“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: