, 1691, in 4^o.”
W. B.
-----
Other systems of Philosophy have been spun out of the fertile brain of
some great genius or other; and for want of a foundation in nature, have
had their rise and fall, succeeding each other by turns. But this will
be durable as science, and can never sink into neglect, until “universal
darkness buries all.”
Other systems of Philosophy have ever found it necessary to conceal
their weakness, and inconsistency, under the veil of unintelligible
terms[A29] and phrases, to which no two mortals perhaps ever affixed the
same meaning: But the Philosophy of Newton disdains to make use of such
subterfuges; it is not reduced to the necessity of using them, because
it pretends not to be of nature’s privy council, or to have free access
to her most inscrutable mysteries; but to attend carefully to her works,
to discover the immediate causes of visible effects, to trace those
causes to others more general and simple, advancing by slow and sure
steps towards the great First Cause of all things.
-----
Footnote A29:
The philosophy of Aristotle retained terms so very obscure, that it
seems the Devil himself did not understand, or at least could not
explain them; otherwise we can hardly suppose, that, when the good
patriarch of Venice had summoned his attendance for this very purpose,
he would have been so rude as to put him off with an answer not only
unintelligible but inarticulate. See _Bayle, in Art. Barbaro._
-----
And now the Astronomy of our planetary system seemed compleated. The
telescope had discovered all the globes whereof it is composed, at least
as far as we yet know. Newton with more than mortal sagacity had
discovered those laws by which all their various, yet regular, motions
are governed, and reduced them to the most beautiful simplicity: laws to
which not only their great and obvious variety of motions are
conformable, but even their minute irregularities; and not only planets
but comets likewise. The busy mind of man, never satiated with
knowledge, now extended its views further, and made use of every
expedient that suggested itself, to find the relation that this system
of worlds bears to the whole visible creation. Instruments were made
with all possible accuracy, and the most skilful observers applied
themselves with great diligence to discover an annual parallax, from
which the distances of the fixed stars would be known. They found
unexpected irregularities, and might have been long perplexed with them
to little purpose, had not Dr. Bradley happily accounted for them, by
shewing that light from the heavenly bodies strikes the eye with a
velocity and direction, compounded of the proper velocity and direction
of _light_, and of the _eye_, as carried about with the earth in its
orbit; compared to which, the diurnal motion and all other accidental
motions of the eye, are quite inconsiderable. Thus, instead of what he
aimed at, he discovered something still more curious, the real velocity
of light, in a way entirely new and unthought of.
All Astronomical knowledge being conveyed to us from the remotest
distances, by that subtle, swift and universal messenger of
intelligence, LIGHT; it was natural for the curious to enquire into its
properties, and particularly to endeavour to know with what velocity it
proceeds, in its immeasurable journeys. Experimental Philosophy,
accustomed to conquer every difficulty, undertook the arduous problem;
but confessed herself unequal to the task.[A30] Here, Astronomy itself
revealed the secret; first in the discovery of Roemer, who found that
the farther Jupiter is distant from us, the later the light of his
satellites always reaches us; and afterwards in this of Dr. Bradley,
informed us, that light proceeds from the sun to us in about eight
minutes of time.[A31]
-----
Footnote A30:
Alluding to the experiments made in France, for determining the
velocity of light; which, though unsuccessful, discovered a noble
philosophical spirit.
Footnote A31:
This prodigious velocity of light can be no argument against its
materiality, as will appear from the following considerations. The
greatest velocity which we can communicate to any body, is that of a
cannon-ball, impelled by gun-powder; this may be at the rate of about
20 miles in a minute of time. The planet Saturn moves about 360 miles
in a minute, that is 18 times swifter than a cannon-ball; and the
comet of 1680, in its perihelion, moved near 56.66 times swifter than
Saturn, or 990.5 times swifter than a cannon-ball. Now these are
material bodies, moving with very various, and all of them exceedingly
great velocities; and no reason appears why the last mentioned
velocity should be the utmost limit, beyond which nature cannot
proceed; or that some other body may not move 7 or 8 hundred times
swifter than a comet, as light is found to do.
That the different refrangibility of the rays of light, on which their
colours depend, arises from their different velocities, seems so
natural a conjecture, that it has perhaps occurred to every one who
has thought on this subject. To this there are three principal
objections. The first is, that, according to this hypothesis, when the
satellites of Jupiter are eclipsed, their colour ought to change,
first to a green and then to a blue, before their light becomes
extinct; which is contrary to experience. But this objection appears
to me of no weight; for we do not lose sight of the satellite because
there is no light coming from thence to the eye, but because there is
not light enough to render it visible. Therefore at the time a
satellite disappears, there is still light of all colours arriving at
the eye: and though the blue light should predominate on account of
its slower progress, yet the red may predominate on another account;
for along the edge of Jupiter’s shadow, as it passes over the
satellite, a greater proportion of red light, than of blue, will be
thrown by the refraction of Jupiter’s atmosphere. The second objection
is, that since the velocity of the earth in its orbit, causes an
aberration of about 20 seconds in the place of a star, if the
different colours of light depended on different velocities, the
aberration of blue light ought proportionably to exceed that of red
light, which would give such an oblong form to a fixed star as might
be discovered with a good telescope. This objection is of no more
force than the former. The effect ought indeed to follow, but not in a
sensible quantity; for at the altitude of 70 degrees, the apparent
place of a fixed star is likewise removed 20 seconds by refraction,
and the very same separation of the rays must take place; yet this I
think is not discoverable with the best telescope. Perhaps by uniting
these two equal causes, which may be readily done, and thereby
doubling the effect, it may become sensible.
The third objection arises from that curious discovery of Dollond, by
which we are enabled so greatly to improve refracting telescopes. And
this objection I shall for the present leave in its full force; as
well against the above hypothesis, as against every other which I have
seen for the same purpose.
-----
As the apparent motion of the fixed stars, arising from this cause, was
observed to complete the intire circle of its changes in the space of a
year, it was for some time supposed to arise from an annual parallax,
notwithstanding its inconsistency in other respects with such a
supposition. But this obstacle being removed, there followed the
discovery of another apparent motion in the heavens, arising from the
nutation of the earth’s axis; the period whereof is about nineteen
years. Had it not been so very different from the period of the former,
the causes of both must have been almost inexplicable. This latter
discovery is an instance of the superior advantages of accurate
observation: For it was well known that such a nutation must take place
from the principles of the Newtonian Philosophy; yet a celebrated
astronomer had concluded from hypothetical reasoning, that its quantity
must be perfectly insensible.
The way being cleared thus far, Dr. Bradley assures us, from his most
accurate observations, that the annual parallax cannot exceed two
seconds, he thinks not one; and we have the best reason to confide in
his judgment and accuracy. From hence then we draw this amazing
conclusion; that the diameter of the earth’s orb bears no greater
proportion to the distance of the stars which Bradley observed, than one
second does to the radius; which is less than as one to 200,000.
Prodigiously great as the distance of the fixed stars from our sun
appears to be, and probably their distances from each other are no less,
the Newtonian Philosophy will furnish us with a reason for it: That the
several systems may be sufficiently removed from each other’s
attraction, which we are very certain must require an immense distance;
especially if we consider that the cometic part, of our system at least,
appears to be the most considerable though so little known to us. The
dimensions of the several parts of the planetary system, had been
determined near the truth by the astronomers of the last age, from the
parallax of Mars. But from that rare phenomenon the transit of Venus
over the sun’s disk, which has twice happened within a few years past,
the sun’s parallax is now known beyond dispute to be 8 seconds and an
half, nearly; and consequently, the sun’s distance almost 12,000
diameters of the earth.
If from the distances of the several planets, and their apparent
diameters taken with that excellent instrument, the micrometer, we
compare their several magnitudes, we shall find the Moon, Mercury, and
Mars, to be much less than our Earth, Venus a little less, but Saturn
many hundred times greater, and Jupiter above one thousand times. This
prodigious globe, placed at such a vast distance from the other planets,
that the force of its attraction might the less disturb their motions,
is far more bulky and ponderous than all the other planets taken
together. But even Jupiter, with all his fellows of our system, are as
nothing compared to that amazing mass of matter the Sun. How much are we
then indebted to Astronomy, for correcting our ideas of the visible
creation! Wanting its instruction, we should infallibly have supposed
the earth by far the most important body in the universe, both for
magnitude and use. The sun and moon would have been thought two little
bodies nearly equal in size, though different in lustre, created solely
for the purpose of enlightening the earth; and the fixed stars, so many
sparks of fire, placed in the concave vault of heaven, to adorn it, and
afford us a glimmering light in the absence of the sun and moon.
But how does Astronomy change the scene!—Take the miser from the earth,
if it be possible to disengage him; he whose nightly rest has been long
broken by the loss of a single foot of it, useless perhaps to him; and
remove him to the planet Mars, one of the least distant from us:
Persuade the ambitious monarch to accompany him, who has sacrificed the
lives of thousands of his subjects to an imaginary property in certain
small portions of the earth; and now point it out to them, with all its
kingdoms and wealth, a glittering star “close by the moon,” the latter
scarce visible and the former less bright than our Evening Star:—Would
they not turn away their disgusted sight from it, as not thinking it
worth their smallest attention, and look for consolation in the gloomy
regions of Mars?[A32]
-----
Footnote A32:
Mars appears to be surrounded by a very great and dense atmosphere.
-----
But dropping the company of all those, whether kings or misers, whose
minds and bodies are equally affected by gravitation, let us proceed to
the orb of Jupiter; the Earth and all the inferior planets will vanish,
lost in the sun’s bright rays, and Saturn only remain; He too sometimes
so diminished in lustre, as not to be easily discovered. But a new and
beautiful system will arise. The four moons of Jupiter will become very
conspicuous; some of them perhaps appearing larger, others smaller than
our moon; and all of them performing their revolutions with incredible
swiftness, and the most beautiful regularity:—varying their phases from
full to new and from new to full, and frequently eclipsing the sun and
each other, at least to the equatorial parts of Jupiter; and almost in
every revolution suffering eclipses themselves by falling into Jupiter’s
shadow; excepting that the outermost will seem, like a traveller fond of
the sun-beams, cautiously to avoid the shadow for whole years together.
Since we are advanced so far, if not tired of the journey, let us
proceed a step further; it is but 400 millions of miles to the globe of
Saturn. Here again all will be lost, but Jupiter itself. The Sun will
put on something of a starlike appearance, but with excessive
brightness. The five[A33] satellites of Saturn will exhibit appearances
similar to those of Jupiter, but they will very rarely eclipse the Sun,
or suffer eclipses themselves. The particular phænomena of Saturn’s
ring, we cannot explain, unless we knew the time and plane of Saturn’s
revolution on his axis. But this we know, that it must sometimes appear,
by night, like a prodigious luminous arch, almost equal to one quarter
of the heavens; and at other times, dark, so as to afford no light
itself, but to intercept the light of every star beyond it, by night,
and of the sun itself by day. And to conclude, if borne on the wings of
a comet we should travel with it to the remotest part of its orbit; our
whole planetary system would disappear, and the sun become a star, only
more refulgent than Sirius perhaps, because less distant.
-----
Footnote A33:
Dr. Herschel discovered, in the year 1789, (fourteen years after the
delivery of this Oration,) two other satellites of Saturn. These are
the innermost of his (now) seven secondary planets.
W. B.
-----
The opinion of the earth’s rotation on its axis was once violently
opposed, from a notion of its dangerous tendency with respect to the
interests of religion:[A34] But, as truth is always consistent with
itself, so many new proofs were furnished from time to time by new
discoveries, that a mistaken interpretation of some passages in the
bible was compelled to give way to the force of astronomical evidence.
The doctrine of a plurality of worlds, is inseparable from the
principles of Astronomy; but this doctrine is still thought, by some
pious persons, and by many more I fear, who do not deserve that title,
to militate against the truths asserted by the Christian religion. If I
may be allowed to give my opinion on a matter of such importance, I must
confess that I think upon a proper examination the apparent
inconsistency will vanish. Our religion teaches us what philosophy could
not have taught; and we ought to admire with reverence the great things
it has pleased divine Providence to perform, _beyond the ordinary course
of Nature_, for man, who is undoubtedly the most noble inhabitant of
this globe. But neither religion nor philosophy forbids us to believe
that infinite wisdom and power, prompted by infinite goodness, may
throughout the vast extent of creation and duration, have frequently
interposed in a manner quite incomprehensible to us, when it became
necessary to the happiness of created beings of some other rank or
degree.
-----
Footnote A34:
In 745, Virgilus, bishop of Saltzburg, having publicly asserted in
some of his sermons, that there were antipodes, he was charged with
heresy, by Boniface, bishop of Mentz, and cited to appear before the
Pope, who recommended the hearing of the cause to Utilo, King of
Bohemia, and at the same time wrote to him in favour of Boniface. The
event was, the bishop of Saltzburg lost his cause, and was condemned
for heresy.
-----
How far indeed the inhabitants of the other planets may resemble man, we
cannot pretend to say. If like him they were created liable to fall, yet
some, if not all of them, may still retain their original rectitude. We
will hope they do: the thought is comfortable.—Cease, Galileo, to
improve thy optic tube: and thou, great Newton, forbear thy ardent
search into the distant mysteries of nature: lest ye make unwelcome
discoveries. Deprive us not of the pleasure of believing that yonder
radiant orbs, traversing in silent majesty the etherial regions, are the
peaceful seats of innocence and bliss: where neither natural nor moral
evil has ever yet intruded; where to enjoy with gratitude and adoration
the creator’s bounty, is the business of existence. If their inhabitants
resemble man in their faculties and affections, let us suppose that they
are wise enough to govern themselves according to the dictates of that
reason their creator has given them, in such manner as to consult their
own and each other’s true happiness, on all occasions. But if, on the
contrary, they have found it necessary to erect artificial fabrics of
government, let us not suppose that they have done it with so little
skill, and at such an enormous expence, as must render them a misfortune
instead of a blessing. We will hope that their statesmen are patriots,
and that their kings, if that order of beings has found admittance
there, have the feelings of humanity.—Happy people! and perhaps more
happy still, that all communication with us is denied. We have neither
corrupted you with our vices, nor injured you by violence. None of your
sons and daughters, degraded from their native dignity, have been doomed
to endless slavery by us in America, merely because _their_ bodies may
be disposed to reflect or absorb the rays of light, in a way different
from _ours_. Even you, inhabitants of the moon, situated in our very
neighbourhood, are effectually secured, alike from the rapacious hand of
the haughty Spaniard, and of the unfeeling British nabob. Even British
thunder impelled by British thirst of gain, cannot reach you: And the
utmost efforts of the mighty Frederick, that tyrant of the north and
scourge of mankind, if aimed to disturb _your_ peace, becomes
inconceivably ridiculous and impotent.
Pardon these reflections; they rise not from the gloomy spirit of
misanthropy. That being, before whose piercing eye all the intricate
foldings and dark recesses of the human heart become expanded and
illuminated, is my witness with what sincerity, with what ardor, I wish
for the happiness of the whole race of mankind: how much I admire that
disposition of lands and seas, which affords a communication between
distant regions, and a mutual exchange of benefits:[A35] how sincerely I
approve of those social refinements which really add to our happiness,
and induce us with gratitude to acknowledge our great Creator’s
goodness:—how I delight in a participation of the discoveries made from
time to time in nature’s works, by our Philosophic brethren in Europe.
-----
Footnote A35:
It has been shewn, in a preceding note, how much the means of
communicating between distant regions, separated by seas, ware
facilitated by the discovery and use of the Compass: but those means
have been still further and very greatly improved, since the
introduction of the use of the Quadrant at sea, especially that called
Hadley’s Quadrant.
The true inventor of the reflecting Quadrant was Dr. Robert Hook, a
very ingenious English mathematician and philosopher, who died in the
year 1702, at the age of sixty-seven years. This instrument, now
commonly styled Hadley’s, was afterwards rendered much more complete
than Dr. Hook’s invention had made it, by Sir Isaac Newton: but our
modern artists, more skilful than those of former times, as Mr.
Lalande has observed, have profited of the ideas of the great Newton
himself, on the subject; and among the later improvers of the Sea
Quadrant, or Octant, is Mr. Hadley, whose name the instrument usually
bears.
It would, however, be doing an act of injustice to the memory of an
American who possessed an extraordinary genius, to omit, in the course
of these memoirs, some notice of his merits in relation to this
matter. Mr. Thomas Godfrey, a native of Pennsylvania, is said to have
turned his attention to this subject, so early as the year 1730; and
in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, No. 435, will be
found, an “_Account of Mr. Thomas Godfrey’s Improvement of Davis’s
Quadrant transferred to the Mariner’s Bow_,” drawn up by James Logan,
Esq. formerly of Philadelphia, a gentleman of extensive learning, and
a very eminent mathematician, Mr. Godfrey is stated to have “sent the
instrument (which he had constructed) to be tried at sea by an
acquaintance of his, an ingenious navigator, in a voyage to Jamaica,
who shewed it to a captain of a ship there, just going for England; by
which means, it came to the knowledge of Mr. Hadley, though perhaps
without his being told the name of the real inventor.” [See _The
American Magazine_, for July 1758.] In a letter, dated at Philadelphia
the 25th of May, 1732, Mr. Logan, who very ably as well as
meritoriously patronized Godfrey, communicated to the celebrated Dr.
Edmund Halley a detailed account and description of the _improved_
Sea-Quadrant constructed by that ingenious citizen of America, of
which his patron confidently believed him to be the original inventor.
On the 28th of June, 1734, a further account of Godfrey’s invention
was drawn up by Mr. Logan, and subscribed with his name; which, it is
presumed, was also communicated to the Royal Society: and on the 9th
of November, in the same year, Mr. Godfrey transmitted an account of
it, draughted and signed by himself, to the same learned body. The
whole of these interesting letters, with some accompanying
observations on the subject, are published in the valuable _Magazine_
just referred to, and in the one for the succeeding month.
In the Transactions of the Royal Society, for the months of October,
November and December, 1731, No. 421, is contained a Proposal, by Dr.
Edmund Halley, for finding the longitude at sea, within a degree or
twenty leagues, &c. In the conclusion of this paper, Dr, Halley, in
speaking of John Hadley, Esq. VP.R.S, (“to whom,” as he observes, “we
are highly obliged for his having perfected and brought into common
use the reflecting telescope,”) says—He “has been pleased to
communicate _his_ most ingenious instrument for taking the angles _by
reflection_,” (referring, here, to the Philos. Trans. No. 420;) “it is
more than probable that the same may be applied to taking angles _at
sea_, with the desired accuracy.”
In Mr. Logan’s account of Mr. Godfrey’s invention, dated June 28,
1734, he says: “Tis now four years since Thomas Godfrey hit on this
improvement; for, his account of it, laid before the (Royal) Society
last winter, in which he mentioned two years, was wrote in 1732; and
in the same year, 1730, after he was satisfied in this, he applied
himself to think of the other, viz. _the reflecting instrument, by
speculums for a help in the case of longitude_, though ’tis also
useful in taking altitudes: and one of these, as has been abundantly
proved by the maker, and those who had it with them, was taken to sea
and there used in observing the latitudes the winter of that year, and
brought back again to Philadelphia before the end of February 1730–1,
and was in my keeping some months immediately after.”
In Mr, Logan’s prior letter to Dr. Halley (dated May 25, 1732,) he
says, that about eighteen months before, Godfrey told him, “he had for
some time before been thinking of an instrument for taking the
distances of stars by reflecting speculums, which he believed might be
of service “at sea;” and that, soon after, Godfrey shewed him an
instrument, which he had procured to be made, for the purpose. Thus,
the time to which Mr. Logan refers Godfrey’s communication of his
improvement to him, would make its date to be about the month of
November, 1730.
In the Rev. Mr. Vince’s great work, entitled, _A Complete System of
Astronomy_, (and contained in “A Treatise on Practical Astronomy,” at
the end of the second volume of that work,) is an entire chapter on
“_Hadley’s Quadrant_;” giving a particular description of the
instrument, with rules for the computations from the observations and
illustrations of them by examples. In this Treatise, the author says,
that the instrument took its name from the “inventor,” John Hadley,
Esq. and observes, that not only the science of navigation is greatly
indebted, to this “incomparable instrument,” but such are its various
uses in astronomy, that it may not improperly be called “a portable
observatory.” Mr. Vince further observes, that in the year 1742, about
ten years after Mr. Hadley’s invention (for so he styles it) was
published, a paper in Sir Issac Newton’s own hand-writing was found
among Dr. Halley’s papers, after the Doctor’s death, containing a
figure and description of an instrument (referring to _Philos.
Transactions_, No. 465,) not much different in its principle from this
of Hadley. He adds, that as Dr. Halley was alive when Mr. Hadley’s
instrument was shewn to the Royal Society, and he took no notice of
this paper of Sir Isaac Newton, it is probable he did not know there
was such an one. In another part of his work (under the head of _The
History of Astronomy_, vol. ii. p. 280.) Mr. Vince asserts, that the
first person who formed the idea of making a Quadrant to take angles
by reflection, was Robert Hook; and he was born in 1635. On the whole,
however, the learned author draws this conclusion:—“Both Sir Isaac
Newton and Mr. Hadley therefore seem entitled to this invention.”
Mr. Lalande, speaking of this instrument, says: “Le Quartier de
Reflexion, exécuté en 1731 par Hadley, a donné un moyen facile de
mesurer les distances sur mer, à une minute pris, aussi bien
determiner le lieu de la Lune en mer.” See his _Astronomie_, vol. iii.
p. 654.
From these facts, and a careful examination of the papers themselves,
here quoted and referred to, the scientific reader will be enabled to
decide upon the true merits of the controversy that has so long
subsisted, concerning the respective claims of Godfrey and of Hadley,
to the invention of the instrument that bears the name of the latter.
Before this subject is dismissed, however, it will not be deemed
improper to add, that the late Dr. John Ewing communicated to the Am.
Philosophical Society an account of an Improvement in the construction
of (what he terms) “Godfrey’s double reflecting Quadrant,” which he
had discovered in the spring or summer of the year 1767: this will be
found in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions. In the
conclusion of this communication, Dr. Ewing says:—“This improvement of
an instrument, which was first invented and constructed by Mr. Godfrey
of this city, and which I do not hesitate to call the most useful of
all astronomical instruments that the world ever knew, I hope will
make it still more serviceable to mankind.”
This communication to the Society by Dr. Ewing, was made in the year
1770. In one concerning the comet of that year, and made by Dr.
Rittenhouse about the same time, the instrument to which Dr. Ewing’s
improvement applies, is called Hadley’s Quadrant: but perhaps Dr.
Rittenhouse so named it, in conformity to common usage.
-----
But when I consider, that _luxury_ and her constant follower _tyranny_,
who have long since laid in the dust, never to rise again, the glories
of Asia, are now advancing like a torrent irresistible, whose weight no
human force can stem, and have nearly completed their conquest of
Europe; luxury and tyranny, who by a vile affectation of virtues they
know not, pretend at first to be the patrons of science and philosophy,
but at length fail not effectually to destroy them; agitated I say by
these reflections, I am ready to wish—vain wish! that nature would raise
her everlasting bars between the new and old world; and make a voyage to
Europe as impracticable as one to the moon. I confess indeed, that by
our connections with Europe we have made most surprising, I had almost
said unnatural, advances towards the meridian of glory; but by those
connections too, in all probability, our fall will be premature. May the
God of knowledge inspire us with wisdom to prevent it: let our harbours,
our doors, our hearts, be shut against luxury. But I return to my
subject, and will no longer indulge these melancholy thoughts.
Some have observed, that the wonderful discoveries of the microscope
ought to go hand in hand with those of the telescope; lest whilst we
contemplate the many instances of the wisdom and power of divine
Providence, displayed in the great works of creation, we should be
tempted to conclude that man, and other less important beings of this
lower world, did not claim its attention. But I will venture to affirm,
without at all derogating from the merits of those who have so greatly
obliged the world with the success of their microscopical enquiries,
that no such danger is to be apprehended. Nothing can better demonstrate
the immediate presence of the Deity in every part of space, whether
vacant or occupied by matter, than astronomy does. It was from an
astronomer St. Paul quoted that exalted expression, so often since
repeated; “_In God we live, and move, and have our being_.” His divine
energy supports that universal _substratum_ on which all corporal
substances subsist, that the laws of motion are derived from, and that
wings _light_ with angelic swiftness.
If the time would permit, how agreeable the task to dwell on the praises
of Astronomy: to consider its happy effects as a science, on the human
mind. Let the sceptical writers forbear to lavish encomiums on their
cobweb Philosophy, liable to be broken by the smallest incident in
nature. They tell us it is of great service to mankind, in banishing
bigotry and superstition from amongst us. Is not this effectually done
by Astronomy? The direct tendency of this science is to dilate the heart
with universal benevolence, and to enlarge its views. But then it does
this without propagating a single point of doctrine contrary to common
sense, or the most cultivated reason. It flatters no fashionable
princely vice, or national depravity. It encourages not the libertine by
relaxing any of the precepts of morality; nor does it attempt to
undermine the foundations of religion. It denies none of those
attributes, which the wisest and best of mankind, have in all ages
ascribed to the Deity: Nor does it degrade the human mind from that
dignity, which is ever necessary to make it contemplate itself with
complacency. None of these things does Astronomy pretend to; and if
these things merit the aim of Philosophy, and the encouragement of a
people, then let scepticism flourish, and Astronomy lie neglected; then
let the names of Berkeley, and Hume, become immortal, and that of Newton
be lost in oblivion.
I shall conclude this part of my discourse with the words of Dr.
Barrow—It is to Astronomy we owe “that we comprehend the huge fabric of
the universe, admire and contemplate the wonderful beauty of the divine
workmanship, and so learn the invincible force and sagacity of our own
minds, as to acknowledge the blessings of heaven with a pious
affection.”
I now come, in the last place, to point out some of the defects of
Astronomy at this day. Which I am induced to undertake by the hopes I
entertain that some of those defects may be removed under the auspices
of this society, and of you my fellow citizens, who have so zealously
promoted its institution. “The advantages arising from Astronomy, the
pleasure attending the study of it, the care with which it was
cultivated by many great men among the ancients, and the extraordinary
attention paid to it in Europe by the present age,” all contribute to
recommend it to your protection, under which we have the best reason to
expect that it will flourish.
The mildness of our climate and the serenity of our atmosphere, perhaps
not inferior to that of Italy, and likewise our distant situation from
the principal observatories in the world (whence many curious phænomena
must be visible here that are not likely to be observed any where else)
are so many circumstances greatly in our favour.
And I trust there will not be wanting men of genius, to arise in this
new world, whose talents may be particularly adapted to astronomical
enquiries. Indeed I am persuaded that nature is by no means so nigardly
in producing them, as we are apt to imagine. Some are never tempted
forth from obscurity, some are untimely snatched away by death, a
striking instance whereof we have in Horrox; and many are accidentally
led to other pursuits.
The Astronomy of comets is still in its infancy; not that the attention
of the learned and ingenious has at all been wanting for more than a
century past; but because it will necessarily require many ages to bring
it to perfection. I wish we were in a condition to promote it in some
degree, by carefully observing such comets as may appear. As yet we
scarce dare affirm that any one has or will return a second time. It has
never, that I know of, been certainly proved by observation, that a
comet has descended within a parabolic orbit, and until that is done we
have only a coincidence of periods and orbits (none of which have been
very precise) to depend on for their return. Far less are astronomers
able to determine the changes that may, and probably do, happen in their
orbits[A36] and velocities in every period, so as to predict their
nearer or more remote approach to the earth or any planet. Whether their
business be to repair or destroy, whether they are worlds yet in
formation or once habitable worlds in ruins; whether they are at present
habitable and regular attendants of our Sun only, or whether they are
the vast links that connect the distant parts of creation by surrounding
more suns than one, we know not.
-----
Footnote A36:
This I know has been pretended to. But it is easy to make geometrical
conclusions come out as we would have them, when the data they are
founded on, are so uncertain that we may chuse them as suits our
purpose.
-----
If we descend to the Planetary System, there are still many things
wanting to compleat Astronomy.
The orbits of the primary planets have at one time been supposed
moveable with various irregularities, at other times fixed and
permanent. It seems now generally granted, that according to the theory
of gravity they must change their situations; yet not long since, some
great astronomers warmly contended that this change was altogether
insensible.
According to the best tables we now have, the planes of the orbits of
Jupiter, the Earth and Mercury are immoveable, though the orbits
themselves have a progressive motion in their planes. On the contrary,
the poles of the orbits of Saturn, Mars and Venus are supposed to
revolve about the poles of the earth’s orbit, with such velocities as at
present nearly reconcile calculation to appearances. But there is good
reason to apprehend that such a supposition is not true in fact, and a
mistake in this matter will have some important consequences. More
probable is it, that the poles of the orbits of all the planets, the
earth not excepted, revolve about some common centre. The several
quantities of these motions, I am confident, are to be had from
observation, and not from theory alone. If such a motion of the earth’s
orbit be admitted, it will account for the diminution[A37] of the
obliquity of the ecliptic; which seems now incontestible; and that in
whatever manner we divide the forces producing such motion, amongst the
two superior planets and Venus, or even amongst all of them. And I
should suspect the further diminution of obliquity, from this cause,
will amount to about one degree and an half.
-----
Footnote A37:
This circumstance tends gradually to lessen the variety of the
seasons.
-----
But as Astronomy now stands, it seems doubtful whether this change is
owing to a deviation in the diurnal or annual motion of the earth; which
introduces a very disagreeable uncertainty in conclusions drawn from
some nice and useful observations.
The Lunar Astronomy has been brought so much nearer to perfection, by
the celebrated MAYER,[A38] than could have been expected, that I shall
mention no deficiency in it, but this. We do not certainly know whether
that apparent acceleration of the moon’s motion, which Mayer with other
great astronomers has admitted, ought to be attributed to a real
increase of velocity in the moon, or to a diminution of the earth’s
diurnal motion. If to the former, the destruction of this beautiful and
stupendous fabric, may from thence be predicted with more certainty than
from any other appearance in Nature: But if to the latter, it may be
prettily accounted for, by Dr. Halley’s ingenious hypotheses concerning
the change of variation in the magnetical needle. The Doctor supposes
the external crust or shell of the earth to contain a nucleus detatched
from it, and that the impulse which first caused the diurnal motion, was
given to the external parts, and from thence in time communicated to the
internal nucleus, by means of an intervening fluid; but not so as
perfectly to equal the velocity of the superficial parts of the globe.
Whence it will follow, that the external shell of the earth is still
communicating motion to the internal parts, and losing motion itself
proportionably. The diurnal motion must therefore become slower and
slower, yet can never be retarded, by this cause, beyond certain limits;
nor can we conceive that any inconvenience will follow.
-----
Footnote A38:
This was Tobias Mayer, who was born at Marbach in the principality of
Wurtemberg, in the year 1723: he rendered himself celebrated in
astronomy, by having calculated the best tables of the moon, and by an
excellent catalogue of stars. He died at Gottingen in 1762, at the age
of thirty-nine years. W. B.
-----
There is another physical question relating to the moon, which to me
appears extremely curious; it is this—Whence is it that the moon always
turns the same side to us? or, which is the same thing, How comes the
moon’s rotation on her axis, and her monthly revolution about the earth,
to be performed in the same time? None I believe will suppose it to be
accidental, nor will the astronomer be easily satisfied with a final
cause. Was it not originally brought about by a natural cause which
still subsists? Can the attraction of any foreign body change a rotatory
motion into a libratory one, and a libratory motion into rest, in spaces
so very free from all resistance as those wherein the planets move?
There are other defects in Astronomy that are purely optical. Removing
of those, depends on the further improvement of telescopes, or rather on
the more judicious use of them, at times and places the most favourable.
In speaking of telescopic discoveries I purposely reserved those made on
Venus for this place, because they are still uncertain. Burratini in
Poland first discovered spots in Venus, then Cassini in Italy; and
afterwards Bianchini got a sight of them. But from all their
observations it is uncertain, whether Venus revolves on its axis once in
23 hours, or once in 24 days. Perhaps it does neither. Nor is their
determination of the axis’ situation much more satisfactory. These spots
on Venus are not to be seen but through an excellent telescope and a
pure atmosphere.
In the year 1672 and 1676 Cassini saw a small star near Venus, which he
thought might be a satellite attending on her. It appeared to have the
same phase with Venus. In 1740 Mr. Short with a telescope of 16 inches
saw a small star at the distance of ten minutes from Venus, which from
its apparent shape he likewise thought might be a satellite. And in 1761
Mr. Montaigne, in France, saw what he took to be the satellite of Venus,
on the 3d, 4th, 7th and 11th of May.[A39] But whether Venus has a
satellite or not, must still be left amongst the doubtful things of
Astronomy.
-----
Footnote A39:
It may happen that any of the planets, about the time they become
stationary, shall describe a loop about some small fixed star, in such
manner as might be easily mistaken for the star making part of a
revolution about the planet. This I suspected to have been the case
with the above observation of Montaigne. But the times set down do not
confirm the suspicion.
-----
The spots on the sun, and those on the surfaces of several planets, have
been many years observed without our approaching any nearer towards
discovering their nature and cause. Dr. Wilson of Glasgow, has lately
succeeded in advancing one step at least, with respect to those of the
sun. He has proved from observation that those spots are vast cavities,
whose bottoms lie far below the general surface of the sun, and whose
sloping sides form the border which we generally see surrounding them.
If I should venture to add one conjecture of my own, to those of this
ingenious gentleman, I would suppose that those prodigious cavities in
the surface of the sun, some of them capable of containing half our
earth, are not repeatedly formed by unaccountable explosions of a
semifluid substance, but permanent and solid, like the cavities within
the moon. And that it is the dark matter sometimes lodging in them, that
distinguishes them, and is only accidental.
The diurnal rotations of Saturn and Mercury are yet unknown; but when
further improvements shall be made in the art of using telescopes, this
circumstance will hardly escape the vigilance of astronomers.
These are a few of the many things that are still left to the industry
of the ingenious in this science.
But if all higher and more sublime discoveries are not reserved for us
in a future and more perfect state; if Astronomy shall again break those
limits that now seem to confine it, and expatiate freely in the superior
celestial fields; what amazing discoveries may yet be made amongst the
fixed stars! That grand phænomenon the Milky-Way seems to be the clue
that will one day guide us. Millions of small stars compose it, and many
more bright ones lie in and near it, than in other parts of heaven. Is
not this a strong indication that this astonishing system of worlds
beyond worlds innumerable, is not alike extended every way, but confined
between two parallel planes, of _immeasureable_, though not _infinite_
extent? Or rather, is not the Milky-Way a vein of a closer texture,
running through this part of the material creation? Great things are
sometimes best explained by small and small by great. Material
substances, such as we daily handle, have been thought composed of
impenetrable particles in actual contact: then again it has seemed
necessary to suppose them at a distance from each other, and kept in
their relative situations by _attraction_ and _repulsion_. Many
appearances require that those distances should be very great in
proportion to the size of the particles. Hence some, with no small
reason, have concluded that matter consists of indivisible points endued
with certain powers. Let us compare these smaller portions of it with
that great aggregate of matter which is the object of Astronomy; _Light_
will then appear to have as free passage through a piece of glass, as
the comets have in the planetary regions; and several other new
considerations will arise.
If instead of _descending_ we _ascend_ the scale. If we consider that
infinite variety which obtains in those parts of nature with which we
are most intimate: how one order of most curiously organized bodies,
infinitely diversified in other respects, all agree in being fixed to
the earth, and receiving nourishment from thence: how another order have
spontaneous motion, and seek their food on different parts of the earth,
whilst by gravity they are confined to its surface, but in other
respects diversified like the former. How a _third_ float in, and below
the surface of, a dense fluid, of equal weight with their bodies, which
would soon prove fatal to both the others: And a _fourth_ consisting of
a vast variety too, have this property in common, that by a peculiar
mechanism of their bodies, they can soar to great heights above the
earth, and quickly transport themselves to distant regions in a fluid so
rare as to be scarcely sensible to us. But not to pursue this boundless
subject any further, I say, when we consider this great variety so
obvious on _our_ globe, and ever connected by some degree of uniformity,
we shall find sufficient reason to conclude, that the visible creation,
consisting of revolving worlds and central suns, even including all
those that are beyond the reach of human eye and telescope, is but an
inconsiderable part of the whole. Many other and very various orders of
things unknown to, and inconceivable by us, may, and probably do exist,
in the unlimited regions of space. And all yonder stars innumerable,
with their dependencies, may perhaps compose but the leaf of a flower in
the Creator’s garden, or a single pillar in the immense building of the
Divine Architect.
Here is ample provision made for the all-grasping mind of man!
If it shall please that Almighty Power who hath placed us in a world,
wherein we are only permitted “_to look about us and to die_;” should it
please him to indulge us with existence throughout that half of eternity
which still remains unspent; and to conduct us through the several
stages of his works; here is ample provision made for employing every
faculty of the human mind, even allowing its powers to be constantly
enlarged through an endless repetition of ages. Let us not complain of
the vanity of this world, that there is nothing in it capable of
satisfying us: happy in those wants, happy in those restless desires,
forever in succession to be gratified; happy in a continual approach to
the Deity.
I must confess that I am not one of those sanguine spirits who seem to
think, that when the withered hand of death hath drawn up the curtain of
eternity, almost all distance between the creature and creator, between
finite and infinite, will be annihilated. Every enlargement of our
faculties, every new happiness conferred upon us, every step we advance
towards the perfection of the divinity, will very probably render us
more and more sensible of his inexhaustible stores of communicable
bliss, and of his inaccessible perfections.
Were we even assured that we shall perish like the flowers of the
garden, how careful would a wise man be to preserve a good conscience,
during the short period of his existence; because by his very
constitution, which he cannot alter, this is his pride and glory, and
absolutely necessary to his present happiness; because this would insure
to him at the approach of death, the soothing reflection, that he was
going to restore, pure and uncorrupted, that drop of divinity within
him, to the original ocean from whence it was separated. How much more
anxiously careful ought we to be, if we believe, as powerful arguments
compel us to believe, that a conduct in this life depending on our own
choice, will stamp our characters for ages yet to come. Who can endure
the thought of darkening his faculties by an unworthy application of
them here on earth, and degrading himself to some inferior rank of
being, wherein he may find both his power and inclination to obtain
wisdom and exercise virtue, exceedingly diminished? On the other hand,
if that humble admiration and gratitude, which sometimes rises in our
minds when we contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Deity,
constitutes by far the most sublimely happy moments of our lives, and
probably will forever continue to do so, there cannot be a stronger
incitement to the exercise of virtue and a rational employment of those
talents we are entrusted with, than to consider that by these means we
shall in a few years be promoted to a more exalted rank amongst the
creatures of God, have our understandings greatly enlarged, be enabled
to follow truth in all her labyrinths with a higher relish and more
facility, and thus lay the foundation of an eternal improvement in
knowledge and happiness.
---
[TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN ORIGINAL.]
_To the illustrious and celebrated Society of Sciences, at
Philadelphia_,
CHRISTIAN MAYER, Astronomer to the most serene Prince, the Elector
Palatine, wisheth prosperity.
I have concluded on due reflection, that the opportunity of writing,
afforded me by the eminent Mr. Ferdinando Farmer, ought the less to be
neglected, as by this means I might make some small return for the
honour which the illustrious Society conferred on me, when they
enrolled me in the list of their members.
I learnt with great pleasure, by a work printed in Philadelphia, and
transmitted to me about three years since, that even there Astronomy
is cultivated. That book, together with my own astronomical papers,
having been destroyed by an unfortunate fire about two years ago, I
have been induced to address something to your illustrious Society,
concerning some of my new discoveries in the heavens.
I occupy a new Observatory at Manheim, accommodated to all
astronomical purposes: nor is it deficient in any of the most valuable
London-made instruments. Among these, the one which principally
excels, is a mural quadrant of brass, of eight feet radius, made by
that celebrated artist Bird, in the year 1776; fitted with an
achromatic telescope, and firmly affixed to a wall, in the meridian;
which I use daily, when the weather permits. I observed, nearly two
years since, that, among the fixed stars, many of them from the first
to the sixth degree of magnitude, other small attendant stars (or
satellites) were distinguishable: some of which, by reason of their
steady and dim light, resemble an order of planets, while others do
not exceed the smallness of the telescopic size. The circumstance
which principally excited my surprize, is, that I found none of those
little attendant stars, a very few only excepted, contained in any
known catalogue; although I could clearly discover that their use, for
the purpose of determining the proper motion of the fixed stars, is
very obvious. For where the difference of right ascension and
declination, of a few seconds at most, is found between the brighter
fixed star and its attendant, the lapse of time could scarcely give
any other variation to the fixed star, than to its satellite: from
what cause soever that variation may arise, whether from the
precession of the equinoxes, the variation in the obliquity of the
ecliptic, the deviation of the instrument, or from the aberration of
light or the nutation, or from any other cause whatever, which may
depend on the mutable state of the atmosphere or the latitude of
places, the fact is evident, that every change of situation, observed,
between the fixed star and its satellite, affords the most certain
proof of its actual motion; whether this be referred to the fixed star
or its satellite.
I knew that Halley, the celebrated English astronomer, was the first,
who, in the year 1719, from an actual comparison of Flamstead’s
observations with those of Ptolemy, respecting some few fixed stars,
Syrius, Arcturus, and Aldebaran, discovered that these stars moved,
with a motion peculiar to themselves: But I knew at the same time,
that in Flamstead’s British Celestial History, so long ago as the year
1690, the name of attendant (or satellite) was assumed by Flamstead;
when that great man had not even thought of the proper motion of the
fixed stars.
Other astronomers, since the time of Halley, so far as they examined
the proper motion of the fixed stars, have followed the Halleian
method, in a comparison of their own observations with those of the
ancients. This method requires long and laborious calculations; and
continues liable to many doubts, on account of its uncertainty, as
well by reason of the inaccurate nature of the instruments, as of the
observations of the ancients. But this is not the case with my new
method; from which, by means of the variation observed between the
satellite and its brighter fixed star, it necessarily results, that
the appropriate motion, either of the one star or the other, is to be
attributed to it. Hence it is, that, within two years past, I have
observed almost two hundred attendants of divers fixed stars; moving
nearly in the same parallel, immediately before or after their
respective fixed stars: and I have communicated many observations of
this kind to the celebrated English astronomer, Nevil Maskelyne, who
assures me they prove highly acceptable to him.
From amongst many of my observations, I transmit to your illustrious
society a few, by way of specimen; the corresponding observations to
which, I find in the Britannic Celestial History of Flamstead; whence
at the same time it is obvious, that observations of this kind are
eminently useful, for the purpose of discovering the proper motion of
such stars.
[The Table, containing the Observations here referred to, will be
found in the second volume of the Society’s Transactions, annexed to
Mr. Mayer’s communication: he then proceeds thus, referring to that
Table.]
The first and second left-hand column of the following Table are
easily understood, from the title. The third column shews the
difference of right ascension, in mean time, between the star and its
satellite: The attendant, preceding the fixed star, is set down in the
first place, in the table; the attendant, following, is placed after
its fixed star. The fourth column notes the difference between the
fixed star and its attendant, as I have observed it at Manheim. The
letter A denotes, that the attendant is to the southward; letter B
more northward. The following columns contain the observations of the
same star, made by Flamstead.
It appears from the whole of the observations, that, of all the stars,
Arcturus is carried with the greatest celerity, by his own motion,
westward; since the same attendant, which in Flamstead’s time, on the
14th of February, 1690, preceded Arcturus 5″ in time, now enters the
meridian 6″ after him. From the diminished difference also, of
declination between Arcturus and his attendant, it is evident, that
Arcturus progresses annually, by his own appropriate motion, nearly 2″
in a circular course, towards the south. From this it clearly results,
that the declination of the attendant, as observed by me, reduced to
the parallel of Greenwich, produces the same altitude of the Greenwich
pole, as that deduced from Flamstead’s observation; but not so, the
declination of Arcturus, observed at the present day, even with the
aberration and nutation corrected.
A similar investigation may be made, with respect to the other fixed
stars and their attendants; and, from the comparison already begun
with other fixed stars, it may be ascertained whether an appropriate
motion is to be attributed to the fixed star or its attendant, or to
both.
All my observations are made in a meridienal plane with a mural
quadrant, at Manheim, in his Serene Highness the Elector Palatine’s
new Observatory, erected for me: its longitude, East from Greenwich,
is nearly 34′ 6″, in time; its latitude, nearly 49° 27′ 50″.
It will give me very great pleasure, if I shall learn that these
observations of mine do not prove unacceptable to your illustrious
society: to whose goodness I most respectfully commend myself; being
ever the very devoted admirer and humble servant of your illustrious
and celebrated Society.
CHRISTIAN MAYER,
Astronomer to his Serene Highness the Elector
Palatine and Duke of Bavaria.
_Manheim, in Germany, April 24, 1778._
---
_Letter from Mr. Rittenhouse to Professor Mayer of Manheim, in Germany._
_Philadelphia, August 20th. 1779._
Sir,
I am directed by the Philosophical Society to acknowledge your letter
of the 24th of April, 1778, and to return you their thanks for
communicating the Observations it contains, wishing you success in
further prosecuting so curious a Discovery. They likewise embrace this
occasion to replace the volume of their Transactions which shared the
fate of your more valuable papers.
This country having been the seat of war, our meetings have been
interrupted for two years past, and the publication of a second volume
thereby prevented; but as the Society is again revived, and we have
materials for the purpose, it will not be much longer delayed.
You will please to accept, by this conveyance, a discourse delivered
some years ago before the Philosophical Society, which I the rather
present you with, because I, therein, gave my opinion that the fixed
stars afforded the most spacious field for the industry of future
Astronomers, and expressed my hopes that the noblest mysteries would
sometime be unfolded in those immensely distant regions.[A40] Your
excellent discovery has proved that passage to be well founded, and I
shall be happy in hearing farther from you on this subject. It is
unnecessary for me to suggest to you a comparison between the many
Observations you have made, in order to determine whether the several
changes observed will agree with any imagined motion of our system.
Those you have communicated seem to favour such a supposition. I am,
Sir, your most obedient and humble servant.
DAVID RITTENHOUSE, _Vice-President_.
-----
Footnote A40:
See page 320 of the foregoing Memoirs.
-----
---
_Some Remarks of Mr. Rittenhouse, on the famous Problem of
Archimedes._[A41]
-----
Footnote A41:
See page 154 of the foregoing Memoirs.
-----
To the Printers of the Pennsylvania Gazette.
_Philadelphia, Oct. 8th. 1767._
Gentlemen,
In your paper, No. 2017, an ingenious gentleman who signs himself T.
T. has favoured the public with remarks upon that celebrated saying of
the famous Syracusean geometrician: “Give me a place to stand on, and
I will move the Earth.” When these remarks appeared, I was engaged in
matters that would not allow me to pay that attention to them, which
they deserved. The justice, however, due to Archimedes, and the
respect I bear for that truly great man’s memory, oblige me now
(though late) to offer my sentiments upon this interesting subject.
I readily agree with your sensible correspondent, as to the conclusion
he has drawn from the principles whereon he seems to have founded his
calculation, without being at the trouble to examine his numbers. All
that I propose is, to place this grand mechanical problem in another
light, wherein it will appear more feasible.
If a ball of earth, weighing 200 pounds, were left at liberty near the
surface of this globe, it would descend, by its own gravity, about 15
feet in one second of time, and about 20 miles in 80 seconds: And if,
as this gentleman supposes, there are about 2000 trillions of such
balls in the whole Earth,—the Earth, by their mutual attractions, in
80 seconds of time; will move toward the ball 1/1736,000,000,000,000
of an inch; and if the same force were to act continually for 105
years, it would move about one inch. Therefore, the force wherewith a
man acts, when he lifts a weight of 200 pounds, if applied without
intermission for the space of 105 years, is sufficient, without any
machinery, to move the Earth one inch in that time;[A42] and it must,
from the velocity received by that force alone, continue for ever
after to move at the rate of one inch in about 50 years.
A MECHANIC.
-----
Footnote A42:
Mr. T. T. proceeding on a different supposition, has computed
twenty-seven billions of years necessary for that purpose.
-----
---
_Letter from Mr. Rittenhouse, to the Rev. Mr. Barton._
_Norriton, July 20th. 1768._
Dear Brother,
In Hall and Sellers’ paper of last Thursday, we have some curious
remarks on an Essay for finding the Longitude, lately published in the
Pennsylvania Chronicle, and which I had before seen in the London
papers.
The first remark is no doubt just, and is perhaps the only one made,
which Mr. Wood’s essay gave just occasion for; how he could commit
such a mistake, is not easy to conceive. But the remarker immediately
charges him with another: for he tells us, that he (Mr. Wood I
suppose) says, that Mr. Harrison’s Machines were finished about
Christmas 1765; whereas his father (whether Wood’s father or
Harrison’s, is not clear,) made three, which the remarker saw in
motion about 18 years since. He then proceeds to assure us, (by the
spirit of prophecy I presume, at least I cannot conceive how he could
come by this piece of knowledge in a natural way,) that neither the
father or his son will ever be able to finish their machines.
A machine, says the remarker, to measure the mean motion, will be far
preferable to any other method yet proposed; and immediately
afterwards he confesses, he cannot conceive that a true meridian can
be found at sea, to several minutes. Now this “uncertain error” must
certainly affect any other machine for that purpose, as well as Wood’s
Sand-Glass, and exceed the error occasioned by turning the glass
somewhat quicker at one time than another. Besides, it would not be
easy to shew, why a machine to measure the Earth’s mean motion on its
axis, with respect to the Sun, will be preferable to one that will
measure the Earth’s true motion on its axis, with respect to the fixed
Stars.
I would not be thought to recommend Wood’s project. He himself takes
notice of two disadvantages attending it, viz. the wearing of the
orifice through which the sand passes, and the sand itself becoming
polished in time, so as to run more freely; to which if we add, that
perhaps it may be greatly affected by heat and cold, there seems to be
but little probability of its usefulness. Nor do I see how it can even
have the merit of being new: for the scheme itself, with all the
remarker’s objections that have any weight in them, must readily occur
to every person that thinks at all on the subject. I shall only
observe, that it appears doubtful to me, whether the remarker does not
equally deserve the censure he so freely bestows on Mr. Woods—“His
works are full of errors, and his writings of contradictions.”
* * * * * * * * * *
I remain your affectionate brother.
DAVID RITTENHOUSE.
---
_Dr. Rittenhouse’s Chronometer._
The construction of this Time-piece is thus described by Mr. Henry
Voight, chief coiner in the Mint, heretofore an eminent clock and
watch maker in Philadelphia; an artist of great ingenuity, and well
known for the excellence of his workmanship. The description is
given in Mr. Voight’s own words.
“The Clock which Dr. Rittenhouse made use of in his Observatory was a
construction of his own. It had but three wheels in its movement, of
high numbers. Only one pinion, without a wheel, driven by the main
wheel; whose axis goes through the front plate, that carried the
dial-work; and this wheel[A43] has a perpetual rochet.[A44] The seconds
are eccentric, as in the common clocks.
-----
Footnote A43:
“The main-wheel, which is fixed on the barrel on which the cat-gut
runs.” _Mr. Voight._
Footnote A44:
“A perpetual rochet is a spring lying between the main-wheel, and a
plate which is so high in diameter as to be nearly of a height with
the bottom of the main-wheel teeth, and is cut with fine teeth all
round, in the shape of a fine saw. A click on an axis is fixed between
the two frame-plates, with a weak spring that forces this click into
the fine saw-teeth, which keeps the plate from moving backwards when
the clock is winding up. This fine rochet-wheel is fixed on the
barrel-arbour or axis, the same as the main-wheel. The barrel-rochet
comes close against the plate of the fine rocket, which has a click
screwed on the front, corresponding with the barrel-rochet, and a
spring above that rochet’s click, which forces that click into the
barrel-rochet’s teeth: it is this that makes the clattering noise,
which is heard when a clock is winding up: There is a middling strong
spring placed between two arms of the cross of the main-wheel, bent
like the space of the two arms between which it acts; and this spring
is as broad as the thickness of the cross-arms. One end of that spring
is fastened to the inside of the fine rochet-plate: the other end lies
on the other cross-arm, and acts on that like a gun-lock mainspring on
the cock-tumbler. When the clock or time is set a going, and the
maintaining power or weight of the fusee or barrel, this power will
raise that spring so far as to resist the maintaining power, and
becomes stationary as long as the time-piece is going; and when it is
wound up, this spring in the main-wheel cross will expand itself,
press on the cross-arm, and force that wheel forward, with nearly the
same power as the maintaining power would give: the click for the
fine-teethed rochet falls into one of those fine teeth, and keeps that
rochet steady, without having the least motion, as long as the
winding-up of the clock continues; and by this means a time-piece can
lose no time in winding up: hence it is called a perpetual rochet;
which requires the most accurate workmanship, in its construction.”
_Mr. Voight._
-----
“The pallet-wheel moves outside of the back-plate, and the pallets are
fastened to the rod of the pendulum, which has double suspending springs
fixed in a cross-bar, to which the rod is rivetted in the middle. These
springs are suspended as in common; but they are not so long as in
general, and have only one-and-an-half inch free action, which keeps the
pendulum very steady in its vibrations.
“On the rod of the pendulum there is fixed a glass tube, of the
thickness of a strong thermometer-tube, and is in the whole as long as
the rod: but it is bent, about one-third upwards; like a barometer, but
longer; and upon that end, on the top, the tube is as wide again as it
is below, for about one-and-an-half inch in length: the other two-thirds
of the length is filled with spirits of wine; and at this end, the tube
is hermetically sealed. The shorter part is filled with mercury, so high
as to fill the widest part of it, about half an inch, and is not sealed
but remains open. The bend is close together, and there is no more space
between the tubes than three-eighths of an inch.
“This tube is fastened to the pendulum-rod with common sewing-thread,
and rests upon two pins fixed in the bob of the pendulum, as high up as
possible. The bob has no slide, but is immoveable; and the regulation of
the pendulum is performed by adding to, or diminishing the mercury, in
the part where the tube is widest.”
In addition to the foregoing description of the mechanism of this
Time-piece, obligingly furnished to the Writer of these Memoirs by
Mr. Voight, he has been likewise favoured by Robert Patterson, Esq.
director of the mint, with the following account of the same
extremely accurate instrument, which will greatly assist the reader
in understanding the principles on which it is constructed.
“In the Astronomical Clock made by Dr. Rittenhouse, and now in the Hall
of the Philosophical Society, I do not know,” says Mr. Patterson, “that
there is any thing peculiar, which requires mentioning, except the
pendulum; especially the apparatus for counteracting the effects of
change of temperature.
“For this purpose, there is fastened on the pendulum-rod (which is of
iron or steel) a glass tube of about thirty-six inches long; bent in the
middle into two parallel branches, at the distance of about an inch from
each other; the bend being placed downwards, immediately above the bob
of the pendulum. The tube is open at one end, and close at the other:
the arm which is close at top is filled, within about two inches of the
lower end or bend, with alcohol, and the rest of the tube, within about
one half of an inch of the upper extremity or open end, with mercury; a
few inches of the tube, at this extremity, being about twice the width
of the rest of the tube.
“Now, when the heat of the air encreases, it will expand the
pendulum-rod; and would thus lower the centre of oscillation, and cause
the clock to go slower: but this effect is completely counteracted, by
the expansion of the alcohol chiefly, and of the mercury in part; which
equally raises the centre of oscillation; and thus preserves an equable
motion in all the variable temperatures of the atmosphere.”
---
_Description of an Hygrometer; first contrived and used by Dr.
Rittenhouse, about the year 1782._[A45]
-----
Footnote A45:
This description is drawn up from two separate accounts of the
instrument, with which the Writer of these Memoirs was obligingly
furnished, in writing, by Robert Patterson and the late David
Rittenhouse Waters, Esquires, of Philadelphia. Mr. Patterson mentions,
that he recollects his having seen the Hygrometer so described, in Dr.
Rittenhouse’s Observatory, about thirty years ago.
-----
The essential part of this Hygrometer consists of two very thin strips
of wood, about a foot long and half an inch broad, glued together, in
such a manner that the grain or fibres of the one shall be at right
angles with the other; so that when this compound strip was placed in
erect position, the grain of one of the pieces of wood would have a
vertical, and that of the other an horizontal position. One end of this
simply constructed instrument is to be made fast to a wall, or plane
board, with the edge outward, and the other end is to be at liberty to
move.
Then, as moisture has little or no effect on the length of a piece of
wood, or in the direction of its fibres, but a very sensible one on its
breadth, or transverse direction, especially when thin, it follows, that
on any increase of moisture in the air, this Hygrometer becomes bent
into a curve, convex on the side of the transverse fibres; and _vice
versâ_. The degrees, from the greatest dryness to the greatest moisture,
are to be marked on a curve drawn on the board or wall, described by the
motion of the free end of the Hygrometer; and an index, attached to the
moving end of it, will point out, on this graduated arch, the existing
state of the atmosphere at the moment, in relation to its condition of
moisture or dryness: The relative degree of either, on the smallest
change from the one to the other, will be indicated with much precision;
and probably, with much more uniformity and truth, in the results of
long-continued observations, than can be attained to by the use of
Hygrometers constructed of metal, or any other substance than wood.[A46]
-----
Footnote A46:
The second volume of the Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society contains a letter, written on the 13th of November, 1780, by
Dr. Benjamin Franklin, then in France, to Mr. Nairne, of London: but
it was not communicated to the Society, until January, 1786.
In that letter, Dr. Franklin suggests to Mr. Nairne (an eminent
optician, and mathematical instrument maker,) the idea of an
Hygrometer made of wood; in preference to metalline instruments, for
the purpose of discovering “the different degrees of humidity in the
air of different countries;”—an idea which occurred to the Doctor, in
consequence of a casual circumstance, mentioned in his letter.
Dr. Franklin supposed “a quick sensibility of the instrument, to be
rather a disadvantage” to it; “since,” says he, “to draw the desired
conclusions from it, a constant and frequent observation day and
night, in each country—when the design is, to discover the different
degrees of humidity in the air of different countries—will be
necessary for a year or years, and the mean of each different set of
observations is to be found and determined.”—“For these reasons,”
continues the Doctor, “I apprehend that a substance which, though
capable of being distended by moisture and contracted by dryness, is
so slow in receiving and parting with its humidity that the frequent
changes in the atmosphere affect it sensibly, and which therefore
should, gradually, take nearly the medium of all those changes and
preserve it constantly, would be the most proper substance, of which
to make an Hygrometer:”—and he believes _good mahogany wood_ to be
that substance. In the concluding part of this letter, Dr. Franklin
says to his correspondent: “I would beg leave to recommend to you—that
you would take a number of pieces of the closest and finest grained
mahogany that you can meet with; plane them to the thinness of about a
line, and the width of about two inches across the grain, and fix each
of the pieces in some instrument that you can contrive, which will
permit them to contract and dilate, and will shew, in sensible
degrees, by a moveable hand upon a marked scale, the otherwise less
sensible quantities of such contraction and dilatation.”
Hence it appears, that Franklin and Rittenhouse conceived an idea of
the same kind, nearly at the same time: but that the latter carried
his invention into practice, three or four years before the theory of
the former, founded on similar principles, had been announced to the
American public, or, as it is believed, was made known to any other
person than Mr. Nairne. W. B.
-----
_Astronomical Observations, made in the years 1776, 1777 and 1778, at
Philadelphia, by the Rev. Dr. W. Smith, and David Rittenhouse, John
Lukens, and Owen Biddle, Esquires: copied from a manuscript account of
those Observations, drawn up by Dr. Smith; never before published._
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS, 1776.
This year exhibiting little else but scenes of confusion and distress
amidst the calamities of an unhappy war, scarce any attention was paid,
by the members of the American Philosophical Society, to astronomical or
any other literary subjects. It was agreed, however, by Mr. Rittenhouse,
Mr. Lukens and myself, to look out whether Mercury would touch the Sun’s
disc the 2d of November this year; as a very small difference of
latitude from what the Tables give, would have carried the planet clear
of the Sun: but, from our observation of the transit of this planet, in
1769, we had reason to expect it would pass further on the Sun, than
Halley’s Catalogue gives it.
The following were the observations made, viz.
Nov. 2d, 1776. I got ready the two f. reflector with the largest
object-glass, and shortest eye-tube, magnifying about 95 times.
At 4^h per clock—No appearance of the planet on the Sun, and did not
expect it until about half an hour past 4; but as Mr. Lukens and Mr.
Rittenhouse had not yet come to me in the college, I sent to hasten
them.
At 4^h 5′ per clock—took my eye from the tube to adjust it, and fix the
smoked glass, to give clearer vision, the atmosphere being hazy. Having
fixed the smoked glass in the proper place, so as to prevent its sliding
or falling with its own weight, and before I had applied my eye to the
telescope again, Mr. Rittenhouse came in; and I desired him to see if
the focus and dark glass were all suitable to his eye, as they were to
mine. I had been about 4′ employed in this adjustment.
At 4^h 9′, Mr. Rittenhouse having put his eye to the tube, immediately
called out, that he saw the planet on the Sun.
At 4^h 10′ per clock, we judged ☿ had entered one-third of his diameter
on the Sun.
At 4^h 17′, we clearly noted the internal contact of the limbs.
At 4^h 45′, we judged the least distance of the nearest limbs to be
rather more than one diameter of ☿; or that the distance of the limbs
was 10″. We-did not apply the micrometer to make any measures; as we
presumed that we could judge the distance as accurately by the eye, as
it could be measured; on account of the haziness of the atmosphere and
the small altitude of the Sun. We kept viewing the planet till sun-set,
the distance of the limbs continuing so nearly the same, that we could
scarce perceive any diminution thereof; though we were sure also, that
it did increase above 10″.[A47]
-----
Footnote A47:
In a table (in the 2d vol. of Lalande’s _Astronomie_,) entitled,
“_Passages de Mercure sur le Soleil, calculés pour trois siècles par
les nouvelles Tables_,” the transit of that planet, above referred to,
is thus set down by Lalande, at Paris; viz.
Year. Conjunct. Mean Geocentric Mid. Mean Semi-dura. Short.
Time. Long. Time dist.
1776. Nov. 2. 9^h10′7″. 7.11°3′36″. 9^h49′53″. 0^h36′42″. 15′43″.A
W. B.
-----
The following were the Observations made for ascertaining the Going of
the Clock, by WILLIAM SMITH.
Equal Altitudes.
d h ′ ″ h ′ ″
Nov. 3 9 14 9 2 37 12 } ☉ on Merid. per clock } h ′ ″
15 44 2 35 35 } or mean noon } 11 55 40
Equat. Correspond. + 14.4
Alt.
—-—-——
Correct Noon per Clock 11 55 54.4
4 9 32 48 20 56 } Mean Noon, or ☉ on } 11 56 53
34 33 19 13 } Merid. per. Clock }
36 14 17 31 } Equat. of equal }
37 20 16 23 } Altitudes } + 13.8
14 39 } —-—-——
40 54 2 12 53 } Correct Noon per Clock 11 57 6.8
7 8 51 9 9 29 } Mean Noon } 12 0 19
52 37 8 0 } per Clock } Equat Eq. Alt. + 12
54 1 3 6 37 } 12 0 19 } —-—-—
Cor. Noon 12 0 31
per Clock
_Per Meridian Mark._
d h ′ ″
8 ☉ West Limb on Merid. 12 0 36
East Limb on do. 12 2 52
—-——
Centre 12 1 44
Correct Noon per Clock.
_Applied to Going of Clock._
Nov. 3d, at Noon ′ ″ }
Clock slower than ☉ 4 5.6 } Daily gaining of the Clock
☉ faster than mean time 16 11 } over _mean_ or _equal_ time.
—-—— }
Clock faster than m. time 12 5.4 }
4th, }
Clock slower than ☉ 2 53.2 } ′ ″
☉ faster than mean time 16 9 } From 3d to 4th 1 10.4
—-—— }
Clock faster than m. time 13 15.8 }
7th, }
Clock faster than ☉ 0 31 } From 4th mean to 7th } 1 5.1
☉ faster than mean time 16 00 } at a mean per day }
—-—— }
Clock faster than m. time 16 31 }
8th, }
Clock faster than ☉ 1 44 }
☉ faster than mean time 15 56 } From 7th to 8th 1 9
—-—— }
Clock faster than m. time 17 40 }
Thus the Clock gains at a mean,
per day, 1′ 8″.
Whence, Nov. 2d, at noon, the Clock was 10′ 57″ faster than mean time,
gaining 68″ per day; and 4^h 17′ gains 12″, wherefore at the internal
contact, the Clock was 11′ 9″ faster than mean time.
Whence the contact was at 4^h 5′ 51″ mean time; or 4^h 21′ 2″ apparent
time.
_Eclipse of the Sun, January 9th, 1777._
The Gregorian Reflector, with the magnifying power of 95, was made use
of for this Observation; which, as well as the Observation of the
Transit of Mercury, was made in the College-Library, to which the
Telescope belongs.
While Mr. Rittenhouse was endeavouring to adjust the two-f. reflector
belonging to the Library of the city of Philadelphia, made by Short, and
which had been borrowed on this occasion, I observed with the greatest
certainty the first contact of ☾’s limb with the ☉, which was shining
very bright, and the telescope in the best order, viz. at 8^h 57′ 27″
per clock.
The same was visible, in about 3″ more, to Mr. Lukens, with the equal
altitude instrument, magnifying about 25 times.
Mr. Rittenhouse had not got the other reflector ready to observe the
beginning of the eclipse: but the end was observed by both of us to the
same instant, viz. at 11^h 48′ 50″ per clock.
The clock, at noon, was 23″ slower than mean time, whence
Beginning of the Eclipse 8^h 49′ 55″ } Apparent
End of the same 11 41 15 } time.
N.B. The clock stopped once during the Observation, owing, it was
supposed, to the cold weather; but was oiled a little, and set a going
again by a stop-watch that beats seconds, and which was set with the
clock at the beginning of the eclipse: so that she lost no time. She was
examined at noon, and found as above by the meridian mark. But this mark
itself, having been lately shaken with the stormy weather, is to be
re-examined, and also equal altitudes taken the following days.
The annexed micrometer measures were taken for determining the quantity
of the eclipse, chiefly by Mr. Rittenhouse. More would have been taken,
but the Sun was hid under clouds for about an hour after the middle of
the eclipse, and broke out again a little before the end.
_Micrometer Measures._
h ′ ″ inches. tenths. 500ths.
9 15 0 2 2 6 } distances of the cusps.
31 0 3 1 ½ }
10 17 5 1 1 14 } enlightened parts remaining.
22 0 1 1 23 }
11 37 0 1 7 6 }
38 46 1 5 21 } distances of the cusps.
42 26 1 2 18 }
_Continuation of the Observations for adjusting the Clock._
Jan. 11th. ☉’s W. limb on Merid. } [A48]
E. limb on do. }
—————
Centre on do.
-----
Footnote A48:
The calculations are here wanting, in Dr. Smith’s MSS.
-----
Whence clock faster than mean time 0 1′ 46″ per merid. mark.
Equal Altitudes.
h ′ ″
20th. 9 37 20 59 49 }
39 1 58 6 } Mean noon per clock 12 18 34
40 41 2 56 26 }
21st. W. limb on Merid. 12 20 3
E. limb on do. 22 22
——————
Centre on do. 12 21 12.5
Eq. Alt.
22d. 9 14 10 3 31 10 Mean noon per clock 12 23 50
_Eclipse of the Sun, June 24, 1778: Observed by D. Rittenhouse, John
Lukens, Owen Biddle, and William Smith, at the College of
Philadelphia._
The morning being very cloudy, the beginning of the eclipse was not
seen.
At 10^h 7′ 40″ per clock, the following micrometer-measure of the
enlightened parts was taken, while the Sun appeared for a few minutes
between clouds, viz. 1_in._ 9-10_ths._ 13-500_ths._ = 16′ 23″.
11^h 6′ 57″ per clock end of eclipse distinctly seen, the Sun having
shone clearly for several minutes, the clouds now wholly dispersing, and
the remainder of the day continuing clear.
_Observations upon the Clock._
h ′ ″
27th. ☉ on meridian per clock 11 54 50
☉’s app. time of passing meridian 12 2 33.5
—-—-——
Clock slow of app. time 0 7 43.5
July 2d. ☉ on meridian per clock 11 54 50.5
☉’s app. time of passing meridian 12 3 33
—-—-——
Clock slow of app. time 0 8 42.5
_A versification of “The Zephyrs”—from Gesner’s Idyls;—a fragment:
copied from a loose scrap of paper, containing, in the hand-writing of
the late Dr. Rittenhouse, all but the three last verses; which have
been now added, by a lady._
FIRST ZEPHYR.
Why, amidst these blooming roses,
Idly fluttering, dost thou stay?
Come with me to yonder valley,
There we’ll spend the cheerful day.
There, in purest crystal fountain,
Sportive, bathe the am’rous maids;
Where tall willows, on the margin,
Form the closest deepest shades.
SECOND ZEPHYR.
No, with thee I will not wander;
To the vale alone repair:
Fan the nymphs you so admire;
A sweeter task employs my care.
Here, in the bosom of these roses,
I cool my wings in pearly dew,
As I lightly skim them over,
Gath’ring all their fragrance too.
FIRST ZEPHYR.
Your wings in dew of roses steep’d
With all their grateful fragrance stor’d;—
Can you find employment sweeter,
Than yonder cheerful nymphs afford?
SECOND ZEPHYR.
Yes, in this path, along the mount,
Each rosy morn a maid appears,
To yon lonely cot advancing,
A basket on her arm she bears.
Two tender infants, and their mother,
Are by her constant bounty fed:
A helpless widow, there residing,
From her receives her daily bread.
See! where she comes,—of all the graces,
The youngest and the fairest too;
Her cheeks, with sweetest blushes glowing,
Are moist’ned with the morning dew.
I haste, with fragrant airs, so cooling,
To fan her tender glowing cheek,—
And kiss the pearly drops, while falling
From her blue eyes, so chaste and meek.[A49]
-----
Footnote A49:
Here Dr. Rittenhouse’s ends: The remainder of the versification is
continued by another hand.
-----
FIRST ZEPHYR.
Yes! much more pleasing is your task;
I would imbrue my wings in dew,
And bear the fragrance of these flow’rs,
Melinda to refresh, like you.
But see! she breaks through yonder grove,
Refulgent as a summer’s morn;
Her step is grace—her lip of rose
The smiles of modest worth adorn.
Like you, transported, let me fan her;
Like you, admire the bounteous maid:
For, sure, a fairer face I never
Spread forth my cooling wings to aid.
---
_Diploma._
Praeses et Professores Collegii, seu Universitatis, GULIELMI ET MARIÆ,
omnibus at quos præsentes literæ pervenerint, Salutem.—Cum eum in finem
gradus academici majoribus nostris prudenter instituti fuerint, ut viri
optimé meriti, seu in gremio nostræ matris educati, seu aliundi bonarum
artium disciplinis eruditi, istis insignibus a literatorum vulgo
secernerentur; sciatis, quod nos, ea sola quæ possumus viâ, gradu Artium
Magistri libenter studioséque concesso, testamur quanti facimus DAVIDEM
RITTENHOUSE _Philosophorum Principem_, qui ingenio nativo _Machinam
celeberrimam_, motus et phænomena cœlestium manifestius exhibentem,
commentus est:—Idcirco, in solenni convocatione, tricessimo die
decembris, Anno Domini millesimo septingentesimo octogesimo quarto,
habito, _conspirantibus omnium suffragiis_, eundem virum egregium,
DAVIDEM RITTENHOUSE, _Artium Magistrum_ creavimus et constituimus.—In
cujus rei testimonium, sigillum Universitatis, quo in hac parte utimur,
præsentibus apponi fecimus. Datum in domo nostræ convocationis, anno
domini, die et mense, prædictis.
J. MADISON, Præses, et prof. Ma. and Nat. Phil. G. WYTHE, Leg. et Polit.
Prof. ROBERTUS ANDREWS, Math. Prof. CAROLUS BELLINI, Neot. Ling. Prof.
---
_Diploma._
Præses et Curatores Collegii Neo-Cæsariensis, omnibus has Literas
lecturis, plurimam Satutem.
Quandoquidem æquum sit et ratione prorsus, consentaneum, ut ii qui
labore et studio bonas didicerunt artes præmia suis meritis digna
referant ut et ipsis benè sit, et aliorum provoceter industria.
Quando etiam huc potissimum spectant amplissima illa jura nostro
Collegio publico Diplomate collata. Quumque clarissimus vir DAVID
RITTENHOUSE sit non tantum Moribus inculpatus et Ingenio insignis, sed
et sibi tantam in Artibus liberalibus cognitionem Industria laudabili
acquisivit, ut summos Honores Academicos probe mereatur.
Idcirco notum sit omnibus, quod nos, Senatus-consulto Academico nec non
Facultatis Artium decreto, supradictum DAVIDEM RITTENHOUSE Titulo
Graduque DOCTORIS IN LEGIBUS adornandum, et dehinc pro Adepto et Doctore
habendum volumus; cujus, hæc Membrana, Sigillo nostri Collegii rata et
Chirographis nostris munita, Testimonio sit.
Datum Aulæ Nassovicæ, Pridie Calendas Octobris Anno MDCCLXXXIX.
JOANNES WITHERSPOON, Præses. Joannes Rodgers, Joannes Bayard, Joannes
Woodhull, Guls. Paterson, Isaacus Snowden, Jacobus Boyd, Joannes Beatty,
Guliel. M. Tennent, Andreas Hunter, Curatores.
---
_An English Obituary Notice of Dr. Rittenhouse: Extracted from the
European Magazine, for July, 1796._
In the sixty-fourth year of his age, died DAVID RITTENHOUSE, The
American Philosopher. His history is curious, from the admiration in
which his character was held.
Rittenhouse was a native of America; and, in the early part of his life,
he mingled the pursuits of science with the active employments of a
farmer and watch-maker.[A50] In 1769, he was invited by the American
Philosophical Society to join a number of gentlemen who were then
occupied in making some astronomical observations, when he particularly
distinguished himself by the accuracy of his calculations and the
comprehension of his mind. He afterwards constructed an
observatory,[A51] which he superintended in person, and which was the
source of many important discoveries, as well as greatly tending to the
diffusion of knowledge in the western world. During the American war, he
was an active assertor of the cause of independence. Since the
establishment of the peace, he successively filled the offices of
Treasurer of the State of Pennsylvania and Director of the National
Mint; in both of which capacities, he was alike distinguished for
strength of judgment and integrity of heart. He succeeded the
illustrious Franklin in the office of President of the Philosophical
Society; a situation which the bent of his mind and the course of his
studies had rendered him eminently qualified to fill: and towards the
close of his days, he retired from public life to the enjoyment of
domestic happiness; when he formed a circle of private friends, who will
continue to admire his Virtues as a Man, while the world will applaud
his Talents as a Philosopher.
-----
Footnote A50:
He never professed the business of making watches: the first
mechanical occupation he assumed was that of a clock maker, an
employment he pursued many years, in the earlier part of his life. W.
B.
Footnote A51:
Having, in the preceding note, adverted to the unimportant error in
the text, wherein our Philosopher is stated to have pursued the
employment of a watch-maker, instead of that of a clock-maker; it
becomes necessary to notice, in this place, another mistake, though
likewise an inconsiderable one, into which the liberal and candid
writer of the article, above quoted, has been led. Dr. Rittenhouse’s
Observatory, at Norriton—the place of his original residence and the
seat of his farm-house—was erected _prior_ to the celebrated
“Astronomical Observations” made by him, in the year 1769; which were
those relating to the Transit of Venus over the Sun’s disk, on the 3d
of June in that year. W. B.
-----
_Letter from the Rev. Mr. Cathcart, to the Writer of these Memoirs._
_York, 13th. Nov, 1812._
Dear Sir,
The following is a statement of the conversation which took place
between Drs. Sproat and Rittenhouse, mentioned by me to Bishop White.
At a time when Dr. Rittenhouse was confined by sickness to his room,
or perhaps to his bed,[A52] he sent for the Rev. Dr. Sproat to visit
him. The Doctor was somewhat surprised, on receiving the message: but
as he had made it an uniform rule to visit all who sent for him, he
expressed his surprise at being sent for; observing, that he could
offer no comfort or consolation to any person, who was not a Believer
in the Christian Religion. On hearing this declaration, Dr.
Rittenhouse immediately asked, if Dr. Sproat considered him among the
number of such? To which the Doctor answered; that the world had
generally classed him with them. Dr. Rittenhouse on hearing this, with
great mildness and a smile on his countenance, replied, that the
opinion of the world was sometimes wrong; and, as it respected
himself, he could with truth declare, that ever since he had examined
Christianity and thought upon the subject, he was a firm believer in
it; and, that he expected salvation _only_ in the way and manner, as
proposed in the Gospel.
The above is the _substance_ of what Dr. Sproat mentioned to myself;
and I might add, that when the good old man told it, his eyes
overflowed with tears of joy. It gives me pleasure to be able to
furnish you with this satisfactory proof of Dr. Rittenhouse’s faith;
and which I once introduced into a sermon preached in the city, as
justice due to the character of the deceased, and who had been
triumphantly claimed by the Infidels. I am happy to find that you are
engaged in the laudable business of writing the Life of that worthy
Man. Yours, respectfully,
ROBERT CATHCART.
WILLIAM BARTON, ESQUIRE.
-----
Footnote A52:
The time above referred to, is supposed to have been in the year 1790
or 1791; though perhaps it may have been somewhat earlier. Dr. Sproat
died in the autumn of 1793. W. B.
-----
[Illustration: ——]
CHARACTER OF DR. RITTENHOUSE:
_Communicated to the Author of the Memoirs of his Life, in a letter from
Andrew Ellicott, Esq._
_Lancaster, December 30th, 1812._
Dear Sir,
I felt no small degree of pleasure and satisfaction, on understanding
that you are about publishing Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Rittenhouse;
knowing, from your connexion, and intimacy with him for many years, you
have it in your power to delineate, and transmit his true character and
a knowledge of his rare virtues to posterity, with as much, if not more
accuracy than any other person. As I also have had the pleasure and
advantage of Dr. Rittenhouse’s acquaintance and friendship, I request
you to accept of the following short sketch of his character, as a small
testimony of my esteem for him when living, and of my veneration for his
memory, now he is no more. I am, dear Sir, your sincere friend,
ANDREW ELLICOTT.
WILLIAM BARTON, Esq.
I became acquainted with the late Dr. Rittenhouse, in the sixteenth year
of my age, being first introduced to him, after he removed to the city
of Philadelphia, by the late Joseph Galloway, Esq. and my Father; both
of whom were sincerely attached to him, not only on account of his
scientific talents and acquirements, but for his public and private
virtues. From that period, to the end of his life, we enjoyed an
uninterrupted friendship.
In my scientific pursuits, I was frequently aided by him; particularly,
in that part which relates to Astronomy, with which he was better
acquainted, both in theory and practice, than any other person in this
country; and when he ceased to calculate the Almanacks for the middle
states, at his request I continued them several years.
In the years 1784 and 1785, Dr. Rittenhouse and myself were engaged in
determining the boundaries between this commonwealth and the state of
Virginia; and in the year 1786, in determining the boundary between this
commonwealth and the state of New-York. In those arduous employments, I
had many opportunities of witnessing his address in overcoming the
numerous difficulties we necessarily had to encounter, in the then
wilderness, in which our operations were performed.
As a gentleman of general science, Dr. Rittenhouse would have held a
respectable rank in any country; but as a Mechanist and Astronomer, he
has had but few equals. It has been frequently asked,—why he has not
left more evidences of his talents, for the use of posterity? In answer
to this question, it is to be observed, that almost from his childhood,
he had a complaint in his breast; which increased so much with his age,
that for the last fifteen years of his life,—and in which he had the
most leisure for composition,—it was painful for him to support the
position a person must occupy, when writing. This circumstance I have
frequently heard him lament, in a feeling manner; as it prevented him
from answering letters with promptitude, and writing to his friends as
often as he wished.
Though Dr. Rittenhouse had not the advantage of a liberal education, he
wrote not only correctly but with ease: he made himself master of the
German language, to which he was partial: and of the French, so far as
to read the scientific works in that tongue, with facility.
As an Husband, and a Father, he might be taken as an example and a
pattern, in the most virtuous community that ever existed. He was a good
Citizen,—and warm and sincere in his friendships; and though reserved in
large mixed companies, he was cheerful and communicative, when in a
small circle of his friends. His mind appeared formed for contemplation,
and therefore not calculated for the noisy and busy scenes of this
world: from this placid turn of mind, he had a singular antipathy to all
mobs and riots; and I recollect to have heard him speak of the riots of
the Paxton-boys, (as they were called,) with greater acrimony than on
any other occasion,—more than twenty years after they happened. Being a
philanthropist by nature, he wished the happiness and welfare of the
whole human race; and viewed slavery, in all its forms, with feelings of
horrour: from this attachment to the happiness, the rights, and the
liberty of his fellow-creatures, he was led to take an active and useful
part in favour of our revolution, which separated the colonies (now the
United States,) from the mother-country.
His contemplative mind naturally carried him to piety; but his
liberality was so great, that he did not appear to give a very decided
preference to any one of the sects into which Christianity is divided:
he practised the morality of a sincere Christian, without troubling
himself about the dogmas of the different churches.
His manners were plain and unassuming, though not without a sufficient
share of dignity; and, from a consciousness of his own talents, he did
not envy those of others.
It has too frequently happened, for the honour of science and
literature, that men of great and commanding talents, have been
obstinately dogmatical, and impatient of contradiction;—of those
blemishes, Dr. Rittenhouse had not the least tincture.
To conclude,—if Dr. Rittenhouse was not the greatest man, of the age,
his character has fewer blemishes in it; and, if his talents were not of
that kind which are usually considered the most _brilliant_, they
were—like those of WASHINGTON—of the most _solid_ and _useful_ order.
_Some particulars concerning the Residence, the Tomb, &c. of Copernicus:
communicated to the late Dr. Rittenhouse, Pres. A. P. S. by the Earl
of Buchan._
“In the year 1777,” says his Lordship, “my learned friend John
Bernouilli, of Berlin, on one of his tours having happened to meet with
the Bishop of Warmia,[A53] in the Abbey of Oliva, near Dantzic, was
informed by that prelate, that he had the pleasure to discover, in the
Cathedral of Frauenburg, the Tomb of Copernicus, so long fruitlessly
sought for.
-----
Footnote A53:
An uncle of Copernicus was Bishop of _Warmia_, (in Ermeland, a little
province of Poland,) and gave him a canonry in his cathedral of
Frawenberg, a city in ducal Prussia, situated on the Frische Haff, at
the mouth of the Vistula: it was there he began to devote himself to
astronomy, at the age of twenty-eight years. His great work, _De
Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium_, was completed about the year 1530:
but his apprehensions of meeting with persecution from the bigotted
ignorance of the age, in consequence of the system he therein
promulgated, deterred him from publishing it until thirteen years
after that period; and it is supposed that the agitation of his mind,
occasioned by its appearance in the world, produced the sudden
effusion of blood, which terminated his life on the 24th day of May,
in the year 1543. W. B.
-----
“In the year 1778, Mr. Bernouilli having occasion to pass through
Frauenburg, on his road to St. Petersburg, did not fail to visit the
Cathedral, and explore the Monument of Copernicus. Acquainted with no
one in the place, he was yet lucky enough to meet with a Canon, in the
street, whose countenance invited him to accost him on this subject, and
who proved very attentive to his researches. He informed him, that as
for the Ashes of Copernicus, they were mingled in the charnel-house with
the bones of the fraternity of the Canons; but that, for the Tombstone
of the Philosopher, it was no more than a tablet of marble, simple, as
the mode was of his days, and had no other inscription than these
words—NIC. COPERNICUS, THOR:—-That this tablet had remained hidden for
some time, in rubbish; and when recovered, was placed in the
chapter-house, till a more suitable place should be destined for it. Mr.
Bernouilli expresses his regret to me, that he had not urged the Canon
to indulge him with a sight of this Stone; and to look for a further
inscription, to support the assertion of Gassendi, who mentions (page
325), That the Bishop Martin Cromer, an eminent Polish historian, caused
a mural marble monument to be inscribed and erected to the memory of
Copernicus, with the following inscription:
D. O. M.
R. D. NICOLAO COPERNICO,
Torunensi, Artium et
Medicinæ Doctori,
Canonico Warmiensi,
Præsenti Astrologo, et
Ejus Disciplinæ
Instauratori;
MARTINUS CROMERUS,
Episcopus Warmiensis,
Honoris, et ad Posteritatem
Memoriæ, Causâ, posuit;
M. D. L. X. X. X. I.
“Gassendi adds, that this Monument was not erected until thirty-six
years after the death of Copernicus, which does not agree with this date
of 1581.
“The good Canon informed Bernouilli, that he was lodged in the apartment
of Copernicus, of which he was very proud; and invited the Prussian
Philosopher to visit him in that place, which he accordingly did; and
was shewn by the Canon another place, above the Dormitories, which had
been used by Copernicus as his study and observatory, in which the Canon
had a portrait of that eminent man, concerning the original of which he
would not say. This little Observatory had an extensive view; but when
Copernicus had occasion for one more extensive, he was wont to observe
on the gallery of the steeple, which communicates with this place.
“Charmed with these classic footsteps, Bernouilli forgot to look at the
Monument on the chapter-house, above mentioned. In a repository
adjoining to the Cathedral, the Canon shewed Bernouilli the remains of a
hydraulic machine said to have been invented and used by Copernicus. The
construction seemed interesting, but in great disrepair; and Bernouilli
had not leisure to examine it particularly. The use of the machine was
to force and convey water into the most elevated apartments of the house
of the Canons, who are now under the necessity of having it fetched from
a distance, from the lower Town.”
“I remember to have seen (says Bernouilli), in some old German Journal,
that the Library of the ancient town of Konigsberg contained some books,
chiefly mathematical, which were part of the Library of Copernicus; and
also his Portrait, which had been purchased at Thorn, where the remains
of his family still possessed the house in which he was born, as late as
the year 1720. In P. Freher’s _Theatrum Virorum eruditorum_, there is a
Chronostick on the year of Copernicus’s death, 1543. p. 1447.
eX hoC eXCessIt trIstI CopernICVs eVo,
IngenIo astronVM et CognItIone potens.
“In the above mentioned book, p. 1442, there is a neat little Print of
Copernicus. In Hartknoch’s _Alter und newes Preusen_, here is a print of
Copernicus, from a picture on wood which hangs in what they call his
Cenotaph, at Thorn; and which represents him kneeling, in his
canonicals, before a Crucifix;—and below this portrait are these
_sapphic_ verses:
Non parem Pauli gratiam requiro,
Veniam Petri neque posco; sed quam
In Crucis ligno dederas sationi,
Sedulus oro.
(_a little lower_)
Nicolao Copernico, Thoruniensi, absolutæ subtilitatis mathematico, ne
tanti viri apud exteros celeb. in sua patria periret memoria, hoc
monumentum positum.
Mort. Varmiæ, in suo Canonicatu, Anno 1543—
die 4 + ætatis LXXIII.
(_lastly, lowest._)
Nicolaus Copernicus, Thoruniensis, Mathematicus celeberrimus.
“This Monument of Copernicus was erected by Melchior Pyrnesius, M. D.,
who died in 1589.
“On the same altar-piece, or picture, is represented the portrait of
John D’Albert, with the following inscription.
Illustris Princeps Dn. Joh. Albertus, Polo. Rex, apoplexiâ hic Thoru.
mortuus, Anno 1501, die 17 Maii, ætat. 41; cujus viscera hic sepulta,
Corpore Craco translato; Reg. Ann. VIII.
“Upon the whole,” concludes Lord Buchan, “it appears the likeness I
send, of _Copernicus_, is most to be depended on; and, as such, I
flatter myself it will be an _Heir-loom to infant America_! Concerning
Napier, it is needless for me to enlarge; the learned Dr. Minto having
enabled me to do justice to his memory.”
[Illustration]
Although the following particulars respecting Dr. Rittenhouse were not
communicated by the writer, Professor Barton, until it was too late to
give them a place in the body of the work, the Author nevertheless is
glad to have an opportunity of presenting to the public, even at the
close of his book, the interesting circumstances this communication
contains.
As Optics were one of his favourite studies, so he at one time
contemplated a course of public, and I think popular, lectures on this
beautiful and important branch of physics. On this subject he mentioned
to me his intention in the winter of 1785-1786. The enthusiasm, indeed,
with which he developed his design, and I may add the warmth of zeal
with which his manner at the time inspired me, I can never forget. And,
indeed, I cannot but regret, that our excellent friend never made his
appearance in publick, as a LECTURER. As such, he would, unquestionably,
have greatly advanced the love and the knowledge of natural philosophy
in the United-States. He may, perhaps, have wanted some of the
qualifications of a popular teacher. He would not have aspired to
finished eloquence of style: to the eloquence of gesture and of manner,
he was still more a stranger. But there is an eloquence of physiognomy,
which Mr. Rittenhouse most eminently possessed. The modesty and amenity
of his manner would have effected much, whether his audience had been a
class of philosophers, or an assembly of ladies. Of his own discoveries,
and opinions, and theories, he would have always spoken with that sweet
and modest reserve, for which he was ever distinguished. He would have
dwelt with the most generous and ample enthusiasm upon the great
discoveries of Newton; and if, at any time, he could have forgotten that
impartial conduct, which it is the duty of the historian of a science to
observe, it would have been when he might have had occasion to defend
the theories of that great man, against the objections of succeeding and
minor philosophers.
In Physics, Newton was his favourite author. Of HIM he ever spoke with a
species of respect bordering upon veneration. He considered him as one
of those few great leaders in science whose discoveries and services can
never be forgotten: whose fame, instead of diminishing, is destined to
be augmented, with the progress of time. I had many opportunities of
being witness to the exalted opinion which he entertained of the
immortal British philosopher. He read Dr. Bancroft’s objections to some
parts of Sir Isaac’s theory of colours, with a firm conviction, that the
Newtonian principles were still unshaken: and I well remember, that he
once referred me to a paper which he had published, in one of our
magazines, in answer to some objections which the late Dr. Witherspoon
had urged against some of the theories of Newton.
It has been observed by a celebrated writer, that mathematicians in
general read but little of each other’s works. This remark, if I mistake
not, is very strongly illustrated in Mr. Rittenhouse. However it may
have been in his earlier age, I am confident that during the last
thirteen years of his life, when my intercourse with him was great, and
indeed but little interrupted; I am confident, that at this matured and
auspicious era of his life, our friend was not a laborious student. He
looked into many books, and he often passed quickly from one kind of
reading to another: from philosophy to poetry; from poetry perhaps to
philosophy again. His reading may be said to have been desultory. I have
little doubt that this rather irregular manner of reading was, in some
measure, the result of his extreme delicacy of constitution, which
rendered a more unvaried application to any one kind of reading, irksome
and oppressive. Often have I seen him lay down his book or pen, to
recline upon his sopha, the circumscribed flush upon his cheeks plainly
indicating the physical state of his feelings. A short repose would
enable him to return to his studies again.
Mr. Rittenhouse’s application to books, had, no doubt, been more regular
and constant in the earlier part of his life; before I knew him well, or
before I had accustomed myself to watch the progress of his mind. He
was, certainly, profoundly, acquainted with the Principia and other
writings of Newton, which he read partly in the original, and partly
through the medium of translation. And although, within the period of my
better acquaintance with him, his reading I have said, was not intense,
he suffered no important discovery in philosophy to escape his notice.
Although his own library was small, he had ample opportunities, through
the medium of the valuable library belonging to the Philosophical
Society, and other collections in Philadelphia, of observing the
progress of his favourite studies in Europe. He took much interest in
the discoveries of Mr. Herschel, whose papers he eagerly read as they
arrived from Europe: and I well remember the time (in 1785) when he was
engaged in reading Scheel’s work on Fire, which had recently appeared,
in an English dress. He then assured me, that some of this great Swedish
philosopher’s notions concerning the nature and the laws of heat, had
long before suggested themselves to his mind.
The chemical discoveries of Crawford and Priestley solicited some of Mr.
Rittenhouse’s attention, about the year 1785-1786, and for some time
after. The brilliant discoveries of Priestley, in particular, were not
unknown to him. Upon the arrival of this illustrious philosopher in
Philadelphia, in 1794, Mr. Rittenhouse stood foremost among the members
of the Philosophical Society in publicly welcoming the exiled
philosopher to the country which he had chosen as the asylum of his
declining years; and in expressing his high sense of his estimable
character, and of the vast accessions which he had brought to science. I
often met Dr. Priestley at the house of our friend. Their regard for
each other was mutual. It is to be regretted that their immediate
intercourse with each other could not be more frequent. Priestley had
unfortunately chosen the wilderness, instead of the capital or its
vicinity, as his place of residence: and Rittenhouse, alas! did not live
two years after the arrival of Priestley in America.
On the death of Mr. Rittenhouse, Dr. Priestley wrote me a letter of
condolence on the great loss which the publick had sustained; on the
irreparable loss which I, in particular, had suffered. When the Doctor
afterwards returned from Northumberland to Philadelphia, he discovered
much solicitude to know from me Mr. Rittenhouse’s religious sentiments,
and the manner and circumstances of his death; and he evinced no small
satisfaction in receiving from me that relation which I have already
given you, of the last hours, and of the last words, of one of the best
of men.
Mr. Rittenhouse had not studied natural history as a science: but to
some of the branches of this science he had paid particular attention;
and upon some of them he was capable of conversing with the ablest, and
the most experienced. In Botany, he was not acquainted with the
scientific or classical names: but the habits, and in many instances,
the properties of plants were known to him. I well recollect how great
were his pleasure and satisfaction, in contemplating the _Flora_ of the
rich hills of Weeling, and other branches of the Ohio, when I
accompanied him into those parts of our union, in the year 1785. In this
wilderness, he first fostered my love and zeal for natural history. Upon
his return from the woods, in the month of October, he brought with him,
as ornaments to his garden, many of the transmontain plants of the state
of Pennsylvania: and long before I knew that it grew wild in the
vicinity of Philadelphia, upon the banks of his native Schuylkill, he
had naturalized in his garden, the beautiful Silene virginica, which he
designated with the name of “Weeling Star.”
It is a fact, that in the last months of his life he devoted a good deal
of his time to an examination of the structure of the most important
organs of plants. Acquainted with that doctrine which forms the basis of
the sexual system, he was fond of examining plants during the period of
their inflorescence: and I remember, with what apparent pleasure, he
pointed out to me the tube in the styles of some of the plants which
grew in his garden.
He had made many observations upon the buds of trees, some of which I
think were new. I regret that the memorandums which he kept of these
observations have not been found among his papers.
Not fifteen days before his death, he had finished the perusal of a
German translation of Rousseau’s beautiful letters on Botany, which I
had put into his hands.
Mr. Rittenhouse, like Newton and many other men of great talents,
employed much of his time in the perusal of works on the subject of
natural and revealed religion. This was, I think, more especially the
case in the latter part of his life. Among other books which I could
mention, I well recollect that he read the _Thoughts_ of the celebrated
French philosopher Pascall: and he acknowledged, that he read them with
pleasure. But that pleasure, he observed to me, was diminished, when he
learned, what was often the state of Pascall’s mind:—a state of
melancholy and gloom: and sometimes even of mental derangement. At the
time of his death, the American Philosopher was engaged in the perusal
of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History: and he had just before finished the
perusal of the _Meditations_ of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus; that
excellent work, replete with the sublimest morality, and with much of a
sublime religion.
About three weeks before his death, I had put into his hands the first
volume of Dr. Ferguson’s _Elements of Moral and Political Science_. I
took the liberty of particularly directing his attention to the last
chapter of the volume: the chapter on the future state. He read it with
so much satisfaction, that he afterwards sent it to his elder daughter,
with a request that she would peruse it.
The benevolent dispositions of our friend were well known to you. You
have, doubtless, done justice to this portion of his character; yet
permit me to mention a few detached facts, which have came under my own
immediate notice, and the relation of which may serve to augment even
_your_ respect and veneration for Mr. Rittenhouse.
The year 1793 is memorable in the history of Philadelphia. During the
prevalence of the yellow fever, in the summer of that year, Mr.
Rittenhouse wrote to me a note requesting me to visit a number of poor
people, in his vicinity, labouring under the malignant fever; and making
it a condition of my attendance upon them, that I should charge _him_
for my services.
In the month of March of the same year, I had a good deal of
conversation with Mr. Rittenhouse, on the subject of penal laws. He did
not think that the late judge Bradford, whose essay on this subject he
greatly admired, and recommended to my perusal, was too lenient in his
views of the subject. He observed, that although he had often served on
juries, he thanked God, that he never had in any case where life and
death were immediately involved; observing, that his conscience would
_ever_ reproach him, if he had, in any instance, given his verdict for
death. “Of all murders (he added) _legal_ murders are the most horrid.”
He did not think that death ought to be the punishment for any crime.
The union of sensibility with benevolence is frequently observed. The
sensibility of Rittenhouse was exquisitely nice; perhaps, I might say,
it was somewhat morbid. In a conversation which I had with him on the
subject of the analogies between animals and vegetables, when I had
observed to him, that the further we push our inquiries into this
interesting subject, the more reason we have for supposing, that those
two series of living beings constitute, as many eminent naturalists have
supposed, but one vast family, he said it appeared so to him, but he
hoped it would never be discovered that vegetables are endowed with
sensibility. “There is, he observed, already too much of this in the
world.”
His religion was sublime and pure. It had no tincture of superstition or
credulity. Accustomed, from an early period of his life, to contemplate
the largest and the smallest objects of Creation; and with respect to
the former to view their arrangement and harmony in the construction of
a system of immeasurable extent; in these objects and in these places,
he beheld one of the revelations of our Creator. He could not be
insensible of the ills, infirmities, and miseries of human life, and
even of the life of inferior animals. But still he discovered, as he
often observed to me, the existence and even the dominion of much
benevolence through the world. He was wont to consider our benevolent
dispositions, and our virtuous affections, as among the strongest proofs
of the existence of a Creator. These dispositions, these affections, and
our intellectual powers, are the genuine emanations of a God.
BENJAMIN SMITH BARTON.
Philadelphia, December, 1813.
_Letter from Lady Juliana Penn to the Rev. Peter Miller, Ephrata._
_Septr. 29th. 1774._
Sir,
Your very respectable character would make me ashamed to address you
with words merely of form. I hope therefore you will not suspect me of
using any such, when I assure you I received the favour of your letter
with very great pleasure. And permit me, sir, to join the thanks I owe
to those worthy women, the holy sisters at Ephrata, with those I now
present to you, for the good opinion you, and they, are pleased to
have of me. I claim only that of respecting merit, where I find it;
and of wishing an increase in the world, of that piety to the
Almighty, and peace to our fellow-creatures, that I am convinced is in
your hearts: and, therefore, do me the justice to believe, you have my
wishes of prosperity here, and happiness hereafter.
I did not receive the precious stone, you were so goad to send me,
till yesterday. I am most extremely obliged to you for it. It deserves
to be particularly distinguished on its own, as well as the giver’s
account. I shall keep it with a grateful remembrance of my obligations
to you.
Mr. Penn, as well as myself, were much obliged to you for remarking to
us, that the paper you wrote on, was the manufacture of Ephrata: It
had, on that account, great merit to us; and he has desired our
friend, Mr. Barton, to send him some specimens of the occupation of
some of your society. He bids me say, that he rejoices to hear of your
and their welfare.
It is I that should beg pardon for interrupting your quiet, and
profitable moments, by an intercourse so little beneficial as mine;
but trust your benevolence will indulge this satisfaction to one who
wishes to assure you, sir, that she is, with sincere regard, your
obliged and faithful well-wisher,
JULIANA PENN.
MR. PETER MILLER, President of the Cloister at Ephrata.
_To the Memory of the Honourable Thomas Penn, Esq. who died March 21.
1775._
Peace, worthy shade! Peace to thy virtuous soul;
Life’s contest past, thou now hast gain’d the goal,
Destin’d for honest innate truth, like thine,
Where moral goodness rises to divine.
True to thy friendship, sacred to each trust,
In every duty most exactly just:
A princely wealth fill’d not thy heart with pride,
Thou nobly cast the glitt’ring bait aside;
Made it subservient to some useful aim,
Some gen’rous purpose, or some proper claim:
As bounteous streams in pleasing currents glide,
It roll’d, refreshing, like some charming tide;
Cheer’d the lone widow in her humble dome,
And scatter’d comfort o’er her lonely home.
Thy guardian angel snatch’d thee from below,
E’er Pennsylvania was consign’d to woe:
Thou now may’st view, without one kindred tear,
What we deem harsh, oppressive and severe;—
Life’s motley picture, at one view, may’st scan,—
Unwind its tangled, complicated plan,—
Where this great truth is clearly understood,
That “partial evil’s universal good.”
In broken parts, man the dark system spies,
While all lies open to celestial eyes;
The links, united, of our scatter’d chain,
Shew why PENN suffer’d tedious years of pain,—
Shew why one patient virtuous mind doth mourn,
And why sweet Peace is from a people torn.
For, individuals of earth’s humble vale
Mount, in gradation, on a heav’nly scale:
Yet _Virtue_, only, has a charm in death;
Wealth droops his plumes, as man resigns his breath;
Its social merits can’t ascend the skies,
Terrestrial substance can’t to heav’n arise;
Too gross to enter the abodes divine,
In earthly darkness it can only shine.
_Letter from General Washington to the Writer of these Memoirs._
_Mount Vernon, Sep. 7th. 1788._
Sir,
At the same time I announce to you the receipt of your obliging letter
of the 28th of last month, which covered an ingenious essay on
Heraldry, I have to acknowledge my obligations for the sentiments your
partiality has been indulgent enough to form of me, and my thanks for
the terms in which your urbanity has been pleased to express them.
Imperfectly acquainted with the subject, as I profess myself to be;
and persuaded of your skill, as I am; it is far from my design to
intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armour, &c, might not be
rendered conducive to public and private uses, with us,—or, that they
can have any tendency _unfriendly to the purest spirit of
Republicanism_: on the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible
from the practice of Congress and the States; all of which have
established some kind of _Armorial Devices_, to authenticate their
official instruments. But, sir, you must be sensible, that political
sentiments are very various among the people in the several states;
and that a formidable opposition to what appears to be the prevailing
sense of the Union, is but just declining into peaceable acquiescence.
While, therefore, the minds of a certain portion of the community
(possibly from turbulent or sinister views) are, or affect to be,
haunted with the very _spectre of innovation_;—while they are
indefatigably striving to make the credulity of the less-informed part
of the citizens subservient to their schemes, in believing that the
proposed General Government is pregnant with the seeds of
Discrimination, Oligarchy and Despotism;—while they are clamourously
endeavouring to propagate an idea, that those whom they wish,
invidiously, to designate by the name of the “well-born,” are
meditating in the first instance to distinguish themselves from their
compatriots, and to wrest the dearest privileges from the bulk of the
people; and while the apprehensions of _some_, who have demonstrated
themselves the sincere, but too jealous, friends of Liberty, are
feelingly alive to the effects of the actual Revolution and too much
inclined to coincide with the prejudices above described,—it might not
perhaps be advisable to stir any question that would tend to reanimate
the dying embers of faction, or blow the dormant spark of jealousy
into an inextinguishable flame. I need not say, that the deplorable
consequences would be the same, allowing there should be no real
foundation for jealousy: (in the judgment of sober reason,) as if
there were demonstrable, even palpable, causes for it.
I make these observations with the greater freedom, because I have
once been a witness to what I conceived to have been a most
unreasonable prejudice, against an innocent institution: I mean, the
Society of the Cincinnati. I was conscious that my own proceedings on
that subject were immaculate. I was also convinced, that the
members,—actuated by motives of sensibility, charity and
patriotism,—were doing a laudable thing, in erecting that memorial of
their common services, sufferings and friendships;—and I had not the
most remote suspicion, that our conduct therein would have been
unprofitable, or unpleasing to our countrymen. Yet have we been
virulently traduced, as to our designs: and I have not even escaped
being represented as short-sighted, in not foreseeing the
consequences,—or wanting in patriotism, for not discouraging an
establishment, calculated to create distinctions in society and
subvert the principles of a republican government. Indeed, the
_phantom_ seems now to be pretty well laid; except on certain
occasions,—when it is conjured up, by designing men, to work their own
purposes upon terrified immaginations:—You will recollect there have
not been wanting, in the late political discussions, those who were
hardy enough to assert, that the proposed General Government was the
wicked and traitorous fabrication of the Cincinnati!
At this moment of general agitation and earnest solicitude, I should
not be surprised to hear a violent outcry raised, by those who are
hostile to the New Constitution, that the proposition contained in
your paper had verified their suspicions, and proved the design of
establishing unjustifiable discriminations. Did I believe that to be
the case, I should not hesitate to give it my hearty disapprobation.
But I proceed on other grounds:—Although I make not the clamour of
credulous, disappointed, or unreasonable men, the criterion of Truth;
yet, I think, their clamour might have an ungracious influence at the
present critical juncture: and, in my judgment, some respect should
not only be paid to prevalent opinions,—but even some sacrifices might
innocently be made to well meant prejudices, in a popular government.
Nor could we hope the evil impression would be sufficiently removed,
should your Account, and Illustrations, be found adequate to produce
conviction on candid and unprejudiced minds.
For myself, I can readily acquit you of having any design of
facilitating the setting up an “Order of Nobility:”—I do not doubt the
rectitude of your intentions. But, under the existing circumstances, I
would willingly decline the honour you have intended me, by your
polite INSCRIPTION; if there should be any danger of giving serious
pretext (however ill-founded in reality) for producing or confirming
jealousy and dissention, in a single instance; when harmony and
accommodation are most essentially requisite to our public
prosperity,—perhaps, to our national existence.
My remarks, you will please to observe, go only to the expediency, not
to the merits of the proposition: what may be necessary and proper
hereafter, I hold myself incompetent to decide; as I am but a private
citizen. You may, however, rest satisfied, that your composition is
calculated to give favourable impressions of the science, candour and
ingenuity, with which you have handled the subject; and that, in all
personal considerations, I remain with great esteem, Sir, your most
obedient and most humble servant,
G^O. WASHINGTON.
WM. BARTON, Esq.
---
_Dr. Benjamin Rush._
The foregoing Memoirs were entirely completed and prepared for the
press, before the decease of this Professor occurred; as is mentioned in
the preface.
Benjamin Rush was born in the county of Philadelphia, on the
twenty-fourth day of December, 1745, O.S. Having graduated in the Arts
at Princeton College, in the autumn of the year 1760, and afterwards
studied medicine under the direction of the late John Redman, M. D. of
Philadelphia, he completed his medical education at the University of
Edinburgh; where he received the degree of Doctor in Medicine, in the
spring of 1768. Returning to Philadelphia in the summer of 1769, he was,
on the 31st of July, in that year, appointed Professor of Chemistry, in
the College of Philadelphia; that chair having been supplied for some
time before, by the late John Morgan, M. D. F. R. S. &c. About twenty
years after this appointment (viz. in 1789), he succeeded Dr. Morgan in
the Professorship of the Theory and Practice of Physic, in the same
College: and in the year 1791, on the union of that College with the
University of Pennsylvania, he was chosen Professor of the Institutes
and Practice of Physick, &c. in the conjoint institution.
At divers times, and on various occasions, his talents were employed in
affairs of political concern. Besides having held, at different periods,
several other public stations, he was appointed a member of Congress for
Pennsylvania, on the 20th of July, 1776: when he, together with some of
his colleagues, appointed at the same time, subscribed the Declaration
of American Independence; which great national act had received the
sanction of congress, and been generally signed by the members, sixteen
days before.
He died of a typhus fever, in Philadelphia, on the 19th day of April,
1813; being then advanced a few months beyond the sixty-seventh year of
his age.
At the time of his decease, Dr. Rush was Professor of the Institutes of
Medicine, of the Theory and Practice of Physic, and of Clinical
Medicine, in the University of Pennsylvania: to which chair, vacated by
his death, Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton, Professor of Materia Medica,
Natural History and Botany, in the same institution, was elected in the
month of July, 1813.
FINIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
In the main sections of the text there are many numbered textual notes,
many quite lengthy, which the writer chose to keep as close as possible
to their references in the text. In the printed book, this resulted in
many pages containing only two lines of the main text. The writer
acknowledges this in the Preface, but points out the need to keep the
notes as close to their references as possible. Many of these notes have
footnotes of their own, denoted with the traditional *, †, ‡ symbols.
Notes in the Introduction and Appendix also employ those traditional
symbols, which have been resequenced for the sake of uniqueness. The
three notes in the Introduction become I1, I2, I3, and those in the
Appendix become A1, A2, A3, ... An. If a note is itself footnoted, that
note is indicated as ‘Ana’, etc.
The main text employs 386 numeric notes which started with ‘1’ for each
section. These have been resequenced across the entire text, again for
the sake of uniqueness. Many notes had footnotes of their own, denoted
with those traditional symbols. These have have been resequenced as
‘na’, ‘nb’, ‘nc’, etc., where ‘n’ is the note number. Those notes are
placed following the note.
Any internal references to the notes, of course, were modified to employ
the new sequence.
In this version, footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in
which they are referenced.
Given the publication date (1813), spelling remained somewhat fluid. So,
especially in quoted text, the text mostly remains as printed unless it
is very obviously a typo (e.g. ‘celebratrd’, or ‘inhahitants’), or where
there is a great preponderance of another variant of a word elsewhere.
There were two instances of a missing ‘of’ which _may_ have been in
error.
131.31 The making [of] good mathematical instruments _Sic_
145.11 on the fourth day [of] July, 1760. _Sic_
A quoted translation in note 38 ends abruptly with ‘and spreads her
light:’ (lvi.29) without a closing quotation mark. This has been amended
as ‘spreads her light[.”]’
On two pages (pp. 134, 135), ‘Galileo’ is printed as ‘Gallileo’ (134.33,
134.37 and 135.3), which we take to be a printer’s lapse.
On p. 182, The ’Rudolphine’ Tables are misspelled two ways (182.27,
182.29). Both are corrected.
On pp. 327-329, the symbol for Uranus (♅) as printed is not quite the
same as the symbol available to us. In the text, the small circle is on
the top.
Other errors, deemed most likely to be the printer’s, have been
corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line
in the original.
xii.15 not be deemed pre[p/s]umptuous Replaced.
xxxii.28 the [sun] stood still in the centre See Note
xxxix.16 Pyth[oga/ago]ras Transposed.
xlvii.4 of his _Physics_.[”]) Removed.
li.9 Pronaque cum spectent an[a/i]malia Replaced.
lii.3 he may be enabled t[e/o] know himself Replaced.
lvii.12 Hyberni[./,] vel quæ tardis Replaced.
lxii.9 and [security] of navigation See Note
lxxii.1 wa[n/s] Johannes de Sacro-Bosco Replaced.
lxxiv.17 for its truth than novelty;[”] Replaced.
91.11 purer morality and sounder [s/p]olicy. Replaced.
104.22 to his friend[s]’s little library Removed.
105.7 personally acquain[t]ed with him Inserted.
107.1 [in]asmuch as the instruments Restored.
107.7 [“]It is observable Removed.
110.18 so long distinguis[n/h]ed Replaced.
122.13 Astronomer’s innate ge[u/n]ius Replaced.
140.12 A descript[t/i]on of Replaced.
148.35 with our guns.[’/”] Replaced.
149.10 as f[o/a]r as the barracks Replaced.
164.10 and these,[”] Added.
177.30 la mesure du temps.[’/”] Replaced.
184.1 by William Sm[ti/it]h Transposed.
185.3 one-hundredth part of[ of] the whole Removed.
192.15 See Laland[e]’s _Astron._ Inserted.
198.16 it has never been done.[”] Removed.
198.17 [“]I send you a description Added.
207.7 good quality and wor[k]manship Inserted.
207.24 the gl[s/a]ss-works have not Replaced.
219.25 three [hun]hundred pounds Removed.
220.25 reached this country[;/,] Replaced.
226.25 _History of the America[u/n] Revolution_ Inverted.
249.22 the repeated occas[s]ions Removed.
251.16 Pennsyl[e/v]ania would not yield Replaced.
254.1 in the ex[u/e]cution of his trust Replaced.
260.13 of this Anti-Newtonian essayist[:/.] Replaced.
261.4 Those of anoth[o/e]r cast Replaced.
262.2 at one of your brothers[,’/’,] Transposed.
269.7 most embar[r]assing circumstances Inserted.
303.10 26th of January, 1[726-7/627] Replaced
344.8 dated “Philadelphia, Oct. 14, 1787[”] Added.
360.20 The agency of i[m/n]formation Replaced.
367.10 annexed to that statio[n.] Added.
372.30 to the Linn[e/æ]an system Replaced.
375.24 that Linn[e/æ]us pronounced him Replaced.
388.18 on such occa[r/s]ions Replaced.
400.22 precisely the reverse.[”] Removed.
420.22 Mr. Ceracchi became embarr[r]assed Removed.
455.34 Professor of Eng[g]lish Removed.
458.13 Mr. Ritten[ten]house was not himself Removed.
477.19 [“]Observations on a Comet Removed.
495.20 classical learning,[”] Added.
498.2 different systems of theology.[”] Removed.
508.17 will be annihilated[:/.] Replaced.
512.12 of the human mind.[”] Removed.
513.24 the inha[h/b]itants of the British colonies Replaced.
519.1 that Dr. Ritten[ten]house Removed.
533.23 the language of Dr. Reid, [“]fruitful Added.
534.5 [“/‘]In God we live, and move, Replaced.
534.6 and have our being.[’]” Inserted.
548.8 Venus a[u/n]d Mercury Inverted.
551.22 which jug[g]ling impostors Inserted.
557.25 in the year 1260[,/.] Replaced.
558.42 by other e[n/m]inent astro[t/n]omers Replaced.
564.18 their phases f[o/r]om full to new Replaced.
567.18 without his being to[./l]d the name Replaced.
568.31 [“]Le Quartier de Reflexion Added.
572.12 by the celebrat[r/e]d MAYER Replaced.
574.36 a distance fr[e/o]m each other Replaced.
588.38 pour trois si[e/è]cles Replaced.
593.28 præsentes literæ pervener[I/]nt Replaced.
597.8 in the laudable business of[ of] writing Removed.
614.11 at dif[f]erent periods Inserted.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Memoirs of the Life of David Rittenhouse, LLD. F.R.S. : Late President of the American Philosophical Society, &c. Interspersed with Various Notices of Many Distinguished Men: With an Appendix, Containing Sundry Philosophical and Other Papers, Most of Which Have Not Hitherto Been Published" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.