Chapter XV: Part 15

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._

-----