Chapter XIV: Part 14

“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.

-----

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.