MEMOIRS

OF THE LIFE

OF

DAVID RITTENHOUSE, LLD. F.R.S.

I1. The biographer of Rittenhouse entirely coincides with the compilers of the Encyclopædia Britannica, in opinion, respecting the utility and propriety of giving an account, in such Memoirs as the present, of things as well as persons, connected in various ways with the main object of the work.

In the preface to that useful dictionary of arts, sciences and miscellaneous literature, are the following observations: the consideration they merit; is submitted to the good sense of the reader.

“While one part of our readers,” say the encyclopedists, when referring to the biographical department of their work, “will regret that we have given no account of their favourite philosopher, hero, or statesman, others may be disposed to remark, that we have dragged from obscurity the names of many persons who were no proper objects of such public regard. To these we can only reply, that, with the greatest biographer of modern times, we have long thought that there has rarely passed a life, of which a faithful narrative would not be useful; and that in the lives of the most obscure persons, of whom we have given any account, we saw something either connected with recent discoveries and public affairs, or which we thought capable of affording a lesson to great multitudes in similar circumstances.”—“Between eminent achievements and the scenes where they were performed, there is a natural and necessary connexion. The character of the warrior is connected with the fields of his battles; that of the legislator, with the countries which he civilized; and that of the traveller and navigator, with the regions which they explored. Even when we read of the persons by whom, and the occasions on which, any particular branch of knowledge has been improved, we naturally wish to know something of the places where such improvements were made.”

I2. Mr. C. W. Peale painted at the same time another portrait of him, for himself; which is likewise altered from the original painting. It has a place in Mr. Peale’s Gallery of Portraits. There is a third, by the same hand, in the possession of the American Philosophical Society.

Another good picture of Dr. Rittenhouse was also then made, by Mr. James Peale, for the Rev. Mr. Barton. This (which represents him with a wig) is now in the possession of John Moore White, Esq. of New-Jersey, who married Mr. Barton’s youngest daughter.

A pretty good mezzotinto, in a large size,—done from Mr. C. W. Peale’s painting of our Philosopher,—was executed by Mr. E. Savage, in the winter of 1796: and since that time, some small engravings have been made from different pictures of him; but these do not so well preserve the likeness.

I3. Some interesting information was likewise communicated by the late Professor Rush. The death of that gentleman having occurred since the completion of the present work, the author has inserted a concise biographical notice of him, in the Appendix, in place of the mention originally made of his name in this preface.

1. Hence, in conformity to this sentiment, Mr. Pope says, when animadverting on the insufficiency of talents, alone, for acquiring an honourable fame and meriting a character truly great,—

2. The miserable consequences which have resulted to the civilized world, from the mode of reasoning abstractly, and from the mere synthetical plan of philosophising, are too apparent to need much comment. Even some geometricians of great name have been seduced, by such means, into monstrous absurdities in physics; and into the maintenance of doctrines, alike subversive of religion and morals, as destructive of the foundations of civil society. Such were Descartes, Leibnitz and Spinoza, of the seventeenth century: and such have been, and even now are, too many of that class of modern philosophers, as well in this country as on the continent of Europe,—whose metaphysical notions of religion and government, (although some of them may, perhaps, be pretty correct on the subject of physics, alone,) have been the means of inundating the world with scepticism; and, after overturning regular, orderly, and peaceable states, of establishing despotism and misery on the ruins of rational government, in many of the fairest portions of the old world.

Even Voltaire, who had, himself, been instrumental in corrupting the mind of the great Frederick of Prussia, and, thus, of furnishing the means for the subsequent overthrow of that once powerful monarchy; even this infidel could not help exclaiming, in a moment of sober reflection, “Who could have believed, that geometricians have been wild enough to imagine, that, in the exaltation of the soul, we may possess the gift of divination; yet more than one philosopher took it into their heads, by the example of Descartes, to put themselves into God’s place, and create a world with a word! But now, all these philosophical follies are reproved by the wise; and even their fantastical edifices, overthrown by reason, have left in their ruins, materials, of which reason has made some use.—A like extravagance has infected the moral world: there have been some understandings so blind as to undermine the very foundation of society, at the time they thought to reform it. They have been mad enough to maintain that the distinctions of meum & tuum are criminal, and that one ought not to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labour; that not only all mankind are upon a level, but that they have perverted the order of nature, in forming societies; that men are born to be separated from each other, like wild beasts; and that amphibious animals, with bees and ants, confound the eternal laws, by living in common! These impertinences, worthy of an hospital of madmen,” continues Mr. de Voltaire, sarcastically, “have been for some time in fashion, just as it is customary to lead apes to dance, at fairs.” [See The Age of Louis XV. ch. 39.]

But although it cannot be doubted; that the society of Voltaire contributed to support, if not to generate, the deistical principles of Frederick II. other foreigners, whom he had patronized and cherished in his own capital, and with whom he associated, most of them Frenchmen, did much towards debauching his mind, in regard to religion. The Prince de Ligne, a distinguished Austrian field-marshal, has verified this remark. In a letter written to the king of Poland, in the year 1785, the prince narrates some particulars of a conversation which took place between the Prussian monarch and himself, in the year 1770; and observes, that the king expressed his libertine sentiments too freely, even making a boast of his irreligion. The prince de Ligne, on this occasion, charges freethinkers with a want of candour, in promulgating opinions fraught with infidelity, while many of them heartily dread the consequences of what they affect to renounce. But this, he remarks, is not their only fault: “they are also apt,” says he, “to make a parade of free-thinking; which betrays, at least, a want of taste. It was,” continues the prince, “from having been surrounded by men of bad taste, such as D’Argens, Maupertuis, La Beaumelle, La Mettrie, the Abbé de Brades, and some clumsy infidels of his academy, that the king had contracted the habit of abusing religion, and talking of dogmas, Spinozism, the court of Rome, &c.”

3. However Cæsar may be admired as an accomplished gentleman and scholar,—or even as a great and gallant soldier,—he ought ever to be reprobated as an usurper and a tyrant.—Dr. Adam Ferguson remarks, that “Julius Cæsar possessed the talent of influencing, of gaining, and employing men to his purpose, beyond any other person that is known in the history of the world: but it is surely not for the good of mankind,” continues this able writer, “that he should be admired in other respects. To admire even his clemency, is to mistake for it policy and cunning.” [See Ferguson’s Hist. of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic, vol. 5. ch. 36.]

Indeed our admiration of the great military talents of such a man as Cæsar, may carry us too far. Mr. Hume, in his History of England (ch. 47.) very justly observes—that “The unhappy prepossession which men commonly entertain in favour of ambition, courage, enterprise, and other warlike virtues, engages generous natures,—who always love fame,—into such pursuits as destroy their own peace, and that of the rest of mankind.”

4. Mr. Fontenelle in his Eloge on Sir Isaac Newton (published by the Royal Academy of Sciences, at Paris,) mentions particularly the great honours that were paid him, by his countrymen, as well during his life as after his decease. “The English,” says he, “are not apt to pay the less regard to great abilities, for being of their native growth; but instead of endeavouring to lessen them by injurious reflexions, or approving the envy which attacks them, they all join together in striving to advocate them,”—“They are sensible that a great genius must reflect honour upon the state; and whoever is able to procure it to their country, is upon that account infinitely dear to them.”—“Tacitus,” says he, “who has reproached the Romans with their extreme indifference towards the great men of their own nation, would have given the English quite a different character.”—And, after describing the almost princely magnificence, in the manner of Newton’s interment in Westminster Abbey, Mr. Fontenelle remarks, that we must almost go back to the ancient Greeks, if we would find a like instance of so great a veneration paid to learning.

The following epitaph, in classical Latin, is inscribed on the noble monument erected to the memory of Newton, in the Abbey Church of Westminster:

5. Aristotle is supposed, by some, to have imbibed the best and most rational of his notions from his master Plato; to whom, notwithstanding, he seems to have been greatly inferior as a moral philosopher.

His opinions respecting government, abound in good sense. As a general outline of his sentiments on this subject, it may serve to mention, that he distinguished civil government into two kinds; one, in which the general welfare is the great object; the other, in which this is not at all considered.^[5a] In the first class, he places the limited monarchy—the aristocratical form of government—and the republic, properly so called. In the second, he comprehends tyranny—oligarchy—and democracy; considering these as corruptions of the three first. Limited monarchy, he alleges, degenerates into despotism, when the sovereign assumes to himself the exercise of the entire authority of the state, refusing to submit his power to any controul;^[5b] the aristocracy sinks into an oligarchy, when the supreme power is no longer possessed by a reasonable proportion of virtuous men,—but by a small number of rulers, whose wealth alone constitutes their claim to authority; and the republican government is debased into a democracy, when the poorest class of the people have too great an influence in the public deliberations.^[5c]

In Physics, Aristotle scarcely deserves the name of a Philosopher.—As to his metaphysical opinions, in the common acceptation of the term,—it is impossible to ascertain, with certainty, what they really were. It was not until eighteen centuries after his death, that his philosophy—such as it was then promulgated, anew—began to be generally known and studied. After the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks, in the year 1453, some fugitive Greeks, who had escaped the fury of the Ottoman arms, brought from that city into the west of Europe many of the writings of the Stagyritish philosopher: But, although some of his treatises were previously known, they were such as had passed through the hands of the Arabs, in translations into their tongue; done by men who, it may be fairly presumed, very imperfectly understood the author’s language; consequently not capable, even if they were disposed, to do justice to the sense of the original. Subsequent translations of those writings, from the Arabic, probably occasioned, in the same way, further departures from the meaning of the original Greek. Thus varying, as may be supposed, from the opinions taught by Aristotle himself,—the philosophy of the schoolmen, engrafted upon his systems, was neither entirely that of the Stagyrite, nor altogether different. His writings, nevertheless, gave birth to what is termed the Scholastic Philosophy,—“that motley offspring of error and ingenuity,” as it is called by Mr. Mallet.^[5d] “To trace at length,” says this writer, “the rise, progress, and variations of this philosophy, would be an undertaking not only curious, but instructive; as it would unfold to us all the mazes in which the force, the subtlety, the extravagance of human wit, can lose themselves: till not only profane learning, but Divinity itself, was at last, by the refined frenzy of those who taught both, subtilized into mere notion and air.”^[5e]

6. Baron Bielfeld (in his Elements of Universal Erudition) observes, that the fondness for Aristotle’s reveries began about the twelfth century. It was then, that the scholastic philosophy was formed. This was partly borrowed from the writings of the Arabs, who were always attached to the theories of Aristotle: they were initiated into a subtile, ambiguous, abstract and capricious mode of reasoning; by which they never hit the truth, but constantly went on the one side, or beyond the truth. Toward the end of the fourteenth century, continues the learned Baron, this absurd system arrived to a great height. It became a mere jargon, a confused heap of unintelligible ideas.

The celebrated Mr. Boyle, the great successor of Lord Verulam (St. Albans) in experimental philosophy, is said to have declared against the Philosophy of Aristotle, as having in it more of words than things; promising much and performing little; and giving the Inventions of Men for indubitable proofs, instead of building upon observation and experiment. He was so zealous for, and so scrupulous about, this true method of learning by experiment, that, though the Cartesian philosophy then made a great noise in the world, yet he would never be persuaded to read the works of Descartes; for fear he should be amused, and led away, by plausible accounts of things founded on conjecture, and merely hypothetical. (See Art. Boyle, in the New and General Biography.)—This great and excellent man was born the same year in which Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, died.

Epicurus, the disciple of Democritus, and follower of the Philosophy of Aristotle, was engaged, although unsuccessfully enough, in the labyrinth of Metaphysics, as well as in Physics. He adopted the system of Atoms, which Democritus first propagated; and hence appears to be derived Descartes’s equally preposterous doctrine of the Plenum and of Vortices.

7. “Nulla gens tam fera, quæ non sciat Deum habendum esse, quamvis ignoret qualem habere deceat.”

8. While Plato followed the morals of Socrates, he cultivated the metaphysical opinions of Pythagoras. He is said to have founded his physics on the notions of Heraclitus: it may be presumed, nevertheless, that he derived that branch of his system from a better source.

9.

10. “An inordinate desire to explain and generalise, without facts and observations, led the ancient philosophers to the most absurd and extravagant notions; though, in a few cases, they have displayed the most wonderful ingenuity, and sagaciously anticipated the discoveries of modern times.”

11. “If the petty motions of us mortals afford arguments for the being of a God, much more may those greater motions we see in the world, and the phænomena attending them: I mean, the motions of the planets and heavenly bodies. For these must be put into motion either by one common mighty Mover, acting upon them immediately, or by causes and laws of His appointment; or by their respective movers, who, for reasons to which you can by this time be no stranger,” (referring his reader to preceding arguments), “must depend upon some Superior, that furnished them with the power of doing this. And granting it to be done either of these ways, we can be at no great distance from a demonstration of the existence of a Deity.”—Wollaston’s Rel. of Nat. delineated, sect. v. head 14th.

12. A disciple of Anaximenes, and preceptor to Socrates. He died 428 years B. C. in the seventy-second year of his age.

13. Thales, of Miletus in Ionia, was one of the seven sages of Greece: he was born about six hundred and forty years before the Christian era. After travelling into other countries, he returned to his own, and there devoted himself exclusively to the study of nature. Being the first of the Greeks who made any discoveries in Astronomy, he is said to have astonished his countrymen, by predicting a solar eclipse; and he instructed them, by communicating the knowledge of geometry and astronomy, which he had acquired while in Egypt. He died in the ninety-sixth year of his age,—544 years B. C.

14. Marcus Tullius Cicero—the same that has been already mentioned. He was, himself, not only one of the most learned and eloquent men, but one of the greatest philosophers, of antiquity. This illustrious Roman (whose death occurred forty-three years before the Christian era) firmly believed in the being of a God. He was likewise a decided advocate for the doctrine of the soul’s immortality; concerning which, some fine reasoning will be found in his book on Old Age;—a doctrine, however, by no means confined to Cicero alone, but one maintained by many of the most eminent among the heathen philosophers, in the early ages. Plato appears to have been the first who supported that opinion upon sound and permanent arguments, deduced from truth and established principles.

15. Cicero himself says, “If any one doubt, whether there be a God, I cannot comprehend why the same person may not as well doubt, whether there be a sun or not.” [De Naturâ Deorum, 2. 2.]

It is observed by Dr. Turnbull, in his annotations on Heineccius’s System of Universal Law, that Polybius as well as Cicero, and indeed almost all the ancient philosophers, have acknowledged, that a public sense of Religion is necessary to the well-being and support of civil society: and such a sentiment of Religion is inseparable from a reasonable conception of the being and attributes of the Deity. “Society,” says Dr. Turnbull very truly, “can hardly subsist without it: or, at least, it is the most powerful mean for restraining from vice; and for promoting and upholding those virtues by which society subsists, and without which every thing that is great and comely in society must soon perish and go to ruin.”—“With regard to private persons,” continues this learned writer, “he who does not often employ his mind in reviewing the perfections of the Deity, and in consoling and strengthening his mind by the comfortable and mind-exalting reflexions, to which meditation upon the universal providence of an all-perfect mind, naturally, and as it were, necessarily lead, deprives himself of the greatest joy, the noblest exercise and entertainment, the human mind is capable of; and whatever obligations there may to virtue, he cannot be so firm, steady, and unshaken in his adherence to it, as he, who, being persuaded of the truth just mentioned, is daily drawing virtuous strength and comfort from it.” [See the Annotator’s remark on ch. v. b. i. of Heineccius.]

16. The Greeks derived their knowledge of astronomy from the Egyptians and Chaldeans. According to Plutarch, the sciences began to unfold themselves about the time of Hesiod, the Greek poet, who flourished upwards of nine centuries before the Christian era; but their progress was very slow, until the time of Thales, which was about three centuries later. And although this celebrated philosopher of antiquity rendered himself famous by foretelling an eclipse of the sun, he only predicted the year in which it was to happen. Even this, it is remarked by Mr. Vince (in his invaluable work, entitled, A Complete System of Astronomy,) he was probably enabled to do by the Chaldean Saros, a period of 223 lunations; after which, the eclipses return again nearly in the same order. Philolaus, a disciple of Pythagoras, lived about four hundred and fifty years before Christ, and is said to have taught the true solar system,—placing the sun in the centre, with the earth and all the planets revolving about it; a system which, it is believed, Pythogaras himself had conceived, and was inclined to adopt.

However, Hipparchus, who lived between one hundred and twenty-five and one hundred and sixty years before the Christian era, and whom Mr. Vince styles “the Father of Astronomy,” was the first person that cultivated every part of that science. His discoveries, together with those of Ptolemy, are preserved in the Μεγαλη Σύνταξις, or Great Construction,—Ptolemy’s celebrated work on Astronomy, named by the Arabs the Almagest, and now usually so called.

17. This great philosopher of antiquity, so justly entitled to celebrity for his mathematical works, flourished three hundred years before the Christian era. Care should be taken not to confound him with Euclid of Megara, who lived a century earlier. The latter, as the Abbé Barthelemi observes, being too much familiarized with the writings of Parmenides and the Elean school, had recourse to abstractions; “a method,” says the Abbé, “often dangerous, oftener unintelligible.” Just after, he adds: “The subtleties of metaphysics calling to their aid the quirks of logic, words presently took place of things, and students acquired nothing in the schools but a spirit of acrimony and contradiction.” Travels of the younger Anacharsis, vol. iii. chap. 37.

18. That the sun is at rest, and that the planets revolve round him, is an opinion that appears to have been received of old, by Philolaus, Aristarchus of Samos, and the whole sect of the Pythagoreans. It is probable, as Mr. Rowning^[18a] observes, that this notion was derived from them, by the Greeks: But the opinion that the sunsun stood still in the centre, while the whole heavens moved around it, was the prevailing one, until Copernicus, by the establishment of his system, restored the ancient astronomy of the Pythagorean school.

19. Nicholas Copernic (usually latinized, by adding the terminating syllable, us,) that celebrated astronomer, “whose vast genius, assisted by such lights as the remains of antiquity afforded him, explained the true system of the universe, as at present understood,”^[19a] was born at Thorn in Royal Prussia, the 19th of January, 1442. He was alike distinguished for his piety and innocence, as for his extraordinary genius and discoveries. He died in the seventy-seventh year of his age.

20. This great man was a native of Knudsturp, a province of Scania in Denmark, and born the 18th of December, 1546, of an illustrious family. He was the first, who, by the accuracy and number of his observations, made the way for the revival of astronomy among the moderns; although, “in theory,” as Rittenhouse has expressed it, “he mangled the beautiful system of Copernicus.”^[20a]—Brahé (for this is the family-name) died at the age of fifty-five years.

21. John Kepler, a native of Wiel in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in Germany, became as celebrated for the consequences he drew from the observations of Tycho, as the latter was for the vast mass of astronomical materials he had prepared. This eminent, though somewhat “whimsical”^[21a] astronomer, was born the 27th of December, 1571, and died at the age of fifty-nine years.

22. “Before his (Bacon’s) time, philosophy was fettered by forms and syllogisms. The logics of Aristotle held the human mind in bondage for nearly two thousand years; a miserable jugglery, which was fitted to render all truth problematical, and which disseminated a thousand errors, but never brought to light one useful piece of knowledge.”—Ld. Woolhousie’s Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ld. Kames.

23. It is observed by an eminent philosopher of the present day, that “The more the phænomena of the universe are studied, the more distinctly their connexion appears, the more simple their causes, the more magnificent their design, and the more wonderful the wisdom and power of their Author.” (See Elements of Chymical Philosophy, by sir Humphrey Davy, LLD. Sec. R. S.)

24. On looking into Maclaurin’s Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries, since penning the above, the writer of these Memoirs was much gratified by the perusal of the following passage, in the last chapter of that valuable work; wherein its author treats “Of the Supreme Author and Governor of the Universe, the True and Living God.” The writer is induced to add it in a note, to his own reflections on the same subject, such as he has ventured to offer them in the text; presuming that the authority of so eminent a philosopher as Mr. Maclaurin will give weight to what he has himself advanced; so far, at least, as there may appear to be some coincidence of sentiment on the subject.

“The plain argument for the existence of the Deity, obvious to all and carrying irresistable conviction with it, is from the evident contrivance and fitness of things for one another, which we meet with throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice and subtle reasonings in this matter: a manifest contrivance immediately suggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful reasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our belief. No person, for example, that knows the principles of optics, and the structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without skill in that science; or that the ear was formed, without the knowledge of sounds:”—“All our accounts of nature are full of instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful order of things, for final causes, exalt our idea of the Contriver: the unity of design shews him to be One. The great motions in the system, performed with the same facility as the least, suggest his Almighty Power; which gave motion to the earth and the celestial bodies, with equal ease as to the minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the internal parts of bodies, shews that His influence penetrates the inmost recesses of things, and that He is equally active and present every where. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the excellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and the beauty which adorns the works of nature, far superior to any thing in art, suggest His consummate Wisdom. The usefulness of the whole scheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it, with the internal disposition and moral structure of those beings themselves, shew His unbounded goodness. These are arguments which are sufficiently open to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while at the same time they acquire new strength and lustre from the discoveries of the learned. The Deity’s acting and interposing in the universe, shew that He governs it, as well as formed it; and the depth of His counsels, even in conducting the material universe, of which a great part surpasses our knowledge, keeps up an inward veneration and awe of this great Being, and disposes us to receive what may be otherwise revealed to us, concerning Him.”

25. Mr. Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, exposes the folly of those depraved dreamers in philosophy, “the sordid dregs of the most impure part of mankind,” who strive to maintain, that the constitution of the world is not derived from the will of God, but from a certain necessity of nature; that all things are governed by fate, not by Providence; and that matter, by necessity of nature, has existed always and every where, and is infinite and eternal. He then adds:—“We may now, therefore, take a nearer view of nature in her glory, and contemplate her in a most entertaining manner: and withal, more zealously than ever, pay our worship and veneration to the Creator and Lord of the Universe; which is the principal advantage of philosophy. He must be blind who, from the most excellent and most wise structure of the creatures, does not presently see the infinite wisdom and goodness of their Creator: and he must be mad, who will not own those attributes.”

26. “A man would deceive himself,” says Lalande, “in believing he could be a philosopher, without the study of the natural sciences. To be wise, not by weakness, but by principles, it is necessary that, to be able to reflect and think with vigour, we be freed from those prejudices which deceive the judgment, and which oppose themselves to the development of reason and of genius. PythagorasPythagoras would not have any disciples, who had not studied Mathematics: over his door was to be read, that “no one was to enter, unless he were a geometrician.”—Morals would be less sure, and less attractive for us, if they were to be founded on ignorance or on error.

“Ought we,” he asks, “to consider as of no importance the advantage of being freed from the misfortunes of ignorance? Is it possible to observe, without a feeling of compassion and even of shame, the stupidity of those, who formerly believed, that by making a great vociferation, during an eclipse of the Moon, they furnished relief to the sufferings of that (imagined) goddess; or, that these eclipses were produced by enchantment?”

Reyas, in the dedication of his Commentaries on the Planisphere to the Emperor Charles V. mentions a curious historical fact, in illustration of the effects of that superstition, derived from ignorance, which astronomy has banished from the civilized world. It is thus related by Lalande:—“Christopher Columbus, when commanding the army which Ferdinand, king of Spain, had sent to Jamaica, some short time after the discovery of that island, experienced so great a scarcity of provisions, that no hope remained of saving his army, which he expected to be soon at the mercy of the savages. An approaching eclipse of the moon furnished this able man with the means of extricating himself from his embarrassment: he let the chief of the savages know, that if they should not, in a few hours, send him all he asked for, he would oppress them with the greatest calamities; and that he would begin by depriving the moon of her light. At first, they contemned his menaces; but, when they saw that the moon began, in reality, to disappear, they were seized with terror; they carried all they had to the general, and came themselves to implore forgiveness.”

Comets were formerly, even in civilized nations, another great cause of consternation among the people; and one, also, which a knowledge of astronomy has at length divested of its terrors, by removing the source of those superstitious errors, a grossly mistaken notion of the nature of those phænomena. “We are sorry to find,” says Lalande, “such strange prejudices, not only in Homer [Iliad iv. 75.] but even in the most beautiful poem of the sixteenth century; whereby means are furnished of perpetuating our errors—

Which Mr. Hoole has thus translated—

Further, the progress of genuine astronomy has almost wholly dissipated, in our day, the gross delusions of astrology, with the mischievous portents of its infatuated judicial interpreters; follies engendered by ignorance, which is, ever, the prolific parent of prejudice, of superstition, and of their numerous concomitant evils.

27. Mr. Rittenhouse observes, (in his Oration delivered before the American Philosophical Society, in 1775,) that “Galileo not only discovered these moons of Jupiter, but suggested their use in determining the longitude of places on the earth; which has since been so happily put in practice, that Fontenelle does not hesitate to affirm, they are of more use to geography and navigation, than our own moon.”—This great man, one of the first restorers of the true principles of physics, was condemned by, and suffered the penalties of the Inquisition, in 1535, for defending the system of Copernicus! He died in 1542.

A letter from Andrew Ellicott, Esq. to Mr. Robert Patterson, dated the 2d of April 1795, and published in the fourth volume of the American Philosophical Society’s Transactions, contains sundry observations of the immersions of the satellites of Jupiter, made at Wilmington in the state of Delaware, by Messrs. Rittenhouse, J. Page, Lukens and Andrews, respectively, on divers days from the 1st to the 23d of August (both included,) in the year 1784; together with those observed at the Western Observatory, by Messrs. Ellicott, Ewing, Madison, &c. on divers days from the 17th of July to the 19th of August (both included,) in the same year: also, of the emersions of those satellites, by the same Eastern Observers, from the 29th of August to the 19th of September (both included,) and by the same Western Observers, from the 27th of August, up to the 19th of September, both included; all in the year 1784. These observations were made,

when those able geometricians and astronomers were employed in ascertaining the Western Boundary of Pennsylvania, by determining the length of five degrees of longitude, West, from a given point on the river Delaware.

28. Mr. Derham, speaking of the utility resulting from the observation of these phænomena, (in his Astro-Theology,) says—“As to the eclipses, whether of sun or moon, they have their excellent uses. The astronomer applies them to considerable services, in his way, and the geographer makes them no less useful in his: the chronologer is enabled, by them, to amend his accounts of time, even of the most ancient days; and so down through all ages: and the mariner, too, can make them serviceable to his purpose, to discover his longitude, to correct his account at sea, and thereby make himself more secure and safe in the untrodden paths of the deep.”

29. Lucius Cælius Lactantius Firmianus, a Christian writer in the beginning of the fourth century, reasons in a conclusive manner against the heathen mythology, in the inference he draws from the argument, used by the heathens, to prove the heavenly bodies to be divinities. His argument, on this head, will be found towards the conclusion of Mr. Derham’s Astro-Theology, where it is translated from the Latin of that early and eloquent advocate of Christianity (in his Divin. Instit. l. 2. c. 5.) in these words:—

“That argument whereby they” (those idolaters) “conclude the heavenly bodies to be gods, proveth the contrary: for if therefore they think them to be gods, because they have such certain and well-contrived rational courses, they err: for, from hence it appears that they are not gods; because they are not able to wander out of those paths that are prescribed them. Whereas, if they were gods, they would go here and there, and every where, without any restraint, like as animals upon the earth do; whose wills being free, they wander hither and thither, as they list, and go whithersoever their minds carry them.”

Those vast orbs of matter in the universe, which constitute the planets of our system, if even we consider this alone, and each of which is known to have its appropriate motion, must of necessity have had those motions communicated to them, at first, by some Being of infinite power; the perfect order and regularity of their motions render it equally plain, that that Being was also infinite in wisdom; and the uninterrupted continuance of the same regularity of motion, in their respective orbits, demonstrates in like manner, that He who originally imparted their motions to the several planets is, moreover, infinite in duration.

The vis inertiæ of all material substances, a quality inseparably interwoven with their nature, deprives them (considered merely as such) of the power of spontaneous motion; matter is inherently inert: consequently, those great globes of matter, the planets (including the earth,) necessarily derive their motions from a supremely powerful First Cause, as well as from one infinitely intelligent, and everlasting in his Being. Hence, Lactantius well observes, in another place, that “There is, indeed, a power in the stars, of performing their motions; but that is the power of God, who made and governs all things; not of the stars themselves, that are moved.”

The reasoning of Lactantius, on this subject, is more worthy of a philosopher, than that employed by Descartes, in supporting his chimerical notion of vortices; or than that which led Kepler to adopt his scheme, equally unsupported by any rational principles, of a vectorial power produced by emanations of the sun, as primary agents of motion in the solar system. Because these schemes of Descartes and Kepler make it necessary to recur to some ulterior, as well as more adequate and comprehensible cause of motion, in the planets, than either vortices or emanations from the sun: whereas Lactantius resorted, at once, to an intelligent First Cause, capable of producing the effect; without conjuring up inefficient agents, as first movers; which left them still under the necessity of going back to a Creator of their respective causes (but second causes, at best,) of the planetary motions; consequently, the First Cause; and, also, of admitting the existence of Intelligence, as an essential attribute in the nature of that Being.

An edition of the works of Lactantius (who was a native of Fermo in Italy,) was printed at Leipsick, in 1715.

30. Wisdom of Solomon, ch. 13. v. 2.

31. Ibid. ch. 13. v. 3 and 5.

32. Psalm 19. v. 1.

33. In Mr. Smart’s Poetical Essay on the Immensity of the Supreme Being, after a glowing description of some of the admirable works of nature, is this apt, though laconic address to the Atheist:—

34. The poet gives a whimsical account of the first formation of man, out of this earth, which is represented as being then new; and, having been recently separated from the high æther, is therefore supposed as yet holding some affinity with heaven, and retaining its seeds. He describes the son of Japetus (Prometheus) moulding a portion of earth, mixed with river-water, into the similitude of those heathen deities, who were said to rule over all things.

A poetic translation into our own language, of the lines above quoted, which exhibit “the godlike image,” thus formed, after its being animated by the stolen fire of Prometheus, is comprehended in the italicised lines of the following passage, extracted from Mr. Dryden’s versification of the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses; in which the English poet has well preserved the beauty, the force, and the sublimity of the thought, so finely expressed in the original:—

35. Man will, unquestionably, by taking an extensive range in the contemplation of nature, proportionably enlarge his intuitive conceptions of the attributes of her Almighty First Cause; of whose transcendently exalted existence, the study of his own being, one of nature’s greatest works, will have taught him the reality: and a due knowledge of himself, alone, will also instruct him in the dependent nature of his condition, and the duties resulting from that state of dependence, in his humble relation to the Supreme being.

Mr. Smart, in the poem before quoted, has prettily expressed this idea, in the following lines:—

36. The same sentiment is beautifully expressed by Thomson, in the following apostrophe:

37. It delights me to soar among the lofty stars; it delights me to leave the earth and this dull habitation, to be wafted upon a cloud, and to stand upon the shoulders of the mighty Atlas.

Mr. Dryden has thus translated the original into English verse:—

38. Dr. Francis thus versifies this passage, in our language:—

39. Thus rendered, in English verse, by Mr. Dryden:—

40. The lines here referred to were written about eight years after Sir Isaac Newton’s death. Voltaire supposes an apotheosis of Newton to have taken place, among the planets personified by some of the deities of the heathen mythology. Thus ascribing intelligence to the stars, he considers them, by a poetical fiction, as being in the confidence of the Most High—the true God; and to those subordinate deities, or, perhaps, a fancied superior order of angelic beings, the poet makes his figurative address; which may be thus rendered in English verse:—

41. Godfrey Kirch was born in the year 1640, at Guben in Lower Lusatia, and lived with Hevelius. He published his Ephemerides in 1681, and became established at Berlin in 1700. This astronomer made numerous observations.

42.

43. Mr. Messier observed this Comet in France, eleven days before it was discovered in England by Miss Herschel.

44. That the mind of the female sex is capable of compassing great and extraordinary attainments, even in the most arduous branches of science, is attested by many instances; and it cannot be doubted that these would be more numerous, were women oftener attentive to philosophical pursuits. Those who have been just named serve to shew, that astronomy has been cultivated with success, by them. And Dr. Reid tells us (in his Essays on the intellectual and active Powers of Man,) that both the celebrated Christiana, Queen of Sweden, and the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of Frederick, King of Bohemia, and aunt of George I., were adepts in the philosophy of Descartes. The latter of these princesses, though very young when Descartes wrote his Principia, was declared by that philosopher to be the only person he knew, who perfectly understood not only all his philosophical writings, but the most abstruse of his mathematical works.

45. The writer is happy in having it in his power to cite, in support of his own opinion, that of an amiable and conspicuous female, in favour of ladies making themselves acquainted with, at least, the rudiments of astronomical science.

The Countess of Carlisle, a woman whose literary attainments, as well as virtues and accomplishments, do honour to her sex and station, in her Letters, under the signature of Cornelia, thus recommends an attention to the study of astronomy, to the young ladies to whom her letters are addressed. “Attain a competent knowledge of the globe on which you live, that your apprehension of Infinite Wisdom may be enlarged; which it will be in a much higher degree, if you take care to acquire a general idea of the structure of the universe. It is not expected you should become adepts in astronomy; but a knowledge of its leading principles you may, and ought to obtain.”—Her ladyship then refers her young female correspondents to the Plurality of Worlds of Fontenelle, in order that they might acquire a knowledge of the planetary orbs; pleasantly recommending this author as a proper person, in the capacity of “a gentleman usher,” to “introduce” them to an “acquaintance” with “that brilliant assembly.”

46. Translated from the Latin.

47. This very eminent mathematician, as well as learned and pious divine, died in the year 1677, aged only forty-seven years. See the life of this extraordinary man, written in 1683, by the learned Abraham Hill; prefixed to the first volume of the doctor’s theological works; a fifth edition of which, in three folio volumes, was published by archbishop Tillotson, in 1741. He also wrote and published many geometrical and mathematical works, all in Latin.

“The name of Dr. Barrow,” says Mr. Granger, one of his biographers, “will ever be illustrious, for a strength of mind and a compass of knowledge that did honour to his country. He was unrivalled in mathematical learning, and especially in the sublime geometry, in which he was excelled only by one man; and that man was his pupil, the great Sir Isaac Newton. The same genius that seemed to be born only to bring hidden things to light, to rise to the heights or descend to the depths of science, would sometimes amuse itself in the flowery paths of poetry, and he composed verses both in Greek and Latin.”

This “prodigy of learning,” as he is called by Mr. Granger, was interred in Westminster Abbey, where a monument, adorned with his bust, is erected to his memory.

48. Flavius Josephus informs us, (in his Jewish Antiquities, b. i. chap. 7. 8.) that the sons of Seth employed themselves in astronomical contemplations. According to the same historian, Abraham inferred the unity and power of God, from the orderly course of things both at sea and land, in their times and seasons, and from his observations upon the motions and influences of the sun, moon and stars. He further relates, that this patriarch delivered lectures on geometry and arithmetic to the Egyptians, of which they understood nothing, until Abraham introduced those sciences from Chaldea into Egypt, from whence they passed into Greece: and, according to Eupolemus and Artapan, he instructed the Phœnicians, as well as the Egyptians, in astronomy.

49. We are informed by some ancient writers, that when Babylon was taken, Calisthenes, one of Aristotle’s scholars, carried from thence, by the desire of his master, celestial observations made by the Chaldeans, nearly two thousand years old; which carried them back to about the time of the dispersion of mankind by the confusion of tongues: and those observations are supposed to have been made in the famous temple of Belus, at Babylon. But these accounts are not to be depended on: because Hipparchus and Ptolemy could find no traces of any observations made at Babylon before the time of Nabonassar, who began his reign 747 years before the birth of Christ; and various writers, among the ancients, agree in referring the earliest Babylonian observations to about the same period. In all probability, the Chaldean observations were then little more than matters of curiosity; for, even in the three or four centuries immediately preceding the Christian era, the celestial observations which were made by the Greeks were, for the most part, far from being of any importance, in relation to astronomical science.

Indeed, the knowledge of astronomy at much later periods than those in which the most celebrated philosophers of Greece flourished, must have been very limited and erroneous, on account of the defectiveness of their instruments. And, added to the great disadvantages arising from this cause, the ancients laboured under the want of a knowledge of the telescope and the clock; and also maintained a false notion of the system of the world; which was almost universally adhered to, until the revival and improvement of the Pythagorean system by Copernicus, who died in 1543. Within the last two hundred years, but, particularly, since the laws of nature have been made manifest by the labours and discoveries of the immortal Newton, the science of astronomy has made astonishing advances towards perfection.

50. This sovereign re-established the university of Naples, founded that of Vienna in Austria, in the year 1237, and imparted new vigour to the schools of Bologna and Salerno. He caused many ancient works in medicine and philosophy to be translated from the Arabian tongue; particularly, the Almagest of Ptolemy.

Cotemporary with the Emperor Frederick II. was Alphonso X. King of Castile, surnamed the Wise. This prince was the first who manifested a desire of correcting the Tables of Ptolemy. In the year 1240, even during the life of his father, he drew to Toledo the most experienced astronomers of his time, Christians, Moors, or Jews; by whose labours he at length obtained the Alphonsine Tables, in 1252 (the first year of his reign:) which were first printed at Venice, in 1483. He died in the year 1284.

51. His name was John Holywood; deduced, according to a practice prevalent in his time, from the place of his nativity, which was Halifax, a town in the west-riding of Yorkshire, in England, where he was born in the year 1204. It was formerly named Holy-wood; and was, probably, so called in Sacro-Bosco’s day: but the more ancient name of that place was Horton, or Hair-town; and Halifax signifies Holy-hair.—This great man was the inventor of the sphere; and wrote a work, entitled De Sphærâ, which was very celebrated. He died at Paris, in 1256.

52. He died in 1294, at the age of eighty years.

53. Dr. Rush’s Eulogium, “intended to perpetuate the memory of David Rittenhouse,” &c. was delivered before the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, (a great many public characters, and a numerous concourse of private citizens, also attending,) on the 17th of December 1796. It was pronounced in pursuance of an appointment made by the society, in these words, viz:

“At a meeting convened by special order, on the 1st of July, 1796, the following motion was made, and unanimously adopted; viz. That this Society, deeply affected by the death of their late worthy President, do resolve, That an Eulogium, commemorative of his distinguished talents and services, be publicly pronounced before the Society, by one of its members.”—Dr. Rush’s appointment was made at the next meeting of the society.

The following resolutions passed by them, after the delivery of the oration, will evince the high sense they entertained of the merit of this performance; viz.

It may not be thought superfluous, to add, that Dr. Rush well knew Mr. Rittenhouse. A personal friendship of an early date subsisted between them: it probably originated when the latter established his residence in Philadelphia, about six and twenty years before his death. In the summer of 1772, Mr. Rittenhouse (in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Barton) expressed his friendly estimation of the doctor in these few words—“The esteem I have for Dr. Rush is such, that his friendship for Mr. —— would, alone, give me a very good opinion of that gentleman.”

54. “Biography, or the writing of Lives,” says Dr. Hugh Blair, “is a very useful kind of composition; less formal and stately than history; but to the bulk of readers, perhaps, no less instructive; as it affords them the opportunity of seeing the characters and tempers, the virtues and failings of eminent men, fully displayed; and admits them into a more thorough and intimate acquaintance with such persons, than history generally allows. For, a writer of lives may descend, with propriety, to minute circumstances and familiar incidents. It is expected of him, that he is to give the private, as well as public life, of the person whose actions he records; nay, it is from private life, from familiar, domestic, and seemingly trivial occurrences, we often receive most light into the real character.”—Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, sect. 36. In addition to so respectable an opinion as that of Professor Blair, respecting the utility and characteristic features of biographical works, the writer of these memoirs hopes he will be excused for giving the sentiments on the same subject, contained in the following extracts from Dr. Maty’s Memoirs of the Life of Lord Chesterfield, “tending to illustrate the civil, literary, and political history of his own time.”

“Besides the great utility which general history derives from private authorities, other advantages no less important,” says this learned and ingenious biographer, “may be obtained from them. It is from observing individuals, that we may be enabled to draw the outlines of that extraordinary, complicated being, man. The characteristics of any country or age must be deduced from the separate characters of persons, who, however distinguishable in many respects, still preserve a family-likeness. From the life of almost any one individual, but chiefly from the lives of such eminent men as seemed destined to enlighten or to adorn society, instructions may be drawn, suitable to every capacity, rank, age or station. Young men, aspiring to honours, cannot be too assiduous in tracing the means by which they were obtained: by observing with what difficulty they were preserved, they will be apprized of their real value, estimate the risks of the purchase, and discover frequent disappointment in the possession.”

“It is from the number and variety of private memoirs, and the collision of opposite testimonies, that the judicious reader is enabled to strike out light, and find his way through that darkness and confusion in which he is at first involved.”

“Who does not wish that Cæsar had lived to finish his Commentaries; and that Pompey’s sons, instead of fighting their father’s cause, had employed themselves in writing his life?—What a valuable legacy would Cicero have left us, if, instead of his philosophical works, he had written the memoirs of his own times! Or how much would Tyro, to whom posterity is so much indebted for the preservation of his master’s letters, have encreased that obligation, if, from his own knowledge, he had connected and explained them! The life of Agricola, by his son-in-law Tacitus, is undoubtedly one of the most precious monuments of antiquity.”

55. The duchy of Guelderland formerly belonged to the Spanish monarchy; but by the peace of Utrecht, in 1713, part of it was ceded to Austria, part to Prussia, and guaranteed to them by the treaty of Baden, in 1714: that part which became subject to Prussia was, in exchange for the principality of Orange, ceded to France. By the barrier-treaty, in 1715, the states general of the United Provinces likewise obtained a part of it. But the Upper and Lower Guelderland have no connexion with each other: Lower Guelderland is (or was, until very lately) one of the Seven United Provinces: it is the largest of them all, and the first in rank. Arnheim, which is the capital of the whole province, is a large, populous, and handsome town: it was formerly the residence of the dukes of Guelderland, and the states of the province held their meetings there.

56. The writer of these memoirs having been in Holland in the summer of the year 1778, adverted, while in Amsterdam, to the circumstance of the Rittenhouses, of Pennsylvania, having come into America from some part of the United Provinces; and his curiosity being excited, by his consanguineous connexion with that family, to obtain some information concerning them, the following was the result of his enquiries. He found a Mr. Adrian Rittinghuysen, (for so he himself wrote his name,) residing in that city. This venerable man, who was then eighty-five years of age, appeared to be at least independent in his condition; and had, probably, retired from business, the part of the city in which he resided (the Egelantier’s Gracht, or Canal,) not exhibiting the appearance of a street of trade.

The information derived from this respectable old man, was, that his forefathers had long been established at Arnheim; that his father, Nicholas, was a paper-manufacturer in that city, as others of the family had been; and that his father’s brother, William, went with his family to North America, where he some time afterward, as he had understood, established the paper-mills near Germantown. He further stated, that he had only one child, a daughter, who was married, and resided at the Hague; and that he was, himself, as he believed, the last of his family-name, remaining in the United Provinces.

Although plain in his dress and manners, and in the general appearance of his household, this person seemed to be pleased in shewing the writer a family-seal, on which was engraved a coat of arms. The armorial device represented a castellated house, or chateau; on the left side of which was a horse, standing on his hind feet and rearing up, with his fore feet resting against the wall of the house: and this house very much resembled the chateau in the armorial bearing of the Spanish family “de Fuentes, señores del Castillio,” as represented in Dubuisson’s French Collection of Arms: The seal having been much worn, the lines, &c. describing the several tinctures of the bearing, could not be discerned; and, therefore, it cannot be properly blazoned. At the same time, the old gentleman did not omit to mention, that his mother was a De Ruyter; and that her arms were, a mounted chevalier armed cap-à-piè.

These facts, relative to the origin of the American Rittenhouses, did not appear to the writer to be unworthy of notice. They are correctly stated, being taken from a memorandum made by him, immediately after his interview with Adrian Rittinghuysen.

The introduction of this slight sketch of the occupation and condition of some of the European ancestors of our Philosopher, into his Life, may be the more readily excused, since the great Newton himself was not inattentive to such objects. There is, indeed, implanted by nature in the human mind, a strong desire to become acquainted with the family-history of our forefathers. Hence, Sir Isaac Newton left, in his own hand-writing, a genealogical account or pedigree of his family; with directions, subjoined thereto, that the registers of certain parishes should be searched, from the beginning to the year 1650; and he adds—“Let the extracts be taken, by copying out of the registers whatever may be met with, about the family of the Newtons, in words at length, without omitting any of the words.” This investigation and enquiry of Sir Isaac, was made in the sixty-third year of his age; and he himself caused the result to be entered in the books of the herald’s office.

Such, also, was the curiosity of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. While the Doctor was in England, he undertook a journey to Eaton, in Northamptonshire, (a village situated between Wellingborough and Northampton,) the residence of his forefathers, for the purpose of obtaining information, as he tells us himself, concerning his family.—“To be acquainted with the particulars of my parentage and life, many of which are unknown to you,” (said Dr. Franklin in his Life, which he addressed to his son,) “I flatter myself, will afford the same pleasure to you as to me—I shall, relate them upon paper.”

57. See the preceding note.

58. Conradus Rittershusius was a learned civilian of Germany. He was born at Brunswick in the year 1560, and died at Altorf in Switzerland, in 1613. Two of his sons, George and Nicholas, also distinguished themselves in the republic of letters. The writer of the present memoirs is too little acquainted with the genealogies of either German or Dutch families, to pretend to claim any consanguinity between this C. Rittershuysen (or, as latinized, Rittershusius,) and our Rittenhouses. But the name appears to have been, originally, the same; and the ancestors of both, it may be presumed, were of the same country: In giving a latin termination to the name, the y is omitted, not being a Roman letter.

59. The Dutch were early and long distinguished for the superior quality of the paper manufactured in their country. It excelled, in its whiteness and the closeness of its texture, as well as its goodness in other respects, the paper made elsewhere; and it was an article of great importance to the republic, both for the internal consumption and for exportation, until the Hollanders were rivalled in this manufacture by the perfection to which it was afterwards brought in other parts of Europe.

Paper, made from linen rags (for that made from cotton, silk, and some other substances, was of a much elder date,) is said to have been originally introduced into Germany from Valencia and Catalonia, in Spain, as early as the year 1312, and to have appeared in England eight or ten years afterwards. But the first paper-mill in Great Britain was erected at Dartford in Kent, by Mr. Speelman, a German, jeweller to queen Elizabeth, in the year 1558: and it was not until more than a century after, that any other paper than of an inferior quality was manufactured in England. Little besides brown paper was made there, prior to the revolution in 1688: yet, soon after that period, the English were enabled to supply themselves with much the greater part of the various kinds of paper used in their country, from their own mills; and the perfection to which the manufacture of this important article has since been carried, not only in England, but in France, Italy and Germany, has greatly diminished the consumption of Dutch paper.

It is a fact worthy of notice, that the establishment of paper-mills in Pennsylvania, by the Rittenhouses, was nearly co-eval with the general introduction of the manufactory of white paper in the mother country. This appears from the following circumstance:—There is now before the writer of these memoirs a paper in the hand-writing of the celebrated William Penn, and subscribed with his name, certifying that “William Rittinghousen and Claus” (Nicholas) “his son,” then “part owners of the paper-mill near Germantown,” had recently sustained a very great loss by a violent and sudden flood, which carried away the said mill, with a considerable quantity of paper, materials and tools, with other things therein, whereby they were reduced to great distress; and, therefore, recommending to such persons as should be disposed to lend them aid, to give the sufferers “relief and encouragement, in their needful and commendable employment,” as they were “desirous to set up the paper-mill again.”—This certificate is without date: but Mr. Penn was twice in Pennsylvania. He first arrived in the year 1682, and returned to England in 1684; his second arrival was in 1699, and he finally left the province in 1701. It was probably during the latter period of his residence in his proprietary-dominion, though, perhaps, in the first, that the Germantown paper-mills were destroyed.

The William Rittinghousen (so Mr. Penn writes the name) here mentioned, is supposed to be the same named in the text, and to have been the great-grandfather of our astronomer. In Mr. Penn’s certificate he is called an old man, and is stated to have then been “decrepid.”

In order to shew the present importance of that article, as a manufacture, in the United States, and which was first fabricated in this country by the Rittenhouses, the reader is presented with the following view of the quantity of paper, of various descriptions, annually made at one hundred and eighty-five paper-mills, within the United States; taken from the latest information furnished on this subject.

	Tons.	Reams.	Value.
For Newspapers,[59a]	500	50,000	$150,000
Books,	630	70,000	245,000
Writing,	650	111,000	333,000
Wrapping,	800	100,000	83,000
	—-—	—-—-—	—-—-—
	2580	331,000	811,000

60. Mr. Benjamin Rittenhouse, a younger brother of David, speaking of his paternal ancestors, in a letter addressed to the writer of these memoirs, says: “The family originally settled in the state of New-York, while a Dutch colony; and were, undoubtedly, the first paper-makers in America.” This fact was also communicated to the writer, by Dr. Franklin, some years before.

61. At the peace of Breda, in 1667, the Dutch colony of New Netherlands was confirmed to the English, to whom it had been ceded in 1664. But the Dutch having reduced the country in the years 1672 and 1673, it was finally restored to the English by the peace of Westminster, on the 9th of February, 1674. The Rittenhouses are supposed to have seated themselves, before this latter period, in that part of the colony afterwards called East-Jersey. Some of the name reside in the state of New-Jersey, at this day; but it is not known that any of them are inhabitants of the state of New-York. Those in New-Jersey, with most of those of the name in Pennsylvania, are descendants of Nicholas.

62. The Rittenhouses who first settled in America, are supposed to have leaned towards the religious tenets of (if they did not belong to) that peaceable branch of the Anabaptists, denominated Mennonites. Simon Menno, the founder of this sect, was one of the first reformers: he was born at a village called Witmarsum, in the Batavian province of Friesland, in 1505; the same year in which John Knox was born, and four years before the birth of Calvin.

Menno had been a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, and some have endeavoured to stigmatize him, as one who was “a notorious profligate.” This, however, may be attributed to his having left the communion of the church of which he was originally a member: for, he is represented to have been “a man of probity, of a meek and tractable spirit, gentle in his manners, pliable and obsequious in his commerce with persons of all ranks and characters, and extremely zealous in promoting practical religion and virtue, which he recommended by his example as well as by his precepts.” He was, moreover, a man of genius and eloquence, and possessed a considerable share of learning. This extraordinary man died in the duchy of Holstein, in the year 1561.

The fundamental principles of the followers of Menno are, in some respects, similar to those of the people called Quakers: They use, likewise, great plainness in their apparel, and adhere to some of the practices of the primitive Christian church. But this peaceable sect baptize adults, and celebrate the eucharist in a manner peculiar to themselves.

Some of Menno’s disciples came into Pennsylvania from New-York, in the year 1692. The principal congregation of this sect was established at Germantown, soon after the Rittenhouses had settled themselves there; and this may be considered as the mother of the sect, in America. The Mennonites have since become a numerous body in Pennsylvania, principally in the county of Lancaster; and this religious society comprehends, among its members, many intelligent worthy men, and valuable citizens.

63. In the Preface to a printed copy of the celebrated Speech delivered in the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, on the 24th of May, 1764, by the late John Dickinson, Esq. the Merits of the Founder of Pennsylvania, as they were declared at various times, in the proceedings of the Legislative Body of the colony, and in some other public Documents, are thus summed up by the writer.

For the materials of which the foregoing Eulogy is composed, its author^[63a] has referred his readers to the Minutes of Assembly, for the years 1719 and 1725, to those from the year 1730 to 1740, both inclusive, excepting only 1736, 1737 and 1739; also, for 1745, 1755 and 1756; to other proceedings of the assembly, in the years 1730 and 1738; and to their Address to Governor John Penn, in 1764.

A very respectable Memorial of another nature, in honour of the justly celebrated Penn, decorates the edifice of a noble public institution in the capital of his former domain; an institution devoted to the purposes of charity, humanity and benevolence. It is a finely executed metallic statue, in bronze, of that great man; representing him in his appropriate attire, and holding in his right hand The Charter of Privileges.^[63b] The statue stands on an elegant pedestal of marble, in an handsome area on the south front of the Pennsylvania Hospital: and the four sides of the pedestal contain these modest inscriptions; viz.

“The Proprietary arrived in 1682; made a just and amicable arrangement with the Natives, for the purchase of their Lands; and went back to England in 1684.”

“Returned to Pennsylvania, 1699; and finally withdrew to his Paternal Estate, 1701.”

The public in general, with the Pennsylvania Hospital more particularly, are indebted for this Memorial of true Greatness, to the munificence of a Grandson of the Founder of the extensive Dominion that bears his name; John Penn, of Stoke-Poges in Buckinghamshire, Esquire; by whom the statue was presented, in the year 1804.

64. The Charter of Privileges, granted and solemnly confirmed to the freemen of Pennsylvania and territories belonging to the province, by the proprietary, on the 28th of October, 1701, was, after being approved and agreed to by the legislative body of the province, accepted by them the same day; in lieu of the Frame of Government originally stipulated between Mr. Penn and the Planters, in the year 1683. The first article of this charter provided for a full enjoyment of the Liberty of Conscience, by all persons who should acknowledge “One Almighty God, the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the World.” It also declared to be capable of holding any office or place, under the government, all persons professing faith in “Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World,” and who should, when required, attest their allegiance, &c.

65. Incorporated with that edition of the Laws of Pennsylvania, which was published in the year 1810, “under the authority of the legislature,” with Notes and References, by Charles Smith, Esq. is an article that bears a respectful testimony to the justice and clemency of the founder of that state: It is an important and very interesting Note to an act of assembly passed the 1st day of April, 1784, (entitled, “An act for opening the Land-Office, for granting and disposing of the unappropriated Lands within this State,”) containing “a connected view of the land-titles of Pennsylvania from its first settlement to the present time.” In this document the learned editor speaks of the integrity and virtuous policy manifested by Penn, with respect to his conduct towards the Indian natives of the country, to which he had acquired the dominion under his sovereign, in these terms.

“William Penn, although clothed with powers as full and comprehensive as those possesed by the adventurers from Portugal and Spain, was influenced by a purer morality and sounder policypolicy. His religious principles did not permit him to wrest the soil, by force, from the people to whom God and nature gave it, nor to establish his title in blood; but, under the shade of the lofty trees of the forest, his right was fixed by treaties with the natives, and sanctified, as it were, by incense smoking from the calumet of peace.”

The note from which this extract is made, (and which comprizes 156 large 8vo. pages, printed on a small type,) forms a valuable treatise, historical as well as legal, of the territorial rights of the former proprietaries, and of the land-titles deduced from them by the citizens of Pennsylvania.

66. Germantown was settled in the year 1682. It was so called by its founders, a small colony of Germans from the Palatinate, mostly from the vicinity of the city of Worms, who are said to have been converted while in their own country, to the principles of the people called Quakers, by the preaching of William Ames, an Englishman. Germantown is now a populous village, of considerable extent; and by reason of its proximity to the capital, this place furnishes an agreeable residence to many respectable families from thence. See also Note 62.

67. This township derives its name (which it gave also to Mr. Rittenhouse’s patrimonial farm and his original observatory,) as does likewise the neighbouring town of Norriston, the county-town of the (now) county of Montgomery, from the respectable Pennsylvania family of Norris; of which Isaac Norris, Esq. was eighteen times chosen Speaker of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, during the term of half a century from the time of his first election, in the year 1713. Mr. Norris held many public offices in Pennsylvania with great reputation and honour. He is represented as having been “an ornament to his country;” and this gentleman, who died in the year 1735, then held the Chief-Justiceship of the Province.

68. In the year 1683, Enoch Flower undertook to teach English in the town of Philadelphia. Six years afterwards, originated the Friends’ Public School in the same town, then in its infancy; and in 1697, this school was incorporated, on the petition of Samuel Carpenter, Edward Shippen, Anthony Morris, James Fox, David Lloyd, William Southby, and John Jones, in behalf of themselves and others. In the year 1708, this corporation was enlarged and perpetuated by a new charter, under the name of “The Overseers of the Public School, founded in Philadelphia, at the request, cost, and charges of the people called Quakers.” It was further extended in the year 1711; when the three first named gentlemen, together with Griffith Owen, Thomas Story, Richard Hill, Isaac Norris, Samuel Preston, Jonathan Dickinson, Nathan Stanbury, Thomas Masters, Nicholas Waln, Caleb Pusey, Rowland Ellis and James Logan, were appointed Overseers.

As this was the earliest considerable school established in Pennsylvania, as well as the first institution of the kind, in the province, the names of its promoters deserve to be held in remembrance, among the Patrons of learning and useful knowledge in this country.

From this view of the origin of schools in the capital of Pennsylvania, it will be perceived, that the means of acquiring even the rudiments of literary instruction must have been difficult of access in country places, for some considerable time after the periods just mentioned. This is one of the most serious grievances to which the settlers in new and unimproved countries are subjected.

69. Margaret, who intermarried with Edward Morgan; Esther, with the Rev. Thomas Barton; David, the subject of these Memoirs; Andrew, who died in his minority; Anne, who intermarried with George Shoemaker; Eleanor, who intermarried with Daniel Evans; Benjamin, yet living; Jonathan, who died in his minority; and Mary and Elizabeth (twins,) of whom the latter died in her minority, unmarried: Mary, who is living, has been twice married, but without issue; her first husband was Thomas Morgan. David had no sons; and two of his three brothers having died young and unmarried, the only persons, descended from our philosopher’s father, Matthias, who now bear the name of Rittenhouse, are the surviving brother of David, namely, Benjamin, and his sons. Benjamin has been twice married; first, to a daughter of General John Bull; and, secondly, to a daughter of Colonel Francis Wade: By both marriages he has male issue; and, as it is believed, two of the sons by the first wife are married.

70. “There is,” says a late ingenious writer,^[70a] “a strong propensity in the human mind to trace up our ancestry to as high and as remote a source as possible.” “This principle of our nature,” he observes, “although liable to great perversion; and frequently the source of well-founded ridicule, may, if rightly directed, become the parent of great actions. The origin and progress of individuals, of families, and of nations, constitute Biography and History, two of the most interesting departments of human knowledge.”

The pride of ancestry is, indeed, “liable to great perversion,” and is too frequently “the source of well-founded ridicule:” yet the experience and the history of mankind, in every age and country, have shewn, that it is connected with and derived from principles of our nature, which are not only laudable in themselves, but such as, if “rightly directed” and properly applied, become eminently useful to society.

71. It is not this occupation that, in itself, usually attaches to those who follow it, the idea of clownishness: but it is the ignorance that, unfortunately, too generally characterizes persons employed in it, which, by an association of ideas, is apt to derogate from the worthiness of the employment itself. If the profession of husbandry be an honourable one, and every rational consideration renders it such, then one of the most important operations in conducting the great business of the agriculturist, cannot be destitute of dignity. To follow the plough is not a servile labour: it is an employment worthy of a freeman; and if the person, thus engaged, be a man of native talents, aided by some improvement of mind, scarcely any occupation can afford him greater scope for philosophic reflection.

While, therefore, the reader contemplates the celebrated Rittenhouse, such as he was in his maturer years; and then takes a retrospective view of the embryo-philosopher in the period of his youth, directing the plough on his father’s freehold; let it be recollected, that the sovereigns of a mighty empire, in the Eastern world, occasionally guide this truly important machine with their own hands, in honour of agriculture: let him recal to his mind, that, in the proudest days of the Roman republic, consuls, dictators, senators, and generals, were not unfrequently called forth from the actual occupancy of this implement of husbandry, by the voice of their country; and, seizing either the civil or the military helm of its government, with hands indurated by the toils of the peaceful field, have by the wisdom of their counsel, or by their valour, supported the tottering fabric of the state and saved the commonwealth: let them remember, in fine, that—

and that Washington, himself, the pride and boast of his age as well as country, disdained not to engage himself, personally, in agricultural pursuits.

72. This gentleman was commissioned by Governor Mifflin, in the year 1791, to be one of the associate judges of the court of common pleas, in and for the county of Montgomery: but his tenure of this office was afterwards vacated, by his removal to Philadelphia.

73. “Astronomy,” says Mr. B. Rittenhouse, in the letter before referred to, “appeared at a very early day to be his favourite study; but he also applied himself industriously to the study of opticks, the mechanical powers,” &c.

74. The zeal and attention with which our young philosopher pursued his early studies, and such mechanical objects as are more intimately connected with those branches of natural philosophy to which he was most devoted, will appear from the following extract of a letter, addressed by him to Mr. Barton, on the 20th of September, 1756, being then little more than twenty-four years of age; viz. “I have not health for a soldier,” (the country was then engaged in war,) “and as I have no expectation of serving my country in that way, I am spending my time in the old trifling manner, and am so taken with optics, that I do not know whether, if the enemy should invade this part of the country, as Archimedes was slain while making geometrical figures on the sand, so I should die making a telescope.”

75. ItIt is observable, that, in like manner, an accidental circumstance seems to have given the first impulse to the philosophical researches of that eminent mathematician, Colin Maclaurin, the friend and disciple of Newton. His biographer, Mr. Murdoch, relates, that “his genius for mathematical learning discovered itself so early as at twelve years of age; when, having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid in a friend’s chamber, in a few days he became master of the first six books, without any assistance: and thence, following his natural bent, made such a surprising progress, that very soon after we find him engaged in the most curious and difficult problems.”

It is not ascertained at what age Rittenhouse obtained access to his uncle Williams’s little collection of books and papers; though it was, probably, before his twelfth year. But it is to be observed, that at the early age of twelve, Maclaurin had been a year at the University of Glasgow, where he was placed under the care of one of the most eminent and learned professors of the age; while Rittenhouse, for some years after that period of life, had his time occupied in agricultural pursuits, and was almost entirely uneducated.

One particular in which similar merit attaches itself to these two distinguished philosophers, is, that all their more serious studies were directed towards objects of general utility.

Having introduced the name of Maclaurin more than once into these Memoirs, the author of them cannot refrain from presenting to his readers the following epitaph upon that great mathematician. It is attributed to the late Dr. Johnson: the delicacy and chasteness of the sentiment, as well as the classical purity of the language, certainly render it a specimen of this species of composition worthy of the pen of that justly-admired writer.—

The writer of the Adversaria, in a respectable periodical publication,^[75a] observes, that “it would not be easy to do justice to this elegant and nervous sentence, in English.” But, as he has given a very good prose translation of it into our language, the subjoined versification of this was attempted by a young lady, at the request of the writer of these memoirs:—

76. In order to gratify the curiosity, if not to remove the doubts, of such persons as are not disposed to believe in the reality of any thing like an hereditary power, bias, or propensity of the mind, the following memorable instances are selected from many others which might be adduced; to shew that mental faculties, as well as corporeal qualities and even mental and bodily diseases, are sometimes inherited by children from their parents: perhaps cases of this kind exist more frequently than is either observed or imagined.

Mr. James Gregory, the inventor of the reflecting telescope in common use, called the Gregorian, was one of the most distinguished mathematicians of the seventeenth century. This eminent man, who was born at Aberdeen in Scotland in the year 1638, was a son of the Rev. Mr. John Gregory, minister of Drumoak in the same county: his mother was, moreover, a daughter of Mr. David Anderson, of Finzaugh, a gentleman who possessed a singular turn for mathematical pursuits.

Mr. David Gregory, a nephew of the foregoing, was some time Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. This Subtilissimi Ingenii Mathematicus, as he is styled by his successor Dr. Smith, was born at Aberdeen, in the year 1661. Of the four sons of this celebrated mathematician,—

David, a mathematician, was regius professor of modern history, at Oxford;

James was professor of mathematics, at Edinburgh; and

Charles was also professor of mathematics, at St. Andrew’s.

Besides these men of genius in the same family, was the late Dr. John Gregory, professor of medicine in the University of Edinburgh; who had previously held the philosophical chair in the University of St. Andrews, from which he delivered lectures on the mathematics, experimental philosophy, and moral philosophy. This gentleman was grandson of the inventor of the Gregorian telescope, son of Dr. James Gregory, professor of medicine at Aberdeen, and father of another James, successor of Dr. Cullen, in the medical chair at Edinburgh.

A mathematical genius was hereditary in the family of the Andersons; and, from them, it seems to have been transmitted to their descendants of the name of Gregory. Alexander Anderson, cousin-german of David abovementioned, was professor of mathematics at Paris, in the beginning of the eighteenth century; and published there in 1712, Supplementum Apollonii redivivi, &c. The mother of the James Gregory, first named, inherited the genius of her family; and observing in her son, while yet a child, a strong propensity to mathematics, she herself instructed him in the elements of that science.

Margaret, the mother of the late Dr. Thomas Reid, professor of moral philosophy in the University of Glasgow, was a daughter of David Gregory, Esq. of Kinnardie in Banffshire, elder brother of the James Gregory first mentioned. It is remarked by a celebrated writer, that “the hereditary worth and genius which have so long distinguisheddistinguished, and which still distinguish, the descendants of this memorable family, are well known to all who have turned their attention to Scottish biography: but it is not known so generally, that in the female line, the same characteristical endowments have been conspicuous in various instances; and that to the other monuments which illustrate the race of the Gregories, is to be added the philosophy of Reid.”—(See Dugald Stewart’s Account of the Life and Writings of Dr. Reid.)

The great mathematical genius of the celebrated astronomer, John Dominick Cassini, descended to his great-grandson. John-James, the son of John-Dominick, who inherited the genius of his father, succeeded him as professor of astronomy in the Royal Observatory at Paris, a place which the father had filled more than forty years: John-James’s son, Cæsar-Francis Cassini de Thury, (who died in the year 1784, at the age of seventy years,) was an eminent astronomer: and his son, the Count John-Dominick de Thury, was also a distinguished astronomer.

The eldest of these Cassini’s was a native of Italy, and born in 1625. He died in the seventy-seventh year of his age; and in the year 1695, a medal was struck to honour his memory, by order of the king of France.

These instances of genius in three families, afford striking examples of its being sometimes hereditary. It is further observable, that, in the case of the great professor Simson, his mathematical endowments were said to be derived from his mother’s family; as Mr. Rittenhouse’s were likewise supposed to have been from that of his mother.

77. Mr. Barton resided on a farm, near what are called the Sulphur Springs (now comprehended within the limits of the new county of Adams,) from some time in the year 1755, until the spring of 1759; during which period he officiated as a missionary from “the society,” established in England, “for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts,” for the counties of York and Cumberland. While he resided in that then remote settlement of Pennsylvania, he was greatly instrumental, both by his precept and example, in stimulating the people to avenge the numerous barbarities perpetrated on the inhabitants and their property in that frontier, by their French and Indian enemies. In the expedition against Fort Du Quesne (now Pittsburg,) undertaken in the year 1758, under the orders of brigadier-general Forbes, he served as a chaplain to the forces then employed, by virtue of a commission from governor Denny: and in that campaign he became personally acquainted not only with the commander in chief, but, among others, with colonel (afterwards general) Washington; colonel (afterwards general) Mercer; colonel Byrd of Virginia; colonel Dagworthy; colonel James Burd of Pennsylvania; all provincial officers of great merit; besides colonel (afterwards general) Bouquet, sir John St. Clair, sir Peter Hacket, major Stewart, and other gentlemen of worth and distinction, who held commands in the British regiments engaged in that service. With most of these very respectable military characters Mr. Barton occasionally corresponded, afterward; and his services, during a residence of between three and four years in that part of Pennsylvania, were honourably acknowledged, as well in England as among his fellow-citizens, in various instances.

After Mr. Barton left the county of York, he became established in Lancaster, where he officiated as rector of St. James’s church in that borough, and missionary to the large and respectable country-congregations of Caernarvon and Pequea, nearly twenty years.

78. Although commonly called Dunker’s-Town, the proper name of this once noted village is Ephrata. The little community which formerly resided there, usually styled Dunkers, date the origin of their sect about the year 1705. The original members of this religious society, in Germany, Switzerland, and some other parts of Europe, having been persecuted and banished from their homes, assembled themselves in the duchy of Cleves, under the protection of the king of Prussia: and from thence they migrated to Pennsylvania, mostly between the years 1718 and 1734, a few of them only remaining behind. See also the next note.

79. The proper name of this place is Ephrata; and the very singular religious society to whom it belongs, are denominated Seventh-Day Baptists.

The society is said to have originally consisted of about twenty families who migrated from Germany to Pennsylvania, about the year 1718 or 1719; part of whom settled at this place, and founded the village of Ephrata (the head-quarters of the sect,) which is situated about thirteen miles, north-eastward, from Lancaster, on a little stream called the Cocolico-creek. These people hold the doctrine of an universal redemption, ultimately, denying the eternity of future punishment; that war and judicial oaths are unchristian; and that it is not justifiable to take interest, for money lent. They keep the seventh day of the week as their sabbath, and baptize by submersion; whence they derive their name: they also inculcate the propriety of celibacy, and of maintaining a community of goods; but when any of them marry, and acquire property independent of the society in Ephrata, they are obliged to retire from thence and reside elsewhere. The men generally wear their beards, and clothe themselves in a habit not unlike that of the Carmelites or White Friars: the women dress like nuns. Both men and women observe great abstemiousness in their diet, living chiefly on vegetables, and submit to some privations and corporal severities, besides, in their religious discipline; they lie upon benches, with a wooden block instead of a pillow: but though meek, humble, and even timid, in their deportment, they are very civil to strangers who visit them.

The society of Ephrata is supported by cultivating their lands, conducting a printing-press, a grist-mill, a paper-mill, a saw-mill, a tan-yard, &c. and the women are employed in spinning, knitting, sewing, making paper-lanterns and other toys, &c.

The village consists of about ten or a dozen buildings; and is mostly composed of the cloisters and convent, two churches, and the mills. One of their places of worship adjoins the sisters’ apartments, as a chapel; another belongs to the brothers’ apartments: and to these churches, the brethren and the sisterhood respectively resort, every morning and evening, sometimes, too, in the night, for the purpose of worshipping; much of which is made up of soft and melodious chanting, by the females. There is said to be one other place of worship, wherein all the members of the society, within the bounds of the settlement, meet once a week to celebrate worship publicly.

Such, indeed, was the pleasant, sequestered little village of Ephrata, at the time our then very young philosopher visited it; and such was the condition of that little-known sect of Christians, while the society continued under the direction of their second and last president, the late Mr. Peter Miller. This venerable old German, who had been bred to the priesthood in some one of the Protestant churches of his native country, became a convert to the principles of this obscure ascetic sect, over which he long presided with much reputation, after the death of its reputed founder, Conrad Beixler, his patriarchal predecessor. But, though possessing a good share of the old scholastic learning, with a large portion of piety, the mind of Mr. Miller was strongly tinctured with many mystical notions in divinity; such as well comported with the “whimsies” of the religious society he governed.

Since the death of this good man, the ancient discipline of the religious community at Ephrata, which had become greatly relaxed during the revolutionary war, has almost wholly disappeared. The chief seat of the Seventh-Day Baptists is no longer what it was: for, in lieu of the solemn devotional stillness of the secluded cloysters and cells of its once monastic inhabitants, and which, at this time, are nearly deserted, are now substituted various occupations of industry, amidst “the busy haunts of men.”

A letter from lady Juliana Penn to the second and last worthy president of this little religious society, has a place in the Appendix. It is indicative of the goodness of her ladyship’s heart.

80. The county-town of Berks, in Pennsylvania, pleasantly situated on the Schuylkill, about fifty-six miles, north-westward, from Philadelphia.

81. A neighbouring township to Norriton, the place of Mr. Rittenhouse’s country residence.

82. This farm contained about one hundred and fifty acres. It was lately sold by the heirs of Dr. Rittenhouse.

83. “Omnium autem rerum, ex quibus aliquid acquiritur, nihil est agriculturâ melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulcius, nihil homine, nihil libero dignius,” Cic. De Offic. ii. 42.

84. The opinion, that Mr. Rittenhouse was, in his youth and the first years of his manhood, “without literary friends or society, and with but two or three books,” though erroneous in fact, was propagated pretty early; and that opinion has, since, generally prevailed. About twenty-two years before his death, a book was published in Philadelphia, under the title of Caspipina’s Letters; of which the Rev. Mr. Duché, then assistant-minister of Christ-church and St. Peter’s in that city, was the writer. In that pleasant little work, its amiable and worthy author (who has been dead many years) has thus mentioned our philosopher. “After taking a few turns in the garden, we walked back again to the college, where we had appointed to meet the modest and ingenious Mr. Rittenhouse, who, without one single advantage from a private tutor, or public education, by the mere force of genius and industry, may now justly be reckoned the first astronomer and mathematician in the world.”

Under such circumstances as these, it is by no means a matter of surprise, that Dr. Rush should have been led into a similar mistake.

It is, nevertheless, truly astonishing to find an American writer (the late Rev. Mr. Linn,) who, five years after Dr. Rittenhouse’s death, published in Philadelphia, where both resided, a poem entitled, “The Powers of Genius;” but, in which the name of Rittenhouse is not once noticed! And yet that gentleman had not omitted to introduce, in one of his notes, an observation which shews, that an European philosopher, also of sublime genius, was present to his mind’s eye!—“From the exhibitions of American talents,” said Mr. Linn, “I indulge the warmest expectations. I behold, in imagination, the Newtons, the Miltons, and the Robertsons, of this new world; and I behold the sun of genius” (likewise “in imagination,” it is presumed,) “pouring on our land his meridian beams.”

The writer of these memoirs believes Dr. Linn to have been a very worthy, as well as an ingenious man: as such, he regrets his premature death, and entertains a respect for his memory. But he could not, in justice to the merit of Dr. Rittenhouse’s character, pass unnoticed so unaccountable an omission as the one just mentioned, in Dr. Linn’s Poem.

85. Dr. Herschel, by means of his admirable telescopes, the most powerful that have ever been constructed, discovered on the 13th of March, 1781, a new planet without the orbit of Saturn, called the Georgium Sidus. The newly discovered star was thus named by Dr. Herschel himself, in honour of his patron King George III. by whose bounty he was enabled to construct, and to make incessant and laborious observations with those wonderful telescopes, by which this astronomer has extended our knowledge of the planetary and sidereal system, far beyond its former limits.^[85a]

Some astronomers on the continent of Europe, and in America likewise, have affected to call this new planet Herschel; while others have endeavoured to give it the name of Uranus. Would it not be well, in order to avoid the perplexity and confusion arising from various names for the same thing, that astronomers of eminence should designate this planet, in future, by the name which the discoverer—who, it may be presumed, was best entitled to give it a denomination—chose to apply to it? It is a strange kind of compliment to Dr. Herschel, if it could have been intended as a mark of respect to him, to refuse an adoption of that name which he had assigned to his own discovery; even by changing it for that of the Doctor himself! He wished this planet, no doubt, to retain the appellation of Georgium Sidus, as a memorial of his grateful respect for his royal benefactor; and in this object of his wish he would be disappointed, by changing it for any other.

The name Uranus is also objectionable, and on another ground. Uranus was a fabulous personage. It is pretended, that in the isle called Panchay,^[85b] to the east of Africa, is to be seen on a column of gold, a recital of the principal actions of Uranus, together with those of Saturn and Jupiter. It is said that the former was the most ancient king in the world; and that, having been a just and beneficent man, well versed in the knowledge of the stars, he was the first who offered sacrifices to the gods of heaven. We are also told, that in the island just named is a mountain, where Uranus, holding the sceptre of the world, took great pleasure in contemplating the firmament and the stars. Among the sons of this monarch, according to the same fiction, the two most distinguished were Atlas and Saturn, who partitioned between them their father’s kingdom; and Atlas, who in the division acquired the sea-coasts, is said to have excelled in astrology: his reign is placed about sixteen hundred years before the Christian era, and he is therefore ranked as a co-temporary of Moses.

Such is the fabulous history of Uranus! whose name some Christian philosophers seem desirous to perpetuate, with honour, by attaching it to a newly-discovered world! It would be extremely difficult if not impracticable (and, perhaps, even if practicable, the attempt would not be advisable at this time of day,) to abolish such of the names of the heavenly bodies as are derived from the appellations of the false gods of antiquity. But it appears very questionable, whether it be consistent with propriety and a due regard to truth, to connect fable, in any manner, with established and important realities; or whether it be right to dignify the heathen mythology and the preposterous annals of fabulous ages, by unnecessarily associating any thing relating to them, with objects of genuine and useful science.

Baron Bielfeld seems to entertain similar sentiments on this head, when (treating of the mathematics, in his “Elements of Universal Erudition,”) he observes, that “the fables of ancient poets concerning the stars, and,” he adds, “the fancies of some modern Christian astronomers, who have given them names borrowed from the holy scriptures, do not deserve the least attention, when we would treat seriously on this science.” There is much justness in this observation of the learned and ingenious baron: But if the application of names derived from sacred writ, to the stars, be censurable; how much to be condemned among Christians is the practice of giving, even in our day, and in a science which has philosophical truth for its object, the names of heathen deities, and fabulous persons of antiquity, to the celestial bodies! Is it proper, can it, in any way, promote the interests of true science or the attainment of useful knowledge, thus to commemorate any of the absurdities of a false and impious mythology; or any of those traditional personages of the early ages, whose history, as handed down to us in the reveries of the ancient poets and other profane writers, are either enveloped in fable or inexplicable mystery? But to return from this digression:—

Mr. Lalande remarks in his great work on astronomy, which was published in the year 1792, that Louis XIV. gave to astronomers unceasing marks of the interest he took in their labours; and that George III. occupied, with great delight, much of his time in his Observatory at Richmond, as well as in Herschel’s at Slough. In his own, in Richmond Gardens, the king of England has noble and beautiful instruments; among which are a mural arch of 140° and 8 feet radius, made by Sisson, a sector of 12 feet, a transit telescope of 8 feet, made by Adams, and a telescope of 10 feet of Herschel. This grand Observatory was erected in the year 1770, under the direction of Dr. Bevis: it is 140 feet in front, and consists of two stories.

Such princes, then, as Louis XIV. and George III. deserve to be honourably mentioned in the records of astronomical science: and it was meritorious in Dr. Herschel, to dedicate to so munificent a patron and promoter of astronomy as the latter sovereign, in the way he has done, his important discovery of a new planet.

It is noticed by the writer of the article “Astronomy,” in Dr. Brewster’s New Edinburgh Encyclopædia, (the first volume of which has been very lately reprinted in Philadelphia,) that the venerable Herschel,^[85c] at the advanced age of seventy-two years, still continued to observe the heavens with the most unwearied assiduity: and that his contemplated “successor,” who, it is presumed, is his son, “promises to inherit the virtues and the talents of his father.”

86. Philip III. king of Spain, first offered a reward for the discovery of the longitude, about two centuries ago; and the States of Holland, soon after, followed his example. The Regent of France, during the minority of Louis XV. also promised a great reward to any person who should discover the longitude at sea.

In the year 1714, the parliament of Great Britain offered a reward for a like discovery; and if the method, to be proposed, should determine the longitude to twenty geographical miles, the premium was to be twenty-thousand pounds sterling. The act of parliament established a board of Commissioners of the Longitude. Several other acts were passed, in the reigns of Geo. II. and III. directed to the same purpose. Finally, in the year 1774, all those acts were repealed, by one offering separate premiums for finding the longitude; either by the lunar method, or by a watch keeping true time,—or by any other method practicable at sea. This act proposes as a reward for a time-keeper, 5000l., if it determine the longitude to one degree or sixty geographical miles,—7500l., if to forty miles,—and 10,000l., if to thirty miles. If the method be by improved Solar and Lunar Tables, constructed upon Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation, the author is to receive 5000l.; provided such Tables shall show the distance of the Moon from the Sun and Stars within fifteen seconds of a degree, answering to about seven minutes of longitude, after making an allowance of a half a degree for the errors of observation. The Commissioners have the power of giving smaller rewards, at their discretion, to persons making any discovery for finding the longitude at sea, though it may not be within the above limits.

The set of Solar and Lunar Tables which were sent to the Board of Longitude, about the year 1763, by the widow of the celebrated astronomer, Tobias Mayer, were honoured with a reward of 3000l. sterling, by an act of the British parliament, in consideration of their great usefulness in finding the longitude at sea.

87. See Mr. de Zach’s great work, entitled, Tabulæ Motuum Solis novæ et correctæ, &c.

88. For the use of such readers as may not be acquainted with the Latin language, the following translation of the above is given, from the original of Mr. de Zach.

“Concerning the means of determining the longitude, this is not the proper place to treat: of one, however, the marine or nautical time-keeper, it will not be foreign to our purpose to say something.

“It is now about thirty years, since those very ingenious makers of time-keepers, Harrison, Cummings, Kendal, Arnold, and Mudge, among the English,—Le Roy, and Berthoud, among the French,—devised various and excellent ones for the use of navigators, and brought to a great degree of perfection those marine watches, called by the English, Time-keepers. As every one knows their use in ascertaining the longitude, on a sea-voyage, I shall not say any thing more of them here.—A similar time-piece, made by the celebrated watch-maker Mr. Thomas Mudge, and often referred to in the royal observatory of Greenwich, was, in 1784, made use of by the Hon. Vice-Admiral (John) Campbell, commander of the naval squadron^[88a] on the Newfoundland station,—going thither and returning; and from that time was diligently examined, at the observatory of his Excellency Count Bruhl, in Dover street London.

“This very marine time-piece was confided to my charge, in the year 1786, for the purpose of determining the longitudes of my journey by land; when, called from London by his Serene Highness the Duke of Saxe-Gotha,—the patron of all the sciences and liberal arts, but more especially favouring astronomy,—I returned to Germany; where the erecting of a complete and splendid Observatory, at Gotha, was placed under my direction.^[88b] I then took with me, by the command of his Serene Highness, a watch of a smaller size, which he usually carried in his fob,—called by the English a Pocket-chronometer,—made by a London artist, Mr. Josiah Emery:^[88c] which, being made with the greatest accuracy and ingenuity, yielded nothing in point of correctness to the larger nautical time-keepers, as may be seen from three tables of their movements by the illustrious Count Bruhl, and also of others, by Dr. Arnold, lately established by authenticated certificates.

“About the end of the year 1786 and the beginning of 1787, I accompanied His Serene Highness, in a tour through Germany, France and Italy. In this journey, the longitudes of several places and astronomical observatories were determined, from a comparison of the time of a nautical time-keeper (which was set by the solar mean time in Dover street, London,) with the mean time of the place; which appears by the altitudes of the sun, by Hadley’s sextant—those which we call corresponding, or by a comparison with it, as transmitted to us in observatories, by those astronomers. By the same instruments, therefore, when I arrived at Gotha, I ascertained the longitude of the future observatory there, with the greatest care and attention; which the Duke, going to London a few days after, taking with him his chronometer, at length fully verified.”

89. Sundry astronomical observations were made by this officer, while a captain in the British navy, in the years 1757, 8, and 9; which were reported to the admiralty on the 14th of April, 1760, by Dr. Bradley, then astronomer-royal. See Dr. Bradley’s letter of that date, to the Secretary of the Admiralty; published (among other papers) in the year 1770, by order of the board of longitude, at the end of T. Mayer’s Tables and Method of finding the Longitude; edited by Dr. Maskelyne.

90. The Observatory, a very handsome and respectable one, was constructed at Gotha in the year 1788, under the auspices of the then reigning Duke of Saxe-Gotha, a zealous patron of astronomy. It is placed on an eminence, a league from the city, and is built entirely of hewn stone. Mr. de Zach, a native of Hungary, an experienced astronomer, was appointed by the duke its director.

The instruments with which the Gotha Observatory is furnished are chiefly English, as are those of most of the celebrated European observatories. Among these, is a transit telescope, by Ramsden; and Mr. Lalande mentions, in his Astronomie (in the year 1792,) that there were to be added, two murals of eight feet radius, an entire circle of eight feet diameter, a great zenith-sector, &c. but that Mr. Ramsden, who was employed to make them, found great difficulty in supplying all the demands for instruments, which his great reputation occasioned.

It is well known, that the first improvements in astronomical instruments took place in Great-Britain; and both Lalande and de Zach, as well as other foreign astronomers of eminence, have done ample justice to the superior ingenuity and skill of the artists of that country, in this department of mechanism. The ingenious Mr. Edmund Stone, in his Supplement to the English Translation of Mr. Bion’s Construction and Use of Mathematical Instruments, (published in 1758, nearly forty years after he translated Mr. Bion’s work into English,) observes—that, having set about the business (the translating of this latter work,) he soon perceived that many French instruments were excelled by some of the English of the same kind, in contrivance; and that, as to workmanship, he never did see one French instrument so well framed and divided as some English have been. “For example,” says Mr. Stone, “Mr. Sutton’s quadrants, made above one hundred years ago,” (before the middle of the seventeenth century,) “are the finest divided instruments in the world; and the regularity and exactness of the vast number of circles drawn upon them, is highly delightful to behold. The mural quadrant at the Royal Observatory, at Greenwich, far exceeds that of the Royal Observatory at Paris. Also, the theodolites of Messrs. Sisson and Heath, the clocks and watches of Messrs. Graham, Tompion and Quare, the orreries of Mr. Graham and Mr. Wright, and many more curiously contrived and well executed mathematical instruments which I could mention, far exceed those of the French, or indeed any other nation in the world.—The making goodmaking good mathematical instruments,” continues Mr. Stone, “is almost peculiar to the English; as well as their skill in all branches of the mathematics and natural philosophy has been generally superior to that of other nations.”

Without wishing to derogate from the justly acquired fame of British artists, for the excellence of their mathematical and astronomical instruments, M. Rittenhouse’s skill and accuracy, displayed in such as he made, stand unsurpassed by similar works of their most celebrated mechanicians: while his profoundness in astronomical science, and his wonderful ingenuity of invention and contrivance, manifested in the construction of his Orrery, leave him without a rival, in the two-fold character of an Astronomer and a Mechanic. The idea of the fine planetarian machine constructed by Mr. Rowley, under the name of the Orrery, and supposed to have been invented by Mr. Graham, is said to have been taken from a very similar machine, of which that eminent philosopher, Dr. Stephen Hales, had the credit of being the original contriver. But Mr. Rittenhouse was, incontrovertibly, the Inventor, as well as the Maker, of that sublimely-conceived and unrivalled machine, which bears the name of the Rittenhouse-Orrery: and Dr. Morse, in noticing some of the more prominent productions of scientific ingenuity and skill, in America, observes, with good reason, that “every combination of machinery may be expected from a country, a native son of which,” (referring in a note to “David Rittenhouse, Esq. of Pennsylvania,”) “reaching this inestimable object in its highest point, has epitomised the motions of the spheres that roll throughout the universe.” See Morse’s American Geography, first published in 1789.

91. The accuracy of some of the fine pocket-chronometers constructed by the celebrated artists named by Mr. de Zach, and by some others, such, for instance, as the one made by Emery for the count de Bruhl, mentioned in the text, has rendered them, on some occasions, useful assistants in making astronomical observations on land. Dr. Rittenhouse occasionally used one for such purposes, many years. It was an excellent pocket-watch, made by Le Roy of Paris for the late Matthias Barton, Esq. who was induced to let Dr. Rittenhouse have it. After his decease, this watch was gratuitously restored to its former proprietor, by Mrs. Rittenhouse’s desire, and as a testimonial of what she knew to have been her late husband’s regard for his nephew. Mr. M. Barton bequeathed it, by his last will, to his brother and physician, Dr. Benjamin S. Barton.

92. The Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, for the year 1729, contain an article that furnishes additional evidence of the extraordinary skill and ingenuity manifested by English artists in the construction of watches, as well as other pieces of mechanism which require great accuracy in the workmanship: it forms a pleasant little narrative in an eulogium on Father Sebastian,^[92a] a Carmelite Friar of singular mechanical ingenuity; and it indicates, at the same time, that the repeating-watch was invented in England. The story is thus told:—

“Charles II. roy d’Angleterre, avoit envoyé au feu roi deux Montres à Repetition; les premieres qu’on ait vues en France. Elles ne pouvoient s’ouvrir que par une secrete précaution des ouvriers Anglois, pour cacher la nouvelle construction, et s’en assurer d’autant plus la gloire et le profit. Les montres se dérangérent, et furent remises entre les mains de M. Martineau, horloger du roi, qui n’y put travailler faute de les sçavoir ouvrir. Il dit a M. Colbert, et c’est un trait de courage digne d’etre remarqué, qu’il ne connoissoit qu’un jeune Carme capable d’ouvrir les montres, ques’il n’y réussissoit pas, il falloit se resoudre à les renvoyer en Angleterre. M. Colbert consentit qu’il les donnât au P. Sebastien, qui les ouvrit assez promptement, et de plus les raccommoda sans sçavoir qu’ elles étoient au roi, ni combien étoit important par ses circonstances l’ouvrage dont on l’avoit chargé.”

93. This great man, who was the son of Christian Huygens lord of Zuylichem, a counsellor of the prince of Orange, was born in the year 1629, at Zuylichem, in the province of Guelderland, the country of the ancestors of Rittenhouse. Having resided for some time in France, he quitted that country on account of his religion, in 1684, in consequence of the revocation of the edict of Nantes. He died in Holland in 1695, at the age of sixty-six years.

GalileoGalileo, who was a native of Florence, lived to the age of eighty-seven years. He died fifty-three years before Huygens; and about fourteen before Huygens’s application of the pendulum to clocks, so as to effect an isochronal regulation of their movements. Galileo’sGalileo’s use of the pendulum, for the purpose of measuring time, seems to have been nothing more than the annexation of a short pendulum to clock-work.

94. This celebrated naturalist and physician, who was styled by Boerhaave, Monstrum Eruditionis, was born at Zurich in 1516: He was, probably, of the same family as that of the late Solomon Gesner the poet, who was a native of the same city, and appeared more than two centuries afterwards. Conrad Gesner was so distinguished a writer, as a naturalist, that he was called the Pliny of Germany. A splendid edition of Pliny’s Natural History, under the title of the Historia Mundi of Caius Plinius Secundus, with a dedication by Erasmus to Stanislaus Turzo, bishop of Olmutz, was printed at Basil, by Froben, so early as 1525. This copy of Pliny (which is now very rare) having been published in the vicinity of Conrad Gesner, during his youth, that circumstance may have prompted him to direct his attention to those pursuits in science, which distinguished this learned Swiss.

95. About two centuries after that period when the sciences had begun to revive and the mechanical arts to flourish, the construction of clocks appears to have been much improved. And in the reign of Henry VIII. a stately clock was made by an artist, the initials of whose name are “N. O.” in the year 1540, and placed in the royal palace at Hampton-Court. This not only shewed the hour of the day, but an orrery-part, connected with it, exhibited the motion of the sun through all the signs of the zodiac, and also of the moon, with other matters depending on them. A similar one, in the cathedral of Lunden in Denmark, is mentioned by Heylin: But Martin, in his Philosophia Britannica, speaks of a piece of clock-work in the cathedral of Strasburg, in Alsace; “in which, besides the clock-part, is the celestial globe or sphere, with the motions of the sun, moon, planets and fixed stars, &c.” This was finished in the year 1574, and is represented as being much superior to a pompous clock at Lyons, in France, which also has an orrery department.

96. The first pendulum-clock made in England, was in the year 1662, by Mr. Fromanteel, a Dutchman.

In the library-hall of the Philadelphia Library-Company, is one of the clocks made by that artist, having this inscription engraven on its face, “Johannes Fromanteel, Londini, fecit;” but without any date. This clock was a donation to the library-company, in the year 1804, by Mr. Samuel Hudson, of Philadelphia, whose ancestor purchased it at an auction in London, after the restoration of king Charles II. The traditional account of it is, that it belonged, originally, to the Cromwell family; and, when presented, was said to be one hundred and forty years old: but it could not have been the property of the protector, Cromwell, the time of whose death was between three and four years anterior to Fromanteel’s construction of a pendulum-clock.

97. Besides the testimony of so distinguished an astronomer as Mr. de Zach, already given, respecting the very great accuracy to which time-keepers have been brought, the following translation, taken from what the celebrated Lalande has said in his treatise Des Horloges Astronomiques, (in the second volume of his Astronomie,) furnishes some curious and interesting facts on that subject.

“Short (the mathematical instrument maker,) upon the occasion of the transit of mercury over the sun observed in 1753, assures us that he had found by many observations, that his clock had not varied more than one second, from the 22d of February to the 6th of May (Philos. Trans. 1753, p. 200;) so that, with a like pendulum, it is possible to obtain an exactness which, till this time, was thought incredible. There are English astronomers who have assured me,” continues Lalande, “that pendulum-clocks have been made which did not vary more than five″ in a year:^[97a] but that does not appear to me to be yet established as a fact; the oils that one is obliged to use in them are sufficient, by the change of consistency they undergo, to prevent such preciseness. The count de Bruhl, a great amateur and a perfect connoisseur also, on the subject of time-pieces, shewed me in London a diary of the going of two pendulums of Mudge, one of the most celebrated clock-makers in London: in one, there was a difference of half a second a day, between winter and summer; and in the other a second. Mr. Aubert has a pendulum made by Shelton, which varies also nearly a second in the day, in extreme seasons. Picard, in 1671, had a clock which did not lose a second in two months. But, whatever may have been, since that period, the skill of the clock-makers of Paris, we cannot obtain such exactness, but by mere accident and an equality of temperature in the atmosphere that is very rare: now, the correctness of our clocks is a necessary consequence of their principles; but these do not go so far. Mr. Emery has observed two clocks beat the same second, during three months; they were, however, very near to each other, and probably had some influence on one another by means of their foot-board or support.”

98. This gentleman’s name is connected with another circumstance in relation to Mr. D. Rittenhouse, which deserves to be noticed. He is in possession of a finely-graduated thermometer, made by our Philosopher; on the scale of which is engraved, by him, the record of a memorable fact concerning the climate of Pennsylvania, referring by a mark to 22° below 0, of Fahrenheit’s scale; viz.—“Jan. 2. 1762—Great Cold in Pennsylvania.” This fact was ascertained by Mr. Rittenhouse, from a reference to the accurate Messrs. Masons and Dixon’s Journal; in which, such was stated to have been the degree of cold in the forks of the Brandywine (about thirty miles westward, and very little to the southward, from Philadelphia,) on the day mentioned.

Mr. Rittenhouse had noticed, that, at his Norriton Observatory, (in lat. 40° 9′ 31″ N.) the mercury in Fahrenheit’s thermometer, not exposed to the sun-shine but open to the air, was at 94½°, on the 5th of July 1769; “which,” says he, “was the greatest height it had ever been observed to rise to, at that place.” But the writer is informed by a judicious and attentive observer, that at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which is in lat. 40° 2′ 39″ N. (the long. of this borough-town is 5^h 1′ 4″ W. from Greenw.) the mercury rose by Fahrenheit’s scale, on the 7th of July, 1811, to 97½°. Admitting this to be correct, if 1½° be then deducted, for the extra heat of so large a town as Lancaster in comparison with a country-situation, there is in this case the great range of 118° by Fahrenheit’s scale, for the extremes of heat and cold in Pennsylvania.

The writer brought with him, from England, a meteorological diary kept in London, during the severe frost there, from the 7th day of January, 1776, to the 28th of the same month, both days inclusive. The greatest cold, during that period, was 15° and it is thus noted, in respect to the state of the atmosphere at the time; “Clear sky—intense cold—wind west.” The mercury rose on one day, within that time, to 34°. The mean degree of cold, in the same period, was there 26¾°.

The greatest cold at Philadelphia, during the same days of January, 1776, was at 17°, but the mercury rose there, on one of those days, to 48°. The mean degree of cold at Philadelphia, in this corresponding period of time, was 29⅓°; being about 2½° warmer (or rather, less cold,) than the general temperature of the weather in London, at the same time, in what was there called a “severe frost.” Eighty-five degrees of Fahrenheit’s scale is considered as a very extraordinary heat, in London: consequently, a range of 68° may be presumed to reach the extremes of heat and cold in England, in the latitude of nearly 52° N.^[98a]

Notwithstanding the extremes of heat and cold, which thus appear in the climate of Pennsylvania, Mr. Jefferson remarks (in his Notes on Virginia,) that these extremes are greater at Paris than at Williamsburg, the hottest part of Virginia. Yet Williamsburg, which is only about 2¾° to the southward of Philadelphia, is nearly 11¾° further south than Paris.

99. See a description of this Chronometer, in the Appendix.

100. Mr. Stanton died at Philadelphia, the 28th of June, 1770, aged sixty-two years. He was, for above forty years, a distinguished preacher among the people called Quakers; and is reputed to have been a man, “who, from his youth, had been a conspicuous example of Christian meekness, humility, and self-denial; a zealous promoter of the cause of religion, and the essential good of mankind.”

Some elegiac verses, under the title of a “poetic tribute” to the memory of this worthy man,—from the pen of a lady in Philadelphia,—were published in the Port Folio, for April 1813.

101. This letter contains, likewise, a short narrative of an occurrence which excited much feeling, and claimed a considerable portion of the public attention, at the time. As Mr. Rittenhouse’s account of the transaction referred to, will serve to shew that he was not an indifferent spectator of the political events of that early day; and, further, that he was zealously disposed to support the legitimate authority of the government, in order to suppress illegal and disorderly proceedings, subversive of the laws and dangerous to the public peace and safety; this part of his letter to Mr. Barton (of the 16th of February, 1764,) is also presented to the reader.

It will be recollected that what was called the Paxton Riot in Pennsylvania, in the year 1763, was occasioned by an attempt made by many of the inhabitants of a district in the upper end of Lancaster (now Dauphin) county, called Paxton, with some of their neighbours, to destroy a number of Indians resident in and near that county; who were extremely obnoxious to the Paxton people, by reason of the supposed treachery, if not actual hostility, of these Indians to the settlers on the Paxton frontier, in the war that had then recently terminated. These unfortunate Indians had, nevertheless, uniformly professed themselves to be friendly to the English, in that war; and were so reputed by the government of Pennsylvania: but finding themselves, notwithstanding, threatened with extermination by “the Paxton Boys” (as they were then called,)—by whom a few old men, women, and children had been destroyed, shortly before, at their homes,—they sought the protection of the government. Part of them were, accordingly, placed in the public prison in Lancaster, and the remainder at the barracks in Philadelphia, as places of security. Those in Lancaster, to the number of fourteen or fifteen, were soon after, as is well known, killed by the Paxton people, one of the prison doors having been forcibly broken open by them. The remnant of these persecuted Indians, who were in Philadelphia, were more fortunate than their brethren; they escaped the horrors of assassination: And it is to the expedition against these wretched fugitives—a mere handful of men, unarmed, and claiming from Christians an asylum from massacre,—that Mr. Rittenhouse refers in his letter.

“You are no doubt, long before this time, well acquainted,” said our young philosopher, “with every particular of the Paxtonian expedition to Philadelphia: nor need I tell you, that whatever information you may have through the channel of ——, will be abominably corrupt. About fifty of the scoundrels marched by my work-shop—I have seen hundreds of Indians travelling the country, and can with truth affirm, that the behaviour of these fellows was ten times more savage and brutal than theirs. Frightening women, by running the muzzles of their guns through windows, swearing and hallooing; attacking men without the least provocation; dragging them by the hair to the ground, and pretending to scalp them; shooting a number of dogs and fowls;—these are some of their exploits.

“I received a letter from sister E. soon after the alarm at Philadelphia was over, and will give you a part of it, which I doubt not will be agreeable to you.”—It is as follows.

—“On Monday morning between one and two o’clock, an express came to the governor, informing that the rebels were on their way, and that a great number of them were on this side the White Horse. There was one express after another, till there was certain intelligence that some of them were at Germantown. When the first express came, the bells were rung, the drums beat, and the constables were ordered to go from house to house, to knock up the inhabitants, and to bid them put candles at their doors: it had the appearance of all the houses being illuminated. Before day, there were above twenty men met at J. J.’s, and chose their officers. Before night they were increased to nearly an hundred; as were likewise most of the other companies: E—— and all our men were in captain Wood’s company. They all appeared to be in high spirits, and desirous to meet the rebels. On Tuesday, when the mayor and the other gentlemen set off for Germantown, the heads of the companies begged of them not to comply with any dishonourable terms, and told them—“Gentlemen, we are ready to go wherever you may command us; and we had much rather you would let us treat with them (the rebels) with our guns.”guns.”—On their return, there was a general murmur among the companies against the proceedings of our great men; they knew it, and there was a long harangue made by Mr. Chew: but it did not answer the end. On Wednesday morning I went to —-—, as usual; and on my return home, I stopped at our friend H. J.’s; when, on a sudden, the alarm-gun was fired, the bells began to ring, and the men called “to arms,” as loud as possible. I cannot describe, my dear brother, how I felt: we ran to the door, when to add to my fright, I saw E——, amidst hundreds of others, run by with his gun. They met at the court-house, formed themselves into regular companies, and marched up Second-street as farfar as the barracks; when they found it was a false alarm.

“It was a pleasing, though melancholy sight, to view the activity of our men. In less than a quarter of an hour, they were all on their march,—it is supposed above a thousand of them; and by all accounts, there were not ten —— among them. It was the common cry, while our men were parading—“What! not one —— among us!”—Instead of joining with others, they would sneak into corners, and applaud the “Paxton-boys.” Their behaviour on this occasion has made them appear blacker than ever.”

Concerning these extraordinary transactions, to which much importance was attached in their day, and which, moreover, constitute a curious and interesting occurrence in the history of Pennsylvania, in the time of our philosopher, the testimony of another respectable witness is added; a person, besides, who bore a principal part in arresting the progress of the insurrection referred to. On the 2d of June, 1765, Dr. Franklin, who was then in London, wrote a letter to the celebrated Henry Home, lord Kames, in which the following interesting circumstances are related, respecting what was called the Paxton Expedition: this letter is inserted entire in lord Woolhousie’s Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Lord Kames. The Doctor therein says—“In December (1763,) we had two insurrections of the back inhabitants of our province, by whom twenty poor Indians were murdered, that had from the first settlement of the province lived among us, under the protection of our government. This gave me a good deal of employment; for, as the rioters threatened further mischief, and their actions seemed to be approved by an increasing party, I wrote a pamphlet, entitled A Narrative, &c. to strengthen the hands of our weak government, by rendering the proceedings of the rioters unpopular and odious. This had a good effect: and afterwards, when a great body of them with arms marched towards the capital in defiance of the government, with an avowed resolution to put to death one hundred and forty Indian converts, then under its protection, I formed an association at the governor’s request, for his and their defence, we having no militia. Near one thousand of the citizens accordingly took arms: Governor Penn made my house for some time his head-quarters, and did every thing by my advice; so that, for about forty-eight hours, I was a very great man, as I had been once some years before, in a time of public danger. But the fighting face we put on, and the reasonings we used with the insurgents, (for I went, at the request of the governor and council, with three others, to meet and discourse them,) having turned them back, and restored quiet to the city, I became a less man than ever; for I had, by these transactions, made myself many enemies among the populace.”

102. .fm rend=t The writer of these memoirs well remembers to have heard Mr. Rittenhouse, when fully matured in years, speak of the pleasure he derived from the reading of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, while a youth. It is, certainly, no faint compliment to the “well-told tale” of that “ingenious dreamer,” that it engaged the attention of David Rittenhouse, even at a very early period of his life: and that compliment is greatly enhanced by the following beautiful invocation, addressed to the long-since departed spirit of the humble, yet persecuted, the pious, yet fanciful Bunyan, by the amiable Cowper:—

The celebrated Benjamin Franklin too, in the account of his Life written by himself, informs us, that the Pilgrim’s Progress (which Franklin there, inadvertently, calls “Bunyan’s Voyages,”) was a favourite book of his, in his earlier years. “I have since learned,” says the Doctor, “that it has been translated into almost all the languages of Europe; and, next to the Bible, I am persuaded, it is one of the books which has had the greatest spread.”

103. This was about the year 1764.

104. In the earlier part of this interval of time, and before he became more seriously engaged in those great works and researches, the construction of his Orrery, and the Observation of the Transit of Venus with the operations preparatory to it, which about that time engrossed his attention, he occasionally amused himself with matters rather speculative than practical: though he very seldom devoted any considerable portion of his time to things which he did not consider as being in some degree useful.

The following is one of those instances in which his active mind was diverted from severer studies, to some objects of a more playful nature.

In the year 1767, some ingenious country-gentleman published in Messrs. Hall and Sellers’s paper, under the signature of T.T. the result of calculations he had made on Archimedes’s famous vaunting assertion, Δος που στω, και την γην κινησω. Mr. Rittenhouse published, some short time after, calculations (or rather the result of calculations) of his own, on the same problem. This appeared in a piece under the signature of “A Mechanic,” dated the 8th of October, 1767: and a reply to it, by T. T. dated October the 29th, appeared in the same paper. These little speculations will be found in the Appendix. It is not improbable that Mr. Rittenhouse, under the disguise of “A Mechanic,” appeared in print on this occasion, for the purpose of drawing the attention of ingenious men to subjects of this nature.

105. It was between the years 1766 and 1770—the interval of time above mentioned,—that the two important circumstances occurred, which gave great celebrity to the reputation of Mr. Rittenhouse, as an astronomer: these were the Construction of the Orrery invented by him, and the admirable result of his observations of the Transit of Venus, as published in the Philosophical Society’s Transactions.

Amidst those objects of importance in which he was principally occupied, he occasionally amused himself with matters of minor consequence. Among other things, he contrived and made, in the beginning of the year 1767, an ingeniously contrived thermometer, constructed on the principle of the expansion and contraction of metals, by heat and cold, respectively. This instrument had, under glass, a face upon which was a graduated semi-circle: the degrees of heat and cold corresponded with those of Fahrenheit’s thermometer; and these were also correspondently designated, by an index, moving on the centre of the arch. Its square (or rather parallelogramical) form, its flatness and thinness, and its small size—together with its not being liable to the least sensible injury or irregularity, from any position in which it might be placed,—rendered it safely portable; insomuch, that it could be conveniently carried in the pocket.

He presented one of these metaline Thermometers to Dr. Peters, in June 1767: Another, which he made for himself, was a considerable time in the hands of Mr. Barton, at Lancaster. They were found to agree very well with Fahrenheit’s. In a letter to Mr. Barton, dated the 26th of July 1769, he said—“You will oblige me by sending the metaline thermometer by..., and let me know the greatest height you have seen it, this season, Fahrenheit’s thermometer, in my Observatory, not exposed to the sunshine but very open to the air, was 94½° on the 5th of this month, at 3 in the afternoon; which is the highest I have ever seen it.”

106. The Rev. Ebenezer Kinnersley, A. M. Professor of EnglishEnglish and Oratory in the college of Philadelphia. This venerable and worthy man, who was a clergyman of the Baptist church, was a very eminent Electrician. In this branch of philosophy, he was an able lecturer and ingenious experimentalist: and perhaps to no person—at least in America,—were his cotemporaries more indebted, than to him, for the light which he shed, at a very early day, on this interesting and pleasing science.

107. According to the American historian, Marshall, Lord Berkeley assigned his interest in the Jersies to Penn and his three associates, in the year 1674; and they, soon perceiving the inconvenience of a joint property, divided the province, in 1676, with Carteret, who still retained his interest: to him they released East-Jersey; and received from him, in return, a conveyance for the western part of the province. The Duke of York resigned the government of East Jersey to the proprietor, retaining that of West-Jersey as an appendage to New-York, until August 1680; when, on a reference to Sir William Jones, the title was decided against the Duke: after which, he formally released all claim upon East-Jersey. Soon after this, Carteret transferred his rights to Penn, and eleven other persons of the same religious persuasion, who immediately conveyed one half of their interest to James Drummond, Earl of Perth, and eleven others; and these, in March 1683, obtained a conveyance from the Duke of York directly to themselves.—During these transactions, continual efforts were made to re-annex the Jerseys to the province of New-York. [See Marshall’s Introduction to the Life of Washington, ch. vi.]

108. There will not be another transit of Venus over the Sun’s disk, until the 8th of December, 1874; which, it is probable few persons now living will have an opportunity of observing, astronomically: And from that time, down to the 14th of June, A. D. 2984, inclusively,—a period of upwards of eleven centuries,—the same planet will pass over the Sun only eighteen times. There will be one other such transit of this planet, within the present century; after which there will not be another, during the term of one hundred and twenty-one years and an half. [See Table of the Transits of Venus over the Sun, in Lalande’s Astronomie; vol. ii.]

109. There had been but one of these transits of Venus over the Sun, during the course of about one hundred and thirty years preceding the transit of 1769; and, for upwards of seven centuries, antecedently to the commencement of that period, the same planet had passed over the Sun’s disk no more than thirteen times. [See Lalande’s Table, before referred to.]

110. Jeremiah Horrox and William Crabtree, two Englishmen, were the observers of the Transit of Venus of 1639.

111. It was not until the year 1786, that Mr. Rittenhouse built the house at the north-west corner of Arch and (Delaware) Seventh streets, in Philadelphia, where he resided during the remainder of his life: but probably it was some few years earlier that he erected his Observatory, a small but pretty convenient octagonal building, of brick, in the garden adjacent to his dwelling-house. Its situation was not an ineligible one, when the building was first put up: but its commodiousness and utility were probably much diminished, by the erection, not long afterwards, of some large houses near it; and it is presumable, that its usefulness in any degree, for the purposes of an Observatory, could have continued but a little while beyond the duration of its late proprietor’s life, by reason of the rapid increase of the number of lofty houses in the vicinity. Indeed it lately became extremely probable, on considering the great enlargement of Philadelphia within the last twenty-five years, that the future augmentation of the population and extension of improvements in this beautiful and hitherto flourishing city, would, in a very few years, render the late Observatory of Mr. Rittenhouse wholly useless for astronomical purposes; and, in the event of the surrounding ground and adjacent buildings being alienated from his family, improper for any other.

This was the Observatory noticed by Mr. Lalande, when (in his Astronomie, published in 1792,) he made this remark, treating of the numerous Observatories in different parts of the world—“In America, I know of no Observatory but that of Mr. Rittenhouse at Philadelphia.”

The Observatory at Norriton, mentioned in the text, was a temporary erection; and was disused on his removal to Philadelphia, soon after. The one put up in the State-House Gardens in that city on the same occasion, was likewise a temporary edifice, constructed of wood.

112. On an address of the Philosophical Society to the general assembly, dated the 15th of October, 1768, the latter “Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding one hundred pounds sterling, be provided and appropriated for purchasing a reflecting telescope with a micrometer, for the purpose mentioned in the said address” (observing the Transit of Venus, then near at hand,) “and, afterwards, for the use of the house; and that the speaker do write to Benjamin Franklin, Esq. in London, to purchase the same.”

113. On a similar address of the Philosophical Society, dated the 7th of February, 1769, the assembly granted them one hundred pounds, “to be laid out towards defraying the expenses necessary for observing the (then) ensuing Transit of Venus.” This grant was made on the 11th of February, 1769.

But the sum then granted proving very inadequate to the object, the society petitioned the assembly on the 11th of February, 1773; stating, that the erecting the different observatories, fitting up instruments, engraving various plates, and publishing the different transit papers alone, cost the society near 400l. and praying assistance to discharge that debt.

114. Mr. Lalande, in the preface to his Astronomie (3d edit. 1792,) mentions, that he did not then know of any other observatory in America than that of Mr. Rittenhouse.

115. This was one instance among many of the munificence of Mr. Penn to the College of Philadelphia, and of his zealous wish to promote the interests of science in Pennsylvania. The trustees of the college say, in a letter written to Mr. Penn the 1st of August, 1769, thanking him for his donation of the fine instrument above mentioned, together with a pair of “Adams’s new-invented Globes;” “We have likewise the pleasure to acknowledge a fresh instance of your benevolence, in sending us a chemical apparatus under the care of Dr. Rush.” “The many great and valuable favours this College has received at your hands, have always been conferred in a manner which has rendered them peculiarly acceptable; and cannot fail to leave the most lasting impressions of gratitude and esteem in the heart of every person concerned in the institution.”

116. Mr. Lalande (in his Astronomie) has been careful to mention, that the celebrated astronomer Hevelius possessed a similar merit. He constructed, himself, the very large telescopes and other instruments, described (with plates) in his great work entitled, Machina Cœlestis, and with which he furnished the Observatory that he established at his own residence, in the year 1641. Hevelius (whose true name was John Hoelké.) was the son of a brewer; but was well educated. He was born at Dantzic the 28th of January, 1611: and after having made the tour of England, France and Germany, from 1630 to 1634, he was, on his return to his native city, occupied for some time in the affairs of that little republic; of which he officiated as consul, in 1651. He died on the anniversary of his birth-day, at the age of seventy-six years.

117. For some of the reasons which induced the writer to describe the instruments used on that occasion, see Note 125.

118. In addition to this publicly declared testimony of Dr. Smith, to the merits of Mr. Rittenhouse on that occasion, are the following extracts of a letter from the Dr. to Mr. Barton, dated July the 8th, 1769.

“Mr. Jesse Lukens left my house on Tuesday evening, at half an hour past six, where he waited till I scrawled out a pretty long letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, for whom my esteem encreases the more I see him; and I shall long for an opportunity of doing him justice for his elegant preparations to observe the Transit, which left Mr. Lukens and me nothing to do, but to sit down to our telescopes. This justice I have already in part done him, in a long letter to the proprietor” (Thomas Penn, Esq.) “yesterday, and I hope Mr. Rittenhouse will not deprive us of the opportunity of doing it in a more public manner, in the account we are to draw up next week.”

“I did not chuse to send Mr. Rittenhouse’s original projection of the Transit, as it is a society paper, to be inserted in our minutes: but I have enclosed an exact copy. Pray desire him to take the sun’s diameter again carefully, and examine the micrometer by it. The mean of our diameters come out, Hor. Diam. 31′ 34″, 3—Polar Diam. 31′ 32″, 8—Ven. Diam. 57, 98.—The Sun’s is bigger than the Naut. Almanac gives: That of Venus very well. The diameters of the State-house micrometer come out less. I have compared some of our” (the Norriton) “micrometer-observations with those made in town, and do not find a difference of one second: but all theirs do not seem to have been taken with equal care, and differ from each other sometimes; a fault I do not find among ours. Our nearest distance of the centres comes out, I think, 10′ 3″, in which we agree within about one second with their nearest distance: and our time of the nearest approach of the centres, viz. 5^h 20′ 32″, reduced to mean time, is within one minute of the time marked for their nearest approach.”

“With my compliments to Mr. Rittenhouse and family, I am, in great haste,” &c.

Mr. Barton was then at Norriton, and Dr. Smith wrote from Philadelphia.

119. On the 26th of the same month he thus addressed Mr. Barton on the subject:—

“I have at last done with astronomical observations and calculations for the present, and sent copies of all my papers to Dr. Smith, who, I presume, has drawn up a complete account of our Observations on the Transit of Venus: this I hope you will see, when you come to Philadelphia. I have delineated the Transit, according to our observations, on a very large scale, made many calculations, and drawn all the conclusions I thought proper to attempt, until some foreign observations come to hand, to compare with ours; all of which have been, or will be laid before the Philosophical Society. The Doctor has constantly seemed so desirous of doing me justice, in the whole affair, that I suppose I must not think of transmitting any separate account to England.”

120. The first volume of the Society’s Transactions contains (p. 125,) among other observations of the transit of Venus in 1769, those made at Baskenridge in New-Jersey, by the late Earl of Sterling. William Alexander, the gentleman referred to, and who held this title, was (it is believed) a native of New-York. It is presumable that the title he bore was one to which he had an equitable right: It was recognized in America, the country of his birth, from the time of his first assumption of it until his death, although his claim to that honour was not juridically established in Great Britain, where, in official acts of that government, he was styled “William Alexander, Esq. claiming to be Earl of Sterling.” He was descended from Sir William Alexander, in the reign of James I., to whom that monarch made a grant of the province of Nova Scotia, on the 20th of September, 1621. On the 12th of July, 1625, Sir William obtained from King Charles I. a grant of the soil, lordship and domains, of that province, which, with the exception of “Port-Royal,” (Annapolis, on the Bay of Fundy,) formerly the capital of the province, he conveyed on the 30th of April, 1630, to Sir Claude de St. Etienne, lord of la Tour and Uarre, and to his son Sir Charles de St. Etienne, lord of St. Deniscourt, on condition that they should continue subjects to the crown of Scotland. This Sir William was appointed by Charles I. commander in chief of Nova-Scotia. Soon after the institution of the order of Baronets of Nova-Scotia, he had been advanced to that dignity by Charles I. viz. on the 21st of May, 1625; when the king conferred on him the privilege of coining copper-money. In 1626, he was created Viscount Sterling: and on the 14th of June, 1633, he was further promoted by the same king to the Earldom of Stirling.

The late Lord Stirling, who was seated at Baskenridge in New-Jersey, inherited his Baronetage and titles of Nobility, as heir-male to Henry, the fourth Earl. He married Sarah, daughter of Philip Livingston, Esq. of New-York, by whom he had issue two daughters; Lady Mary, married to —— Watts, Esq. of New-York, and Lady Catharine, first married to William Duer, Esq. of New-York, and after his decease to William Nelson, Esq. of the same city.

This nobleman appears to have been in some degree skilled in astronomy, and was reputed a good observer. In the first volume of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society there is contained, besides his lordship’s observations of the transit of Venus, a letter from him to Dr. Smith, communicating an account of his having discovered, on the 28th of June, 1770, a comet, which he observed astronomically on that and the three succeeding nights; being the same that Mr. Rittenhouse first saw on the 25th of that month; and respecting which, there are two letters from him to Dr. Smith, in the same volume.

Immediately before the American revolution, lord Sterling was one of the king’s council in New-Jersey; and held also, under the crown, the appointment of surveyor-general for the eastern division of that province. With the talents of a philosopher, he united those of the soldier: On the 1st of March, 1776, his lordship was appointed a brigadier-general in the continental army, and was afterwards promoted to the rank of major-general. He was esteemed a brave and faithful officer, and served with reputation; but he died before the close of the war.

In the same volume of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, with lord Stirling’s observations, there are, independent of those made under the direction of that society, the observations of the transit of Venus in 1769, made at Cambridge in New-England, by John Winthrop, Esq. F. R. S. and member of the American Philosophical Society, Hollisian Professor of Mathematics in Harvard-College—(see p. 124;) likewise, the result of those made by captain Holland and Mr. St. Germain, at and near Quebec; and by other skilful observers, at sundry places in Europe and the West-Indies; all reported (p. 120) by a committee of the American Philosophical Society.

121. Afterwards Dr. Maskelyne.—“To the abilities and indefatigable attention of this celebrated astronomer,” says the Rev. Mr. Vince (in his great work on astronomy,) “nautical astronomy is altogether indebted for its present state of perfection. Of our (the English) Nautical Almanac, that great astronomer, M. de la Lande, thus writes: “On a fait á Bologne, á Vienne, á Berlin, á Milan; mais Le Nautical Almanac de Londres, est l’ephemeride la plus parfaite qu’il y ait jamais eu.” He has established the Newtonian doctrine of universal attraction upon the firmest foundation, by his experiments upon Schehallien.^[121a] His regular observations of the sun, moon, planets, and fixed stars, which are every year published, are allowed to possess an unrivalled degree of accuracy; and we may consider them as the basis of future improvements of the tables of the planetary motions. M. de la Lande, in his Astronomie (vol. ii. p. 121. last edit.) speaking of astronomical observations, says—“Le recueil le plus moderne et le plus précieux de tous est celui de M. Maskelyne, Astronome Royal d’Angleterre, qui commence á 1765, et qui forme déja deux volumes in folio jusqu’ á 1786. La precision de ces observations est si grande, qu’on trouve souvent la même second pour l’ascension droite d’une planete dédecite de différentes étoiles, quoiqu’on y emploie la mesure du temps.”temps.”; His catalogue of fundamental stars is an invaluable treasure. These, and his other various improvements in this science, entitle him to the most distinguished rank amongst astronomers, and will render his name illustrious, as long as the science of astronomy shall continue to be cultivated.”

Of Lalande himself, whose name often occurs in the following pages, Mr. Vince thus speaks:—“To that celebrated astronomer, M. de la Lande, the world is indebted for the most important improvements in the science of astronomy. Through so extensive a field, he has left no track unbeaten; almost every part has received improvements from him. His system of astronomy is invaluable, and has tended far more to the general promotion of that science than all other works which ever appeared upon the subject. The labours of this great astronomer will perpetuate his name.” See Vince’s Complete System of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 288 and 289.

122. Mr. Vince observes, in his Complete System of Astronomy, (vol. i. p. 419) that the Transit of Venus affords a very accurate method of finding the place of the node; and this he verifies expressly by calculations founded on the observations made by Mr. Rittenhouse at Norriton, in the year 1769.

123. To so honourable a testimony, in favour of the merits of the Pennsylvania observers of this Transit, as that of Mr. Maskelyne, the acknowledgments of many other eminent foreign astronomers might be superadded: And the Rev. Dr. Smith, addressing himself to the American Philosophical Society, observes, “that societies of the first reputation in Europe are not ashamed to place our labours on a footing with their own; freely acknowledging, that we have been chiefly instrumental in ascertaining that great desideratum in astronomy, the sun’s parallax; and, consequently, the dimensions of the solar system.” See his Oration, delivered before the society, Jan. 22, 1773.

124. The compliment here paid by the Astronomer-Royal to the Hon. T. Penn, proprietary of the late province of Pennsylvania, for the zeal he manifested in promoting the Pennsylvania Observations of the Transit of Venus, was well merited,—as the detailed accounts of that highly interesting phænomenon abundantly shew.

Nor was that the only instance in which Mr. Penn discovered his attachment to the reputation and prosperity of that extensive American territory, which continues to bear the name of his family. He was, on various occasions, a liberal and disinterested benefactor to public institutions in Pennsylvania: as a proof of which, his aggregated donations to the College of Philadelphia, prior to the American war, amounting to about twelve thousand dollars—besides a grant of the manor of Perkessie in Bucks county, containing upwards of 3000 acres,—need alone be mentioned.

But it is within the knowledge of many persons in the midst of whom these memoirs are penned, that even the Juliana Library Company, in Lancaster (an inland and secondary town of Pennsylvania) experienced repeated proofs of the munificence of Mr. Penn, and also of his late truly noble and excellent consort, after whom that institution was named. The writer himself, well knows, from the tenor of numerous letters, not only from Mr. but Lady Juliana Penn, (who honoured the Rev. Mr. Barton with their friendship and correspondence, for the space of twenty years,—a patronage which was continued to a member of his family, long after Mr. Penn’s death,) the generous and unremitted attention of both, to whatever seemed likely to promote the honour or the interest of Pennsylvania.

Thomas Penn, Esq. died on the 21st of March, 1775, when he had just completed the seventy-fourth year of his age. He was the survivor of all the children of the illustrious founder of Pennsylvania; “whose virtues, as well as abilities, he inherited in an eminent degree,”—as was justly observed in an obituary notice published soon after his decease. Lady Juliana, his widow, survived him many years.

In the Pennsylvania Gazette (then published by Messrs. Hall and Sellers, but originally by Franklin and Hall,) for May 17, 1775, appeared the following just tribute to the memory of Mr. Penn.

“He had the principal direction of the affairs of this government for half a century, and saw such an increase of population, arts, and improvements in it, as during the like period, perhaps no man, before him, ever beheld in a country of his own. He rejoiced at the sight, was a kind landlord, and gave a liberal, often a magnificent encouragement, to our various public institutions. The Hospital, the College, our different Libraries and Religious Societies, can witness the truth of this: For he did not confine himself to sect or party; but, as became his station, and the genius of his father’s benevolent policy, he professed himself a friend to universal liberty, and extended his bounty to all. In short, as the grave, which generally stops the tongue of flattery, should open the mouth of Justice, we may be permitted to conclude his character by saying,—that he was both a great and a good man.”

The writer of these Memoirs hopes he will not be censured by any Pennsylvanian of generous feelings, for introducing, in the Appendix, some elegiac verses (by an unknown hand,) in commemoration of the virtues of this worthy man; who was not only a munificent benefactor to this country, and a bountiful patron of the Memorialist himself, as well as his family; but who, also, took a very friendly interest in the reputation and prosperity of Mr. Rittenhouse. These verses were published in The Pennsylvania Magazine, for Oct. 1775.

125. In addition to the honourable testimony of the Astronomer-Royal, in favour of the Pennsylvania Observers of the Transit of Venus, is the following eulogy of another eminent English astronomer,—as communicated by Dr. Franklin to Dr. T. Bond, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Philosophical Society, in a letter from London dated the 5th of Feb. 1772. The Rev. Mr. Ludlam, the gentleman referred to, and whom Dr. Franklin styles “a most learned man and ingenious mechanic”—in a paper published in the Gentleman’s Magazine (and a copy of which, subscribed by himself, was sent by him to the Society,) giving an account of the Society’s Transactions, more especially their Observations of the Transit of Venus,—applauds both the General Assembly and the late Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, for the countenance and assistance they gave to the making those Observations.——“No astronomers,” said Mr. Ludlam, “could better deserve all possible encouragement; whether we consider their care and diligence in making the Observations, their fidelity in relating what was done, or the clearness and accuracy of their reasonings on this curious and difficult subject.” He then mentions, in very honourable terms, the papers of Mr. Rittenhouse, Dr. Smith, Dr. Ewing, and Mr. Biddle, who drew up the several accounts of the Observations made at Norriton, Philadelphia, and Cape-Henlopen; and adds, that “they have very honestly given not only the Result of their Observations, but the Materials also, that others may examine and judge for themselves; an example worthy of imitation by those European astronomers, who are so very shy of giving particulars, and vouch for their Instruments and Observations in general terms.”

The same gentleman, in a letter dated at Leicester (in England,) January the 25th, 1772, and transmitted to the Philosophical Society by Dr. Franklin, wrote thus:—“The more I read the Transactions of your Society, the more I honour and esteem the members of it. There is not another Society in the world, that can boast of a member such as Mr. Rittenhouse: theorist enough to encounter the problems of determining (from a few Observations) the Orbit of a Comit; and also mechanic enough to make, with his own hands, an Equal-Altitude Instrument, a Transit-Telescope, and a Time-piece. I wish I was near enough to see his mechanical apparatus. I find he is engaged in making a curious Orrery. May I ask,” &c.

As further evidence of the high estimation in which the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, and particularly of the Observers of the Transit, were held abroad, Dr. Wrangel, an eminent and learned Swedish clergyman, wrote thus to Dr. Smith from Stockholm, under the date of Oct. 18, 1771:—“I have been agreeably surprised to observe the rapid progress of your American Society, of which I esteem it a great honour to be counted a member,” &c.—“Your accurate Observations of the Transit of Venus have given infinite satisfaction to our (Swedish) astronomers; as will the rest of your Transactions, to the literary world, when they come to be further known.”

126. According to Mr. Lalande, (in his Astronomie, vol. ii.) the transit of Venus over the Sun, in 1639, observed by only Messrs. Horrox and Crabtree, two Englishmen, and which was the first ever observed, was seen in consequence of a fortunate accidental circumstance. He says, that Horrox had been occupied in making calculations for an almanack, from the Tables of Lansbergius, which are much less perfect than the RudolphineRudolphine Tables: that these Tables of Lansbergius were in an error of 16′ for the latitude of Venus, while the RudolphineRudolphine Tables had an error of only 8′; but the one of Lansbergius made Venus pass on the sun in such a way, as that the transit ought to be visible; whereas the tables of Kepler represented the planet as passing below him; and thus it was, remarks Lalande, that bad tables occasioned a good observation. Relying on these tables, which Lansbergius had extolled with a confidence likely to produce imposition, Horrox prepared himself to observe that transit; and on the 24th of November, it took place at the time he expected, Venus being about half an hour on the sun when he set. He had sent on the occasion to his friend Crabtree, who was at Manchester, some miles from Hoole: and he observed the transit, likewise; though very imperfectly, by reason of intervening clouds. W. B.

127. Flamsted, Halley, Bradley and Bliss, successively occupied the royal observatory at Greenwich, from the time of its institution by Charles II.; and, in the year 1765, the last of these eminent men was succeeded in the place of Astronomer-Royal, by Nevil Maskelyne, B. D. a man who, in the words of the profound French astronomer, Lalande, “has sustained perfectly the reputation of that famous observatory.”

The scientific world are indebted to this excellent practical astronomer for the publication of the Nautical Almanack; and, in a great measure, for the perfection of the lunar method of ascertaining the longitude at sea. “His unwearied exertions in this great cause of humanity and science,” as the compilers of the New Edinburgh Encyclopedia (in the article Astronomy) observe, “entitle him to the gratitude of the remotest posterity.”

128. It appears that the difference of the meridians of the Greenwich and Paris Observatories, is 9′ 20″ as assumed by Lalande. This was ascertained by the result of the measurement of the distance between those Observatories, made sometime about the year 1786 or 1787, under the sanction of the British and French governments, respectively; and this difference of meridians corresponds with what Dr. Maskelyne had before stated it to be. The last mentioned astronomer shewed, in 1787, that the latitude of Greenwich is 51° 28′ 40″.

129. In relation to Paris, Mr. Lalande calculates the longitude of Philadelphia at 5^h 9′ 56″, according to Mr. Rittenhouse; and its latitude, as being 39° 5′7 10.

130. In Mr. Rittenhouse’s “Delineation of the Transit,” &c. published in the first volume of the Philosophical Society’s Transactions, it appears that he assumed the latitude of the Norriton Observatory to be 40° 9′ 56″.

131. See Martin’s Philosophia Britannica, lect. xi. note 141. Though “Orrery” be a modern name, the invention of such machines as it is now applied to, is of a very early date. The first planetarium or orrery, of which we have any account, was the famous machine of Archimedes. This consisted, as Cicero (in his Tusculan Questions) asserts, of a sphere, of an hollow globular surface, of glass, within which was some ingenious mechanism, to exhibit the motions of the moon, the sun, and all the planets then known. Very imperfect as it must necessarily have been in other respects, it was radically erroneous, in being adapted to the Ptolomaic system. This is described in Latin verse, by the poet Claudius Claudianus, of Alexandria, who flourished about four centuries after the Christian era, and more than six centuries after the Syracusean philosopher.

Cicero, in his book De Naturâ Deorum, mentions one invented by Posidonius the Stoic, in his time, and about eighty years before the birth of Christ. He describes it as a “sphere,”—“in every revolution of which, the motions of the sun, moon, and five planets were the same as in the heavens, each day and night.”

Nothing further is heard of orreries or spheres, until about five hundred and ten years after Christ, when Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Bœthius, the Roman Consul, (who was also a Christian, and a Peripatetic Philosopher,) is said to have contrived one. Theodoric, king of the Goths, calls it “Machinam Mundo gravidam, Cœlum gestabile, Rerum Compendium”: But Bœthius was, nevertheless, put to death by this Gothic king, A. D. 524. A long and dismal reign of barbarism and ignorance having succeeded this period, no further mention is made of any thing in the nature of a planetarium, for about one thousand years. See Note 95.

132. In the work, entitled, “A new and general Biographical Dictionary,” &c. published in 1761, the Invention of Graham’s Planetarium is attributed to the celebrated Charles Boyle, Earl of Orrery; and the compilers of that work cite this supposed Invention of Lord Orrery, “as an indubitable proof of his mechanical genius.” On this authority, the compilers of the British Encyclopædia (reprinted in Philadelphia by Mr. Dobson,) in the very words of the Biographical Dictionary, make the nobleman from whom the first English Orrery derives its name, the Inventor. But it seems to be now pretty generally admitted, that his lordship was only the Patron of the machine, made for George I. by Mr. Rowley.

133. This accomplished nobleman, who was also the fourth Earl of Cork, in Ireland, and the third Earl of Burlington, in England, was born in the year 1695, and died in 1753. He was a great encourager of the liberal arts, possessed an extraordinary taste and skill in architecture, and was animated by a most exalted public spirit.

134. Mr. Martin (in his Philosophia Britannica) says: “The Orrery, though a modern name, has somewhat of obscurity in respect to its origin; some persons deriving it from a Greek word, which imports to see or view:” “But others say, that Sir Richard Steele first gave this name to an instrument of this sort, which was made by Mr. Rowley for the late Earl of Orrery, and shewed only the movement of one or two of the heavenly bodies. From hence many people have imagined, that this machine owed its invention to that noble lord.” This Orrery was a large one; and, although it is represented by Mr. Martin as a very defective machine, it was purchased by King George I. at the price of one thousand guineas.

135. Besides the Orrery here referred to, as the invention of the celebrated mechanic and watchmaker, Mr. George Graham, a like machine was afterwards contrived by Mr. James Ferguson, an eminent Scotch mechanic and astronomer, and another planetarium of the same kind, by Mr. William Jones, an ingenious mathematical instrument maker, of London. From the planetarium or orrery of Graham, however, as a model, all the modern orreries, prior to Mr. Rittenhouse’s, appear to have been taken. The one constructed by Mr. Rowley is said to be very similar to that invented by Dr. Stephen Hales.

But the idea of a planetarium, somewhat similar to the Rittenhouse-orrery, seems to have been conceived by Huygens, who died in 1695. A collection of this celebrated philosopher’s works was printed at Leyden in the year 1724 and 1728: and in these will be found the description of a planetarium; “a machine” (says Lalande, in speaking of the one contemplated by Huygens,) “which represents, by wheel-work, the revolutions of the planets around the sun and of the moon around the earth, in their durations and natural dimensions; with their excentricities, their inequalities, and their inclinations towards the ecliptic.” See Lalande’sLalande’s Astron.

136. Mr. Jefferson remarks, in his Notes on Virginia, that “Mr. Rittenhouse’s model of the planetary system has the plagiary appellation of an Orrery.” This was, undoubtedly, a plagiary name, in its relation to Graham’s Planetarium, of which Lord Orrery was the supposed inventor: but the charge of plagiarism does not properly apply to the same name, when bestowed by Mr. Rittenhouse himself, on the grand machine of his own invention and construction. How improper soever this name may have been in its first application to a planetarium, it has since been generally applied to similar machines; and it has thus acquired an appropriate signification in relation to them. Mr. Rittenhouse did not choose to depart from the appellation in common use, in naming a machine for surpassing, in ingenuity of contrivance, accuracy and utility, any thing of the kind ever before constructed; yet, in all those points of excellence, he was the inventor of that admirable machine, which has been generally denominated, by others, “the Rittenhouse Orrery.”

137. See Note 131.

138. See A Compendious System of Natural Philosophy, &c. by J. Rowning, M. A. part iv. chap. 15.

139. The Hon. Thomas Penn, of Stoke-Poges, in Buckinghamshire, heretofore one of the Proprietaries of the former province of Pennsylvania. This gentleman was then usually styled, in Pennsylvania, “The Proprietor.”

140. This design was, however, finally abandoned.

141. One of these valuable clocks, which is of a large size, with an accurate little planetarium attached to its face and placed above the dial-plate,^[141a] was made for the late Mr. Joseph Potts, of Philadelphia county, who paid for it, as the writer is informed, six hundred and forty dollars. In the spring of the year 1774, it was purchased by the late Mr. Thomas Prior, of Philadelphia; to whom, it is said, general Sir William Howe made an offer of one hundred and twenty guineas for it, shortly before the evacuation of that city, in 1778. It is also said, that Don Joseph de Jaudenes, late minister of Spain to the United States, offered Mr. Prior eight hundred dollars for this clock, with a view of presenting it to his sovereign. Mr. Prior, however, retained it until his death, in the spring of the year 1801: after which, it passed through two other hands, successively, into the possession of Professor Barton, of Philadelphia, whose property it now is.

142. It appears that Mr. Barton must have transmitted to the honourable Mr. T. Penn, in London, a description of the Orrery, very soon after it was publicly communicated to the Philosophical Society in Philadelphia; for, a letter from Mr. Penn to that gentleman, dated July 22, 1768, contains this remark—“The account you give me of Mr. Rittenhouse’s Orrery, is what I could not have imagined could be executed in Pennsylvania; and I shall be much pleased to see a copper-plate of it, for which I would make that gentleman a present, for his encouragement; or, perhaps he may be induced to bring it hither, and exhibit it, by publicly lecturing on it.”

Had Mr. Rittenhouse taken an Orrery to England, and it appears by his letters of March 15, 1771, and Feb. 3, 1772, quoted in the text, that he had seriously intended going thither, he would, very probably, have derived great emolument, as well as fame, by delivering lectures on astronomy, adapted to his orrery; and it is probable, that, in addition to the public encouragement he might reasonably have calculated upon, Mr. Penn would have patronised him, with his usual liberality. Of the disposition of that worthy gentleman to befriend him, Mr. Rittenhouse seems to have been fully sensible: for, in a letter of the 11th of December, 1768, to Mr. Barton, he said—“I am very desirous to send Mr. Penn something: as the orrery is not finished, perhaps a description of it, with draughts of the clock I have just made, may answer the purpose, together with some little instrument: I shall be glad to have your thoughts on the matter.” It may be proper here to remark, that no engraving, or drawing, could give an adequate idea of the orrery: and that the clock, mentioned by Mr. Rittenhouse, was one of those of which a short notice is introduced, immediately after the original description of the orrery, in the text.

143. The glass-house mentioned in the text, was erected several years prior to the American revolutionary war, at the village of Manheim, about twelve miles from the borough of Lancaster, by Mr. Henry William Stiegel, an ingenious and enterprising German gentleman. Glass of a very good quality and workmanshipworkmanship, was made at that glass-house; as will appear by the following extracts from a letter of Mr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Barton, written in the summer of 1771, and acknowledging the receipt of a barometer-tube executed there. He says—“I am obliged to you for the glass tube; it will make a pretty barometer, though the bore is somewhat too small. I have compared it with an English tube, and do not think the preference can, with any reason, be given to the latter.” And in the same letter, he requests Mr. Barton to procure for him, from the glass-house, “some tubes of a size fit for spirit-levels.” “The bore,” says he, “must be half an inch in diameter, and from four to eight inches in length; as straight as possible, and open at one end only.”

While Mr. Stiegel was thus early and meritoriously carrying on the manufacture of glass, he was also engaged in manufacturing iron at Elizabeth-Furnace in the vicinity, which then belonged to him. But he proved unfortunate in his extensive undertakings, and the glass-worksglass-works have not since been in operation. The foundery of Elizabeth, together with the great establishment of iron-works connected with it, and of which Robert Coleman, Esq. of Lancaster, is now the proprietor, are well known.

144. Dr. Franklin is said to have first met with the Pulse-Glass in Germany, and to have introduced it into England with some improvement of his own.

171. Mr. Holland was an able engineer in the British service, and held the military rank of captain.

This Line remained thus unsettled, until after the conclusion of the American war. Mr. Rittenhouse and Captain Holland having previously established the North-Eastern Corner of Pennsylvania, on that boundary, by ascertaining and marking thereon the beginning of the 43° of North latitude, the Pennsylvania Legislature, on the 31st of March, 1785, enacted a law, authorizing the Executive of the State to appoint a Commissioner, in conjunction with one or more on the part of New-York, to run and complete 239the Line. The person selected for this service by Pennsylvania, in addition to Mr. Rittenhouse, was Andrew Ellicott, Esq. an able Mathematician and Astronomer, and well qualified also, by his practical knowledge of Surveying or Land-Mensuration: this gentleman was accordingly commissioned^[174] by the 240hon. Charles Biddle, Esquire, then Vice-President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, on the 16th of June, 1786.^[175] The Commissioners on the part of New-York, were James Clinton and Simeon De Witt, Esquires: And by these gentlemen, appointed on behalf of their respective governments, this business was prosecuted; but it was not then completed.^[176]

241The following letter, addressed by Mr. Rittenhouse to his wife, while he was engaged in this service, will not only furnish the reader with some idea of the manner in which the commissioners, with their attendants, were obliged to live in the wilderness, and the nature of their accommodations; but it will also present him with an interesting little story, illustrative of the manners and condition, in our day, of some of that unfortunate race of men, who were once the independent lords of that vast territory, over which the descendants of a grant transatlantic people now exercise all the rights of sovereignty and ownership. This letter is dated the 6th of August, 1786.

“It is,” says Mr. Rittenhouse, “six long weeks since I have had the happiness of seeing you or hearing from you; and this is the first opportunity I have had of conveying a letter to you, since I left Wyoming. As I cannot hope to receive a line from you until we approach nearer to the habitable world, my next greatest 242pleasure is to inform you of the favourable state of my health: this pleasure is indeed damped in some degree, by my fears that you will not give full credit to what I say, though I mean to abide strictly by the truth. The head-ach has been unknown to me, almost ever since I left you; my cough, though much better, is not quite removed; and I have no other complaint, except, that which will never leave me in this world: this, however, far from being worse than usual, is certainly something less troublesome; which I attribute to my being more at liberty to use moderate exercise, and less exposed to summer heats than I should be at home. This seems to be a different climate from that you are in; the weather is constantly cool, but not cold. We are at present situated on a pleasant bank of the Susquehanna, about fifteen miles above the mouth of the Chenango, one of the principal branches of this river. From this place to Middletown in Lancaster county, is, by estimation, 270 miles along the river: much of the road is very bad, so that we had a tedious journey.

“At Chenango, there are a few Indian families settled, amounting to forty souls. Some of these people frequently visit us, and bring us fish and venison; in return for which, they are very desirous to have flour or salted provisions: and we live in the greatest harmony with them. Five or six days ago, one of the Onondago Sachems with his family came up in three canoes, and encamped in the evening, just below us. 243Next morning, we received a message from them, requesting an audience for two young ladies of the family. To this, a proper answer was returned, (General Clinton having prudently brought an interpreter with him,) and at the time appointed they were introduced to us in our tent, unattended by any other Indians. After a draught of punch, and a decent silence, our visitors were told that we were ready to hear what they had to say. The eldest of the two, a fine girl of about twenty, and extremely well dressed, with a becoming modesty made a short speech; concluding with an handsome apology for acquitting herself no better, on account of her youth and sex. The purport of her speech was, that thinking it would not be disagreeable to us, they were come to spend a few days in our company: that they were poor, and in want of provisions, especially flour; and hoped we would furnish them with a small portion of our stores,—at least for present use, whilst they staid with us. We encouraged them to bring us fish and other fresh provision; in return for which, they should have salt meat and some bread. Business being over, some cheerful conversation ensued: and we had reason to think our interpreter went much further than he was warranted to do; for he made some proposition which the young lady negatived strongly, though we are ignorant of what it was. He was then bid to assure them, that no insult should be offered, and that they might visit us at our tents whenever they pleased: to this one gentleman 244added, that we would treat them as we would our own country women.

“It seems the old interpreter mistook the word treat, and construed it, the giving them victual and drink: in consequence of this mistake, the ladies expected to dine with us every day. They then departed, seeming well satisfied; but in the afternoon we received a message from them, complaining that we had already broken the treaty, in not sending for them to dinner. To this we sent a verbal answer, with an apology, and letting the ladies know we should expect them to tea. To my great surprise, we then received a written note, thanking us for our kindness and promising to drink tea with us,—signed, Jacowe and Sally: it was in the Indian language, and written by Miss Sally herself. We now thought it our duty to return a written compliment likewise; and this intercourse ended with a verbal message from Miss Sally, assuring us, that she thought herself honoured by our letter and would carefully preserve it. The ladies did not fail to come; and have drank tea every day, and sometimes dined with us. They are cheerful and agreeable; but cannot, or will not, speak one word of English. Mr. De Witt draws prettily, and is taking a very good picture of the young princess, which I hope to have the pleasure of shewing you in a few weeks. I have mentioned their writing, which you will be surprised at: but these Indians are in some measure civilized; many of them have learned to read;—they have the 245Common Prayer Book of the Church, printed in their own language, which is the Mohawk.^[177] The family now with us have several books with them; likewise paper, pens and ink. Every evening, the females jointly sing several religious hymns, and their music is at least equal to any of this kind I have heard: the old mistress is very devout, and sometimes says her prayers with great fervency. They are, nevertheless, still but Indians; and Miss Sally will sit, with all her finery about her, flat on the ground for hours together, under a miserable bark shed, making buckskin shoes, until her eyes are almost smoked blind; then, by way of relaxation, she and her cousin will step into a little tottering canoe, where, standing upright, they row away with incredible swiftness.

“You will excuse me for entertaining you so long with an account of these poor wretches. But your news, and your politics, are almost forgotten. Still, my principal happiness is, that not only waking but frequently in my dreams, I feel all that esteem and affection for you, which I hope will never end. My companions 246are agreeable enough; but as every one has his own humours, it is by no means a desirable thing to be cooped up in a little tent, night and day, for weeks together, with any one. I want something to employ my leisure hours. This I could do by writing, but here is no privacy: I am at present obliged to write badly and in a small hand, to prevent its being overlooked. I cannot think of taking my departure for Philadelphia, until we approach nearer the inhabited country: our next station, but one, will be at or near Tioga, and from thence I shall return.”

“God grant you health and spirits,” &c.

In 1787, Mr. Ellicott’s associates, in completing this line, were Col. Andrew Porter of Pennsylvania, and Abraham Hardenberg and William Morris, Esquires, of New York; Mr. Rittenhouse, who was engaged the same year in a similar occupation, being unable to attend the finishing of this boundary. It was then finally run and marked, by the other commissioners here named; and, in conformity to the return of these commissioners, their proceedings were ratified by a confirmatory law of Pennsylvania, passed on the 29th of September, 1789.

Thus did the labours of a great work,—of one which employed the talents of Mr. Rittenhouse towards 247the close of the year 1774—which were resumed by him in 1786, and were afterwards continued and completed by Mr. Ellicott and his associates,—receive the legislative sanction of Pennsylvania, fifteen years after the commencement of this arduous undertaking.

His studious habits, and zealous investigation of the works of nature, led Mr. Rittenhouse to devote as much of his time, as the delicate state of his health permitted him to retrench from occasional public employments and his private occupations, to those objects for the promotion of which the American Philosophical Society was instituted. After he fixed his residence in Philadelphia, the established seat of that Society, he attended their Meetings pretty regularly; and by that means had an opportunity of forming a more intimate acquaintance with many persons, most conspicuous, at that time, for talents, knowledge, and learning. His great abilities had then become almost universally known; and these, in connexion with the suavity of his deportment, his great modesty, and exemplary moral character, had not only procured him the esteem and respect of all good men; but confirmed the friendship of his old acquaintances, and attached to him the high and sincere regard of many new ones.

As one instance, among many, of the distinguished estimation in which Mr. Rittenhouse was held by his fellow-citizens, after a residence of between four and 248five years in Philadelphia; the American Philosophical Society petitioned the legislature, on the 6th of March, 1775, fer pecuniary aid, to enable them to erect an Observatory; and to allow Mr. Rittenhouse an annual salary, as the “Public Astronomical Observer.”

The objects of this application were important, in a public view; and its whole tenor was alike honourable to the enlightened patriotism of the Philosophical Society, and the merit of the person to whom, more particularly, it had reference.^[178] Indeed, such a public act of so respectable a body as that society, is a testimonial reflecting great honour on the character of Mr. Rittenhouse; insomuch, that it would be doing injustice to his memory, not to insert it in these Memoirs of of his Life. It is as follows:

“To the honourable the Representatives of the Freemen of the province of Pennsylvania, in General Assembly met:

“The Representation and Petition of the American Philosophical Society, held at Philadelphia, for promoting useful knowledge.

249

Nothing was done, in pursuance of this application to the legislature; although there is not any reason whatever to doubt, that there was the most favourable disposition in that enlightened and liberal assembly, to promote the laudable views of the Philosophical Society, both as they regarded the public interest, and the personal advantage of Mr. Rittenhouse. But the period was then close at hand, and its arrival had been for some time before anticipated, when the public voice was expected to proclaim, in a tone of awful solemnity, “Cedant Armis Togæ:” and, in fact, the calamatous appeal to arms which soon after succeeded, seemed almost wholly to absorb all other considerations, than such as were connected with the defence of the country and a new organization of its internal polity.

Mr. Rittenhouse was among those, who early yielded to the call of their fellow-citizens to serve them in 255a civil capacity. Dr. Franklin and Major (afterwards General) Mifflin had been respectively appointed by the continental congress, in the year 1775, to be post-master general of “the United Colonies of North-America,” and quartermaster-general of the American army: and, in consequence of these appointments, both these gentlemen resigned, in the early part of the ensuing year, the seats they had occupied in the general assembly of Pennsylvania, as burgesses for the city of Philadelphia. To supply this vacancy in the representation of that city, Colonel (afterwards General) Joseph Reed and David Rittenhouse, Esq. were elected, in March 1776. Mr. Rittenhouse took his seat on the 5th day of the same month, and continued an useful member of that body until the termination of its legislative functions. But, although he was a valuable and highly respectable member of that house, he did not possess that species of talent which often enables a man of even moderate abilities, to make a prominent figure in popular assemblies: his perception was extremely quick; in deliberative powers he excelled; and all his reasoning faculties were most accurate: yet, an insuperable native diffidence—pursuits which precluded opportunities of public speaking—and, perhaps, a peculiar structure of his mind—all forbad his being an orator.

Notwithstanding the agitating and highly important public events which occupied men’s minds, in the memorable year 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse could not entirely 256abandon, even then, his darling pursuits. His ardent attachment to the Newtonian philosophy led him, on various occasions, to vindicate it against new-fangled theories which sometimes appeared against it: for there still remained a few speculative men, and, among these, some persons of considerable learning, who continued to adhere to the visionary principles of Descartes and his followers.^[180] Of this, an instance occurred in the 257year 1776. A writer under the signature of M. W. (and who is supposed to have been the late Rev. 258Matthew Wilson, a respectable presbyterian clergyman, of Lewes,^[181] in the county of Sussex on Delaware,) 259published in The Pennsylvania Magazine, for March and April in that year, (conducted by the late Mr. Robert Aitken of Philadelphia,) some speculations, under the head of “A proposal for reducing Natural Philosophy to a System, with Remarks on the Cartesian and Newtonian Theories.” In his lucubrations, this writer discovered a decided partiality for the doctrine of Descartes, in preference to those of Newton. Nor did this admirer of the justly exploded philosophy of the former long want a coadjutor: for, in the same Magazine, for the succeeding month, appeared another reverend gentleman of the same religious persuasion, and known to possess a copious fund of scholastic learning; who, under the signature of J. W. approved, in the main, of the opinions of his precursor, on this occasion. After acknowledging that the Newtonian system prevailed universally in Great Britain, and pretty generally throughout the rest of Europe, he asks—“Shall we then hear any thing against the Newtonian principles, in Answer?” He adds—“I answer, yes.” After rendering a constrained kind of compliment to the great Newton, for his “inexpressible service to Philosophy”—“so far as he adhered to his own plan,”—he proceeds with introducing 260“A few Thoughts on Space, Dimension, and the Divisibility of Matters in infinitum.”

Much as Mr. Rittenhouse was averse to controversy of any kind, he could not content himself without publicly pointing out one palpable fallacy, among the many mistakes which the last mentioned writer had fallen into: for he did not notice the preceding production of ‘M. W.’ not deeming it, probably, worthy of his attention. Accordingly, having been shewn ‘J. W.’s’ essay, with some remarks on it by his ingenious friend Mr. Ellicott (then quite a young man,) Mr. Rittenhouse drew up some observations, very concisely, on the errors of this Anti-Newtonian essayist.essayist. This piece will be found in the same periodical work, for June 1776. Being addressed to Mr. Aitken, the publisher of the Magazine, our Philosopher concludes his strictures thus: “I wish the gentleman would be more cautious, for the future; as well on your own account as for the sake of your readers, some of whom may be misled by the weakest reasoning, on a subject which they do not understand^[182] and I will venture 261to assure him, that the whole doctrine of Infinites, which he is pleased to call a sophism, will not produce one contradiction in a mathematical head. Those of anotheranother cast^[183] need not meddle with it, since there is a sufficient variety of literary subjects to engage every man, according to the bent of his genius.”

A further proof of Mr. Rittenhouse’s unremitting attachment to the interests of science, even “amidst the calamities of an unhappy war,” will be found in the following circumstances; a written memorial of which, is preserved in the family of his friend, the late Dr. W. Smith.

On the 2d day of November, 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse was engaged, in the city of Philadelphia, jointly with Dr. Smith and Mr. John Lukens, in observing the transit of Mercury over the Sun, which appeared that day. On the 9th of January, following, the Doctor and Mr. Rittenhouse employed themselves at the same place, in like Observations on an eclipse of the Sun, which then occurred. And, on the 24th of June, 1778, just one week after the evacuation of that city by the British army, the three gentlemen here named, together with Mr. Owen Biddle, were busied in making observations, there, on another eclipse of the Sun. The results of these several Observations, in the 262hand-writing of Dr. Smith, having been bound up by him with a copy of T. Mayer’s Lunar Tables, the writer of these Memoirs was obligingly permitted by Mr. Charles Smith, the Doctor’s son, to transcribe them, for publication in this work. A true copy of them is accordingly given in the Appendix.

But, to return to some political events of the year 1776: In the month of September of that year, Mr. Rittenhouse was one of twenty-four persons who were appointed justices of the peace, for the whole State of Pennsylvania; in their capacity of members of the then existing council of safety.

This appointment was made by virtue of an ordinance of the convention of Pennsylvania, which passed the first constitution of the state, on the 28th of September, 1776, of which he was also a member, for the city of Philadelphia. That convention could boast of possessing, among their members, two distinguished philosophers, Franklin^[184] and Rittenhouse: but it cannot be ascertained, whether the opinions of these two eminent men, on the subject of government, had any decided influence on the deliberations of that assembly. Certain it is, however, that the Constitution framed and promulgated by the convention, was predicated on too many new and untried principles of civil polity; that it contained too many aberrations from maxims 263founded on a knowledge of human nature, to have warranted a reasonable expectation, that it could long prove practically beneficial. Hence, after an experiment of fourteen years continuance, it was succeeded by the present constitution of the state; one admirably well suited to secure the rights and liberties of its citizens, individually, and to promote the prosperity of the whole community, so long as it shall be faithfully and wisely administered.^[185]

The thirteen British Colonies, which, on the memorable fourth day of July, 1776, had declared themselves free and independent States, assumed at the same time a national character, under the denomination of “The United States of America,” in the articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states, then published:^[186] and by these articles it was 264agreed, that each state should retain its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, not expressly delegated to congress by the confederation. As soon, therefore, as Pennsylvania had adopted her state-constitution, measures were pursued for organizing her government, in conformity to its provisions. The right of appointing the treasurer of the state by annual election, was vested in the immediate representatives of the people, when assembled in their legislative capacity. This policy had been invariably pursued in the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, while she continued to be a British province: after the abrogation of the first constitution of the state, the same mode of appointing that important officer, the state-treasurer, was continued, and will probably long remain a constitutional provision.

The person first appointed to that high trust, under the republican government of Pennsylvania, was David Rittenhouse: a man whose stern integrity, numerous public services, and uniform adherence to those principles which gave rise to the American revolution, were well calculated to inspire a general confidence in his character; more especially, in times when virtue and talents were considered as meritorious qualities in public men, by those who elevated them to office. The first legislative body of the State, after the declaration of independence, assembled at Philadelphia in October, 1776; and, on the 14th day of January, in the following year, they chose Mr. 265Rittenhouse to be the state-treasurer, without a dissenting voice. In like manner, he was unanimously continued in that station, during twelve succeeding years; in the last of which, he sent to the legislature his resignation of that office: this event shall be more particularly noticed in its proper place in the order of time.

In consequence of the possession of the city of Philadelphia by the British army, from the latter end of September, 1777, until the beginning of the ensuing summer, the session of the state-legislature which intervened, was held at Lancaster. The compulsory removal from the capital, not only of the government of Pennsylvania but of congress also, and all the offices attached to the seat of the national government, produced an high degree of agitation and resentment in the public mind; more especially in Pennsylvania, where the evils occasioned by the occupancy of their capital by an hostile army, were more keenly felt by the citizens.

Under these impressions, the general assembly of that state passed a law on the 13th of October (only seventeen days after the British forces entered Philadelphia,) entitled “An act for constituting a council of safety, &c.” By this act, twelve persons therein named, of whom David Rittenhouse was one, were constituted that council: and to this body, jointly with the supreme executive council of the state, great 266and extraordinary powers were given, to punish (even capitally) offenders, “traitors or others, who from their general conduct, or conversation, should be deemed inimical to the common cause of liberty and the United States of North-America.” The irritation, that could have provoked such a measure, must have been extreme! for, surely, nothing less than an extremity of necessity could be urged as any sort of justification, in a free country, of a legislative act, whereby the constitution was grossly violated, laws were dispensed with, and a summary authority of the highest nature, vested in a tribunal unknown to the laws and unwarranted by the constitution.^[187] It is believed, however, that no proceedings were had under 267this strange legislative act: and the writer is firmly persuaded, that neither Mr. Rittenhouse, nor some others of the gentlemen who constituted the tribunal erected by that act, would have undertaken to exercise some of the powers required of them, thereby.

Daring the occupancy of Philadelphia by the British forces under Sir William Howe, the commander in chief, from the 26th of September, 1777, until the evacuation of that city on the 18th of June, in the following year, Mr. Rittenhouse resided at Lancaster;^[188] where he was busily employed in the duties of his office of treasurer of the state.^[189] Before his removal 268from Philadelphia, he had placed his family at or in the vicinity of his farm in Norriton, distant about twenty miles in a north-westwardly direction from the capital; then conceiving that situation to be a place of safety from any hostile excursions. While he himself continued in the borough of Lancaster, he made his home at the house of the late William Henry, Esq. at that time treasurer of the rich and populous county of the same name; a situation which was very commodious for the business of his office, from its connexion 269with that of the county-treasurer, and one which was also rendered the more agreeable, by reason of Mr. Henry being a person of very considerable mechanical ingenuity.

This separation of Mr. Rittenhouse from his wife and children—attended too, as it was, by the most embarrassingembarrassing circumstances, and great uncertainty with respect to the extent of its continuance—produced, in such a disposition as his, the most poignant feelings. His lot, it is true, was that of thousands of his fellow-citizens: nor were the opposite party exempt from similar evils; many of whom were obliged to abandon their homes, and, after making great sacrifices, to seek an asylum among strangers. These were a part of the miseries inseparable from a state of war; and some of them were of that nature which necessarily resulted from a war of so singular a character; considerations, however, which could not afford much alleviation to the anxious feelings of our Philosopher, in his exile: those sensations were in his mind, extremely acute; aggravated as they were, by the almost hopeless condition of his native country at that time.^[190]

270A letter which he wrote to his wife, from Lancaster, on the 26th of January, 1778, strongly bespeaks his inquietude and distress, at that alarming period; and is, besides, so very expressive of his purity of heart and the delicacy of his conjugal and parental affections, that the following extracts from it will, it is presumed, be strikingly indicative of his principles and temper.

“One of your last,” says Mr. Rittenhouse to his wife, “convinces me, that the fears I expressed in a former letter are well-founded; I mean, that you will write, when writing is painful to you: Indeed, my dear H. I am not so unreasonable as to desire it.”—“Your letters, my dearest H. give me mingled pleasure and pain. There is nothing in this world I value 271so much, as your esteem and affection: Your very kind expressions of regard, and concern for my health, would therefore make me happy, if it were not for our unfortunate situation. But we have long since talked of the necessity of reconciling ourselves to the prospect of a separation,—perhaps for years: this, I fear, you have still made little progress in doing, if I may judge from your letters. Nevertheless, the dismal prospect still continues. I cannot, indeed, boast of much more resolution myself. If providence has espoused the cause of our enemies, for wise reasons unknown to us,—Heaven, nevertheless, is my witness, with what integrity I have acted; and, that the virtue and happiness of my fellow-creatures has always been my principal object. I am, therefore, not at all distressed on my own account, confident of being happy, in whatever part of the world my lot may be thrown: but how to leave you exposed to the frowns of fortune; to leave you to the mercy of an unfeeling world, rendered more callous by general distress; to leave you thus, confiding only in the goodness of Providence, is what I have still to learn. May kind Heaven render it unnecessary!

“I shall perhaps, before I seal this, appoint a time to meet you. In my last, I partly promised to come and stay a fortnight with you: but I do not now think it so safe, as I did then. In our present situation, I should not think it prudent to stay above one night with you, as parties of horse are employed to pick up 272particular persons. For this reason, I would rather meet you at one of your brothers’,brothers’, or at sister’s;^[191] but I apprehend the Schuylkill is, at present, difficult—if not dangerous—to cross, on account of the ice.

“Tuesday morning.—I am now nearly determined to appoint next Saturday week, in the evening, to meet you at brother John’s;^[192] and yet I fear it may expose one or both of us to a very uncomfortable ride. I will, however, be there, if the weather be tolerable and health permit; but do not come, my dear H. if the weather should be bad; because if I do not find you there, I shall proceed to brother Israel’s,^[193] where I shall be glad to find you on Sunday, in order to accompany you home. If you can find any opportunity to write before then, I shall be glad to receive a line.”

After experiencing the numerous and distressing privations incident to a nine months banishment from his home and separation from his family—during a period, too, of great calamity and suffering among his countrymen, Mr. Rittenhouse most joyfully returned to 273Philadelphia, soon after its abandonment by the hostile army; and there, once more, enjoyed the solace of a reunion with his wife and children; amidst whose tender embraces, and the mutual congratulations of his friends and fellow-citizens, especially of the returning exiles, he participated largely in those delightful sensations with which such an occasion, and such scenes, must have inspired a virtuous heart.

In Philadelphia, Mr. Rittenhouse resumed the discharge of his official functions, as treasurer of the state; an office, in the execution of which there were very numerous and complicated duties, arising out of the novel system of finance and paper-credit, pursued by both the general and state governments during the war: consequently, his attention to this business engrossed so much of his time, as to leave him little leisure for pursuits more congenial to his mind.

In a very short time after Mr. Rittenhouse’s return to Philadelphia he received a letter from Mr. Jefferson, congratulating him on that happy event: and expressing, in very forcible terms, the exalted sense that gentleman entertained of our Philosopher’s genius, talents, and usefulness. It indicates, also, the solicitude felt by its writer, lest the Orrery of Mr. Rittenhouse’s invention and construction, belonging to the College of Philadelphia, had been either removed or injured by the British forces, while they occupied that city. On this head, however, the apprehensions conceived 274by Mr. Jefferson proved to be groundless: for, not only was the Orrery not removed from its proper station; but, at the instance of the Rev. Dr. Smith, the provost of the College, the apartment in the College edifice which contained the invaluable machine, was closed up by order of Sir William Howe, to prevent its being injured; and no person was permitted to enter that apartment to view the Orrery, without the Provost’s consent; on which occasions he uniformly attended in person, with the keys kept in his possession. The means thus used, to secure from any injury property so inestimable to the friends of science, is a circumstance that certainly reflects much honour upon the parties by whom they were effected,—even though one of them was, at that time, necessarily viewed in the character of an “enemy.”

But, in order that the reader may be enabled to form his own judgment, on Mr. Jefferson’s estimate of genius, and concerning the rank and privileges to which the distinguished writer conceives men of great philosophical talents are entitled, the letter, just referred to, is now presented to him: it is as follows.

In the commencement of the year 1779, our benevolent Philosopher had an opportunity of testifying the friendly interest he took in the prosperity of his brother-in-law the Rev. Mr. Barton, and his family. This gentleman was then, with Mrs. Barton,^[195] in the city of New-York; to which they went towards the close of the year 1778, in pursuance of a permission granted for that purpose by the government of Pennsylvania, under certain conditions. All Mr. Barton’s children excepting the eldest, (the writer of these Memoirs), who was then abroad, remained in Pennsylvania; those in their minority, being six of the seven so remaining, having been previously placed under the charge of suitable persons. After a long absence of the eldest son from his native country, he returned to Pennsylvania the beginning of the year 1779. Immediately after his arrival at Lancaster, he received a letter from Mr. Rittenhouse, dated in Philadelphia, January 24th 1779, in which he says—“I most sincerely congratulate you on your safe arrival, and impatiently 279expect the pleasure of seeing you here. I received yours from Baltimore, ten days after the date, and immediately wrote to your father,^[196] supposing 280him to be still at New-York;^[197] though we cannot be certain as to that matter.” The Rev. Mr. Barton, on the 15th of February, acknowledged the 281receipt of his brother-in-law’s letter to him, which, although dated the 16th of January, did not reach him until the 13th of the succeeding month. In this answer, Mr. Barton says;—“To see, and to be united with my children, is my most earnest wish; but how that happy event is to be obtained, I know not: If my son should choose to come to Elizabeth-Town, perhaps I might be indulged with a flag, to have an interview with him there.”^[198]

In the autumn of the same year, Mr. Rittenhouse again manifested his friendly attachment to Mr. Barton’s family, on an occasion which offered, relating to the writer of these Memoirs personally. Soon after the appointment of the late Henry Laurens, Esq. to be envoy to Holland, Mr. Rittenhouse applied to that gentleman for the purpose of obtaining for the writer, who was well known to him, the secretaryship to that mission: but Mr. Laurens had determined to appoint no secretary; at least before he should arrive in Holland. In a letter to the writer of this, communicating the result of his application, Mr. Rittenhouse says—“I wish you could obtain some handsome thing of this 282kind; but there are such numbers of humble suitors to, and dependants on, members of congress, that every thing is snapped up, before you or I know any thing of the matter.”

In consequence of a territorial dispute which had arisen between Pennsylvania and Virginia, Mr. Rittenhouse was appointed by the legislature of the former, in the year 1779, one of the commissioners for settling that controversy: his colleagues, on that occasion, were George Bryan, Esq. and the reverend Dr. Ewing.

These commissioners, thus nominated on behalf of their own state, were authorised “to meet and agree with other commissioners, on the part of Virginia, upon the western boundary.” They accordingly met Dr. James Madison, president of the college of William and Mary, (late bishop of the protestant episcopal church in Virginia), and Robert Andrews, professor of mathematics in that institution, the commissioners appointed by Virginia,—for the purposes of their respective appointments. This meeting was held on the 31st day of August, 1779. The propositions for an amicable adjustment of the boundary line in dispute, were first made by Pennsylvania: and, at the meeting thus held, in consequence of, Virginia having acceded to those propositions, the joint commissioners of the two states entered into the following agreement:

283“We, George Bryan, John Ewing, and David Rittenhouse, commissioners from the state of Pennsylvania, and we, James Madison and Robert Andrews, commissioners for the state of Virginia, do hereby mutually, in behalf of our respective states, ratify and confirm the following agreement, viz. To extend Mason’s and Dixon’s line, due west, five degrees of longitude, to be computed from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian, drawn from the western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said state, be the western boundary of Pennsylvania for ever.”

This agreement, signed by the respective commissioners of the contending states, was, on the 19th of November ensuing, unanimously ratified and confirmed by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, and its ratification duly transmitted to the government of Virginia.

But this agreement, thus solemnly concluded, did not quiet the pre-existing disputes. Divers persons, deriving authority, or pretending so to do, under the government of Virginia, proceeded to Fort Byrd in the county of Westmoreland, thirty miles at least within the line agreed on by the commissioners,—and upon lands originally settled under Pennsylvania, and long held as being within its unquestionable jurisdiction; and these intruders there exercised a summary and arbitrary authority, tending to the dispossession 284of the grantees under Pennsylvania; vexing and disturbing them, greatly, in the peaceable possession of lands which they had honestly purchased, and cultivated for a long course of years. Such injustice and outrages, on she part of the Virginia intruders, induced congress to interpose the little authority they possessed, for the purpose of tranquillizing the contending parties, at a period when the harmony of the citizens of the several states was highly important to the safety of the whole confederacy. Accordingly, in December, 1779, and nearly four months after the adjustment of the before disputed boundary by the persons duly empowered to settle the same, congress passed a resolution, attested by their secretary, in these words:

It is evident from the face of this resolution, that congress were not disposed to notice this controversy, otherwise, than with extreme delicacy: and so cautious were they, under all existing circumstances, of interfering with the merits of this dispute between two great and powerful states, that they speak of the controversy as one then actually in existence, between those states; although, in regard to their respective governments, it had been settled long before. However, the day after the date of the resolution of Congress, the president and the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania issued a proclamation, requiring all officers, civil and military, and others, subjects of the state, to pay due obedience and respect to that resolution; and also encouraging the several grantees claiming under Pennsylvania to continue in the cultivation and improvement of their several estates and possessions, as well as in their allegiance and fidelity to the state,—notwithstanding any claims or pretences set up by the state of Virginia, or any other foreign jurisdiction; and assuring them of the protection and support of their own state, while so continuing in duty and obedience to its laws and government.

286Notwithstanding all these proceedings, this extraordinary controversy was not terminated until long afterwards. In consequence of a resolution of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, of the 28th of August, 1783, the supreme executive council of that state passed, on the 11th day of the succeeding month, a resolution on their part, stating,—that, as many of the objections which had hitherto prevented the determination of the boundary-line, in question, were then removed, it became necessary to close that business with all possible accuracy and dispatch; and that, to this end, four commissioners should be immediately appointed, with directions to provide the necessary astronomical apparatus, and to correspond with those appointed by the state of Virginia for the same purpose: they therefore appointed the Rev. John Ewing, D. D., David Rittenhouse, Esq. treasurer of the state and Thomas Hutchins, Esq. to perform that duty.

The arduous service thus assigned to these gentlemen, all of them possessing great abilities, was accordingly executed; and a law was thereupon passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 1st of April, 1784; which, after reciting that the boundary-line agreed on by the former commissioners, on the 31st of August, 1779,—and which is therein stated to have been unanimously confirmed by Pennsylvania on the 23d of September, 1780, with the condition attached 287thereto by Virginia,^[199]—was by this law finally confirmed.

Mr. Rittenhouse bore so conspicuous a part, in negociating and executing this long-depending and important business, that the writer of his life could not deem it improper to introduce into it, this historical detail of a transaction of so much moment, which originated in 1779 and was not completed until 1784; and, more particularly, as (to use the words of Dr. Rush,) “to his talents, moderation and firmness, were ascribed, in a great degree, the satisfactory termination of that once alarming controversy.”

The death of the Rev. Mr. Barton, which occurred in the spring of 1780,^[200] put a period to the sincere 288and intimate friendship between that gentleman and Mr. Rittenhouse, which had subsisted almost thirty years. This friendship, which may be said to have commenced almost in the youth of both parties, continued without interruption until the year 1776; when the declaration of American independence produced, unhappily, some abatement of it on each side; at least, so far as related to that great political measure, respecting which they entertained different opinions: For, although Mr. Barton was, in truth, warmly attached to the principles of the English whigs; and had, on various occasions, manifested his zeal for the liberties of the American people and rights of the colonists;^[201] his opinions were conscientiously 289opposed, and only these, to the expediency of that measure. Yet it is believed, that the personal friendship 290of these intimate relatives was far from having ever subsided: the ties that early united them, were of the strongest kind; that union was of long continuance; and they were mutually sensible of each other’s worth and talents.

The name of the Rev. Mr. Barton, which has hitherto been so often introduced in the course of these Memoirs, is closely connected with that of Mr. Rittenhouse, in many of the more striking traits of his Life: the writer cannot, therefore, restrain himself from acknowledging, that he is happy in having this fair opportunity of rendering some small tribute of respect—and, for himself, of filial veneration—to the memory of a man distinguished by his virtue, his talents, and his learning; one, who, independently of those considerations, alone, which arose out of the American revolution, long enjoyed the friendship and esteem of many of the most prominent characters in America, by reason of his abilities and usefulness, as well as the urbanity of his manners. To have said 291less of this person, would be doing injustice to the life and character of Mr. Rittenhouse: to say more, would perhaps be deemed irrelevant to the subject; if not indecorous, as it regards the writer.

To return, however, more particularly to Mr. Rittenhouse. On the 10th day of March, 1780, he was elected, by the general assembly of Pennsylvania, a trustee of the loan-office of the state.

The institution here mentioned was a measure of financial policy, which had its origin in Pennsylvania, at an early period of the provincial government: and, from an experience of its beneficial effects, it was not only continued, at various intervals of time, from the year 1723, to the termination of that government; but was resorted to, and for some time continued, by the state legislatures after the revolution. The scarcity of gold and silver, among the earlier settlers of the province, subjected them to many and great inconveniences, and suggested to the legislature the necessity of adopting some rational and efficient means of remedying the evil. The expedient was, the emiting, and making current, bills of credit; which were loaned to cultivators of the soil on the security of their lands, and repayable with interest, in annual payments, within an assigned term of years. The first act of assembly for this purpose was passed the 11th of May, 1723; and the preamble to that law is expressive of its object: it states, that, “Forasmuch 292as through the scarcity of money, the trade of this province is greatly lessened and obstructed, and the payment of the public debts of this government rendered exceeding difficult, and likely so to continue, unless some medium in commerce be by law made current, instead of money: for remedy whereof, may it please the governor that it be enacted, and be it enacted by Sir William Keith, baronet, Governor, &c.” This act then goes on to direct the emission of “fifteen thousand pounds, current money of America, according to an act of Parliament made in the sixth year of Queen Anne, for ascertaining the rates of foreign coins in the Plantations;” and provides for the loaning of these bills, by persons thereby appointed “trustees of the general loan-office;” to be loaned out, upon the security of mortgages of real estates, within the province, of at least three times the value of the sums lent: which sums so loaned were made repayable in those bills, in eight years, in annual payments of one-eighth part of the amount of the principal with the addition of an interest of five per cent. per annum. The act also contains a provision (but one which was omitted in the subsequent loan-office laws,) for lending these bills upon the security of plate also, for the term of one year. This paper-money, thus established upon indubitable funds,^[202] 293was made a legal tender in the payment of debts;—and it never suffered any depreciation of its nominal value.^[203]

Hence, an interesting fact is presented to the view of the reader; that, ninety years ago, so small was 294the population, and so slender were the agricultural and commercial resources of Pennsylvania, that the scanty amount of a sum equivalent to forty thousand dollars, was deemed adequate to the relief of the public and private difficulties in the province, arising from the want of a sufficient circulating medium at that time. Yet such was the increase of population and trade, and such were the improvements in agriculture, in Pennsylvania, in half a century afterwards, that the last loan-office law, under the provincial government,^[204] directed the emission of ten times the original sum; to be applied, in aid of land-improvements, in loans for the term of sixteen years; and repayable in like manner, with an annual interest of six per centum.

The same policy was pursued by the independent government of Pennsylvania. Under the first loan-office law of that state,^[205] the sum of fifty thousand pounds was issued in bills of credit; and eight years afterwards, a further sum of half a million of dollars (or 187,500l.) was appropriated for the purposes of a loan-office on similar principles, in pursuance of a law of the state.^[206] But, as the individual state-governments were prohibited by the constitution of the United 295States, then recently established, from emitting bills of credit, or making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts,—the money to be employed in loans, on mortgages of real estates, was to be borrowed, according to the provisions of the law last mentioned, from the bank of Pennsylvania; a power which the state had reserved, for that express purpose, in the act to incorporate the subscribers to that bank.^[207]

This loan-office law was, however, the last in Pennsylvania.^[208] The establishment of banks, for facilitating the purposes of trade, together with the great improvements and wealth to which the landed interest of the state had attained, by means of a widely extended foreign commerce, coming in aid of the benefits which the cultivators had previously derived from the loan-office system, superseded, in a great degree, the utility of this institution. In one year after the last loan-office was erected, the law for that purpose was repealed; the repealing act declaring—that it had been found inexpedient, and not to answer the purposes intended by the legislature. In fact, the establishment 296of banks in the interior of the country, not only supplies the place of a loan-office, in relation to the farmer, but greatly facilitates the extensive inland trade of the state. Experience has demonstrated, that, operating in this way, they are productive of all the important advantages of the loan-office system: and of this institution, the late governor Pownall speaks in these remarkable words—“I will venture to say, that there never was a wiser or a better measure; never one better calculated to serve the uses of an increasing country; that there never was a measure more steadily pursued, or more faithfully executed, for forty years together,^[209] than the loan-office in Pennsylvania, formed and administered by the assembly of that province.”^[210]

297In the year 1782, Mr. Rittenhouse was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, of Boston: his certificate bears date the 30th of January, in that year. This academy, which Dr. Morse ranks among the first literary institutions in the state of Massachusetts, holds a very respectable station in relation to science: yet it was not established till so lately as May 4, 1780. The end and design of the institution are stated to be—“to promote and encourage the knowledge of the antiquities of America, and of the natural history of the country, and to determine the uses to which its various natural productions may be applied: also, to promote and encourage medical discoveries, mathematical disquisitions, philosophical enquiries and experiments; astronomical, meteorological and geographical observations, improvements in 298agriculture, arts, manufactures, commerce, and the cultivation of every science that may tend to advance a free, independent and virtuous people.”^[211]

It is supposed to have been somewhat about this time, that Mr. Rittenhouse exercised his ingenuity upon an object, which, though not of great importance, is nevertheless a matter of considerable utility and some curiosity; the invention of an Hygrometer, made wholly of wood. The simplicity of the construction of this instrument, renders it easily attainable by almost every one; and as it is found to answer, very well, the end for which more expensive instruments are often employed, it may be considered as being more generally useful. Descriptions of the construction, and principle of operation, of this Hygrometer, having been furnished to the writer through the obligingness of two of his friends,^[212] a very concise account 299of it, drawn up from those descriptions, is given in the Appendix.

A circumstance shall be noticed in this place, which, although trivial in itself, will serve to shew the grateful sense entertained by our Philosopher of the merits of General Washington. It appears, that just about the time when the provisional articles of peace, concluded on between the United States and Great-Britain, were made known in America, Mr. Rittenhouse had forwarded to the General, at the head-quarters of the army, a pair of spectacles, and reading glasses,—as a small testimonial of his respect for the character and services of that great man. The terms of the letter that accompanied this little present, are not known to the writer of these memoirs; but, of what complexion they were, may be inferred from the General’s answer, which is in these words:

The grinding and polishing of the glasses were of Mr. Rittenhouse’s own workmanship; and they were made for the purpose. This circumstance, added to the manner and occasion of their being presented, could not fail of being highly acceptable to the General.

In the year 1784, Mr. Rittenhouse was employed on the part of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of determining the western extension of that state; and was associated in that business with Mr. Lukens, Dr. Ewing, and Capt. Hutchins: the commissioners in behalf of Virginia were Dr. (afterwards bishop) Madison, Mr. Ellicott,^[213] Mr. J. Page, and the Rev. Mr. R. Andrews. 301A record of the astronomical observations which were made on this occasion, and on similar ones of an important nature, will be found detailed in a letter, under the date of April 2, 1795, addressed by Mr. Ellicott to Mr. Patterson, in the fourth volume of the Am. Philos. Society’s Transactions. Among the observations contained in the first part of that letter, are those of the immersions of the satellites of Jupiter, taken at Wilmington on the Delaware, by Messrs. Rittenhouse, Lukens, Page and Andrews, at divers days from the 1st to the 23d of August, in the year 1784; together with those taken at the western observatory by Messrs. Ellicott, Ewing, Madison and Hutchins, at divers days from the 17th of July to the 19th of August; also, the emersions of those satellites by the same eastern observers, from the 29th of August to the 19th of September; and by the same western observers, from the 27th of August to the 19th of September; all in the same year.

“After the determination,” says Mr. Ellicott, “we completed the southern boundary of Pennsylvania; it being likewise the north boundary of Maryland, and a part of Virginia; and which had been carried on some years before,^[214] by Messrs. Mason and Dixon, the distance of 242 miles.” This line is in the parallel of 39° 43′ 18″ North latitude.^[215]

302It was at the close of this year, that the college of William and Mary, in Virginia, complimented Mr. Rittenhouse with an honorary degree of Master of Arts, by an unanimous vote of the rectors and faculty of that institution. His diploma, which is a special one, and wherein he is styled the Chief of Philosophers,^[216] has a place in the Appendix.

The college of William and Mary was founded in the joint reign of the king and queen of those names, who endowed it with twenty thousand acres of land, besides a small duty on certain exported tobaccoes, granted by stat. 25 Ch. II: in addition to which, the assembly of Virginia also gave to it, by temporary laws, a duty on liquors imported, and on skins and furs exported. And from these resources, its funds amounted, 303on a medium, to more than 3,000l. Virginia currency, (or $10,000,) per annum. The Hon. Robert Boyle,^[217] of England, had also made a liberal donation to this college, for the purpose of instituting a professorship, called the Brafferton, (the name of the English estate, purchased with the money granted by him to the college,) for the purpose of compensating missionaries, 304to instruct the Indian natives and to convert them to Christianity. After the revolution, the constitution of the college of William and Mary underwent a considerable change: three of the six original professorships, that is to say, two of Divinity, and one of the Greek and Latin languages, were abolished; and three others, namely, one for Law and Police—one for Anatomy and Medicine—and a third for Modern Languages, were substituted in their stead; the Brafferton, it is presumed, has been diverted into other channels, if not wholly neglected.

This once respectable college, or university, is at present in an unprosperous condition; and will not probably soon, if ever, regain its former reputation. A country of which a large portion of the population consists of slaves, is ill suited for the site of an extensive seminary of learning, and for the education of youth: nor can it be expected, that where an almost despotic sway of masters over their slaves^[218] is daily exhibited to the view 305of both young and old, the children of those masters will submit to that degree of subordination, and to that exercise of authority by their literary preceptors, which the discipline of an academic education renders indispensable. The late Bishop Madison contributed much by his abilities, his suavity of manners and his prudence, to maintain a due degree of order in this institution, over which he long presided with distinguished reputation; but the death of that respectable man, it is feared, augurs ill for the future prosperity of the seminary.

In the year following, the tracing of a meridian, northward, for the western boundary of Pennsylvania,—and, consequently, the eastern boundary of part of Virginia,—was commenced, from the western end of the southern line of Pennsylvania before mentioned. On this occasion, Mr. Rittenhouse addressed the following letter to Mr. Ellicott.

This boundary-line was begun in May, 1785, by Messrs. Rittenhouse, Ellicott, Porter, and Nevill; 307assisted by the present Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton, then a youth about nineteen years of age, whose medical and other scientific acquirements rendered him, even at that early period of life, an useful associate of the commissioners. Mr. Nevill (who was employed on the part of Virginia) left the other commissioners late in August; and Mr. Rittenhouse, about the middle of September.^[220] Dr. Barton remained until some time in October, when these operations ceased for that season. The line then wanted about 55⅓ miles of being completed: and this part of it, to its intersection of the margin of Lake Erie, was finished in the 308following year, by Col. Porter and Alexander Maclain, Esq.^[221]

It will be readily conceived, that a person of Mr. Rittenhouse’s delicate constitution, and regularity in his mode of living when at home, must have experienced much inconvenience and felt many privations of comfort, while climbing rugged mountains, traversing vast uncultivated forests, and sleeping in a tent, for successive months, as he was necessarily obliged to do, when employed on occasions of this kind. For, although the government afforded to the gentlemen engaged in these arduous services, very liberal accommodations, there were, nevertheless, numerous conveniencies which the nature of the duty to be performed rendered unattainable. Yet it is a fact, that Mr. Rittenhouse always returned from these excursions with a better stock of health, than he sat out with; notwithstanding the hardships he sometimes endured, and the many unpleasant circumstances in regard to weather, diet, bedding, &c. which he was compelled to encounter. The two following letters, written by him to his wife, while he was engaged in the service of establishing the boundary-line last mentioned, will enable the reader to form a 309pretty good judgment of the kind of life he then passed. They will at the same time serve to shew, in some degree, the bent of his mind and the disposition of his heart.

The first of those letters, dated at “Wheeling Creek,” June 30th 1785, is in these words.

The other letter, dated at the “Head Waters of Buffalo,” the thirteenth of July, is as follows.

This arduous business of determining the territorial limits of several great states, which commenced before the American revolution, was not terminated until some years afterward. And on every occasion of that kind, where Mr. Rittenhouse’s situation, in respect to health and official duties, admitted of his being employed, his talents placed his services in requisition.

He had been at home but a few weeks, after being engaged in running the Western boundary of Pennsylvania, before he was elected by Congress, together with the Rev. Dr. Ewing, and Thomas Hutchins, Esq. afterwards Geographer of the United States, a commissioner “for running a line of jurisdiction between the states of Massachusetts and New-York, conformably to the laws of the said states.” This appointment was made on the 2d day of December, 1785.^[226] It was not, however, until the year 1787, 317that the legislature of New-York ceded to the state of Massachusetts all the lands within their jurisdiction, Westward of a meridian to be drawn from a point in the Northern boundary of Pennsylvania, eighty-two miles West from the river Delaware; excepting one mile along the Eastern side of the Niagara river; and 318also ten townships between the Chenengo and Owegy rivers; reserving the jurisdiction to the state of New-York: a cession which was made to satisfy a claim of Massachusetts, founded upon their original charter.

This line was accordingly run, in the year 1787, by the commissioners so appointed for the purpose:—And “this last business, which was executed with his usual precision and integrity”—says Dr. Rush, speaking of Mr. Rittenhouse,—“ was his farewell peace-offering to the union and happiness of his country.”

It was not until the year 1786, that the American Philosophical Society were enabled to publish a second volume of their Transactions:^[227] it then made its appearance. Into that volume is introduced a letter to the Society, in the original Latin, (accompanied with an English translation,)^[228] from the celebrated 319C. Mayer, the Elector Palatine’s^[229] Astronomer at Manheim, dated so long before as the 24th of April, 1778. The receipt of that letter had been acknowledged by Mr. Rittenhouse, according to a special order of the Society, so early as the 20th of August, 1779; and the answer, it is presumable, was duly transmitted to Mr. Mayer. Yet, although there was a lapse of seven years, from the date of Mr. Rittenhouse’s letter to the time of Mr. Mayer’s communication being printed in the Society’s Transactions, the former was, by some unaccountable circumstance, omitted and unnoticed! Nor will the reader’s surprise on this occasion be diminished, when he learns, that a member of the Society, having obtained from Mr. Rittenhouse a copy of his letter, had it read at their stated meeting on the 16th of March, 1792,—twelve 320years and a half after its date; that it was, thereupon, “referred to the committee of selection and publication:” and, notwithstanding, by some other fatality, that letter remained unpublished until now; being twenty-one years afterwards!

On a perusal of the answer to Mr. Mayer’s communication (in the Appendix,) it will be found, that the “eminent utility,” which he expected to result, at some future day, to astronomical science, from a prosecution of such discoveries as he had recently made among the fixed stars, had been long before anticipated by our Astronomer. In that answer Mr. Rittenhouse mentions, that he is induced to request his correspondent’s acceptance of a copy of the Oration he had delivered before the American Philosophical Society, “some years” before:—“because,” says the writer, “I therein gave my opinion, that the fixed stars afforded the most spacious field for the industry of future astronomers; and expressed my hopes, that the noblest mysteries would sometime be unfolded, in those immensely distant regions.”

This early opinion of his own concerning the fixed stars, to which Mr. Rittenhouse refers in his letter, is expressed in his Oration, in this short paragraph: “If astronomy shall again break those limits that now confine it, and expatiate freely in the superior celestial fields,—what amazing discoveries may yet be made among the fixed stars! That grand phænomenon the 321Milky way, seems to be the clue, that will one day guide us.”

Such were the expectations entertained by our Philosopher, more than three years before the date of Mr. Mayer’s communication of his discovery to the Philosophical Society;—a discovery which Mr. Rittenhouse, in his letter to that great astronomer, styles “excellent;” and one that proves his own “presage” to have been well founded. He, at the same time, modestly suggests to Mr. Mayer, the institution of a comparison between the many observations he had already made, in order to determine, whether the several changes observed will agree with any imagined motion of our system; remarking, that those he had communicated, seemed to favour such a supposition.

How important soever, in relation to astronomy, the phænomena observed by Mayer may be, the honour of first discovering them certainly belongs to him. Mr. Rittenhouse was not the discoverer: nor had he ever access to so complete and expensive an astronomical apparatus, as that used by Mayer on the occasion, and with which he was furnished by means of princely munificence. But all candid men of science will, nevertheless, be disposed to allow the American Astronomer no inconsiderable share of merit for the early “presage,” which his deep-discerning and vastly comprehensive mind enabled him to suggest, of some such future discoveries.

322The writer of these memoirs deemed it his duty to do justice to the memory of the subject of them, by giving publicity to these interesting circumstances; and the performance of this duty is the more gratifying to the writer, because he alone possesses a knowledge of all the facts he has stated, concerning them.

The late discoveries of Dr. Herschel, among the fixed stars, in addition to those previously made by Mr. Mayer, have in a greater degree realised the expectations which were formed, many years before either, by our Astronomer; such, indeed, as are almost entitled to the character of prescient annunciations, respecting that portion of the heavens which should, some time or other, be the scene of the most important astronomical discoveries. According to Herschel, the Milky Way is an immense nebula, near one of the sides of which, is placed the solar system; and he imagines, that each nebula, of which he had observed more than nine hundred, consists of a group of suns, with their attendant planets!

Mr. Rittenhouse never possessed the means of acquiring such stupendous and costly telescopes, as those used by Herschel, for the purpose of exploring the heavens. But the penetrating genius of our countryman seems to have contemplated, by anticipation, the actual existence of those sublime phænomena, some of which the vastly superior instruments of the Germano-Anglican Astronomer have since manifested; when, 323in language apparently prophetic, but certainly dictated by the most exalted pre-conceptions of the grandeur of celestial objects which were yet undiscovered, the American Philosopher observes, as he does in his Oration,—that “all yonder stars innumerable, with their dependencies, may perhaps compose but the leaf of a flower in the Creator’s garden, or a single pillar in the immense building of the Divine Architect.” Well might he exclaim, with rapturous extacy, after so beautiful and sublime a reflection,—“Here is ample provision made for the all-grasping mind of man!”

It will be evident to such as duly reflect on this subject, that those expectations which occupied the mind of Mr. Rittenhouse, so long since as the year 1775—concerning the “amazing discoveries” which should, at some future period, be made among the fixed stars, were not mere conjectures or vague hypotheses; but, that they were rational anticipations of realities, founded on the most acute observation and laborious research, as well as the profoundest philosophical judgment. As Newton is said to have revealed those truths in physics, which his predecessor, Bacon, had preconceived; so, that great practical astronomer, Herschel, and some other eminent observers of our day,^[230] 324have been enabled, by means of the very important improvements recently made in astronomical instruments,^[231] to verify a grand hypothesis in his favourite 325science, which had long before been conceived by the towering genius of Rittenhouse.

From the time our astronomer became established in Philadelphia, until the year 1787, he resided in a house belonging to the late Mr. Thomas Clifford, at the south-east corner of Arch and (Delaware) Seventh streets: But the mansion which Mr. Rittenhouse had erected for himself, the preceding year, on his Observatory-lot at the diagonal corner of those streets, being then compleated, he removed thither; and there continued his residence, during the residue of his life. It was about this time, perhaps towards the close of the year 1786, that he was compelled by the duties of his office, as sole trustee of the loan-office, to put in suit the bonds which accompanied the mortgages of sundry delinquent loanees. The bonds were placed in the hands of the Writer of these Memoirs, for that purpose; with instructions to treat the delinquents with every reasonable degree of forbearance. This lenity was observed, agreeably to Mr. Rittenhouse’s desire; few suits were instituted, and payment of the monies due, or the greater part of them, was not long after obtained.

326Early in the year 1787, the expected appearance of a new comet in that year, engaged Mr. Rittenhouse’s attention: and on that occasion he addressed the following letter to Mr. Ellicott.

The correctness of the calculations respecting the Georgium Sidus, stated in this letter, is noticed in the following extract from one of Mr. Ellicott’s Almanacks.

328

From this time, until his resignation of the treasurership of Pennsylvania in the autumn of 1789^[233], Mr. Rittenhouse appears to have continued to be pretty much engaged in the duties of that office. A short time before this event, the Writer of these Memoirs visited the city of New-York; where the first congress, chosen under the present constitution of the United States, were then convened, having commenced their session on the fourth day of March preceding: and on that occasion, Mr. Rittenhouse addressed a letter to General Washington, then President of the United States, recommendatory of his friend and nephew. Delicacy forbids this relative to present to public view that portion of the letter, which more especially relates to himself: but the introductory part of it is here presented to the reader, for the purpose of testifying the continuance of the high esteem entertained for the truly great man to whom it was addressed, 329by one who never disguised his sentiments. This extract is as follows:

On the 10th of November, 1789, the following letter from Mr. Rittenhouse, offering his resignation of the office of treasurer of the state, was presented to the general assembly; and, after having been twice read, was, by order of the house, entered on their minutes.

From the commencement of the year 1777, at which period Mr. Rittenhouse was invested with the treasurership 333of his native state, until the month of September following, when its capital was actually possessed by the British army, that city was in imminent danger of an hostile invasion. When it was reduced to a moral certainty, that the speedy occurrence of such an event was inevitable, he had retired with the treasury (as before noticed) to Lancaster, as a place of security; where he remained until the succeeding summer: when, after the evacuation of the capital by the British forces, he returned thither, and replaced the treasury in its ancient seat. The time, therefore, at which he accepted the office of treasurer, was truly one of “difficulty and danger.”

That it was not, for many years, a lucrative place, must be apparent from the ever memorable circumstance of the great and unexampled depreciation of that species of paper-currency, called continental money;^[235] which was the only circulating medium of the 334United States, until the year 1782, when the bank of North America went into operation. The vast accumulation in the treasury, of that depreciated and daily depreciating substitute for money, must necessarily have been “extremely burthensome” to the treasurer, and could not have afforded him “any prospect of profit,” during the first five years of his tenure of the office. And it was not, in fact, until those last few years, which constituted the interval between the time of augmenting the commissions and his retirement from the office, that the treasurership was profitable to him. During the greater part of the time he held it, the profits of the office did not enable him to employ even a clerk: nor could he have performed the numerous and laborious duties of that station (such as they then were,) had he not been greatly assisted by 335the assiduity, care and abilities, of an excellent woman—Mrs. Rittenhouse. Singular as this circumstance may appear, this notice of it seems due to the memory of an highly meritorious wife; while, on the other hand, it must be acknowledged, that it does not reflect any honour on the liberality of a great, wealthy, and populous state. Such a man as David Rittenhouse ought to have been otherwise employed, by a generous and enlightened public: the exercise of his transcendent talents, in works of great and permanent public utility, would not only have constituted services which would have entitled him to a bountiful remuneration; but such as would have conferred great additional benefits and honours on his country.

That he should have had, in thirteen years, successively, an unanimous annual vote for the office of treasurer, is a very strong testimonial of the exalted sense which his countrymen entertained of his integrity: it would have been so, under a popular government, at any period. But when it is considered, that, during the whole of the time he held the treasurership, the people of Pennsylvania were divided into two opposing parties, which sprung into existence with the adoption of the state-constitution of 1776, the unanimity of their representatives in favour of this individual, is still more conclusive evidence of his merits. Most of those men in the community, best acquainted with human nature, and practically versed in the science of politics, very early pointed out the radical defects of 336the new frame of government; and predicted the utter incompetency of that instrument, as they conceived, to promote the true interest and happiness of civil society. In a single legislative body, a plural executive, and in a limited duration of the judicial authority—consequently, an undue dependence of the judges on the executive for their re-appointment,—they foresaw those evils, which were too soon realized: and in a septennial council of censors, such as that constitution provided for,^[236] they beheld a political chimera, 337at variance with common sense and the experience of mankind. Men entertaining these views, formed, of course, one of these parties.

338The other was composed of the projectors of the constitution of 1776, and other speculative politicians; together with all those whom they were enabled to influence, through the medium of their prejudices, their inexperience or their interests.

These two parties continued to divide the state, until the adoption of the fœderal constitution. The great and multiplied evils which resulted to the people of the United States, after the restoration of peace, and which had also been severely felt during the greater part of the war, from the inefficacy of the original confœderation of the States, had convinced all thinking men of the necessity of forming a more energetic national government, as the only remedy for those evils. And the actual formation of such a government, aided by the long experience which the citizens of Pennsylvania had then acquired, of the injurious effects of their own existing constitution, disposed them soon after to establish the present constitution of the state, which was done in convention on the 2d of September 1790; a form of government, free from the palpable errors of the preceding one, and much more consonant to the genius and spirit of the fœderal constitution.

It is, then, a very extraordinary circumstance, and one that reflects great honour on the character of Mr. Rittenhouse, that, in the long course of years during 339which the people of Pennsylvania were thus divided into two contending parties, he alone could unite the favourable opinion of both parties, respecting his superior claims to hold one of the most important offices in the government.

Although little more than six years and an half intervened, from the time of Mr. Rittenhouse’s resigning the treasurership of the state, until the period of his decease, literary and other public honours then flowed in upon him. He enjoyed, likewise, the satisfaction of experiencing, during that short interval, multiplied proofs of the esteem in which his abilities and character were held, both at home and abroad. And, notwithstanding it appears to have been his wish, when he retired from the treasury, to decline for the future any official situation, or public employment of any kind, not connected with science; in order that he might, without interruption, devote the remainder of his life to his favourite pursuits; a variety of public trusts, some of them requiring arduous duties, were constantly pressed upon his acceptance.

Shortly before he resigned the treasurership, the degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred on Mr. Rittenhouse, by the College of New-Jersey: his diploma bears date the 30th of September, 1789. This respectable seminary had given him the degree of Master in the Arts, seventeen years before^[237]; and this new 340honour was a further pledge of the high estimation in which he continued to be held by the regents of the institution. His diploma for the Doctorate has a place in the Appendix.

The College at Princeton, in New Jersey, then possessed—as she still does—the first Orrery constructed by Dr. Rittenhouse; a monument of his genius and abilities, that seemed to give him a just claim to this highest academical honour, appropriate to his character, which the college could confer.

This institution, called Nassau Hall, was founded about the year 1738; but its original charter was enlarged by Governor Belcher, in 1747. The president and trustees of Nassau Hall possessed a power, by their charter, of granting to “the students of the college, or to any others thought worthy of them, all such degrees as are granted in either of the universities, or any other college, in Great Britain.” This privilege, it is believed, was not enjoyed generally—if at all, in any other instance^[238], by the American colleges, before the revolution; as it is supposed they were restricted, prior to that era, to the conferring of degrees in the Arts only. But all the superior seminaries of learning, in the United States, now possess the right of creating Bachelors and Doctors, in Divinity, Law, and Medicine: and it is greatly to be wished, that 341they may always dispense these high academic honours with impartiality and a due discretion.

The college-edifice at Princeton is a stately and durable one, constructed of stone; and it will afford satisfaction to the reader, to be informed, that in this building is deposited the Rittenhouse Orrery. He will derive additional pleasure from learning, that this grand machine has, lately, been repaired in some considerable degree, and at a great expence, by the ingenious Mr. Henry Voight, of the Mint: by whom, that belonging to the University of Pennsylvania, has likewise been put in good order. Neither of these Orreries appeared to have suffered any material injury from the British troops, during the war of the revolution; though it has been generally believed, they did. The libraries, indeed, and some of the apparatus, belonging to both the colleges in which the Orreries are placed, experienced great losses from the presence of an hostile army in their vicinity: but the officers of that army seem to have respected these greater works of human ingenuity.^[239]

342On the first day of January, 1790,^[240] Dr. Rittenhouse was elected one of the Vice-presidents of the 343American Philosophical Society; his colleagues, in this office, being the Rev. William Smith, D. D. and John Ewing, D. D. both of them able and distinguished astronomers.

This appointment he held but one year; in consequence of the death of Dr. Franklin,^[241] on the 17th day of April following.^[242]

344In supplying the vacancy which had thus occurred in the Presidentship of the Society, the members of 345that body could not hesitate in selecting, for that honourable station, a suitable successor to their late venerable patron and chief: the eyes of all were immediately directed towards Dr. Rittenhouse. He was accordingly elected to be President, at the stated annual meeting of the Society for the purpose of chosing their officers, held in January, 1791. On being notified of this appointment, he addressed the following letter to Mr. Patterson, one of the secretaries of the Society.

346

“In this elevated situation, the highest that Philosophy can confer in our country,” says his learned and eloquent Eulogist,^[243] “his conduct was marked by its usual line of propriety and dignity.”—“Never,” continues his Eulogist, “did the artificial pomp of station command half the respect, which followed his 347unassuming manners in the public duties of this office. You will,” says he, “often recollect, Gentlemen, with a mixture of pleasure and pain, the delightful evenings you passed in the Society, every time he presided in your meetings. They were uniformly characterized by ardour in the pursuits of science, urbanity, and brotherly kindness.”

About the time of Dr. Rittenhouse’s elevation to the Presidency of the Philosophical Society, and indeed pretty generally afterwards, the delicate state of his health confined him much to his house and his observatory. On a dry day, he would, occasionally, walk a little abroad; in the proper seasons, he would now and then recreate himself in a pretty little flower-garden adjoining his house, which Mrs. Rittenhouse took pleasure in decorating. His evenings were uniformly passed at home; except at the times of the stated meetings of the Philosophical Society, when he usually attended, if the weather permitted.

Besides a few of his most intimate friends, who were in the habit of visiting him pretty often towards the close of the day^[244], many strangers of distinction, 348and persons who had no particular claims upon him on the score of friendship, made him occasional visits at other times: but in such portions of his time as he could retrench from these avocations, he was much employed in reading; and the books he read comprehended works of literature, taste, and science. He blended the utile cum dulci, in the choice of his subjects; 349and while he devoted some of what might be called his leisure hours, such as were abstracted from his more appropriate pursuits, to works of amusement, he did not neglect studies of a more serious and important nature. He was at no loss for books: independently of his own collection, he had ready access to two valuable and extensive public libraries^[245]; those of several literary gentlemen were open to him; and some of his friends occasionally supplied him with new publications. The following note addressed to him by Mr. Jefferson, in the beginning of the year 1791, will shew that Dr. Rittenhouse then devoted some attention to chemistry, and that he continued to read works of natural science, in French, as well as in his own language.

“Th. Jefferson sends to Mr. Rittenhouse Bishop Watson’s essay on the subjects of chemistry, which is too philosophical not to merit a half an hour of his time, which is all it will occupy. He returns him Mr. Barton’s papers^[246], which he has perused with great pleasure; and he is glad to find the subject has 350been taken up by so good a hand: he has certainly done all which the scantiness of his materials would admit. If Mr. Rittenhouse has done with the last number of the Journal de Physique, sent him by Th. J. he will be glad to receive it, in order to forward it on to Mr. Randolph: if not done with, there is no hurry.

“Monday morning.”

The relation in which Dr. Rittenhouse now stood to the American Philosophical Society, of which he had attained to the honour of being the President, renders it proper that some account should be given, in this place, of an institution heretofore distinguished by its Transactions. The following are the leading features in its history.

This Society was instituted on the 2d day of January, 1769, by an union of two literary societies that had subsisted some time previously, in Philadelphia. In the same year this united body petitioned the general assembly of the province to grant them the privilege of erecting a building, suitable for their accommodation, on some part of the State-House square. But the Library Company of Philadelphia, also a very useful and respectable institution and a much older corporation, having about the same time made a similar application to the legislature, in their own behalf, 351the prayer of neither was then granted. The latter have, long since, erected for their accommodation a large, commodious and elegant structure^[247], on a lot of ground purchased by them for the purpose, in the immediate vicinity of the public square originally contemplated for its site.

A second petition was presented to the general assembly by the Philosophical Society, for the same purpose, soon afterwards; though without success. But, finally, in pursuance of another application to the state legislature by the Society, for the same object, a law was enacted on the 28th of March, 1785; by which a lot of ground (being part of the State-House Square) was granted to them, for the purpose of erecting thereon a Hall, Library, &c. “for their proper accommodation.”

The ground appropriated by the legislature, for this purpose, contains seventy feet in front on (Delaware) Fifth-Street, (and nearly opposite the Hall of the Philadelphia Library-Company,) and fifty feet in depth; on which the Society erected, between the years 1787 and 1791, a neat, convenient, and spacious edifice: it was completed under the direction and superintendence of Samuel Vaughan, Esq. formerly 352a vice-president of the Society; and by means of this gentleman’s disinterested exertions, principally, somewhat more than $3500 were obtained from about one hundred and fifty contributors, towards defraying the expense of the building. Dr. Franklin gave at sundry times, towards this object, nearly $540 in the whole amount.^[248]

The act of assembly of 1785 having, however, restricted the corporation of this Society, not only from selling or transferring, but from leasing, any part of the ground thus granted to them, or of the erections to be made on it, a supplement to that act was obtained, on the 17th of March, in the following year; authorizing the Society to let out any part of their Building, for such purposes as should have an affinity to the design of their institution; but restricting the profits arising from any such lease to the uses for which the Society was originally instituted. The cellars and some of the apartments in the house, have been leased accordingly; and the profits arising from these leases constitute a considerable part of the Society’s funds, which are of very moderate extent. The resident members pay to the Treasurer a small annual assessment, fixed by a by-law of the Society: these payments, in addition to occasional donations in money, 353made by members and others,^[249] form the residue of the funds of the Society; besides which, they receive from time to time valuable presents, in books, astronomical and other instruments, &c. Their library, philosophical apparatus, and collections of various kinds, are now respectable.

The objects of this institution are readily comprehended, from its name; the style of the corporation being—“The American Philosophical Society held at Philadelphia, for promoting Useful Knowledge:” And with this view, in its formation, the fundamental laws (passed on the 3d day of February, 1769,) direct, that “The members of the Society shall be classed into one or more of the following committees:

The same original laws and regulations of the Society indicate the style of the several officers of the institution, 354and prescribe the duties of their respective stations: they likewise direct the manner in which the general economy of the Society shall be managed, and their proceedings, in the more appropriate business of their institution, arranged and conducted. “These Rules,” say the Society (in an Advertisement prefixed to the first volume of their Transactions,) “were adopted from the Rules of that illustrious Body, the Royal Society, of London; whose example the American Philosophical Society think it their honour to follow, in their endeavours for enlarging the sphere of knowledge and useful arts.”

The Officers of the Philosophical Society are—a patron, who is the governor of the state for the time being—a president—three vice-presidents—a treasurer—four secretaries, and three curators,—together with twelve counsellors; which last board of officers was created by an act of the legislature, in the year 1780, and the same law designates the duties of their appointment.

The number of members of this Society is not limited: it consisted of three hundred, forty years ago; and, probably, now amounts to about four hundred and fifty. Of this number, however, a large proportion is made up of foreigners; many of whom are eminent personages, and men of the most distinguished abilities in various departments of science, in different parts of the world.

355The Proceedings, hitherto, of this very respectable association of literary and scientific characters, have been published in six^[250] quarto volumes, denominated the “Transactions” of the Society: Besides which, several learned and ingenious Orations—including two or three of much eloquence, under the title of Eulogiums—have been delivered before the Society and by their appointment, by members of their body.

These outlines will serve to furnish the reader with some ideas of the nature, condition, and character of an institution, which has, in many respects, reflected honour on the country to which it belongs. Its usefulness,^[251] it is earnestly to be wished, will not be suffered 356to diminish, by any declension of that noble ardour in cultivating, that public spirit in promoting, learning and science, which, while they adorn the names of individuals, contribute to the glory of a nation. Let a hope be still cherished, that notwithstanding the tumult, the folly, and the distractions, which at the present day pervade a large portion of the civilized world, the period is not remote, when tranquillity, good sense and order, shall resume their blest dominion over the conduct of the too many now infatuated nations of the earth.—Let a belief be yet encouraged, that under the guidance of a benign Providence, not only the rising generation will be found zealous to emulate the fair fame of a Franklin and a Rittenhouse; but even, that good and rational men in our own time, and among ourselves, will continue to cultivate the arts of peace, and to promote those objects of literature and science, which, at the same time they meliorate the heart and elevate the mind, contribute to the happiness of the individual and the general welfare of mankind.

Dr. Rittenhouse’s attachment to the interests of the institution of which he had been thus recently elected President, was amply manifested soon after. In the month of November, of the same year, he presented to the Society, the sum of 308l. (equivalent to 357821⅓ dollars,) for the purpose of discharging a debt due by their corporation to the estate of the late Francis Hopkinson, Esq. the treasurer, then deceased. This liberal donation was thankfully received; and the acknowledgments of their grateful sense of it were made to the donor, by the following address,—expressive as well of their feelings on the occasion, as of the high opinion they entertained of his merits and character.

“To David Rittenhouse, Esq. LL.D. President of the American Philosophical Society, held at Philadelphia, for promoting Useful Knowledge.

“Sir,

“The American Philosophical Society embrace the present occasion of a meeting for stated annual business, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated Nov. 15th, addressed to their treasurer; in which you are pleased to inform him, that you have paid the 308l. due to the late Judge Hopkinson, and will lay the bond and mortgage before the Society; expressing your hopes, that this benefaction, on your part, may “encourage the Society to exert themselves to get rid of some other heavy debts and incumbrances.”

“This renewed instance of your liberality joined to the consideration of the illustrious part which you have taken in their labours, for many years past, has 358made such an impression upon them, that they are at a loss in what manner they can best express their gratitude, or their respect and veneration for your name.

“At any time, and in any country, such a “brilliant present” would indicate a mind that can feel the inseparable connection between Learning and Human Felicity: But in the present state of our finances, it is a most important benefaction; and a noble specimen of Literary Patronage in a young empire, where many other improvements must share with the Arts and Sciences, in the public attention and bounty.

“We are sensible of the necessity of extinguishing the other heavy debts of the Society, with all possible speed, and have appointed a proper committee for that purpose.

“Signed in behalf, and by order, of the Society, at a meeting held the 16th day of December, 1791.

“John Ewing, William Smith, Th. Jefferson, Vice Presidents.

“James Hutchinson, Jonathan Williams, Samuel Magaw, Secretaries.”

To which address, Dr. Rittenhouse returned this answer.

“Gentlemen,

“The satisfaction I feel, in contributing something towards promoting Science, the interests whereof are, 359I am persuaded, inseparable from those of humanity, is greatly increased by your very polite approbation.

“My sincerest wishes are, that you may ever merit public encouragement, and enjoy the patronage of the generous and the good.”

In the spring succeeding Dr. Rittenhouse’s election to the Presidency of the Philosophical Society, his name was included, jointly with those of Thomas Willing, Esq. and the late Samuel Howell, Esq. in a commission to receive subscriptions, in Pennsylvania, to the Bank of the United States. This appointment was made by President Washington, on the 26th of March, 1791.

Soon after, he was commissioned by Governor Mifflin to be one of three joint “Agents of Information,” relating to the business of opening and improving certain roads, rivers and navigable waters, in Pennsylvania. His colleagues in this commission were the Rev. Dr. William Smith and William Findley, Esq. and this board of commissioners, whose appointment bears date the 10th of May, 1794, was erected in pursuance of an act of assembly, passed the 13th of April, preceding. These gentlemen, it appears, proceeded on that service; for, about two months after their appointment, monies were advanced to them, towards defraying the expences to be incurred in executing the duties of their commission.

360These duties, it is believed, were in some way connected with an investigation of the most practicable route for a turnpike-road between Philadelphia and Lancaster. A company, which had been formed some time before, for the purpose of constructing such a road, were incorporated by the governor of the state, by virtue of a law passed the 9th of April, 1792. Dr. Rittenhouse was a member of that company, and he actually superintended the surveyors, who were employed in tracing one of the then contemplated routes: Dr. Ewing was likewise engaged in the same service. Neither of those gentlemen held any appointment for such purposes, from the managers of the turnpike-company, nor received any compensation from them, for their services: it is therefore presumed, that Dr. Rittenhouse officiated under the commission last mentioned; and perhaps Dr. Ewing acted, also, under a similar commission.^[252] The former, however, was 361himself one of the board of managers; in which capacity he acted as a member of several committees, particularly in 1792: but at the end of that year, he declined to continue any longer a manager.^[253]

It has been before noticed, that, on the elevation of the College of Philadelphia to the grade of an University, by an act of assembly passed in November, 1779, Dr. Rittenhouse was one of the trustees of the new institution, created by that law. On the 30th of September, 1791, almost twelve years afterwards, a compromise was effected between the respective advocates of the old and the new institution; a law of the state being then passed, “to unite the University of the state of Pennsylvania, and the College, 362Academy and Charitable School of Philadelphia, &c.” By this act, the then existing trustees of each institution were to elect twelve trustees; and the twenty-four persons who should be thus chosen, together with the governor of the state for the time being, as president of the board, were to be the trustees of this united seminary, under the denomination of “The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.”

On this occasion, Dr. Rittenhouse was again chosen a member of the corporation, on the part of the University, the election having been made the 3d of November, 1791; at which time, Bishop White was president of the board of the College trustees, and Dr. M‘Kean, late governor of Pennsylvania, of that of the University. By an act of assembly, passed the 6th of March, 1789, so much of the act erecting the University, as affected the charters, franchises and estates of the College of Philadelphia, had been repealed, and the powers of the former trustees revived: but by the act of 1791, all the estates of the two institutions were vested in this one, composed of both.

The union of the separate interests of those seminaries, it may be reasonably expected, will eventually prove a fortunate circumstance: because, by its extinguishing the jealousies and rivalship^[254] that heretofore 363subsisted between the friends of each, which must, too, have continued to operate, had they remained separate; and, by consolidating their estates and pecuniary resources into one fund, greatly encreasing the sphere of their usefulness, beyond the ratio in which they could have been enjoyed separately; the important interests of literature might be expected to be proportionably advanced. A doubt can not be entertained, that this was an object very desirable by the benevolent Rittenhouse, as well as by the trustees, generally, of these conjoint institutions.^[255]

364It has been already noticed, that the first academic honour conferred on Dr. Rittenhouse, was obtained from the College of Philadelphia: he might therefore consider it as being his Alma Mater; and his attachment to that seminary must have been strengthened, by the circumstance of one of his (only two) Orreries having been acquired by it, and its being deposited in the college-edifice. But, besides these considerations, 365he officiated, for some time, as Vice-provost and a professor in the institution, after it became an University. To the first of these stations, he was elected on the 8th of February, 1780; having been unanimously appointed professer of astronomy, the 16th of December preceding: a salary of one hundred pounds per annum was annexed to the vice-provostship, and three hundred pounds per annum to the professor’s chair. These places Dr. Rittenhouse resigned, the 18th of April 1782.

Thus attached to, and connected with, this very respectable seminary of learning, as Dr. Rittenhouse was, the following occurrences in the history of its origin and advancement, will not be deemed uninteresting, by the reader.

The Academy and Charitable School, of Philadelphia, originated in the year 1749. This institution, which was opened in that year, was projected by a few private gentlemen; and many others, of the first respectability, gave their countenance to it, as soon as it became known: some of them were, on its first establishment, appointed trustees of the infant seminary.

The persons on whom the charge of arranging and digesting the preparatory measures for this important undertaking, were Thomas Hopkinson,^[256] Tench 366Francis,^[257] Richard Peters and Benjamin Franklin, Esquires.^[258] The last mentioned of these distinguished and patriotic gentleman draughted and published the original proposals; and on the opening of the Academy, another of them, Mr. Peters, (afterwards D. D. and rector of Christ’s-Church and St. Peter’s in Philadelphia,) who long officiated as provincial secretary, preached an appropriate sermon—on the 7th of January, 1751—from these words (St. John, viii. 32.) “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”—“This reverend and worthy gentleman” said Dr. Smith, in his account of this institution, first published among his works in the year 1762 “(who, amid all the labours of his public station, as well as the private labours in which his benevolence continually engaged him, has still made it his care to devote some part of his time to classical learning, and the study of divinity, to which he was 367originally bred,) took occasion, from these words of our blessed Saviour, to shew the intimate connexion between truth and freedom,—between knowledge of every kind, and the preservation of civil and religious liberty.”

The Rev. William Smith, M. A. (afterwards D. D.) was inducted, on the 25th of May, 1754, as head of this seminary, under the title of Provost, with the professorship of natural philosophy^[259] annexed to that station.station.

On the 14th of May, 1755, an additional charter was granted by the Proprietaries to this seminary, by which a College was engrafted upon the original Academy: a joint government was agreed on for both, under the style of “The College, Academy and Charitable School, of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania;” and this enlarged institution became invested with a power of conferring degrees, and appointing professors in the various branches of the arts and sciences.

The first commencement, in this College and Academy, was held the 17th of May, 1757;^[260] on which 368occasion, an excellent charge was delivered to the graduates, by the Provost. One passage in that charge is so patriotic and impressive, as to merit attention at all times, in a country that boasts of a free constitution of government; its introduction at this time, and on the present occasion, cannot be considered improper: it is the following animated and eloquent exhortation to active patriotism, in times of misrule, popular delusion, and public danger:—

“Should your Country call, or should you perceive the restless tools of faction at work in their dark cabals, and ‘stealing upon the secure hour of Liberty;’ should you see the corruptors, or the corrupted, imposing upon the public with specious names,—undermining 369the civil and religious principles of their country, and gradually paving the way to certain Slavery, by spreading destructive notions of Government;—then, Oh! then, be nobly roused! Be all eye, and ear, and heart, and voice, and hand, in a cause so glorious! Cry aloud, and spare not,—fearless of danger, regardless of opposition, and little solicitous about the frowns of power, or the machinations of villany. Let the world know, that Liberty is your unconquerable delight; and that you are sworn foes to every species of bondage, either of body or of mind. These are subjects for which you need not be ashamed to sacrifice your ease and every other private advantage. For, certainly, if there be aught upon earth suited to the native greatness of the human mind, and worthy of contention,—it must be to assert the cause of Religion, and to support the fundamental rights and liberties of mankind, and to strive for the constitution of your country,—and a government of laws, not of Men.”

In the year 1765, the original plan of this institution was greatly enlarged, by the addition of the Medical School;^[261] with the appointment of Professors,^[262] 370for reading lectures in anatomy, botany, chemistry, the materia medica, the theory and practice of physick, 371and also for delivering clynical lectures in the Pennsylvania Hospital.^[263] Since that period, and after the 372erection of the whole of the College-establishment into an University, the Medical department has been still 373further extended, by the creation of other Professorships in the Schools of Medicine, and filling these 374new chairs—as well as those originally instituted—with men of distinguished learning and abilities: By 375which means, the Medical School in Philadelphia, connected with the University of Pennsylvania, now justly vies with that of Edinburgh, in celebrity.

376The whole of the literary and scientific institution, thus formed—which, besides the Medical Schools, 377was composed of the College, the Academy and the Charitable School, continued under the provostship of 378the Rev. Dr. Smith, assisted by able teachers and professors,^[264] from his induction in the year 1754, until the 379establishment of the University, in 1779:^[265] during which time, comprehending a period of twenty-five 380years, this seminary increased in reputation and flourished; and indeed it was indebted for much of its respectability 381and usefulness to the zeal,^[266] the talents and the services of Dr. Smith.

382This gentleman was educated in the university of Aberdeen,^[267] in Scotland, where he graduated as Master 383of Arts. He soon after obtained clerical orders, in the Church of England; and, in the year 1759, he 384was honoured with the degree of Doctor in Divinity, from the University of Oxford, on the recommendation of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops of Durham, Salisbury, Oxford and St. Asaph.^[268] About the same time, he received a similar degree from the University of Trinity-College, Dublin. Dr. Smith died the 14th of May, 1803, at the age of seventy-six years.

On the 10th of April, 1792, an act was passed by the general assembly of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of enabling the governor to incorporate a company for opening a canal and water-communication between the rivers Delaware and Schuylkill: and by this act, David Rittenhouse, William Moore, Eliston Perot, Cadwallader Evans, jun. and Francis Johnston, Esquires, were appointed commissioners to receive subscriptions of stock, for constituting a fund for this purpose.

Thus, after having been engaged in the course of eleven years, at a prior period, in the improvement of a great natural highway of his native country, he was again employed, in conjunction with others, by the legislative body of that country, after a lapse of nineteen years from the time of his first appointment to a similar duty, in forwarding the great design of uniting more intimately, and more beneficially for the purposes 385of agriculture and commerce, the waters of the beautiful stream near whose banks he was born, with those of the majestic Delaware.

This comparatively inconsiderable appointment was presently after succeeded by a most important one. Dr. Rittenhouse was commissioned to be Director of the Mint, by President Washington, the 14th of April, 1792; but he did not take the requisite qualifications for that office, until the 1st of July following. He entered upon the duties of this arduous and very respectable station with great reluctance: it was, indeed, pressed upon him; not only by Mr. Jefferson, then secretary of state, with whom Dr. Rittenhouse had long been in habits of intimate friendship; but (through the means of Mr. Secretary Hamilton, of the Treasury,) by the illustrious President himself, who always entertained the highest regard for him: and this esteem was mutual, notwithstanding some “shades of difference” in the political tenets of these two great and good men; for no person could hold a more exalted opinion of the integrity, abilities, and public services of Washington, than Dr. Rittenhouse uniformly did. Such was the extreme diffidence with which our Philosopher accepted this appointment thus honourably conferred on him, that he declined, for a considerable time, to be sworn into office; until, finally, on applying to the writer of these memoirs, he obtained his promise to render such assistance to him as he should be able to do, in the event of his own incapacity, 386from want of health or by reason of any incidental circumstance, to devote a sufficient portion of his time to the duties of the station. Although the writer was never required to act in the capacity thus proposed to him, circumstances not occurring to render it necessary, he shall always consider the arrangement then made upon the subject, on the voluntary proposition of Dr. Rittenhouse, as an estimable testimonial of his confidence in his friend and relative: yet the writer would have introduced the mention of these particulars, into the present work, with greater hesitation than he does, did he not conceive that a statement of facts of this kind will evince the delicate sensibility of Dr. Rittenhouse, on the occasion.

As soon as he had determined to accept the Directorship of the Mint, he began to make suitable arrangements for carrying the institution into operation. Towards this end, he suggested to the secretary of state the expediency of purchasing two contiguous houses and lots of ground, conveniently situated, for the establishment; in preference to taking buildings upon lease, for a purpose that seemed to require something like a permanent position. His proposal relative to this matter, it appears, was communicated to the secretary of state, for the purpose of being submitted to the consideration of the President: for, on the 9th of June, 1792, his approbation of the plan was expressed in the following note to the secretary.

387

Dr. Rittenhouse executed this high trust with great ability and unimpeachable integrity, during three years; at the expiration of which he resigned it, on the 30th of June, 1795. He had, long before, expressed his anxious wish to retire from this station; but continued in office until that time, on the solicitation of the President and at the earnest desire of Mr. Jefferson.

As he was the first person appointed to that office, after the institution of the Mint under the present federal government of the Union, the duties that devolved 388upon him, in conducting it, were arduous and complicated. He directed the construction of the machinery; made arrangements for providing the necessary apparatus; and, in daily visits to the Mint, whenever his health permitted, personally superintended, with the most sedulous fidelity, not only the general economy of the institution, but its operations in the various departments;—duties, which his love of system and order, his extensive knowledge, and his practical skill in mechanicks, eminently qualified him to perform with peculiar correctness. At those times when he was prevented, by indisposition, from attending at the Mint in person, reports were made to him by the proper officers, either verbally or in writing, of the state of the institution and the progress of its business; and those officers received from him, on such occasionsoccasions, the instructions requisite for their several departments.

In conducting the affairs of the Mint, Dr. Rittenhouse was seconded by capable and trusty officers; among whom was Mr. Voight, the Chief Coiner, with whose ingenuity and skill, as an operative mechanic, he was well acquainted, having long before employed him in that capacity, while he was engaged in constructing one of his Orreries and carrying on other branches of his professional business. Dr. Nicholas Way, a physician of some eminence, officiated at the same time as Treasurer of the Mint; and that respectable co-adjutor of the then Head of this important 389institution in the national economy, has borne testimony to his scrupulous attention to the public interests, in its direction:—“I have been informed by his colleague in office, Dr. Way,”—says Dr. Benjamin Rush,^[269] who succeeded that gentleman in the Treasurership of the Mint,—“that, in several instances, he,” (speaking of the Director) “paid for work done at the Mint out of his salary,^[270] where he thought the charges for it would be deemed extravagant by the United States.^[271]

390When Dr. Rittenhouse resigned the Directorship of the Mint, in June 1792, he was succeeded in that office by Henry William De Saussure, Esq. of South Carolina, a gentleman of distinguished talents and respectability. But Mr. De Saussure did not long hold the appointment: Some invidious and illiberal, as well as ill-founded insinuations, were soon cast upon the establishment and the manner in which it was conducted, by certain persons in the government, who had very early evinced an hostility to the institution itself; and it is not improbable, that some of this description were also influenced in their inimical views towards it, by personal considerations. Mr. De Saussure, disgusted with such unworthy conduct, retired from the Directorship, after having held that office only a few months; during which short period, he executed his trust in such a manner, as to obtain the approbation of President Washington, and entitle him to the public esteem.

The following letter, which was addressed by Mr. De Saussure to the editors of the Charleston City Gazette, and published in that paper, soon after his resignation, will serve to elucidate this subject: as a vindication of that gentleman, and also of his predecessor, from the injurious aspersions so unjustly thrown out against the institution of the Mint by its enemies, that publication is entitled to a place in the Memoirs of Rittenhouse; it shall now close the narrative of Dr. Rittenhouse’s connexion with the Mint.

391

The Writer then proceeds with some details, respecting the condition of the Mint on his coming into office, and at the time he left it; in the course of which he states some difficulties, and unavoidable obstructions to the progress of the coinage, which existed in the time of his predecessor, and some of which could not be obviated while he remained in the direction: 393and to this statement he annexes a table, exhibiting an account of the gold and silver coinage at the Mint, from its establishment to the close of October, 1795; at the foot of which he remarks, that “there never was any period at which the Mint was supplied with bullion, in a state for coinage, sufficient to keep it regularly and fully employed for any considerable time; except,” continues the writer, “near the close of my direction; to wit, from the 1st to the 24th of October.” Mr. De Saussure thus concludes his very satisfactory letter on this subject:

A national coin having been always considered as a proper, if not an absolutely necessary, attribute of the sovereignty of a state,^[272] the establishment of a Mint, for the United States, was pretty early contemplated. A plan for that purpose was brought into the 395view of congress, in the last year of the war; although no national coinage was instituted until ten years afterwards. The early part of the year 1780 was extremely disastrous to the affairs of the United States. The fall of Charleston, S. C. depressed the spirits of the country: and the almost total failure of public credit, accompanied by a want of money, and other means of carrying on the war, about that period, paralyzed the measures of the government. Such was the apathy of the public mind, in regard to the perilous condition of the country at that crisis, that many members of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, which was convened on the 10th of May, in that year, came thither with petitions from their constituents, praying to be exempt from the payment of taxes.

But while this assembly were in session, a letter was received from General Washington by the Supreme Executive Council of the state, and by them confidentially communicated to the legislative body, in which the distressed condition of the army was faithfully described. Among other things the General stated, that, notwithstanding his confidence in the attachment of the army to the cause of their country, the distresses of the soldiery, arising from a destitution of those necessaries which were indispensable, had become extreme; insomuch, that appearances of mutiny were so strongly marked on the countenances of the army, as to occasion in his mind hourly apprehensions of the event.

396This appalling information, and from such a source, elicited some latent sparks of public spirit. Voluntary contributions were immediately begun; and Robert Morris, Esq. a merchant of the highest credit—as well as a man whose patriotism, talents and enterprize, inspired confidence—contributed two hundred pounds, Pennsylvania currency, in (what was then called) hard money. This subscription commenced the 8th of June, 1780: but it amounted, in the whole to only 200l. hard money, and 101,360l. in the public bills of credit, or paper-money, denominated continental.

On the 17th of the same month, however, a meeting of the contributors to this fund (which was intended as a donation, towards carrying on the recruiting service,) and of others, was convened in Philadelphia: with a view to promote the object more extensively. At this meeting it was resolved—“to open a security-subscription, to the amount of 300,000l. in real money; the subscribers to execute bonds to the amount of their subscription, and to form a Bank thereon, for supplying the army.”

This was the origin of the “Bank of North-America,” which thus took its rise from an association of “a number of patriotic persons” in the city of Philadelphia. The plan they formed for the purpose was communicated to congress by the secretary at war, on the 20th of June; and the next day they were honoured with a vote of thanks.

397On the 20th of February, 1781, Mr. Morris was unanimously elected by congress to the office of Superintendant of Finance, then first created. This gentleman arranged, in the spring following^[273], the system of the present Bank of North-America; whereupon, many of the subscribers to the first-formed bank transferred their subscriptions to this institution. These were incorporated by an ordinance of congress^[274], passed the 31st of December, 1781; and in the beginning of the succeeding year, this Bank commenced its operations in Philadelphia. By the incorporating ordinance, the following gentlemen were nominated by congress to be the president and directors of the institution, until a choice of a new direction should be made by the stockholders; namely, Thomas Willing, Thomas Fitzsimons, John Maxwell Nesbitt, James Wilson, Henry Hill, Samuel Osgood, Cadwalader Morris, Andrew Caldwell, Samuel Inglis, 398Samuel Meredith, William Bingham, and Timothy Matlack, Esquires. Mr. Willing, a merchant of high credit and respectability, was president of the board.

Some doubts having arisen, respecting the right of congress, under the then existing confederation, to exercise the power of erecting any corporate body, an act was passed by the general assembly of Pennsylvania, the 1st of April, 1782, to incorporate this Bank, in order to obviate such doubts. That act was repealed, the 13th of September, 1785; but on the 18th of March, 1787, the charter was renewed for the term of fourteen years, and has been since further continued.

It was by means of this establishment, that Mr. Morris, the superintendant of the finances, was enabled to support the public credit, and, in the words of Dr. Gordon, “to keep things in motion,” at a most critical period of the American affairs, and when the national credit was in the lowest possible state of depression.^[275]

399The establishment of a Mint seems to be a necessary appendage to that of a national Bank. Accordingly, Mr. Morris, in his capacity of superintendant of the finances, addressed a letter to congress, on the 15th of January 1782, “touching the establishment of a Mint.” On the 21st of the succeeding month, they approved his proposal,—directing him, at the same time, “to prepare and report to congress a plan:” But nothing further appears to have been done in this business, until the 16th of October 1786, when congress passed “An Ordinance for the establishment of the Mint of the United States,” &c.

About two years, however, after the commencement of the present federal government (viz. March 3. 1791,) a resolution of congress was passed, concerning the establishing of a Mint, under such regulations as should be directed by law. Previously to this, the late Alexander Hamilton, Esq. had communicated to the house of representatives, by their order, the result of his enquiries and reflexions on the subject, in a 400diffuse and masterly official report. In his report, this able financier, alike distinguished as a statesman and a soldier,^[276] remarked, that “the unequal values 401allowed in different parts of the Union to coins of the same intrinsic worth; the defective species of them, which embarrass the circulation of them in some of the states; and the dissimilarity in their several monies of account, are inconveniences, which if not to be ascribed to the want of a national coinage, will at least be most effectually remedied by the establishment of one; a measure that will at the same time give additional security against impositions, by counterfeit as well as by base currencies.”—“It was with great reason, therefore,” continues the Secretary, “that the attention of congress, under the late confederation, was repeatedly drawn to the establishment of a Mint; and it is with equal reason that the subject has been resumed; now that the favourable change 402which has taken place in the situation of public affairs, admits of its being carried into execution.”

The Mint has been continued in Philadelphia, ever since its establishment,—a great commercial city being very properly considered the most suitable situation for such an institution; its operations have been conducted, for many years past, with activity; and there are few coins superior in beauty, to those of the American Mint.

In less than a year after Dr. Rittenhouse had engaged himself in the duties appertaining to the Directorship of the Mint, he was again called upon to assist his countrymen, by the aid of his talents, in effecting an important water-communication, inland, which was then contemplated. An association, called “The Conewago-Canal Company,” was formed in Philadelphia, in pursuance of a law enacted the 13th of April, 1791; by which the sum of fourteen thousand dollars was appropriated, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the river Susquehanna, between Wright’s Ferry (now the thriving town of Columbia) and the mouth of the Swatara. This company consisted of seventeen members, of whom Dr. Rittenhouse was one: and they were incorporated by an act of assembly, passed the 10th of April, 1793.

Just about this period, an occurrence took place at Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government, 403which excited much public feeling at the time, and—contrary to the expectations of some good men of sanguine dispositions—became the source of many political evils, afterwards. This was the formation of what was called the Democratic Society; a political association, produced by the effervescences of the French revolution, while that all-important event was yet viewed in a favourable light by free nations: and of this society, Dr. Rittenhouse was elected President.

That Dr. Rittenhouse should have been selected as the President of the Democratic Society, and chosen for that station, can be readily accounted for. This gentleman had evinced, from the commencement of the troubles between the American colonies of Great-Britain and the parent country, an ardent attachment to the cause of his native land. The benevolence of his disposition rendered him the well-wisher of all mankind: hence every thing that, in his view, bore the semblance of oppression, was odious to him. But the wrongs which the country of his nativity, more particularly, experienced, from the unconstitutional claims of the British Parliament, roused those feelings of patriotism, with which his virtuous breast was animated, at the beginning of the American discontents: he was, therefore, an early and decided Whig; and the same principles that induced him to become such, continued to actuate him throughout the contest between the two countries.

404The benignity of his temper must, nevertheless, have induced him to be truly rejoiced at the return of peace. When that happy event took place, he had too much goodness of heart to remember past injuries, too much understanding to be influenced by unworthy and mischievous prejudices; he had not a particle of malignity in his nature. At the period of the Declaration of American Independence by Congress, he believed, with a great majority of his countrymen, that necessity justified the separation: and from that epocha, he was heartily disposed to hold the mother-country, as his compatriots then declared they did the rest of mankind,—“enemies in war, in peace friends.”

When the French revolution commenced, the benevolence of his feelings led him to believe, as almost every American then did, that it would meliorate the condition of a great nation, whose inhabitants constituted a large portion of the population of the European world;—a nation, which, by the rigourous policy of its government, under a long succession of ambitious and arbitrary monarchs, anterior to the one then on the tottering throne of that ill-fated country, had become extremely corrupt among the higher orders of the people; and in which, the inferior classes were subjected to great oppression. The American people having, on their separation from the mother-country, instituted for themselves, as an independent nation, a constitution wholly republican; they were disposed to attribute the vices of the French government, before 405the revolution, to the circumstance of its being a monarchy, and the sufferings of the people of France, as necessarily resulting from the monarchial system of rule over them. When, therefore, a republican form of government was erected in France on the ruins of the throne; the excesses, and even the atrocities of the people, which attended the demolition of the ancient government of that country, and the establishment of political institutions entirely new to its inhabitants, found palliatives in the dispositions of most good men among us: they were ascribed to the strong conflicting passions naturally produced between the great body of the people, on the one part, and their rulers on the other; excited by the long sufferings of the former, and an unwillingness to part with power, in the latter. Great enormities were considered as the inevitable consequences of these opposite interests, when brought into action amidst a population of many millions of men, whose national characteristic is that of levity of temper and vehement passions; and a conflict, wherein all the malign dispositions of the most depraved characters, actuated by motives the most flagitious, intermingled themselves with the designs of those who meant well. Such men, freed from all the restraints of government and law, and utterly disregarding all the obligations of either religious or moral duties, had then an opportunity of giving a full vent to their views, whether of ambition, avarice or personal resentments; and they did not fail to embrace it. While, on the one hand, demagogues 406fanned the popular flame by the vilest artifices; put on the semblance of patriotism, and by practising the most detestable hypocrisy, professed themselves to be the friends of the people, whom they were deluding into premeditated ruin. Even virtuous Frenchmen, and many of them possessing no inconsiderable share of discernment, soon fell victims to the machiavelian policy of these pretended patriots. These, in their turn, were sacrificed under the denunciations of their compeers, or other aspiring villains; and thus, others still in succession: until, finally, a fortunate military usurper, restored the monarchy in his own person, with absolute sway; and by substituting an horrible military despotism, in the place of a most sanguinary anarchy, confounded all ranks of his subjects in one vast mass of miserable slaves; who have been since employed in destroying the peace, freedom and happiness of their fellow-men, in other countries. Such have been, hitherto, the fruits of the French revolution; from which, at its commencement, myriads of good men fondly anticipated an issue precisely the reverse.reverse.^[277]

407Notwithstanding the criminal excesses committed by many of the French revolutionists, before the institution of their short lived and turbulent republic, it was hoped by most true Americans, attached by fidelity as well as principle to that system of government, which was then the legitimate one in their own country, 408that its ultimate establishment in France would produce permanent benefits, to that country at least, which would infinitely overbalance what were considered, by zealous republicans, as temporary and partial evils, such as seemed to be unavoidable, in bringing about a radical change in the fundamental institutions of a great and powerful empire. Many Americans were not, indeed, so sanguine in their expectations: but such were, nevertheless, the prevailing sentiments of the citizens of the United States,—even among the best-informed men.

The deliberative and cautionary proceedings (as they purported to be) of the more prominent revolutionary characters in France, in their minor popular assemblies, prior to the establishment of their national constitutional form of government, were judged of, in the United States, with respect to their objects and utility, as similar assemblies, under the denominations of councils of safety, committees of safety, &c. were considered by their own citizens, at the commencement of the American revolution: they were deemed to be necessary agents of the people in each country, respectively, during the interregnum which succeeded the abandonment of their ancient governments.

The Jacobin Club of Paris was one of these political engines of the French revolution, for some time after its commencement; and, perhaps, that assembly 409contained many worthy members, originally, although it afterwards became notoriously infamous, by the monstrous enormity of the crimes it countenanced and produced.

Chief Justice Marshall has observed (in his Life of Washington,) that “soon after the arrival of Mr. Genet,^[278] a Democratic Society was formed in Philadelphia, 410which seems to have taken for its model the Jacobin Club of Paris:”—“Its organization,” continues the historian, “appears to have been completed on the 30th of May, 1793.”

It will nevertheless be recollected, that, about that period, the shock given to the humane feelings of the American people, by the murder of Louis XVI. their benefactor during the war in this country, and by the death and sufferings of his queen and family, had mostly subsided. The great American public still continued warmly and sincerely attached to what was then viewed as the cause of the French people: and therefore, whatever may have been the real design of setting up a Democratic Society in Philadelphia, at that point of time—a design only known to its founders,—it is certain, that many highly estimable and meritorious citizens, and firm friends of the existing government, were elected members of that society, without any previous intimation being given to them of such an intention: some of those persons never attended any of the meetings of the society; and others soon 411discontinued their attendance. If it were actually formed on the model of the Jacobin Club of Paris, by some of those with whom the scheme originated, it cannot be rationally presumed that men of great purity of reputation, in public as well as private life, would either seek admission into such an assembly, knowing it had any criminal views; nor would they, if chosen members of it without their knowledge and consent, participate in its proceedings, should these be found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or dishonourable. Yet it is a matter of notoriety, that persons of such characters were in some instances enrolled among the members of the Democratic Society in Philadelphia, at its commencement and soon after its organization, in the spring of 1793.

It may be readily supposed, that such of its members as meant well, would be desirous of placing at the head of that body, a man of unimpeachable patriotism and integrity; and it is equally reasonable to conclude, that, had there been a majority of its members, whose secret designs were inimical to the true interest of the country or the well-being of the government,—even these would wish to disguise their intentions, under the nominal auspices of a character universally respected and esteemed. Such a man was Dr. Rittenhouse; and therefore was he selected by the Philadelphia Democratic Society, as their President. At the time of his election to that station, he 412held the highly important office of Director of the Mint, under a commission from President Washington; for whose public and private character he always entertained the most exalted respect, besides the personal regard, which the writer of these Memoirs knows to have subsisted between them. It is not presumable, taking all considerations into view, that Dr. Rittenhouse suffered any serious diminution in the esteem of that virtuous and discerning statesman, by the circumstance of the Doctor being placed at the head of the Democratic Society: for he not only continued to hold the Directorship of the Mint, but, when he offered his resignation of that high trust, two years afterwards, the President’s reluctance to accept it yielded only to the Doctor’s urgent solicitation to decline a further continuance in the office.

Whatever, therefore, may have been the real views and intentions of some of the members of the Democratic Society which was formed in Philadelphia, in 1793,—even if those of a majority of their number were highly unjustifiable,—no imputation, unfavourable to Dr. Rittenhouse’s character, either as a good citizen or an upright man, could in the smallest degree be attached to him, by reason of his having been chosen a President of that body, at the time of its organization.^[279]

413That Dr. Rittenhouse was a zealous advocate for the liberties of mankind, is unquestionable: but, much as he abhorred slavery and oppression of every kind, did he deprecate turbulence and licentiousness in the people, and wars of ambition, avarice or injustice, undertaken by their rulers. He was decidedly friendly to those measures of civil government, which are best calculated to maintain order, tranquillity, and safety in the state, on just and honourable principles. It can scarcely be doubted by any one, intimately acquainted with his character, that he must have concurred in sentiments similar to those attributed by the biographer of Washington to that great man, or this subject,—in the following observation: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy the difference is like that between order and chaos. Real liberty, he thought, was to be secured only by preserving the authority of the laws, and maintaining the energy of government. Scarcely did society present two characters which, in his opinion, less resembled each other, than a patriot and a demagogue.”

414Mr. Rittenhouse, it must be rationally supposed, was less acquainted with mankind, than General Washington was known to be: he had much fewer and more limited opportunities of studying human nature; and professions of pretended patriots were, therefore, more likely to impose on the unsuspecting honesty of his nature. He may even have been deceived, for a while, and ere the plausible fallacies of theorists in matters of civil polity, emanating from the philosophy of the French school, had yet been manifested to the world. A practical philosopher himself, he must have contemplated with pity, if not with indignation, the doctrines of the followers of Pyrrho: with whom it was a fundamental principle, that there is nothing that can be denominated true or false, right or wrong, honest or dishonest, just or unjust; or, in other words, that there is no standard beyond law or custom; and that uncertainty and doubt are attached to all things. Nevertheless, on these doctrines of the sceptical philosophers of antiquity are founded that monstrous and wicked tenet of most of the modern sceptics, that the end justifies the means!—a principle destructive of all the foundations of religion and morals. Well might the Abbé le Blanc exclaim, when noticing this mischievous sect of philosophers, seventy years ago,—“Is it not surprising, that men should endeavour to acquire the esteem of the public, by striving to break the most sacred band of all societies; in declaring their opinion to others, that there is neither virtue nor vice, truth nor doubt.”—“Our modern 415philosophers,”^[280] says the learned Abbé in another place, “have been too confident.”

This is certainly correct, in one point of view; although the assertion seems to imply a contradiction in terms, so far as it applies to the metaphysical scepticism of many, assuming the honourable appellation of Philosophers, without being entitled to the true character. What were the sentiments of Dr. Rittenhouse, concerning the tenets of men of this description, may be fairly inferred, not only from the manner in which he has introduced the names of Berkeley and Hume into the Oration which he pronounced before the Philosophical Society, in the year 1775, but from other observations and reflexions contained in that discourse, as well as from the general tenure of opinions expressed by him on various occasions.

At an early period of the French revolution, a circumstance occurred, which, from its connexion in some particulars with the life of our Philosopher, is here entitled to notice.

416On the 7th of August 1783, and after peace had been proclaimed, congress unanimously passed a resolution in the following words——“Resolved, That an equestrian statue of General Washington be erected at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established;—that the statue be of bronze: the General to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand, and his head, encircled with a laurel wreath. The Statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to be represented, in basso relievo, the following principal events of the war, in which General Washington commanded in person: the evacuation of Boston;—the capture of the Hessions, at Trenton;—the battle of Princeton;—the action of Monmouth;—and the surrender of York.—On the upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be engraved as follows: “The United States in Congress assembled ordered this Statue to be erected, in the year of our Lord 1783, in honour of George Washington, the illustrious Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, during the war which vindicated and secured their Liberty, Sovereignty and Independence.”^[281]

417This was an honourable testimony of the gratitude and affectionate respect of the nation, towards the Hero and Patriot, who so eminently merited both; and it was a sincere effusion of the heart, in the representatives of the American people, while the transcendent virtues of a Washington, and his then recent services in his country’s cause, yet inspired every generous breast with a faithful remembrance of his worth: It was a laudable proof of the patriotism that actuated the public mind, at a period, when, in the words of an enlightened historian,^[282] “the glow of expression in which the high sense universally entertained of his services was conveyed, manifested a warmth of feeling seldom equalled in the history of man.”

The fascination which the revolution of France spread over a large portion of Europe and America, for some time after its commencement, and during the 418time it yet bore the semblance of a virtuous cause,—while it seemed to enchant the true friends of freedom every where; and the oft-resounded and captivating name of “Liberty,” produced in men of ardent tempers, and speculative notions, ideas of its reality of the most extravagant nature, and in numerous instances of very mischievous tendency.

Among those of the latter description was Joseph Ceracchi, an Italian artist of celebrity. Mr. Ceracchi was a statuary, of great eminence in his profession; and to the manners and accomplishments of a gentleman, he united much genius and taste. Though born and bred in the dominions of the papal see, he fostered the principles of a republican. Conceiving that the genius of a free government comported with these alone, he became an enthusiastic admirer of the French republic. Finding the turbulent state of France, at the beginning of her troubles, unfavourable to the exercise of his art, in that country; and believing as he did, that the tranquil and prosperous condition of the United States would afford full employment for his talents, in a manner congenial to his inclinations, as well as beneficial to his private interest; he arrived, with his wife—a German lady of some distinction—at Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government, sometime (it is supposed) in the year 1793.

The great equestrian statue, which congress had, ten years before, decreed to be erected in honour of 419General Washington, had not yet been executed; and Mr. Ceracchi imagined that the gratitude of the American republic would furnish, besides this primary work, ample scope for the exercise of his talents, in erecting honorary memorials of some of the more illustrious characters, which the American revolution had produced. The aptitude, beauty and magnificence, which the artist designed to display in some great public monuments of this kind, were exhibited in models which he executed, for the purpose of testifying his abilities in the art he professed: these were universally admired, as the productions of superior genius, taste and skill. Yet Mr. Ceracchi remained unemployed: the national council did not, even at that late day, avail themselves of so favourable an opportunity of engaging him to erect the statue decreed to Washington,—a work which continues unexecuted at the present moment^[283]! and the talents of that eminent artist 420were, not long afterwards, for ever lost to the country.

Among the gentlemen with whom Mr. Ceracchi became acquainted, in Philadelphia, were some members of the Philosophical Society in that city; and, on their recommendation of him, he was, himself, soon associated with this institution.

In this body, as the Writer believes, Dr. Rittenhouse acquired a knowledge of Mr. Ceracchi’s person and character. Both Dr. and Mrs. Rittenhouse, from their kind and unceasing attentions to this gentleman and his wife, appear to have considered them as persons of merit: the Doctor, particularly, by his friendly deportment towards the husband, during the time he continued his residence in this country, testified the esteem he had conceived for this ingenious foreigner; heightened too, perhaps, by a delicate sensibility towards him, on account of the disappointment in his expectations of public patronage in his profession, which he experienced while here. For it is known to the Memorialist, that when, in consequence of such disappointment, Mr. Ceracchi became embarrassedembarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, Dr. Rittenhouse contributed liberally to his relief.

421Some time in the summer of the year 1794 (if the Writer’s recollection be correct,) our benevolent philosopher having occasion to view the canal, intended to form a communication between the waters of the Delaware and the Schuylkill, invited Mr. Ceracchi to accompany him, for the purpose of examining the quality of the marble in the great quarries of that material, situated near the margin of the latter river, in the vicinity of the western end of the canal. The Memorialist joined in this little excursion, during which, Dr. Rittenhouse was, as usual, communicative, cheerful and instructive.

On inspecting the quarries just mentioned—so far as time then permitted an examination of them,—Mr. Ceracchi seemed to think they contained only laminated strata of stone; not massy blocks, without fissures or veins, like the marbles of Carrara, and those in some other parts of Europe: that, although this Schuylkill marble was generally of a good quality and of a whiteness sufficiently pure, it could not be obtained in masses thick enough for the larger subjects of fine statuary. Yet this artist observed, that a large proportion of the slabs appeared to be of dimensions suitable for various subjects of sculpture; and more especially, that they furnished an excellent material for many purposes, ornamental as well as useful, in public edifices and other structures^[284]. No 422other quarries of marble were viewed, on this excursion: but it is probable Mr. Ceracchi would have found the marbles of Hitner’s and Henderson’s quarries—which are at nearly the same distance from Philadelphia, though not situated very near the river Schuylkill—much better adapted in every respect, to the uses he contemplated. This unfortunate man appeared to have possessed, in addition to genius and fine professional talents, the exalted virtue of gratitude. Dr. Rittenhouse was his benefactor; and the Philosophical Society had elected him a member of their body: a fine bust of the Philosopher in the antique style, was executed by Ceracchi in white marble, and by him presented to the Society, on the 6th of February, 1795. It is supposed that he left America about twelve months after this date; and it is said, that he afterwards perished on a scaffold, in Paris, in consequence of its being alleged, that he was engaged in a conspiracy against the life of Bonaparte.

423In the spring of the year 1794, the Earl of Buchan, P. S. S. A. and James Anderson, LL. D. both distinguished characters in Scotland, were elected members of the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia: and it appears probable, from a note addressed to Dr. Rittenhouse by President Washington, that they had been put in nomination, or, at least, that their election had been advocated by the former, at the instance of the latter; the note is in these words—

At the commencement of the following year, Lord Buchan^[285] wrote to Dr. Rittenhouse the following letter:

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 427him, 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 428Mr. 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]

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:

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 430and 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.

431It 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:

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 432of 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.

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.

The mind of Dr. Rittenhouse, ever intent on doing, good, was always zealously engaged on occasions which afforded him opportunities of contributing to the 435rewards 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.

436

The affectionate regard and high respect which Professor Barton uniformly cherished for the person 437and 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.”

438Soon 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 439States,—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 440power 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]

441It 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.

“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 442my 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 443him 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 444the 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!”

445“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 446God.”^[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]

---

In September 1772, the Philosophical Society announced in the public prints, the receipt, by them, of sundry communications: among which were various astronomical observations, made in Canada, by this gentleman and two other military officers, from June 1765, to May 1770, (captain Holland being, at that period, surveyor-general of the district of Quebec.) These observations were communicated to the society by Mr. Rittenhouse; but, having been received after the first volume of the Society’s Transactions was published, their publication in the subsequent volumes was by some means omitted.

174. Although Mr. Ellicott’s commission bears date the 16th of June, 1786, his appointment took place some months sooner. On the 3d of April, in that year, Mr. Rittenhouse wrote him thus:—

And on the 29th of September, in the succeeding year, he addressed another letter on the subject of this boundary, to Messrs. Ellicott and Porter, jointly; wherein he says:

“Your packet came safe to hand, about three weeks after the date of the letters. I am much obliged to you for the intelligence it contains; you have succeeded beyond my expectation, and I have no longer any doubt of your completing the line this season. I should have been glad, if, to the account of your work, you had added some description of the country: but my curiosity must wait till your return.”

Mr. Rittenhouse continued in commission, for the establishing of this line, until its entire completion: but his non-attendance with the other commissioners in the actual running of the line, in the year 1787, was prevented by his being then engaged in fixing the territorial boundary between the states of Massachusetts and New-York. In the letter, last quoted, is this paragraph:—“Dr. Ewing and myself were absent seven weeks, on the line between New-York and Massachusetts, in which time we happily completed it, to the satisfaction of all parties; and, with this business, I have bid adieu, forever, to all running of lines.”

175. Dr. Rush has been led into a mere mistake of the date on this occasion; probably, by an hasty perusal of the confirmatory law, of Sept. 29, 1789. He states, in his eulogium, that it was the year 1786, in which Mr. Rittenhouse “was employed in fixing the northern line which divides Pennsylvania from New-York: his services on that business were originally employed in 1774, He did, indeed, again act as a commissioner, in the year 1786, and it was on the 16th day of June, in that year, that Mr. Ellicott was commissioned to complete, in conjunction with Mr. Rittenhouse, what the latter had begun to execute eleven years and an half before the last mentioned date.

176. “In order to carry on the parallel of latitude with as much expedition and economy as possible,” says Mr. Ellicott, “we dispensed with the method of tracing a line on the arc of a great circle, and correcting into the parallel; as pursued by Messrs. Mason and Dixon, in determining the boundary between this state” (Pennsylvania,) “and the state of Maryland, and which we followed in completing their line in the year 1784. We commenced our operations by running a guide-line, West, with a surveying compass, from the point mentioned on the Delaware” (the one which was fixed by Dr. Rittenhouse and Capt. Holland, in the year 1774,) 20¼ miles; and there corrected by the following zenith lines” (laid down in the sequel,) “taken, at its western termination, by a most excellent Sector, constructed and executed by Dr. Rittenhouse.”

177. The Liturgy of the Church of England was first translated into the Mohawk language, in the year 1714. Another translation was made under the direction of three clergymen of that church; namely, the Rev. Mr. William Andrews, Dr. Henry Barclay, and Dr. John Ogilvie: This was printed in the year 1769; but the place where it was printed does not appear. In the year 1787, an handsome edition of the English Book of Common Prayer, with a translation into the Mohawk language by captain Joseph Brant, was published in London.

178. Mr. Rittenhouse is not mentioned in the petition, by name. This was unnecessary: for it was universally known, that it could apply to no other person in America, so unquestionable and pointed are its allusions to him; and that, perhaps, no other Astronomer then living, so well merited the high encomiums on his philosophical abilities, which it contains.

179. Joseph Galloway and Samuel Rhoads, Esq’rs. the other vice-presidents of the society, were then members of the general assembly; and Dr. Franklin, the president, had not at that time returned from England. Mr. Rittenhouse was, at the same time, one of the curators of the society; as he was, also, during the year 1772.

180. That eminent mathematician and astronomer, Mr. Roger Cotes,^[180a] in an excellent preface to his edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematica Principia Philosophiæ Naturalis, has explained the true method of philosophising; shewn the foundation on which the Newtonian system was built; and refuted the objections of the Cartesians, and all other philosophers, against it. In this preface, Mr. Cotes has ably answered those, who contended, that gravity or attraction, in the system of Newton, was not a clearer principle, nor one more fit to explain the phænomena of nature, than the occult qualities of the peripatetics: for, there were still philosophers, such as they were, who persisted in that absurd opinion! “Gravity,” said the objectors, “is an occult cause; and occult causes have nothing to do with true philosophy.” To which Mr. Cotes made this lucid reply:—“Occult causes are not those whose existence is most clearly demonstrated by observation and experiment; but those only whose existence is occult, fictitious, and supported by no proofs. Gravity, therefore, can never be called an occult cause of the planetary motions; since it has been demonstrated from the phænomena, that this quality really exists. Those rather have recourse to occult causes, who make vortices to govern the heavenly motions; vortices, composed of a matter entirely fictitious, and unknown to the senses. But, shall gravity therefore be called an occult cause, because the cause of gravity is occult, and as yet undiscovered? Let those who affirm this, beware of laying down a principle which will serve to undermine the foundation of every system of philosophy that can be established. For causes always proceed, by an uninterrupted connexion, from those that are compound, to those that are more simple; and when you shall have arrived at the most simple, it will be impossible to proceed further. Of the most simple cause, therefore, no mechanical solution can be given; for if there could, it would not be the most simple. Will you then call these most simple causes occult, and banish them from philosophy? You may so; but you must banish at the same time the causes that are next to them, and those again that depend upon the causes next to them, till philosophy, at length, will be so thoroughly purged of causes, that there will not be one left whereon to build it.”

The great doctrine of gravitation and attraction, the substratum of the Newtonian philosophy, is amply verified by numerous observations and experiments. Whether that which constitutes the principle of gravity be, in itself, an incorporeal or spiritual substance, or a materia subtilis, some very subtile kind of ethereal fluid, is a question which does not at all affect the actual existence of such a power. “We know,” as is observed by a great astronomer^[180b] of our own time, “that all the bodies in our system are retained in their courses by such a power” (the power of attraction.) “And,” he adds, “it is a very singular instance of the unerring wisdom of the Creator, that the law which this power observes is such, that notwithstanding the mutual attractions of the bodies, the system will never fall into ruin, but is capable of preserving itself to all eternity. “Moreover,” continues the same profound writer, “the mutual attraction which takes place between distant bodies could not, of itself, either produce their motion about the sun, or the rotation about their axes: it required an external impulse to operate in conjunction with it, to produce these effects; an act, which nothing but the arm of Omnipotence could accomplish.” “An invisible power pervades the whole system, and preserves it. In the effects produced by man, we see the operation of the cause; but “the ways of the Almighty are past finding out.” “Hence,” says our author, “in whatever point of view we take a survey of our system, we trace the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of the Creator: his Power, in its formation; his Wisdom, in the simplicity of the means to produce the ends; and his Goodness, in making those ends subservient to our use and enjoyment. Thus we are led by our enquiries into the structure of the universe, to the proofs of the existence and attributes of a Supreme Being, who formed and directs the whole. Arguments of this kind produce conviction which no sophistry can confound. “Every man may see it; man may behold it afar off.” Let not therefore the ignorant declaim against those pursuits which direct us to a knowledge of our Creator, and furnish us with unanswerable arguments against the infidel and the atheist.”

But, to return more immediately to the doctrine of gravitation: Some experiments had been made by M. Boguer and M. de la Condamine, so long since as the year 1738, upon the Chimboraso in South-America, in order to test the Newtonian theory of gravity, by examining the attraction of mountains; and the result accorded with that theory. With a view, however, to establish the principle more completely, the experiments of Messrs. Boguer and Condamine having been made under so many disadvantages, as rendered the result not sufficiently accurate to be entirely depended on, similar experiments were made upon the Mountain Schehallien in Scotland, by Dr. Maskelyne, at the request of the Royal Society, and under the patronage of his sovereign, the present king, who liberally undertook to defray the expenses. From observations of ten stars near the zenith, he found the difference of latitudes of the two stations on the opposite sides of the mountain to be 54″, 6; and by a measurement of triangles, he ascertained the distance of the parallels to be 4364, 4 feet, corresponding, in that latitude, to an arc of the meridian of 42″, 94, which is 11″, 6 less than by observation: its half therefore, 5″, 8, is the effect of the attraction of the mountain; and from its magnitude, compared with the bulk of the whole earth, Dr. Maskelyne computed the mean density of the latter to be about double that of the mountain. “Thus,” to use the words of Mr. Vince, “the doctrine of Universal Gravitation is firmly established.” The reader will find Dr. Maskelyne’s deductions from this experiment, in Vince’s Complete System of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 100 and seq.

181. The essay signed M. W. is dated from that place.

182. In the beginning of these observations of Mr. Rittenhouse, on “J. W.’s” piece, he says—“I am one of those who are ready to subscribe to the general maxim, That perfection is not to be found in any thing human; and therefore do not suppose the Newtonian philosophy to be so perfect as not to admit of amendment: But I must confess, that almost all the attempts to controvert that philosophy, which I have met with, amount to nothing more than so many proofs, that those who made them did not understand it. Of this kind, are the objections started by your correspondent, J. W.”

183. Alluding, probably, to Metaphysicians; for, neither Mr. M. W. nor Dr. J. W. was distinguished as a Mathematician.

184. Dr. Franklin was president of that convention.

185. Dr. Ramsay, who published his History of the American Revolution at the close of the year 1789, after observing that the policy of Great-Britain, in throwing the inhabitants of her ancient colonies on the American continent out of her protection, induced a necessity of establishing independent constitutions for themselves, makes these judicious remarks:—“The many errors that were at first committed by unexperienced statesmen, have been a practical comment on the folly of unbalanced constitutions and injudicious laws.”

186. The articles of confederation were not finally ratified by congress until the 9th of July, 1778. “After eleven years experience,” as Dr. Morse has observed, “being found inadequate to the purposes of a federal government,” the present constitution of the United States was formed at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1787, by that wise, liberal and patriotic assembly, in which the illustrious Washington presided.

187. “War never fails,” as Dr. Ramsay has justly observed, “to injure the morals of the people engaged in it. The American war in particular,” continues that historian, “had an unhappy influence of this kind. Being begun without funds or regular establishments, it could not be carried on without violating private rights; and in its progress, it involved a necessity for breaking solemn promises, and plighted public faith. The failure of national justice, which was in some degree unavoidable, increased the difficulties of performing private engagements, and weakened that sensibility to the obligations of public and private honour, which is a security for the punctual performance of contracts.”

This is a melancholy but faithful representation of some of the injurious impressions made on the moral sentiments and feelings of the people of this country, by the revolutionary war: evils inseparable from warfare; and such as necessarily spring from a state of things, alike destructive of social order and the refinements of society, as repugnant to the precepts of religion, the dictates of natural justice and the mild suggestions of benevolence.

188. This large and thriving borough, said to be the greatest inland town in the United States, was, for a short time, (though very short, indeed,) the seat, or rather place of refuge, of the American congress; the members of which, having separated on the near approach of the British army, eight days before their occupation of the capital, re-assembled at Lancaster the 27th day of the same month. Lancaster, which is situated at the distance of sixty-four miles from Philadelphia, in a direction nearly west, was at first conceived to be a place of safety: but, for their more perfect security, congress convened, three days afterwards, at York in Pennsylvania, a considerable county-town about twenty-two miles westward from Lancaster, and from each of which places, the intervening great river Susquehanna is about equidistant.

189. His active mind derived much of its happiness from its continual employment. It appears, that, while engaged in the duties of his office, at Lancaster, in the latter part of the year 1777, he made the calculations for an Ephemeris, called “Father Abraham’s Pocket-Almanack, for the year M.DCC LXXVIII;” the late Mr. John Dunlap, the publisher, (who was, during many years, an eminent printer in Philadelphia,) having, in his advertisement of it, announced to the public, that “The Astronomical Calculations of this Almanack were composed by David Rittenhouse, A. M.” Mr. A. Ellicott made calculations for Pennsylvania and Maryland Almanacks, several years after Mr. Rittenhouse declined to continue them.

It is believed that our Astronomer made the calculations for “Father Abraham’s Almanack,” and probably some others, for several years: but mostly in the earlier part of his life. And, as it was no disparagement to the talents of a Franklin to publish “Poor Richard’s Almanack,”^[189a] (which the Doctor long continued to print,) so it was none to the genius and abilities of a Rittenhouse, that he employed himself, occasionally, in making calculations of an useful nature for these Ephemerides.

190. “At no period of the war,” says chief-justice Marshall the historian, “had the American army been reduced to a situation of greater peril, than during the winter at Valley-Forge.” “More than once they were absolutely without food. Even while their condition was less desperate in this respect, their stock of provisions was so scanty, that there was seldom at any time in the stores a quantity sufficient for the use of the troops for one week. Consequently, had the enemy moved out in force, the American army could not have continued in camp. The want of provisions would have forced them out of it; and their deplorable condition with respect to clothes, disabled them from keeping the field in the winter. The returns of the first of February (1778) exhibit the astonishing number of three thousand nine hundred and eighty-nine men in camp unfit for duty, for want of clothes. Of this number, scarcely a man had a pair of shoes. Even among those returned capable of doing duty, very many were so badly clad, that exposure to the colds of the season must have destroyed them. Although the total of the army exceeded seventeen thousand men, the present effective rank and file amounted to only five thousand and twelve. The returns throughout the winter do not essentially vary from that which has just been particularly stated.”

Such was the miserable condition of the American army, at the date of the above returns! It was, indeed, sufficiently desperate in appearance, to have appalled the stoutest heart; and it required the magnanimity, as well as the virtue of a Washington, to conquer such difficulties and rise superior to them.

191. This sister of Mrs. Rittenhouse was the widow of Colonel Caleb Parry, a gallant officer in the American service, who was killed at the battle of Long-Island in July, 1776.

192. John Jacobs, Esq.—This gentleman was a brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.

193. Israel Jacobs, Esq.—Another brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.

194. This eclipse, which happened on the 24th day of June, 1778, was observed in Philadelphia, by Dr. Rittenhouse, the Rev. Dr. W. Smith, John Lukens, Esq. and Mr. Owen Biddle, at the College in that city. The result of the joint observations made by those gentlemen on that occasion, as drawn up by Dr. Smith, but never before published, will be found in the Appendix. W. B.

195. To this lady, who is yet living, Mr. Barton was married in the year 1776. She remains his widow, and enjoys the very affectionate respect of Mr. Barton’s descendants and relatives, to which her great worth and many virtues justly entitle her.

196. Colonel Samuel J. Atlee, formerly a parishioner of the Rev. Mr. Barton, had written two letters to him, to inform him of his son’s arrival. The second of these only had got to hand, and was acknowledged at the same time as Mr. Rittenhouse’s. Col. Atlee, who was a steady friend of Mr. Barton’s family, was a valuable officer in the American army, in the earlier period of the war; and afterwards served as a delegate in congress, for the state of Pennsylvania.

The difficulty of Mr. Barton’s returning to Pennsylvania, and which he alludes to, in his letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, arose from the terms of his passport to New-York, from the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania: it permits him to go to New-York, “not to return.” A letter which Mr. Barton wrote to John De Hart, Esq. of Elizabeth-Town in New-Jersey, on the 30th of January, 1779, will sufficiently explain the conscientious scruples which actuated the writer’s conduct; and they were such as, it is presumed, will have weight, when dispassionately and liberally considered.

In addressing Mr. De Hart, Mr. Barton says:—“I received your favour of the 22d instant, by Mr. Alexander. The papers with which you entrusted me, gave me no trouble, except that of my not being able to serve you in the manner which was first proposed. You may depend on their safety in my hands; subject to such directions as you shall be pleased to give me.” “I wish for an opportunity to oblige you, and if any should offer, I beg you will employ me without any apology.

“I am just informed that my son has returned to his native country, after an absence of between three and four years. How melancholy and distressing is my situation! separated from eight children, and three congregations, to whom I am bound by duty, gratitude, and every tie of affection! ‘A parent only knows a parent’s woes;’ and such will feel for me. You are kind enough to tell me, that my son requests me to return to my parish. What he can mean by this request, I am totally at a loss to understand: could the matter have been determined by my option, I should never have left my parish, for any prospect of preferment that could offer. But no choice was left me, but either to take the oath, or to suffer a painful separation from my dearest connexions; as well as from a country which always had, since I have known it, my predilection and best wishes; a country to which, I can declare (with an appeal to heaven for the truth of the declaration,) I never did, or wished to do, ‘any act or thing prejudicial or injurious:’ and though my heart assures me, that many conscientious and good men have conformed to the test-act, yet my own conscience always revolted at the abjuration part of it, and prevailed with me to surrender every worldly consideration, that should come in competition, or tempt me to a violation of it. This, sir, was the only crime (if a crime it be) for which I now suffer banishment from all that are most dear to me; with an interdict, “not to return again.” I cannot therefore comprehend, how I can consistently return, before this interdict is cancelled; or some assurance given me, that I may again unite and live quietly with my family, without being subject to an abjuration, which I cannot take. The proper duties and profession of a minister of the gospel should, in my opinion, never lead him into the field of politics. In conformity to this opinion, every man who knows me can testify, that I never degraded my function by intermeddling, directly or indirectly, in the present unhappy contest: so that my own scruples would be a stricter tie upon me, than any that could be made by oaths or tests. You will excuse my troubling you on this subject, when I tell you, that the kind manner in which you address me has drawn it upon you.”

197. It was Mr. Barton’s intention, when he left Pennsylvania, to embark at New-York for England or Ireland: but his ill state of health, which soon after ensued, prevented his leaving New-York.

198. This indulgence was obtained in April, 1780, from the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, chiefly through the friendship of the late general Joseph Reed, then president of that body; and, in pursuance of this passport, sanctioned by general Washington, the desired interview was had with Mr. and Mrs. Barton, at Elizabeth-Town, a very short time before the death of Mr. Barton.

199. The conditions proposed by the state of Virginia (and which Pennsylvania considered as having a tendency to countenance unwarrantable claims that might be made under the state of Virginia, in consequence of pretended purchases or settlements, pending the controversy,) were these; viz:—That the line, commonly called Mason and Dixon’s line, be extended due west, 5° of long. to be computed from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian, drawn from the western extremity thereof, to the northern limits of the said states, respectively, be the western boundary of Pennsylvania, for ever: on condition, that the private property and rights of all persons, acquired under, founded on, or recognized by the laws of either country, previous to the 31st of August, 1779, should be saved and confirmed to them, although they should be found to fall within the other; and that in the decision of disputes thereon &c. (see act of 1st April, 1784.)

200. He died at New-York, the 25th of May, 1780, aged only fifty years; and was interred in the chancel of St. George’s Chapel, in that city.

201. As Mr. Barton’s deportment and services, very early in life, evinced his devotion to the happiness of his adopted country, the writer hopes he may be permitted, without being chargeable with great impropriety, to adduce the following evidences, among many which might be exhibited, of the usefulness and public spirit of a person, who was, during a long course of years, intimately connected with, and a confidential friend of David Rittenhouse.

Annexed to a printed copy of “A letter, concerning the office and duty of Protestant ministers, especially in times of public danger, written to a clergyman on the frontiers of Pennsylvania, on general Braddock’s defeat,”^[201a] there is the following note:

“The gentleman to whom this was addressed,^[201b] as well as some ministers of other denominations, did, a few months after this, find it necessary to appear at the head of their people, and were signally instrumental in preventing some of the frontier counties from being totally abandoned by their inhabitants.” See the Appendix to “Discourses on public occasions in America: By William Smith, D. D. Provost,” &c. who was the writer of the letter. It is dated, “Philadelphia, August 21, 1755.”

Extract of a letter, dated London, January 10th, 1759, from the Hon. Thomas Penn, Esq. to the Rev. Thomas Barton:—

“Since I received your last letter, I paid a visit to the present Archbishop,^[201c] and mentioned to him what you wished me to do. I found he did not approve of your contemplated removal; but he proposed, that twenty pounds sterling per annum should be added to your salary: for, his grace observed, that a person so capable as you are, to advise and assist the people in your neighbourhood,^[201d] could not be spared for any other mission: And, on that consideration, the society^[201e] had agreed to this augmentation of your salary.”

On the 17th of June, 1767, Mr. Penn again wrote to Mr. Barton, from London; as follows:

“I am much concerned to find, that the missionaries have suffered so much, and that you are so uneasy in your situation as to have asked leave to move into Maryland. The society has offered, or intend to offer, an addition to your salary, or some other encouragement, if you stay in Pennsylvania: and I have desired Mr. Hamilton,^[201f] who is upon his return, to talk to you on this affair, before you take your resolution; as I hope and intend to make you a present from me,^[201g] if you do not put that design into execution.”

202. While the credit of the loan-office bills of credit, emitted in moderate sums by the assembly of Pennsylvania, was fully supported, during the course of seventy years, the quantities of paper-money issued at different times, by the legislative body of Massachusetts, down to the year 1748, had then depreciated that currency, for want of it being bottomed on sufficient funds, to one-eleventh part of its nominal value. Fortunately, about that period, a large sum in specie arrived from England, having been granted by the British parliament to reimburse the monies expended by the colonists in the expeditions against Louisburg and Canada. In Massachusetts, this money was wisely applied by its legislature to the redemption of the bills of credit of that colony, then in circulation; which were sunk, in the succeeding year, at the rate of fifty shillings, in those bills, for one ounce of silver. Thus, the mint-price of an ounce of sterling silver being five shillings and two pence, the bills were redeemed at the rate of nearly nine shillings and eight pence, of their nominal value, for one shilling in English coin.

203. How different, in this respect, from that species of paper-credit, which, during the American war, succeeded it, under the denomination of continental money! But this had nothing but the faith of government pledged for its redemption; while the loan-office bills of credit were bottomed (as all government-paper ought ever to be) on an appropriated, sufficient, and substantial fund. For want of such a foundation, Dr. Morse remarks, that “The whole history of the continental paper is a history of public and private frauds. Old specie debts,” says he, “were often paid in a depreciated currency; and even new contracts, for a few weeks or days, were often discharged with a small part of their value. From this plenty, and the fluctuating state of the medium, sprung hosts of speculators and itinerant traders, who left their honest occupations for the purpose of immense gains in a fraudulent business, that depended on no fixed principles, and the profits of which could be reduced to no certain calculations.” See his Geographical work.

204. Passed 26th February, 1773.

205. Passed 4th April, 1785.

206. Passed 11th April, 1793.

207. Passed 30th March, 1793.

208. Mr. Rittenhouse continued to hold the place of a trustee of the loan-office more than ten years; but on the 1st of April, 1790, a law was passed, by which all the powers and duties of the trustees of that institution were transferred to, and vested in, the treasurer of the state.

209. The loan-office system was kept up, in Pennsylvania, thirty years after governor Pownall wrote.

210. Paper-money was not so well managed in some of the other colonies, where it was issued in too large quantities, and its credit not established on funds sufficiently stable and secure;^[210a] a circumstance which induced the parliament of Great-Britain to interdict, for a time, further emissions of that sort of money, called bills of credit, by the provincial legislatures.

Although the last emission of loan-office bills of credit, under the colonial government of Pennsylvania, was made in the beginning of the year 1773, the want of this succedaneum for gold and silver, as a circulating medium of commerce commensurate to the encreased population and trade of the country, was experienced some considerable time before. In a letter written by the Hon. Mr. T. Penn to the Rev. Mr. Barton, dated, London, June 17, 1767, the writer says:

“Your account of the increase of the growth of hemp, gives me great pleasure; and I think the demand there has been for wheat, since the date of your letter, must have made the country people rich, even those who were poor before: it will prevent people being under the necessity of parting with their lands, and going to Carolina. Their produce will always bring them money at Philadelphia, notwithstanding there may be some more need for paper-money; yet, when trade is brisk, it circulates faster, and a less quantity will carry on a greater trade: however, I hope, in the next session of parliament, we may get the law which prohibits our making any more, repealed.”

The parliamentary restriction was, in fact, afterwards taken off; and an effort was made, in the beginning of the year 1770, by the legislature of Pennsylvania, to enact a loan-office law, for the purpose of putting in circulation a further emission of paper-money: but the measure then miscarried, in consequence of some disagreement between the governor and the general assembly respecting the right they severally claimed, of appointing the trustees of the proposed loan-office.

211. The number of members in the Boston Academy is never to exceed two hundred, nor to be less than forty. By being limited to so moderate a number as the former, for the greater extreme, this academy will be likely to select suitable persons for the honour of fellowship, with the more discriminating circumspection.

212. Robert Patterson, Esq. Director of the Mint, and David Rittenhouse Waters, Esq. a gentleman bred to the law, and a grandson of the late Dr. Rittenhouse.

The decease of Mr. Waters happened soon after: he died on the 4th of September, 1813, at the premature age of twenty-two years. Although he had just entered on the threshold of the world, this excellent young man exhibited many proofs of extraordinary attainments in literature and science, as well as of a superior genius. He appeared to have inherited from his maternal grandfather, congenial talents. In his life, his amiable disposition endeared him to all who had an opportunity of knowing his virtues: in his death, not only have his relatives and friends experienced an afflicting bereavement, but his country has sustained the loss of a citizen of great promise.

213. Although Mr. Ellicott is a native of Pennsylvania, and was a citizen of that state until the British army took possession of Philadelphia, in 1777, he resided in Baltimore county about eight years after that event.

214. In the years 1767 and 1768.

215. The difference of 16′ 42″, between the latitude above mentioned and the beginning of the 40th degree of north latitude, (which was the southern limit assigned to Pennsylvania, by her charter,) was gained by Mr. Penn, as far as the northern boundary of Maryland extended westward, in consequence of a compromise entered into by him and Lord Baltimore; whereby the latter obtained some advantage on his part in return. From the western extremity of this northern boundary of Maryland, the line between Pennsylvania and Virginia was continued, westward, in the same parallel of latitude, (instead of these coming back to the 40th deg. of N. lat.) by virtue of an agreement between these two states; the former, in consideration of that privilege, relinquishing her right to run her western boundary line parallel to the meandrings of the river Delaware.

216. “Principem Philosophorum,” in the original:—Such was the appellation (Principes Philosophorum) by which Cicero honours Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, Xenocrates, Zeno, Cleanthes, Diogenes the Stoic; men, among others, whose usefulness (he observes) old age might diminish, but not destroy.

217. Mr. Boyle was the seventh son of Richard, the first earl of Cork, in Ireland, and first earl of Burlington, in England; and was born at Lismore in Ireland, the 26th of January, 16271627. This eminent philosopher and sincere Christian established, by his will, in the year 1691, a perpetual fund, equivalent to about two hundred and twenty-two dollars per annum, for instituting a course of eight sermons or lectures, to be delivered annually; designed to prove the truth of Christianity, generally, without engaging in any of the controversies subsisting among its professors: And to this establishment, denominated Boyle’s Lectures, the world are indebted for many able and elaborate defences both of natural and revealed religion. In addition to several extensive benefactions, for charitable and religious purposes, of this great and excellent man, besides his donation to the College of William-and-Mary (which, according to Mr. Jefferson, was “considerable” in its amount,) he gave, in his lifetime, a sum equivalent to thirteen hundred and thirty-three dollars, towards propagating the Christian Religion in America. So great was his veneration for the name of God, that he never pronounced it without a discernible pause: he was steady in his secret addresses to the throne of heaven: and, amidst all his enquiries into nature, his chief design seemed to be that of continually elevating his own mind, and the minds of others, by contemplating the Glory, the Wisdom, and the Goodness of God. Were this illustrious man to be considered in no other point of view, than that of a benefactor to America, his memory would be entitled to respect in this country: but his virtues, his talents, and the services he has rendered to mankind in general, will for ever endear his name to the good and wise of all nations. He died the 30th of December, in the year 1691.

218. The author of a poem, entitled, ‘The Dying Negro,’ has introduced these lines into that poem:^[218a]

No man ever held the slave-trade, and the condition of the hapless people who are the objects of that nefarious traffic, in greater abhorrence, than the benevolent Rittenhouse: a passage in his Oration, fully evinces his sentiments on this subject.

In addition to this highly respectable testimony against Negro Slavery, let it be remembered, that one of the last acts, of a public nature, in which our philosopher’s predecessor^[218b] was concerned, was to sanction with his name the Memorial presented to the government of the United States, on the subject of the Slave-Trade, by “The Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the relief of free Negroes, unlawfully held in Bondage;” of which Society, that distinguished man was the President.

219. Mr. Ellicott being a commissioner for Virginia, his powers would have ceased, as soon as the boundary-line between that state and Pennsylvania had reached the river Ohio. The object, therefore, was to enable him to complete it, to its western extremity.

220. The following report of the progress of their work was made by the commissioners, to the government of Pennsylvania, between three and four weeks before Mr. Rittenhouse set out on his return to Philadelphia: it is entered on the journal of the general assembly of that state, under the date of Nov. 2, 1785.

“We the subscribers, commissioners, appointed by the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia, to ascertain the boundary between the said states, do certify, that we have carried on a meridian line from the south-west corner of Pennsylvania, northward, to the river Ohio; and marked it, by cutting a wide vista over all the principal hills intersected by the said line, and by falling or deadening a line of trees, generally, through all the lower grounds. And we have likewise placed stones, marked on the east side, P. and on the west side, V. on most of the principal hills, and where the line strikes the Ohio; which stones are accurately placed in the true meridian, bounding the states as aforesaid.”

“Witness our hands and seals, this 23d day of August, 1785. (Signed,) David Rittenhouse, Andrew Porter, Pennsylvania; Andrew Ellicott, Joseph Nevill; Virginia.”

221. Mr. Rittenhouse had probably a reference to the expected completion of this line, perhaps to the whole business, generally, when, in a letter to Mr. Ellicott, of the 31st of Jan. 1786, he says; “I shall be able, some time hence, to write to you more fully about the boundary lines.”

222. Mr. Rittenhouse, being then treasurer of the state, alludes to those incessant demands on the treasury for money, which, by reason of the financial embarrassments of the government, at that period, could not be always punctually paid. The activity, and the very intelligent mind of Mrs. Rittenhouse, both prompted and enabled her to relieve her husband from much of the perplexity, which at that time attended the duties of state-treasurer. Indeed, it was owing to the great attention of that excellent woman to some of the more important transactions of the office, and her capability to manage and superintend the current business of that department of the public affairs, in the absence of her husband from home, or when incapacitated by bodily indisposition from personally attending, that the government was enabled to avail itself, in several instances, of the talents and services of Mr. Rittenhouse, in matters of high importance to the community, which required the aid of his abilities. On such occasions, he ever found Mrs. Rittenhouse a competent, as well as a most faithful assistant, in the business of the treasury.

223. So he then used to call his nephew, the present Professor Barton.

224. Mr. A. was a worthy and pleasant man: but, he was an old bachelor.

225. Now the flourishing borough of Pittsburgh, situated at the confluence of the rivers Allegany and Monongahela, which form, by their junction, the commencement of the great river Ohio.

This place, which is distant about thirty-five miles, eastward, from the western boundary-line of Pennsylvania, was the site of a fort, formerly erected by the French, which they called Fort Du Quesne; but on its reduction by the English, it was named by them Fort-Pitt; and by this name the place is still recognized by many people.

226. By an agreement, entered into, on the 18th of May, 1773, between commissioners appointed by the legislatures of New-York and Massachusetts, respectively, for the settlement of a partition-line of jurisdiction between those (then) provinces, on the eastern part of New-York, and from the southern to the northern boundaries of Massachusetts, (then called Massachusett’s Bay;) in compliance with the king’s recommendations, which had been previously signified to sir Henry Moore, and Francis Barnard, Esq. the then governors of those provinces. The commissioners, on the part of New-York, were John Watts, Robert R. Livingston, and William Nicoll, Esq’rs. and on that of Massachusetts, William Brattle, Joseph Hawley, and John Hancock, Esq’rs. These gentlemen met, in pursuance of their appointment, at Hartford in the (then) province of Connecticut, where, after divers conferences, they concluded on the following line, as the one which should, at all times thereafter, be the line of jurisdiction between Massachusetts and New-York, wheresoever the latter, on its eastern boundary, should adjoin on the former: that is to say, beginning at a place fixed upon by the two governments of New-York and Connecticut, about the year 1731, for the north-western corner of a tract of land commonly called the Oblong, or Equivalent Land; and running from that corner, north, 21° 10′ 30″ east (as the needle then pointed,) to the northern line of Massachusetts. This agreement was ratified by the governors of Massachusetts and New-York, on the same day; and commissioners were accordingly appointed by both provinces, before the revolution, to run the line thus defined. It was, in part, then effected; but those commissioners not having been able to proceed, by reason of an eventual disagreement between them, this line was finally run out, surveyed, ascertained and marked, by the commissioners appointed by congress, whom the two governments concerned had empowered to make such appointment.

227. In the beginning of the same year, Mr. Rittenhouse was elected one of the twelve Counsellors of the American Philosophical Society; an office in that institution, created by the incorporating act of the 15th of March, 1780.

228. There was some unaccountable mismanagement in the whole of this business, on the part of the society. Mr. Mayer’s letter is published entire, in the original Latin: but the translation ends, abruptly, in the middle of a paragraph. When Mr. Rittenhouse was directed by the society to answer that letter, he requested the writer of these memoirs to furnish him with an English translation of it, for the purpose of comparing with it one which he had himself attempted. That translation (which, by Mr. Rittenhouse’s desire, was made to conform pretty closely to the original,) is inserted in the Appendix, entire, together with the hitherto unpublished answer.

229. Charles Theodore, Duke of Bavaria, who is denominated by Lalande, “an illustrious patron of the sciences.”

It is about fifty years since this prince built an observatory near the gardens of Schwetzingen, two leagues from the city of Manheim; and there Father Christian Mayer pursued his astronomical labours for several years. But about the year 1772, the same prince erected another and a more magnificent edifice (of 108 Rhenish feet in height,) at Manheim, for the same purpose: where Father Mayer made numerous and highly estimable observations; as may be collected from his work, entitled, De novis in Cælo Siderio Phænomenis. Lalande places this observatory in N. Lat. 49° 29′ 15″.

230. Among those who have observed, since Dr. Herschel’s discovery of the Georgium Sidus, new phænomena in the heavens, may be ranked the following:

M. Piazzi, a Sicilian astronomer, who, on the 1st of January, 1801, discovered a small planet revolving round the sun, between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, named Ceres: Dr. Olbers, of Bremen, who, on the 28th of March in the following year, discovered another small planet, to which he gave the name of Pallas, which revolves round the sun nearly at the same distance, and in the same time, as Ceres; and afterwards, viz. on the 29th of March, another planet, which he called Vesta; similar to the others, both in its position and magnitude: and

Mr. Harding, of Lilienthal, who, between these two last mentioned periods, viz. on the 1st of September, 1804, discovered a fourth planet (but the third in the order of time,) also small, to which he gave the name of Juno; resembling Pallas in a great excentricity of its orbit, and the inclination of this to the ecliptic, and placed at nearly the same distance from the sun.

The Georgium Sidus was not discovered until about fifteen years before Dr. Rittenhouse’s death; and the first discovered of the four last mentioned planets was not known in America, for almost five years after that event.

231. “There is perhaps no individual of the present age,” (says the writer of the article “Astronomy,” in the New Edinburgh Encyclopædia, now publishing under the direction of Dr. Brewster,) “to whom practical astronomy owes deeper and more lasting obligations, than to Mr. Edward Troughton. The great improvements which he has made upon astronomical instruments, and the extreme accuracy with which he divides them, have rendered his name celebrated in every part of Europe, and have inspired the practical astronomer with a confidence in his observations, which he had hitherto been unaccustomed to feel. There is scarcely an observatory of any consequence, either in this country” (Great-Britain,) “or the continent, that does not contain some of Mr. Troughton’s instruments; and there are few series of observations, in which they have not been used. The admirable observations of Mr. Pond, on the declinations of the principal stars, were made with an azimuth circle of Mr. Troughton’s construction. The mural circle, which Mr. Groombridge of Blackheath uses, in his numerous and accurate observations, was made by the same artist. The splendid mural circle, of 6 feet 2 inches radius, which Mr. Troughton is at present preparing for the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, will cost 700l.” (equivalent, in money of the United States, to $3111¹¹/₁₀₀,) “and will be one of the most magnificent and accurate instruments that has ever been erected.”

232. The Nautical Almanack.

233. In this interval, that is to say, towards the close of the year 1788, Dr. Rittenhouse’s eldest daughter was married to the late Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, Esq. of Philadelphia.

234. A few days after this date (about the 20th of August,) the writer of these memoirs was nominated by the president to the senate, and by their advice and consent thereto was appointed, to be one of the judges of the western territory (now the state of Ohio, &c.): the other judges, nominated and appointed with him, were Samuel Holden Parsons and John Cleves Symmes, Esquires. Major-General Arthur St. Clair, who may, in some respects, be considered as a modern Bellisarius, was at the same time appointed, in like manner, to be governor of that territory.^[234a] The writer declined the honour intended for him by this appointment, which was unsolicited on his part: he resigned it in a day or two after.

The promptitude with which this mark of president Washington’s approbation of the person recommended to him by Mr. Rittenhouse, was bestowed, is an evidence of the respect in which the president held that gentleman’s recommendation; and it is the more so, as Mr. Rittenhouse’s letter was the only one addressed to the president on that occasion.

235. According to Dr. Ramsay, “the depreciation began at different periods in different states; but, in general, about the middle of the year 1777, and progressively increased for three or four years.” In the first four or five months of 1780, it depreciated to 50 or 60 for one. “Its circulation,” continues Dr. Ramsay, “was afterwards partial; but, where it passed, it soon depreciated to 150 for one. In some few parts, it continued in circulation for the first four or five months of 1781; but in this latter period, many would not take it at any rate, and they who did, received it at a depreciation of several hundreds for one.”

In October, 1779, it was resolved by congress, that no further sum in this paper-money should be issued, on any account whatever, than would, when added to the sum then in circulation, amount to 200 millions of dollars. In their circular letter of the 13th of September preceding, addressed to their constituents, congress asserted the practicability of redeeming all the continental bills at par, with gold and silver; and rejected, with indignation, the supposition that the states would ever tarnish their credit by violating public faith. “These strong declarations in favour of the paper-currency,” says Dr. Ramsay, “deceived many to repose confidence in it, to their utter ruin.” In addition to the amount of many millions of dollars, in paper-emissions of the several states, congress, soon after, actually continued to issue their own paper, until it amounted in the whole to the enormous sum of 200 millions of dollars! That which was of little value before, now became of less, and soon afterwards good for nothing. The inevitable consequence was, that thousands of meritorious citizens were entirely ruined, and others greatly injured in their property.

236. The judiciary is the only department of government, in a republic, the officers of which ought (conformably to the principles of that form of government) to be permanent in their stations. Judges, in order to secure their independence, and thereby enable them to administer justice faithfully and impartially, should hold their offices quamdiu se bené gesserint: and, should they violate the condition of this tenure, the constitution should provide, as that of Pennsylvania, in conformity to those of the union as well as her sister states, does, that they should no longer continue in office. Thus, this branch of the government would have formed the only safe and effectual check, against such unconstitutional attempts as might be made upon the chartered rights of individuals or the public, by either the legislative or executive power. But, unfortunately, the dependent nature of the judiciary, under the constitution of 1776, rendered it incompetent to that end. Hence, as was noticed by the writer of these memoirs on a former occasion,^[236a] “the framers of the first constitution of the state of Pennsylvania discovered the indispensable necessity of providing some tribunal for preserving the constitution entire. They accordingly instituted a periodical body, in the nature of a judicial inquest, and styled the council of censors; whose duty it was, “to enquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty, as guardians of the people, or exercised other or greater powers, than they were entitled to by the constitution.” “This censorial tribunal was, however, ill calculated to answer the purposes of its institution. It was, itself, a temporary body, appointed immediately by the people. In the alternation, and casual ascendency, of different parties in the country, a contingency inseparable from the nature of a popular government, the council of sensors became the representatives of the passions, the prejudices, the political interests, of whatever party might happen to be the predominant one at the moment of their election. If this should prove to be the same party with that which had borne the sway, during the seven years immediately preceding their election, they would be disposed to sanction the proceedings of that party: otherwise, they would be likely to censure and pronounce unconstitutional, the official measures of an adverse party, without just cause, impelled thereto by a spirit of party-hostility.

“Under a government thus constituted, all would be uncertain and insecure. From the deficiency of one stationary and independent department in its administration, the rights of the people and the best interests of the state would, eventually, become the sport of opposite and contending parties; these rights and interests would be sacrificed at the shrine of some desperate and unprincipled faction; the constitution itself, destitute of any steady disinterested support against their machinations, would be overthrown: till, finally, the people, having no longer any rallying point of security for their persons or property, would be driven from anarchy and licentiousness into the arms of despotism.

“It is further worthy of remark, that the council of censors was an inefficient and a nugatory tribunal, in one most important particular: Numerous unconstitutional acts of the legislature might have been carried into effect, and have had their complete operation, attended by the most unjust and ruinous consequences, before they could be even pronounced unconstitutional.”

237. In September, 1772.

238. Unless, perhaps, in that of King’s College (now Columbia College,) in New-York.

239. Dr. Morse observes, that, before the American war, the College of New-Jersey was furnished with a philosophical apparatus, valued at more than thirteen hundred dollars; “which, except the elegant Orrery constructed by Mr. Rittenhouse,” says the Doctor, “was almost entirely destroyed by the British army, in the late war; as was also the library, which now” (this was in 1789) “consists of between two and three thousand volumes.”

With a view to the obtaining, with greater certainty, information respecting the condition &c. of the Orrery in Princeton College, the writer of these memoirs addressed a letter on the subject, to his worthy and much respected friend, the Rev. Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D. then president of that institution:^[239a] To that letter the learned president promptly returned the following answer:

240. It was in the autumn of this year that the second (and youngest surviving) daughter of Dr. Rittenhouse was married to the late Nicholas Baker Waters, M. D. of Philadelphia.

241. A very eloquent and interesting Oration on this occasion, being an eulogium on Dr. Franklin, was delivered on the 1st of March, 1791, before the American Philosophical Society and agreeably to their appointment, by the Rev. William Smith, D. D. then one of the vice-presidents of the society; for which the orator received their unanimous thanks.

In a note addressed to the public by Dr. Smith, and prefixed to this eulogium in the first volume of his works, the Doctor acknowledges the assistance derived by him, in its composition, “from the friendly communications of some of his learned colleagues, among the officers of the American Philosophical Society:” viz. David Rittenhouse, Esq. LL.D. President of the Society; Thomas Jefferson, Esq. LL.D. one of the Vice-Presidents; Jonathan Williams, Esq. one of the Secretaries; and Benjamin Rush, M. D. one of the Council. To Dr. Rittenhouse, he makes his acknowledgements, “for sundry papers, which have been digested into the account of Dr. Franklin’s Electrical and Philosophical Discoveries;” which occupy six or seven pages of the printed eulogium.

Dr. Rittenhouse was well acquainted with the principles of Electricity; at least, so far as they appear to be hitherto understood. It is believed that, pretty early in life, he acquired a knowledge of this branch of science; which he occasionally cultivated afterwards. A letter written by Dr. Franklin to Mr. Landriani, on the utility of electric conductors, will serve to shew, that “our astronomer” (as Franklin styled him) had employed the instrumentality of his “telescope,” in observing some of the effects of lightning. This letter, which is dated “Philadelphia, Oct. 14, 1787”1787”, is in these words:

“I have received, sir, your excellent dissertation on the utility of electric conductors which you have had the goodness to send me, and I have read it with much pleasure. I beg leave to return you my sincere thanks for it.

“I found, on my return to this country, that the number of conductors was much increased, the utility of them having been demonstrated by several experiments, which shewed their efficacy in preserving buildings from lightning. Among other examples, my own house one day received a severe shock from lightning: the neighbours perceived it, and immediately hastened to give assistance, in case it should be on fire; but it sustained no damage: they found only the family much frightened by the violence of the explosion.

“Last year, when I was making some addition to the building, it was necessary to take down the conductor: I found, upon examination, that its copper-point, which was nine inches in length and about one third of an inch in diameter in the thickest part, had been almost entirely melted, and very little of it remained fixed to the iron rod. This invention, therefore, has been of some utility to the inventor; and to this advantage is added, the pleasure of having been useful to others.

“Mr. Rittenhauss,^[241a] our astronomer, has informed me, that having observed with his excellent telescope several conductors which were within his view, he perceived that the points of a certain number of them had been in like manner melted. There is no instance where a house furnished with a complete conductor has suffered any considerable damage; and those even which had none have been very little injured, since conductors have become common in the city.”

242. The body of Dr. Franklin was interred in the cemetery belonging to Christ-Church in Philadelphia, under a plain marble tomb-stone, inscribed with only his name, the time of his decease, and his age. But the following epitaph on himself was written by him, many years before his death. As it contains a pretty allusion, typically expressed, to his belief in the Immortality of the Soul, it may not be deemed superfluous to add, on the present occasion, the testimony of this philosopher in concurrence with Rittenhouse’s, on that subject. If the doctrine had needed any further verification than before established it, the suffrages of two such men as Franklin and Rittenhouse could scarcely fail to remove the doubts of the most sceptical. This epitaph is copied from Stuber’s Continuation of the Life of Franklin.

243. Benjamin Rush, M. D.

244. Of those gentlemen who were among Dr. Rittenhouse’s more particular acquaintances, and with whom he maintained the closest friendship, few, if any, visited him more frequently than the late Francis Hopkinson, Esq.

Mr. Hopkinson was a man of genius, taste and learning. He possessed an exuberance of refined and genuine wit, rarely to be met with; and his vein for satire, which was always applied to useful ends, was almost unrivalled. His knowledge of music was correct and extensive, both in the theory and practice of that art; and he had also a critical acquaintance with painting, as well as a good judgment, in relation to the fine arts in general. These qualifications and attainments, united with a vivacious temper, a knowledge of mankind, and a love of virtue, rendered him a pleasing companion: but the more solid acquirements in literature and science, of which, also, he possessed a very considerable share, made his society not less interesting than agreeable. No one set an higher value on Dr. Rittenhouse’s talents and virtues, than this gentleman; their esteem was mutual; and a constant and intimate friendship long subsisted between them.

Mr. Hopkinson held an appointment in the Loan-office of Pennsylvania, for some years. He afterwards succeeded George Ross, Esq. in the office of Judge of the Admiralty, for that state. In this station he continued until the year 1790; when President Washington, by whom he had the honour to be much esteemed, conferred on him the place of Judge of the District Court of the United States, for Pennsylvania: which important office he held during the remainder of his life. A collection of Judge Hopkinson’s writings, on various subjects, was made after his death, and published in the year 1792, in three octavo volumes; constituting a curious and entertaining miscellaneous work. He died on the 8th of May, 1791, in the fifty-third year of his age, and somewhat more than five years before his venerated friend, Rittenhouse.

Mr. Hopkinson was one of the executors of Dr. Franklin’s Will; but he survived the Doctor little more than a year.

245. Belonging to the Library Company of Philadelphia, and to the American Philosophical Society.

246. The papers, referred to by Mr. Jefferson, were “Observations on the probabilities of the Duration of Human Life, and the progress of Population, in the United States of America;” addressed, in the form of a Letter, to Dr. Rittenhouse, Presid. of the Am. Philos. Society, and afterwards published in the third volume of the Society’s Transactions.

247. In a niche, over the entrance into the edifice, is placed a Statue, in white marble, of Dr. Franklin; presented to the Library Company by the late William Bingham, Esq. of Philadelphia.

248. The Doctor also made, at different times, valuable donations to the Society, in Books and some other articles.

249. It is due to the liberality of the general assembly of 1782-3, to notice in this place, that on the 16th of February, 1783, that legislative body of Pennsylvania made a grant to the American Philosophical Society, of four hundred dollars.

250. Part the 1st of the 6th volume was published in the year 1804, and a continuation of that volume, in 1809.

251. At the death of Hevelius, as Lalande remarks, Europe abounded with men of science, whose various nations disputed the glory of important discoveries, and of perfecting those which had been already made. The Academy of Sciences at Paris and the Royal Society of London produced, above all, as the same learned writer further observes, that revolution (as he is pleased to term it,) by the great number of illustrious men and celebrated astronomers, which they gave to Europe. The Royal Society was instituted in the year 1660; and it is deserving of notice, that this was the period at which the English nation was on the eve of a restoration of their legitimate and orderly government, after the boisterous and unhappy times of Cromwell and his pretended Commonwealth: The Academy of Sciences was established in 1666; not long after France had likewise been distracted by domestic factions; but, when the great Colbert had restored the finances of the state, and not only invigorated but improved every department of that powerful monarchy. Lalande designates this period, as an era distinguished for the renewal of astronomy, by the establishment of Academies. Such are the proofs of the usefulness of institutions of this nature.

252. Since the above was written, more satisfactory information has been obtained on the subject. The agency of informationinformation, to which Dr. Rittenhouse was appointed (together with the Rev. Dr. Smith and Mr. Findley,) in May, 1791, was unconnected with the appointment respecting the turnpike road. It appears, that on the 10th of October, 1791, David Rittenhouse, Esq. the Rev. Dr. John Ewing, and Mr. John Nancarrow, were appointed by Governor Mifflin, Commissioners to view and mark out a road, from the middle ferry on Schuylkill to the borough of Lancaster, by courses and distances, as near to a straight line as the nature of the ground and other circumstances would admit; and also to view and lay out, in a general plan, the great road at that time leading from the city of Philadelphia to the same borough, (and now called the old road:) with topographical observations thereon, having reference to the practicability and comparative circumstances necessary to making turnpikes on the then existing and proposed roads; in which, expense and materials were to be attended to; together with the plans of the surveys, in profile, of the said road or roads: agreeably to a resolution of the general assembly, passed on the 30th of September, in the same year. Under commissions thus designating their duties, these gentlemen, assisted by surveyors and the necessary attendants, proceeded on this service, and established that great and important public highway, known by the name of the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike Road: their compensation for this service, was consequently drawn from the treasury of Pennsylvania.

The author was favoured with this information by John Hall, Esq. who acted as one of the surveyors on the occasion.

253. These particulars, respecting Dr. Rittenhouse’s connection with the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike-Company, were obligingly furnished to the Memorialist by Mr. William Govett, secretary to the board of managers of that company.

254. By the legislative act of the 27th of November, 1779, the charter granted to the Academy and Charitable School of Philadelphia, by the Proprietaries, on the 30th of July, 1753, together with the one granted to the College on the 14th of May, 1755, were declared void, and David Rittenhouse, Esq. was one of the twenty-five trustees of the University, then appointed. Twelve of these twenty-five newly-appointed trustees, were such ex officio. Dr. Franklin, who was one of them, never qualified under this act; and some of the others afterwards withdrew.

By the law of the 30th of September, 1791, the old College and the new University were incorporated: twelve trustees were to be appointed by each of these institutions, and reported to the governor before the 1st of December succeeding, which was accordingly done; and thus the union of the two institutions was happily completed.

255. Between the years 1762 and 1774, there were collected for the use of the College, chiefly by the agency and zealous exertions of the Provost, between fifty and sixty thousand dollars; the much greater part of which amount was obtained from contributors in Great-Britain and Ireland.

It is not precisely known to the writer, what is the present condition of the University of Pennsylvania, with which the original College of Philadelphia and its appendages are incorporated; but it is believed to be prosperous: its medical department is, certainly, in a most flourishing state.

The persons who may be considered as the Founders of the College, when the original institution was incorporated by the name of “The Academy and Charitable School of Philadelphia,” were Benjamin Franklin, James Logan, Thomas Lawrence, William Allen, John Inglis, Tench Francis, William Masters, Lloyd Zachary, Samuel M‘Call, junior, Joseph Turner, Thomas Leech, William Shippen, Robert Strettel, Philip Syng, Charles Willing, Phineas Bond, Richard Peters, Abraham Taylor, Thomas Bond, Thomas Hopkinson, William Plumsted, Joshua Maddox, Thomas White and William Coleman. The names of these respectable men, (the meritorious promoters of that institution which fostered the genius of a Rittenhouse, and with which his name and talents were associated,) were deemed deserving of record, as early patrons of learning in Pennsylvania. Of this College, the Alma Mater of the memorialist, he trusts it will not be thought presumptuous to speak in the language, and with the grateful feelings, of one of her Sons,^[255a] in an early period of his life:

256. A lawyer of eminence.

257. Then attorney-general of Pennsylvania.

258. In selecting the twenty-four trustees for the proposed Academy, as well as in the formation of his plan, Dr. Franklin consulted, besides the three gentlemen named with him, in the text, Dr. Phineas Bond, a physician of eminence in Philadelphia and a worthy character. The trustees, whose names were inserted in the contributions, and which were subscribed on the 13th of Nov. 1749, were among the most respectable citizens of Philadelphia. The plan of the then projected Academy was adapted to “the state of an infant country;” Dr. Franklin having considered it as only “a foundation, for posterity to erect (thereon) a seminary of learning more extensive, and suitable to future circumstances.”

259. He was, afterwards, also professor of astronomy and rhetoric; and he gave lectures in these branches, in addition to natural philosophy.

260. The following is an extract from the Salutatory Oration delivered by Mr. Paul Jackson,^[260a] at the first Commencement held in the College of Philadelphia; when a Master’s degree was conferred on that gentleman, and on him only.

After making his salutations of respect to the professors generally, the orator thus addressed the Rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Smith, the Provost:

“Præcipué, Te, collegii et academiæ hujus Præefecte venerande! summâ benevolentiâ a nobis observari par est. Tu gressus nostros, dum subtilioris sapientiæ recessus curiosé indagamus, direxisti. Tu nobis, mansuetioribus musis operam impendentibus, orationis simplicis ac perspicuæ regulas, venusta ornamenta ac veneres accuraté eleganterque explicuisti. Tu, quid sit magnificum tum in verbis, tum in sententiis, tum in figuris, edocuisti, omnesque sublimitatis fontes, ipsius Longini majestatem et acumen feliciter æmulatus, auditoribus tuis admirantibus retexisti. Qui vult fieri disertus, scripta tua, tanquam præceptorum exempla luculenta, sæpius versato; animum intendat ad argumenta multifaria, quæ tam varié, tam numerosé, tam abundanter, tam illuminaté, tum rebus tum verbis tractasti.”

261. Dr. William Shippen, the younger, who first filled the anatomical chair in the College of Philadelphia, (afterwards, the University of Pennsylvania,) and which he continued to occupy for almost forty-three years with great respectability, may be justly considered as the founder of the medical department of that institution. The establishment of a medical school in his native city, had long been contemplated by this distinguished lecturer, as a most desirable object: but, in the execution of such a plan, serious difficulties were to be encountered at the commencement. In the language of-his anonymous eulogist,^[261a] “the enterprize, arduous in itself, was rendered abundantly more so, in consideration of its novelty: for, as yet, the voice of a public lecturer in medicine had never been heard in the western world. In order, therefore, to test the practicability of the measure, and to pave the way for a more regular and extensive establishment, he determined to embark in the undertaking himself, by delivering, in a private capacity, a course of lectures on anatomy and surgery: this he did in the winter of 1762-3, being the first winter after his return from his studies and travels in Europe.”

Dr. Shippen’s success, as a private lecturer, demonstrated the expediency of engrafting a medical school on the College; and, in consequence, he was unanimously elected the professor of anatomy and surgery, on the 17th of September, 1765. This able teacher held that chair until his death,^[261b] which occurred the 11th of July, 1808, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.

262. William Shippen, jun. M. D. just mentioned, was the professor of anatomy; Adam Kuhn, M. D. a distinguished pupil of the celebrated Linnæus, was professor of botany, united with the materia medica; Benjamin Rush, M. D. a learned and able professor of the theory and practice of physick, then held the chemical chair; and Dr. Thomas Bond, an ingenious and eminent physician, gave clynical lectures in the Pennsylvania Hospital. In the year 1789, the trustees of the College of Philadelphia instituted a professorship of natural history and botany; which was then conferred on Benjamin Smith Barton, M. D. Dr. Kuhn had formerly delivered several courses of lectures on botany, in the College of Philadelphia; but natural history had never before been taught there. On the union of the College with the University, in the year 1791, Dr. Barton’s former appointment was confirmed by the trustees of the united institution; and in the year 1796, he was further appointed by them to the professorship of materia medica; that chair having been then vacated by the resignation of the late professor of that branch of medical science.

The other chairs, in the Medical Department of the University, are filled as follows; viz. that of Anatomy, by Casper Wister, M. D.—of the Theory and Practice of Physick, by Benjamin Rush, M. D.^[262a]—of Chemistry, by John Redman Coxe, M. D.—of Materia Medica, Botany and Natural History, by Benjamin Smith Barton, M. D.—of Surgery, by Philip Syng Physick, M. D. and John S. Dorsey, M. D.—and of Midwifery, by Thomas Chalkley James, M. D.

Among these collegiate-chairs in medicine, appertaining to the University of Pennsylvania, the only one which appears to be deficient in a suitable appendage to its institution—and this, too, such an appendage as may be considered almost indispensably necessary to it—is the Professorship of Botany. To this chair, a Botanical Garden ought to be appurtenant: and accordingly we find, that this requisite for rendering a Botanical Professorship complete, in most Universities, is the establishment of such a Garden, for the use of the Teacher and his Pupils.

The importance that is attached to institutions of this kind, in foreign seminaries of learning, will be perceived from the following sketches of those in three of the most celebrated universities of Europe.

The Botanical Garden (called the “Physick Garden”) of the university of Oxford, contains five acres of ground. It is surrounded by a noble wall, with portals in the rustic style, at proper distances. The passage to the grand entrance is through a small court: this principal portal is of the Doric order, ornamented with rustic work, and adorned with a bust of Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby, the founder; besides statues of the kings Charles I. and II.

The ground is divided into four quarters. On each side of the entrance, is a neat and convenient green-house, stocked with a great variety of exotics. The quarters are filled with indigenous plants, properly classed; and without the walls is an admirable hot-house, filled with various plants, the production of warm climates.

These fine and spacious gardens were instituted by Lord Danby, so early as the year 1632; and this nobleman having supplied them with the necessary plants, for the use of the students of Botany in the university, endowed the establishment with an annual revenue, for its support. The Gardens were afterwards much improved by Dr. Sherrard, who assigned a fund of 3000l. sterling, for the maintenance of a professor of Botany. Over the grand entrance into the Gardens is this inscription: “Gloriæ Dei Optimi, maximi honori Caroli I. Regis, in usum Academieœ et Reipublicæ, Henricus Comes Danby, anno 1632.”

The Botanic Garden, at Cambridge, consists of nearly five acres, well watered. The ground, with a large house for the use of the governors and officers of the Garden, was purchased at the expense of about 1600l. sterling, by Dr. Richard Walker.

An handsome green-house, one hundred feet in length, and having an hot-house (or, what is called a stove,) appurtenant to it, were erected by subscription. These are furnished with an extensive variety of curious exotics: the plants are all arranged according to the LinnæanLinnæan system, and a catalogue of them is printed.

These Gardens are under the government of the chancellor or vice-chancellor of the university, the heads of three of the colleges, and the regius professor of physick; and they are superintended by a lecturer or reader, and a curator.

There is, besides, a Professorship of Botany, in this university; as there is also at Oxford.

The Botanical Garden belonging to the university of Edinburgh, is about a mile from the city, It consists of a great variety of plants, exotic and indigenous. The Professor is botanist to the king, and receives an annual salary of 120l. sterling, for the support of the Garden. A monument to the memory of Linnæus was erected here, by the late Dr. Hope, who first planted the Garden and brought it to perfection.

The Garden of Plants, at Paris, now termed the Museum of Natural History, comprises a space of many acres. It dates its origin as far back as the year 1640, during the reign of Louis XIII. In 1665, it bore the name of Hortus Regius, and exhibited a catalogue of four thousand plants. From that period, it made but slow progress, until Louis XV. placed it under the direction of the Count de Buffon, the celebrated naturalist; to whose anxious care and indefatigable exertions, it owes its present extent and magnificence: it is now under the patronage of the government.

But this institution comprehends, in addition to the Botanical Garden, an extensive chemical laboratory, a cabinet of comparative anatomy, a cabinet of preparations in anatomy and natural history, a large library, a museum of natural history, and a menagérie well stocked. Besides the lectures delivered in the Amphitheatre, erected in these Gardens, the Professors of Botany give their peripatetic lessons, in good weather, to a numerous train of disciples.

“When I have been seated at noon, on a fine day, in the month of August, or in the commencement of May, under one of the majestic ash of the Garden of Plants, with this Elysian scene before me, in the midst of a most profound silence, and of a solitude interrupted only by the occasional appearance of the Professor of Botany and his pupils, I have almost fancied myself,” says the writer of Letters on France and England—(see Am. Rev. No. ii.) “among the groves of the Athenian Academy, and could imagine that I heard the lessons of the “divine” Plato. Here, as well as in the spacious and noble works and gardens of Oxford, which are so admirably calculated for the exercises both of the mind and body, the fancy takes wing, and readily transports the student of antiquity to those venerable seats of knowledge, where the sublime Philosophy of the Greeks was taught, and the masters of human reason displayed their incomparable eloquence:”—

The importance of establishing a Botanical Garden at Philadelphia is obvious: it has, in fact, become a necessary institution, towards completing a medical education; according to the system of teaching medicine, pursued in the medical department of the University of Pennsylvania. In this respect, New-York has taken the lead of Philadelphia. Dr. David Hosack, professor of botany in the Medical School of New-York, established a Botanic Garden of about twenty acres, called the Elgin Botanic Garden, in the vicinity of that city, in the year 1801. This Garden is skirted around by forest-trees and shrubs, within the substantial enclosure of a stone wall; and on these grounds are erected extensive, commodious, and well constructed conservatories and hot-houses, which are furnished with a variety of plants, exotic and indigenous. The whole of this establishment was purchased from Dr. Hosack, by the state, in the year 1810: It is now under the direction of the regents of the University of that state.

Six years ago, the general assembly of Pennsylvania made some provision for such an institution: By a law passed the 19th of March, 1807, towards the close of Governor M‘Kean’s administration, three thousand dollars were granted to the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, “out of the monies they owe the state; for the purpose of enabling them to establish a Garden for the improvement of the science of Botany, and for instituting a series of experiments to ascertain the cheapest and best food for plants, and their medical properties and virtues.” But no application of this fund has yet been made, to the purposes contemplated by the legislature in their appropriation of it.

Mr. John Bartram, F. R. S. a distinguished botanist, though self-taught, is understood to have been the first anglo-American who executed the design of a Botanic Garden in this country. He laid out, and planted with his own hands, on his farm, pleasantly situated on the west bank of the Schuylkill and about four miles below Philadelphia, a garden of five or six acres; which he furnished with a great variety of curious, useful and beautiful vegetables, exotic as well as American. He acquired the greater part of the latter, in travelling through many parts of the continent, from Canada to the Floridas. His proficiency in his favourite science was, at a pretty early period, so great, that LinnæusLinnæus pronounced him, in one of his letters, to be the greatest natural botanist in the world. This Garden is now in the tenure and under the management of his son, the ingenious Mr. William Bartram, a well known cultivator of Natural History and Botany. Although this respectable man is above seventy years of age, he continues the most sedulous attention to his favourite pursuits. For a further account of Mr. John Bartram, see Dr. Barton’s Medical Journal.

Mr. Bartram was born near Darby, in the (then) county of Chester, Pennsylvania, in the year 1701. He held the appointment of Botanist, for America, to King George III. until his death, which occurred in September, 1777, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.

263. This highly important and well conducted institution owes its rise to the liberal contributions of several humane, charitable and public-spirited persons, aided by a legislative grant of two thousand pounds, Pennsylvania currency, (equivalent to $5333⅓ in the beginning of the year 1751: the first design, it is believed, was suggested by the late Dr. Thomas Bond, long an eminent physician in Philadelphia; and heretofore an active and useful member of the Philosophical Society, as well as sometime one of the vice-presidents of that body. By a law passed the 11th of April, 1793, the general assembly liberally granted ten thousand pounds ($26,666,) out of the funds accruing to the loan office of February 26, 1773; to enable the managers of the Hospital to make additions to their buildings, conformably to the original plan; and so to extend it as to comprehend a Lying-in and a Foundling Hospital,^[263a] so soon as specific funds for those purposes should be obtained.

The first twelve managers (whose names deserve to be held in remembrance, as prominent benefactors to their country,) were Joshua Crosby, Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Thomas Bond, Samuel Hazard, Richard Peters, Israel Pemberton, (then styled junior,) Samuel Rhoads, Hugh Roberts, Joseph Morris, John Smith, Evan Morgan and Charles Norris; and John Reynell officiated as treasurer: all of these were gentlemen of most respectable characters.

In order to obviate some objections, that were at first made, to the contemplated expense of the medical department of the institution, and which it was apprehended might obstruct the passage of the bill then depending in the legislature, by which the grant of the two thousand pounds, before mentioned, was obtained from the public, Dr. Thomas Bond, together with his brother Dr. Phineas Bond, and Dr. Lloyd Zachary, generously offered to attend the Hospital, gratuitously, for the term of three years.

The Hospital establishment is now very complete, according to the original plan of this valuable institution; and, indeed, much beyond what was at first contemplated, in some respects: yet its utility might be much increased, by a further extension of the design. In its present condition, however, it reflects great honour on Pennsylvania, justly celebrated, as she is, for her charitable, literary, scientific, and other useful institutions; and the conduct of the managers has been uniformly such, as to entitle them to the gratitude of the community.

The Students in the Medical School of the University pay ten dollars per annum, for the privilege of attending the Hospital-practice, which is of very important advantage to them: and the physicians, with the managers, have generously appropriated a fund out of the monies, thus obtained, for the purpose of founding a Medical Library, and of purchasing the late Dr. Abraham Chovet’s most curious anatomical preparations.^[263b] By these means, in addition to Dr. John Fothergill’s valuable present, and other donations, this Hospital, with little expense of its more immediate funds, already possesses the most useful as well as ornamental collection, of the kind, that is to be found any where in America: and when the superbly magnificent painting, representing Christ healing the sick, (now in a train of execution by Mr. West, in London, and intended to be a donation from him to this Hospital,) shall have been received, this chef-d’œuvre of the sublime artist will constitute there, not only a noble monument of his liberality, benevolence, and attachment to his native country, but a splendid and admirably well-suited ornament to the institution possessing it. It is scarcely sixteen years since the hospital-tickets of the medical pupils amounted to only about three hundred dollars per annum. This fund has been since increasing; the annual income to it being at present estimated at fifteen hundred dollars: it is now amply sufficient to supply the library belonging to the Hospital with new books, and to keep in good preservation the anatomical casts, &c.

As Dr. Franklin was eminently instrumental in promoting the establishment of the Pennsylvania Hospital, so he likewise bore a conspicuous part in the formation of the Library-Company of Philadelphia; an institution which holds a distinguished rank, for its usefulness, among the many that do honour to the capital of Pennsylvania. A public Library was first set on foot in Philadelphia by Franklin, about the year 1731; at which time he was scarcely twenty-six years of age. Fifty persons then subscribed forty shillings each, and agreed to contribute ten shillings annually, for that purpose. Some other companies for similar purposes had been formed in that city, after the one here mentioned; but these were soon after united with “The Library Company of Philadelphia.” This Company now possess many thousand valuable books; and their stock is continually deriving accessions from donations, as well as from purchases. Besides the marble statue of Dr. Franklin, presented to the company by the late William Bingham, Esq. of Philadelphia, (which decorates the front of the Library-edifice,) and many other considerable benefactions to the institution, from time to time, “the Penn family” (as the late ingenious Dr. Henry Stuber, the continuator of the Life of Franklin, has remarked,) “distinguished themselves by their donations” to it. The Loganian Library was, a few years since, placed under the same roof with that of the Philadelphia Company; though in a distinct apartment. It consists of an extensive collection of curious, rare and valuable books, in various branches of ancient and modern learning: and for this noble benefaction to his native country, the public are indebted to James Logan, Esq. many years an eminent citizen of Philadelphia, and well known, not only throughout America, but in the old world, for his erudition and talents.

Dr. Rittenhouse’s intimate connexion with the College, and afterwards with the University of Pennsylvania, rendered it improper, in the opinion of the Memorialist, not to notice those institutions in the manner he has done: and in doing this, he could not without injustice omit a similar mention of the Hospital, so nearly allied to them through the Medical School of the former; nor of the Philadelphia Library Company, which bears a close affinity to them all.

The name of Mr. West having been introduced on this occasion, the writer conceives it will not be thought foreign to the design of these Memoirs (though only incidentally connected with the present article), to make some further mention of a native American, whose name must ever hold a most conspicuous place in the history of the fine arts, in relation to this country.

This celebrated Artist is the youngest of ten children of John West, a person descended from very respectable ancestors, and a native of England. John early embraced the tenets of the people called Quakers. Migrating, in the year 1714, to Pennsylvania, where some members of the same family had arrived with William Penn about fifteen years before, he married and settled in the vicinity of Philadelphia; and there his son Benjamin was born.

This gentleman’s residence has been in England, during the last forty-five years: but he left his native country some considerable time prior to that period; having first visited Italy, and some other schools of painting on the continent. When a Society of Artists was instituted in London, a few years after the accession of the present king to the throne, Mr. West (who had then recently arrived in England, on his return from Italy,) became a member of that body. Their exhibitions of painting, sculpture and architectural designs, became objects of attention to men of taste in the fine arts;—“the young Sovereign,” says Mr. West (in a letter to Mr. C. W. Peale, written in 1809,^[263c]) “was interested in their prosperity.” After the dissolution of that society, the king desired Mr. West and three other artists to form a plan for a Royal Academy; which having been approved by his majesty, he directed that it should be carried into execution. “Thus,” continues Mr. West, “commenced the institution of the Royal Academy of London^[263d]:” And again, speaking of this patronage, he says;—“his majesty, by his regard for the arts, gave a dignity to them, unknown before in the country.” Referring to this meritorious patronage of the fine arts by the present king of England, Mr. Latrobe (in his Anniversary Oration before the Society of Artists in Philadelphia, in May, 1811,) makes this just remark: “Nor ought we to omit mention of the name of George III. by whose patronage, our illustrious countryman, West, has become the first historical painter of the age.”

264. Of these, Francis Alison, D. D. a learned and worthy presbyterian clergyman, was vice-provost, and professor of moral philosophy; the Rev. Ebenezer Kinnersley, M. A. an eminent electrician and an amiable man, was professor of English and oratory; John Beveridge, M. A. an excellent scholar in the learned languages (some of whose Latin epistolary writings, in metrical language, after the manner of Horace, possess a considerable portion of merit and discover much classical purity of style,) was professor of languages; and Hugh Williamson, M. A. (now M. D.) a gentleman of distinguished talents, was professor of mathematics.

The last mentioned of these eminently meritorious characters is yet living. He enjoys the respect and esteem due to a man who, in the course of a long life, devoted much of his time and talents to the promotion of learning, useful knowledge, and the welfare of his country. Of the other three, who have, long since, passed on to “that bourn from which no traveller returns,” the following circumstances are worthy of being preserved in remembrance, by those who shall hereafter record the history of literature and science, in this country.

Dr. Alison was one of the first persons in the middle colonies, who, foreseeing the ignorance into which this part of the country seemed inclined to fall, set up a regular school of education here. He was long employed in the education of youth at New-London Cross-roads, in Pennsylvania, before his appointment to the vice-provostship of the college of Philadelphia; and many persons, who afterwards made a distinguished figure in this country, were bred under his tuition. The University of Glasgow, being well informed of the pious and faithful labours of this valuable man, in propagating useful knowledge in these then untutored parts of the world, created him a Doctor of Divinity: He was honoured with this degree, without any solicitation whatever on his part.

Mr. Kinnersley possessed great merit, in the estimation of the learned world, “in being the chief inventor of the Electrical Apparatus, as well as author of a considerable part of those discoveries in Electricity, published by Mr. Franklin, to whom he communicated them. Indeed Mr. Franklin himself mentions his name with honour; though he has not been careful enough to distinguish between their particular discoveries. This, perhaps, he may have thought needless, as they were known to act in concert. But, though that circumstance was known here, it was not so in remote parts of the world, to which the fame of these discoveries has extended.” The passage here quoted, is copied from an account of the college and academy of Philadelphia, published in October, 1758.

Dr. Franklin’s experiment with the electrical kite—which established the theory on which the metallic conductors of lightning were introduced, for the security of buildings, and those within them, from injury by that element—was made in June, 1752; and his letter, giving an account of it, is dated the 19th of October following. But Mr. de Romas, a Frenchman, to whom his countryman the Abbé Bertholon ascribes the honour of the experiment with the kite, made his first attempt on the 14th of May, 1753: he did not succeed, until the 7th of the next month; a year after Dr. Franklin had completed his experiments, and then generally known in Europe. It is noticed by the late ingenious Dr. Stuber, of Philadelphia, in his continuation of the Life of Franklin, that “his (Dr. Franklin’s) friend, Mr. Kinnersley, communicated to him a discovery of” (what Dr. Stuber terms) “the different kinds of electricity, excited by rubbing glass and sulphur.” This, it is said, was first observed by Mr. Du Faye; though afterwards not attended to, for many years. It seems, however, that the electricians of Europe, with Du Faye himself, had conceived a mistaken notion on this subject; and that Franklin had, at first, adopted their doctrine. “But,” says the continuator of his Life, “upon repeating the experiments, he perceived that Mr. Kinnersley was right; and the vitreous and the resinous electricity of Du Faye were nothing more than the positive and negative states which he had before observed; that the glass globe charged positively, or encreased the quantity of electricity on the prime conductor,—whilst the globe of sulphur diminished its natural quantity, or charged negatively.”

Mr. Beveridge, who was appointed by the trustees of the college and academy of Philadelphia, in June, 1758, professor of languages in that institution, was one of the ablest masters of the Latin tongue; and wrote many poetical pieces in that language, in a style of superior purity and elegance. This excellent Latin scholar originally taught a grammar-school in Edinburgh, under the patronage of the celebrated Mr. Ruddiman. While in that station, he taught the Latin to Mr. Thomas Blacklock, the well-known blind poet; and it was during this time, that Blacklock wrote his fine paraphrase of Psalm CIV. which his friend Beveridge afterwards rendered into Latin verse. A collection of Mr. Beveridge’s poetical pieces, under the title of Epistolæ Familiares et alia quædam miscellanea, was published at Philadelphia, in the year 1765.

265. A Law Professorship was instituted in the College of Philadelphia, in the year 1790, and the Hon. James Wilson, LL.D. (late one of the associate judges of the supreme court of the United States,) was appointed the first professor: the first course of lectures, under this appointment, was delivered in the winter of 1790-1. In April, 1792, when the College and University became united into one seminary, under the latter title, a Professorship of Law was erected in the new seminary; when Judge Wilson was again appointed to fill that chair: but no Law-lectures were afterwards delivered.

The lectures composed by the able and very learned Judge, for this department of the institution, are given entire in his works, published in three volumes octavo, in the year 1804, by his son Bird Wilson, Esq. president of the seventh judicial district of Pennsylvania.

It is much to be regretted, that this important chair in the University has remained unoccupied, since the death of its late eminent incumbent: For, as he has justly observed, in his Introductory Lecture, “The science of Law should, in some measure and in some degree, be the study of every free citizen, and of every free man. Every free citizen and every free man has duties to perform, and rights to claim. Unless, in some measure, and in some degree, he knows those duties and those rights, he can never act a just and an independent part.”

266. In an Account of Dr. Smith, prefixed to his posthumous works, the respectable Editor observes—that “Dr. Smith was actuated by a “zeal bordering on enthusiasm” (as he himself expressed it), in his devotion to the dissemination of literature and science.”

267. This University was founded in the year 1480; it consists of two colleges, called the Marischal and the King’s College, under the name of the University of King Charles. The library belonging to this ancient university is large; and in both the colleges, the languages, mathematics, natural philosophy, divinity, &c. are taught by able professors.

268. These prelates were, respectively, the Doctors—Secker, Trevor, Thomas, Hume, and Egerton.

269. See his Eulogium on Rittenhouse.

270. His salary was two thousand dollars per annum.

271. A particular instance, of a similar kind, occurred within the knowledge of the Memorialist. Mr. Peter Getz was, lately, a self-taught mechanic of singular ingenuity, in the borough of Lancaster; where he many years exercised the trade of a silver-smith and jeweller, and was remarkable for the extraordinary accuracy, elegance, and beauty of the workmanship he executed. This person was a candidate for the place of chief coiner or engraver in the mint; and, on that occasion, he offered to present to Dr. Rittenhouse, in the summer of 1792, a small pair of scales—such as are commonly called gold-scales—of exquisite workmanship as well as great exactness, as a specimen of his skill as an artist. The Director conceived, that an instrument equally well suited to the use for which this was designed, though less ornamental, could be procured for the mint, if desirable, for less money than this was worth as a matter of curiosity; he would not, therefore, purchase it for the mint: but being determined not to accept it as a present, and desirous at the same time to make compensation to the artist for his work, he insisted on his receiving twenty dollars for the instrument; on payment of which, he retained it himself.

272. “Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty: to transfer its exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign.” See a Report made to congress, in the year 1790, by Thomas Jefferson, Esq. then secretary of state, on certain Proposals for supplying the United States with Copper Coinage, offered by Mr. John H. Mitchell, a foreign artist.

273. The plan of the Bank of North-America, which was submitted to congress by their order, was approved by them on the 26th of May, 1781.

274. When the question, respecting the incorporation of the Bank of North-America was taken in congress, twenty members voted in the affirmative and only four in the negative. But the votes were then taken by states; and of these, the delegates from New-York and Delaware were absent, Pennsylvania (having only two members of her delegation present) was divided, Massachusetts (having also but two members present) voted in the negative: all the southern states were in the affirmative, with the single exception of Mr. Madison’s vote, his three colleagues (from Virginia) being on the affirmative side of the question.

275. Whatever failings (and these were of a venial nature) may have appeared in the transactions of Mr. Morris, as a private citizen, in the latter part of a life long devoted to honourable and useful pursuits, yet the eminent services which he rendered to his country, in times of her greatest peril, entitled him to the gratitude of his compatriots; for, in his numerous and important official and other public negotiations, his honour and integrity were alike irreproachable. His merits ought not only to rescue his name from oblivion, but they give him a just claim to be placed in the list of American worthies; while his subsequent misfortunes —— —— —— —— —— but,

Mr. Morris, who was long distinguished for his talents and his services in this country, was a native of Lancashire, in England. He died in Philadelphia on the 8th of May, 1806.

276. “The task of re-creating public credit,” (says Chief Justice Marshal, in his Life of Washington,) “of drawing order and arrangement from the chaotic confusion in which the finances of America were involved, and of devising means which should render the revenue productive, and commensurate with the demand, was justly classed among the most arduous of the duties which devolved on the new government^[276a]. In discharging it, much aid was expected from the head of the treasury. To Colonel Hamilton^[276b] was assigned this important, and at that time intricate department.

“This gentleman was a native of the island of St. Croix, and, at a very early period of life, had been placed by his friends in New-York. Possessing an ardent temper, he caught fire from the concussions of the moment, and with all the enthusiasm of youth, engaged first his pen, and afterwards his sword, in the stern contest between the American colenies and their parent state. Among the first troops raised by New-York was a corps of artillery, in which he was appointed a captain. Soon after the war was transferred to the Hudson, his superior endowments recommended him to the attention of the commander in chief, into whose family, before completing his twenty-first year, he was invited to enter. Equally brave and intelligent, he continued in this situation to display a degree of firmness and capacity which commanded the confidence and esteem of his general, and of the principal officers in the army.

“After the capitulation at York-Town, the war languished throughout the American continent, and the probability that its termination was approaching daily increased.

“The critical circumstances of the existing government rendered the events of the civil, more interesting than those of the military department, and Colonel Hamilton accepted a seat in the congress of the United States. In all the important acts of the day, he performed a conspicuous part, and was greatly distinguished among those distinguished characters whom the crisis had attracted to the councils of their country. He had afterwards been active in promoting those measures which led to the convention at Philadelphia, of which he was a member, and had greatly contributed to the adoption of the constitution by the state of New-York. In the distinguished part he had performed, both in the military and civil transactions of his country, he had acquired a great degree of well merited fame; and the frankness of his manners, the openness of his temper, the warmth of his feelings, and the sincerity of his heart, had secured him many valuable friends.

“To talents of the highest grade, he united a patient industry, not always the companion of genius, which fitted him in a peculiar manner for the difficulties to be encountered by the man who should be placed at the head of the American finances.”

The disastrous death of this celebrated man happened on the 12th day of July, 1804, at the age of about forty-seven years.

277. The deleterious, though—as it might almost be called—fascinating influence, of the revolution undertaken by the people of France, extended itself far and wide, prior to the murder of their king, even in countries under the milder forms of government: many characters of great worth were every where misled by the plausibility of the avowed designs of its authors and supporters; and in no country was the infatuation more general, than in the United States. In England itself, it begat a kind of political frenzy; and, had not the wise and salutary writings of the celebrated Burke arrested its progress, in good time, the most fatal consequences must have ensued. Among the literary and scientific men in Britain, who became deeply infected by the revolution-mania of that day, was Dr. Erasmus Darwin, Miss Anna Seward (one of his biographers) remarks, that the Doctor has introduced into his Botanic Garden an allegory, representing Liberty “as a great form, slumbering within the iron cage and marble walls of the French Bastile, unconscious of his chains; till, touched by the patriot flame, he rends his flimsy bonds, lifts his colossal form, and rears his hundred arms over his foes; calls to the good and brave of every country, with a voice that echoes like the thunder of heaven to the polar extremities;

In consequence of Darwin’s use of this grossly misapplied figure;—as the issue of the French revolution too fatally proves it to have been,—Miss Seward offers the following apology for the subject of her friendly pen:

“This sublime sally of a too-confiding imagination, has made the poet and his work countless foes. They triumphed over him,” says his fair biographer, “on a result so contrary,—on the mortal wounds given by French crimes to real Liberty. They forget, or choose to forget, that this part of the poem (though published after the other) appeared in 1791, antecedent to the dire regicide, and to all those unprecedented scenes of sanguinary cruelty inflicted on France, by three of her republican tyrants; compared to whom, the most remorseless of her monarchs was mild and merciful.”

278. Mr. Genet arrived in Philadelphia the 16th of May, 1793; and in the evening of the same day a meeting of the citizens was held at the state-house, when a committee was appointed to draw up an address to this minister from the republic of France: Mr. Rittenhouse was the first named on that committee. At a meeting of the citizens held the next day, he, as chairman of that committee, reported an address accordingly; which, being adopted by the persons then assembled, was presented to the new minister, the ensuing morning.

The president’s proclamation of neutrality had then been issued between three and four weeks:^[278a] the addressers therefore say, keeping this in their view; “Earnestly giving to the national exertions (of France) our wishes and our prayers, we cannot resist the pleasing hope, that although America is not a party in the existing war, she may still be able, in a state of peace, to demonstrate the sincerity of her friendship, by affording very useful assistance to her sister republic.”—The “useful assistance,” here alluded to, and which it was supposed France might derive from this country, “in a state of peace,” did not contemplate any infringement of the neutrality of the United States: Nor could Mr. Genet, himself, consider the language of the address in any other than its true sense; for, in his extempore answer, (a written one was also returned,) he says, “From the remote situation of America, and other circumstances, France does not expect that America should become a party in the war; but remembering that she has already combated for your liberties, (and if it was necessary, and she had the power, would cheerfully again enlist in your cause,) we hope, (and every thing I hear and see assures me our hope will be realized,) that her citizens will be treated as brothers, in danger and distress.” This declaration of the French minister, made immediately after his arrival at the seat of the American government, forbad the addressers to believe, that either he or any other agent of the French government would afterwards undertake to violate the neutrality of the United States.

279. Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same licentious writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist, declared, in the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He asserted, not only that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of the Democratic Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed the inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged the malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the “inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body, on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse, but by another person, as “President pro tem.”

280. The Abbé le Blanc (or the writer who assumed that appellation) names, of this metaphysical tribe, Hobbes, Lord Shaftesbury, Tindal and Collins, all Englishmen; though his own country has long been the superlatively prolific soil of infidelity in religion, and chimerical theories in every department of science: such philosophers abound in France. He observes very justly, however, that “there is nothing so improperly made use of, as the name philosopher.” See Le Blanc’s Letters on the English and French Nations.

281. The legislature of Virginia, in their first session after the resignation of the Commander in Chief, passed the following resolution:—

“Resolved, that the executive be requested to take measures for procuring a Statue of General Washington, to be of the finest marble and best workmanship, with the following inscription on its pedestal.

“The general assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia have caused this statue to be erected as a monument of affection and gratitude to George Washington, who, uniting to the endowments of the Hero, the virtues of the Patriot, and exerting both in establishing the Liberties of his Country, has rendered his name dear to his fellow-citizens, and given the world an immortal example of true glory.”

This resolution was afterwards carried into effect: the statue which it decreed was executed by Houdon, and occupies a conspicuous place, in a spacious area in the centre of the capital at Richmond, in Virginia.

282. Chief-Justice Marshall, in his Life of George Washington.

283. “If the example of all the republics that have preceded us did not authorize the hope, that history will not find us guilty of ingratitude, but only of delay, the national neglect of the memory of Washington would be sufficient to repress every sentiment of patriotism and public spirit. Of this neglect, aggravated by the solemn steps taken by congress to obtain a right to remove the body of the Founder of our Liberties to a place of public and honourable sepulture, and the abandonment of that right when obtained, it is painful to speak—nor is it necessary. There is not wanting a general sentiment of the disgrace which the nation suffers, while the body of Washington rests upon a trussle, crouded into a damp and narrow vault, in which the rapid decay of the wooden support must in a few years mingle his ashes with those of his worthy but unknown relations. Exertions not altogether worthy of the object, but such as the present fashion of finance authorizes, are made, to give to his memory that honour in other cities, which is denied him in the metropolis of the Union.” [See the Ann. Oration delivered before the Society of Artists, in Philadelphia, in May, 1811, by B. H. Latrobe, Esq.]

284. Mr. B. H. Latrobe, in speaking of the great improvement in architecture recently manifested in Philadelphia, notices the peculiar advantages derived to that city, from the valuable marbles in its vicinity. “The beautiful marble,” says he, “with which this neighbourhood abounds, and the excellence of all other building materials, give to Philadelphia great advantages in this branch of the fine arts.” (See Mr. Latrobe’s Annual Oration, delivered before the Society of Artists, in Philadelphia, May 8th, 1811.) The correct taste and superior skill of this gentleman, as an Architect and Civil Engineer, are well known in the United States. In Philadelphia, the Bank of Pennsylvania will, more especially, remain a lasting monument of his talents in architectural science, as well as of the excellent quality of the marble (for such purposes) of which that edifice is constructed.

285. The Right Hon. David Stewart Erskine, is the present Earl.

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.

287. See this Postscript, in the Appendix.

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.

289. See Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, written in the year 1781.

290. A considerable portion of this letter, in the beginning, is occupied with matters of business.

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.

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,	5h 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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

A. Mr. Mallet, in his Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon.

300. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

301. Ibid.

302. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

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.”

304. Equivalent to 36,066⅔ American or Spanish dollars.

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.

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.

307. See Eulog. on Ritt.

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.

309. See Mr. Malone’s Account of the Life and Writings of Sir Joshua Reynolds, prefixed to the works of Sir Joshua.

310. See Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

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.

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.”

313. See his Oration.

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.”

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.”

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.”

317. See his Oration.

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.

319. See Eulog. on Ritt.

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.

321. See the Memorial of the Society to the General Assembly, dated the 6th of March, 1775; introduced in the foregoing pages.

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.

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.

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—

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

339. Although Mr. T. Cooper (before quoted) admits, that the “strict adherence to the syllogistic mode of reasoning,” that which he calls “playing tricks with syllogisms,” together with “the legerdemain of words without ideas,” was carried much too far by some late metaphysical writers of eminence; yet he is of opinion, that “in modern times, this invention of Aristotle is abandoned more than it deserves to be: For,” continues Mr. Cooper, “no man can so skilfully analyse the argument of another, as one who is well acquainted with the rules of scholastic logic, and accustomed to apply them. Good reasoners there are and will be, who know nothing of these rules, but better reasoners who do.”

Mr. Cooper doubts, whether metaphysical lectures should be delivered, at all, in colleges; but thinks, that if metaphysics were to be there taught, the writings of Beattie, Oswald and Gregory, would be unworthy of notice. Much as the Writer of these Memoirs respects the talents and ingenuity of the learned Professor of Chemistry, he can by no means concur in this opinion: and he regrets, that he feels himself obliged to differ still more widely, from a gentleman of such acknowledged abilities, respecting the propriety of his recommending to youth the study of the works of Hobbes, Leibnitz and Collins.

Now, what the complexion and tendency of the tenets of Hobbes, Leibnitz, and other philosophers of the same class are, may be learnt from the following passages, translated from a French work, entitled, “De la Philosophie de la Nature, ou Traité de Morale pour l’Epece Humaine, tire de la Philosophie et fonde sur la Nature;” a work which, though anonymous in respect to its author, had passed through three editions in the year 1777. The writer thus says:

“Of what importance to me are the names of Carneades, of Lysander, of Hobbes, and the author of The System of Nature, names unhappily celebrated, which the apostle of the moral indifference of human actions alleges in favour of this atrocious extravagance?” (the doctrines of Fatality, Moral Scepticism, &c.) “Carneades was an arrogant Pyrrhonian, who doubted of every thing, excepting the superiority of his own logic. Hobbes had the audacity to write a book against the everlasting truths of geometry. Lysander, the enemy of the liberty of Sparta, and the corrupter of the oracles of Delos and Ammon, was one of those spirits of spleen and filth, who strive to acquire a name by reducing wickedness to a system. As for the anonymous Writer, whose licentious pen vents so much blasphemy on Nature, in disavowing the existence of God, he has purchased the right to deny that of Morality. He is equally silly with Salmonius, in braving the thunderbolt destined to stifle the stings of conscience.” Speaking of Leibnitz, in another place, this French Moralist observes, that “the Philosopher of Leipsick made of the soul a monad, and explained all the phænomena of its union with matter by a pre-established harmony. One portion of Europe believed him; because he set up a new system! and what is it but a metaphysical theory, without system?” And again: “What names have we to oppose to those of Descartes, Leibnitz, Pascal and Malbranch? The suffrage of Newton, alone, is sufficient to crush their Materialism; if, in the humble materials for the examination of human reason, the suffrage of one great man is competent to balance a syllogism.”

340. The professorships, all well supported and endowed, which are established at Oxford and Cambridge, (and, probably, there are similar institutions in the universities of Scotland and Ireland,) are in the following departments of literature and science: viz. Divinity, Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Modern Languages, History (general,) Modern History, Civil Law, Common Law, Physic, Anatomy, Botany, Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, Experimental Philosophy, Astronomy, Mathematics, Geometry, Moral Philosophy, Casuistry, Music.

341. See the editorial review, in that work, of an “Historical Report upon the progress of History and ancient Literature, since the year 1789, and upon their actual condition,” &c. vol. iii. No 1.

342. In the year 1789, Dr. Rittenhouse translated from the German of Mr. Lessing, director of the theatre at Hamburg, a tragedy called Lucia Sampson; which translation was printed; in the same year, by Mr. Charles Cist, of Philadelphia. In the preface to it, the translator says:—“This translation was attempted at the request of a friend; and the many virtuous sentiments and excellent lessons of morality it contains, will apologize for its being offered to the public. To young ladies it may afford useful instruction, and will, from the nature of the distress, be particularly useful to them: an elegant writer well acquainted with the human heart, has observed, that the affection of a father to his daughter unites extreme sensibility with the utmost delicacy; and this sentiment is, no doubt, in a great degree reciprocal.”

343. See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

344. The memorialist undertakes to say, on the authority of his father (the late Rev. Mr. Barton,) that our philosopher was sufficiently well versed in the Latin, to have read Newton’s Principia in that language, besides studying it in his native tongue: and further, that, although he was very imperfectly acquainted with the grammatical construction of the Greek language, he had so far familiarized himself to a knowledge of its written characters and words, as enabled him to consult a lexicon; which he frequently did, for the purpose of ascertaining the true etymology of many of those technical terms, derived from the Greek, that are in common use in our language, particularly in relation to his favourite sciences.

345. In Hill’s Life of Dr. Barrow, it is remarked, that this great Mathematician (as well as learned Divine) “was always addicted to poetry, and very much valued that part of it which consists of description.” In like manner, Dr. Rittenhouse delighted in poetic effusions of genius and science. His Eulogist observes, that “the muse of Thomson charmed him most:” indeed, an astronomer, and a man of virtue and taste, could not but be charmed by the chaste and glowing descriptions of that fascinating poet, blended, as they are, with philosophical reflections. Our philosopher, however, greatly admired Milton also: so that these two celebrated votaries of the muses seemed to be his favourites. Why should not these partialities of Rittenhouse be noticed?—when similar observations have been made respecting the characters of other men, eminent in science; as, for example, that the favourite author of Erasmus and the younger Scaliger, was Terence, and that Grotius was an admirer of Terence, Lucan and Horace.

346. Nec lusisse pudet, is an observation which has, in particular instances, been applied to the occasional conduct and disposition of some of the wisest, best, and even gravest characters. Dr. Warton, in remarking on this line of Mr. Pope, viz.

says; “Who could imagine that Locke was fond of romances; that Newton once studied astrology; that Dr. Clarke valued himself for his agility, and frequently amused himself, in a private room of his house, in leaping over the tables and chairs; and that our author himself (Mr Pope) was a great epicure.”

In our own country, the sage Franklin abounded in anecdote and humour, and thought it not unwise to recreate his mind, at times, with the game of chess: the conversation of Judge Hopkinson was replete with sprightly wit, and he admired well written novels of no immoral tendency; as did also the late Judge Wilson: the illustrious Washington, in his earlier years, enjoyed the pleasures of the festive board, in the society of men of understanding and worth: and no man delighted more in cheerful conversation, and in reading works of fancy and taste, than the philosophic Rittenhouse. The almost universal tendency, in persons of all classes, to an occasional playfulness of temper, even in cases which may sometimes be considered as bordering on weakness, has given the force of a maxim to the observation of the latinists—Nemo omnibus horis sapit. Indeed, as a biographer of the celebrated Dr. Clarke has remarked, “to be capable of drawing amusement from trivial circumstances, indicates a heart at ease, and may generally be regarded as the concomitant of virtue.”

347. See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

348. Sir Isaac Newton, it is well known, was thoroughly persuaded of the Truth of Revelation: yet he did not escape the imputation of being an Arian, Mr. Whiston having represented him as such. It is equally a matter of notoriety, that similar opinions have prevailed respecting Dr. Rittenhouse’s religious creed: nay, further, that doubts were entertained by some, whether he believed at all in the fundamental principles of the Christian religion. In one instance, indeed, a virulent party-writer^[348a] had the hardiness, one might say folly, to proclaim him an “Atheist!” The publication in which this false and shameful accusation was made, appeared about the time of Dr. Rittenhouse’s death, and, it is believed, shortly after that event.

As a Biographer of such a man as Rittenhouse, the Author of these Memoirs would do great injustice to his memory, did he not lay before his readers, in a full and undisguised manner, that sort of testimony concerning our Philosopher’s religious sentiments, which it is presumed will eradicate every doubt or suspicion, that has heretofore existed in the minds of some, on the subject. He is aware of the influence, which the opinions of eminently wise and good men (or, of such sentiments as are sometimes attributed to them,) have, in their operation on society; and, in every point of view, he fully estimates the importance of representing them to the world, in a strict conformity to truth.

These considerations have induced the Memorialist to devote a larger portion of his work to an elucidation of Dr. Rittenhouse’s real opinions on the all-important subject of Religion, than he should have thought proper, under other circumstances, to appropriate to that part of his character.

Under these impressions, then, the Memorialist could not think it consistent with his duty, to withhold from the public a letter addressed to him by the Rev. Mr. Cathcart, a clergyman of much respectability and pastor of a presbyterian congregation in the borough of York. This letter (which will be found in the Appendix) contains what may be fairly deemed conclusive evidence, even if such had been before wanting, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “a firm Believer in Christianity.” Bishop White had communicated to the Memorialist, in conversation, the interesting facts stated in Mr. Cathcart’s letter; the knowledge of which, the Bishop had derived, verbally, from that gentleman: his letter was written in answer to one which the Memorialist addressed to him, on the occasion, at the instance of the Right Rev. Prelate.

349. “Astronomy, like the Christian religion, if you will allow me the comparison,” said our Philosopher, “has a much greater influence on our knowledge in general, and perhaps on our manners too, than is commonly imagined. Though but few men are its particular votaries, yet the light it affords is universally diffused among us; and it is difficult for us to divest ourselves of its influence so far, as to frame any competent idea of what would be our situation without it.” See Ritt. Orat.

In another part of his Oration, is this passage: “Our Religion teaches us what Philosophy could not have taught: and we ought to admire, with reverence, the great things it has pleased Divine Providence to perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for man, who is, undoubtedly, the most noble inhabitant of this globe:” &c.

And in addition to these sentiments, uttered and published by our Philosopher himself, let the testimony of Dr. Rush, who had long and intimately known him, be quoted from the learned Professor’s Eulogium. “He believed in the Christian Revelation,” says the Doctor: and then subjoins, “Of this he gave many proofs; not only in the conformity of his life to the precepts of the Gospel, but in his letters and conversation.”

350. The Rev. Ashbel Green, D. D. This gentleman succeeded the Rev. Dr. Sproat, an aged clergyman, of amiable disposition and unaffected piety, for whose character our Philosopher entertained a great esteem, and, during the latter part of whose ministry in that church, he first attended it. Dr. Green has lately become President of the College of New-Jersey, in consequence of the resignation of the learned and eloquent Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D.

351. The following extract of a letter, which Professor Rusk was so obliging as to address to the writer of these memoirs, in the spring of the year 1812, in answer to some questions proposed by the memorialist, favours the presumption, that our philosopher in some points dissented from the opinions of very respectable Calvinistic Divines, on the subject of religion. “I understood from the Rev. Dr. Green,” says the learned Professor, that his late colleague, the Rev. Dr. Sproat, had informed him, that in a visit he once paid to Dr. Rittenhouse, they were led accidentally to converse upon a religious subject, on which they held different opinions. Dr. Sproat, in defending his opinions, quoted several texts of scripture; but observed, after doing so; “Perhaps, Mr. Rittenhouse, you do not admit of the validity of arguments derived from the bible.” “Pardon me, Sir,” (said Mr. Rittenhouse,) “I admit the divine authority of the contents of that book.” Another fact stated by Dr. Rush, at the same time, and which was also communicated to the memorialist, by a very near and dear friend of the deceased, is thus related by the Doctor: “His late worthy companion, Mrs. Rittenhouse, informed me, that the last sourse from whence he derived intellectual and moral pleasure, was Dr. Price’s excellent sermon upon the Goodness of God, which she read to him, at his request, on the two successive days before he died.” It may not be thought unworthy of being remarked on this occasion, that Mr. T. Dobson, of Philadelphia, republished Price’s Sermons, in the year 1788, and that Mrs. Rittenhouse’s name appears in the list of subscribers to that edition.

In Dr. Rush’s letter, just quoted, he introduces the subject in these terms. “In answer to your question, relative to the religious opinions of your late uncle and my excellent friend, Dr. Rittenhouse, I am happy in being able to inform you, that I have no doubt of his having been a sincere believer in the most essential doctrines of the Christian religion: the ground upon which I formed this opinion, were derived not only from many incidental remarks in its favour, that fell from him in our conversations upon other subjects, but from the testimony of persons upon whose correctness I have the fullest reliance.”

Upon the whole it appears, that although our philosopher was, most probably, not strictly Calvinistical in his religious creed, he was nevertheless a pious man, and a sincere Christian in the fundamental articles of his faith.

352. Dr. Rittenhouse had no more faith in the notion entertained by some visionary men, of the attainment of the perfection of virtue, in this life, than he had in the fantastic opinion, maintained also by some, of the perfectibility of human reason. He supposed that we are capable, by a progressive “enlargement of our faculties,” to “advance towards the perfection of the Divinity;” not like those pretenders to philosophy, who, as Mr. Voltaire expresses it, “took it into their heads, by the example of Descartes, to put themselves into God’s place, and create a world with a word!” Our philosopher knew, that pure virtue and perfect reason do not belong to human nature.

353. Dr. Rush’s Eulogium.

354. Ibid.

355. This quotation and the other passages, before which inverted commas are placed in the margin, in the two last paragraphs of the text, are extracted from Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration.

356. Dr. Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol.

357. A late learned philosopher and eloquent divine, after adverting to the irrational and infatuated notions of men of the class above referred to, contrasted with doctrines founded in truth, and the awful gloom, destitute of every ray of consolation, that must necessarily accompany their reflections upon their own principles, addresses to them this short but serious invocation: “When these things are fairly weighed, as in nature they exist, I call on you, nay I challenge you, ye boasting philosophists! to comfort yourselves, and be easy under your dreary doctrine, or notion of being safe after death, in a state of annihilation or future nothingness! I call on you, ye wise Illuminati! of upstart name, to weigh these things seriously; and try whether you can comfort yourselves, and remain easy, in considering, and striving to make others consider, Death, as only an “everlasting Sleep,” from which they will never be awakened, nor their ashes disturbed!” See Sermon V. in The Works of William Smith, D. D. late Provost of the College and Academy of Philadelphia.

In no instance have the impious and absurd doctrines of the “Philosophists” and the “Illuminati,” of our times, been carried to such a height of extravagance, as by the revolutionists of modern France. These infatuated people undertook, in the year 1793, to abolish by Law, a Futurity of Existence; having then decreed, that no such state existed! They also decreed, that in every cemetery there should be erected a figure representing Sleep, pointing towards the tombs; and this Sleep of Death, the decree declared to be eternal!! It is to this sort of wickedness and folly that an allusion is made, in the foregoing quotation; as well as in the following lines, copied from the Pursuits of Literature:

358.

The following observation, in the form of a note, is referred to, from the lines above quoted, in a work which contains that extract, viz. “Those, who, from the effects in this visible world, deduce the eternal power and Godhead of the first cause, though they cannot attain to an adequate idea of the Deity, yet discover so much of him, as enables them to see the end of their creation and the means of their happiness: whereas they who take “the high priori road,” as Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, and some better reasoners, for one that goes right, ten lose themselves in “mists,” or ramble after visions, which deprive them of all sight of their end, and mislead them in the choice of wrong means.”

Mr. Pope had put the above poetical lines into the mouth of one of his Dunces, when addressing himself to the goddess Dullness. And as the great Dr. Samuel Clarke had previously endeavoured to shew,^[358a] that the Being of a God may be demonstrated by arguments deduced â priori, the Doctor conceived himself to be struck at, among those “better reasoners” alluded to, in the note above mentioned.

359. See Ritt. Orat.

360. Ibid.

361. “Other systems of Philosophy have ever found it necessary to conceal their weakness and inconsistency, under the veil of unintelligible terms and phrases, to which no two mortals, perhaps, ever affixed the same meaning. But the philosophy of Newton disdains to make use of such subterfuges; it is not reduced to the necessity of using them, because it pretends not to be of nature’s privy council, or to have access to her most inscrutable mysteries; but, to attend carefully to her works, to discover the immediate causes of visible effects, to trace those causes to others more general and simple, advancing by slow and sure steps towards the Great First Cause of all things.” Ritt. Orat.

362. Dr. Morse, the Geographer.

363. See his Life of George Washington.

364. See the Eulogium on Rittenhouse.

365. The names ordinarily used to distinguish things, do not always truly denote the nature of the things they are designed to signify: and it is very evident, that any misapplication of a name, to which a specific meaning has been appropriated, cannot alter or otherwise affect the essence or inherent quality of the thing itself to which it is wrongly applied.

A nation may be a republic, notwithstanding its chief executive magistrate be denominated a king. A kingly government may be essentially republican, provided the people be governed by known laws, and their king be limited in his prerogative, by the constitution of the state; not such a monarch as is vested with uncontrouled power. In this sense, the British government may, as some modern writers have shewn, be called a commonwealth, or republic: and under a similar impression, Sir Thomas Smith, even in the reign of so rigid a prince as Henry VIII. wrote his book De Republicâ Anglicanâ. The republic of Poland was long governed by elective kings; and Shakespeare, (nay, even the leveller Godwin,^[365a]) appears to have considered Monarch, King and President, as synonymous terms.

366. “It belongs to monarchies,” says Dr. Rush, “to limit the business of government to a privileged order of men.” See Eulog.

367. See Ritt. Orat. before the Am. Philos. Soc. in 1775.

368. See the ordaining clause of the Constitution of the United States.

369. Mr. Pope was not singular in the opinion here expressed: one of the most illustrious legislators and best practical statesmen the world has ever known, appears to have entertained the same sentiment, when he penned the following passages: they are extracted from the Frame of Government originally designed by William Penn, for Pennsylvania: published in the year 1682.

“Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the frame,) where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws; and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, and confusion.”

“There is hardly one frame of government in the world so ill designed by its first founders, that, in good hands, would not do well enough; and story tells us, the best, in ill ones, can do nothing that is great or good.” “I know,” continues Penn, “some say, Let us have good laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones. It is here, good laws have some awe upon ill ministers; but that is where they have not power to escape or abolish them, and the people are generally wise and good: but a loose and depraved people (which is to be the question) love laws and an administration like themselves. That, therefore, which makes a good constitution, must keep it, viz. men of wisdom and virtue; qualities that, because they descend not with worldly inheritances, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous education of youth.”

370. See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

371. About the middle of January, 1813, the Memorialist passed a very pleasant evening, in company with an agreeable party of friends, at the house of Dr. Rush. Among various subjects, which were then discussed with much ingenuity and good humour, Redhefer’s pretended discovery of what is called the Perpetual Motion, a thing which had then, very recently, attracted a good deal of the public attention, was brought upon the tapes: when Dr. Rush, addressing himself to the Writer, who had just expressed his opinion decidedly against the projector’s theory, as being utterly incompatible with established principles of physics and well-known laws of the material world, said quite emphatically; “Sir, I entirely agree with you: and let me observe, there are four things, concerning which I have always been completely sceptical, as I am sure your good uncle^[371a] also was; that is to say, the perfectibility of human reason; the possibility of transmuting base metals into silver and gold; a panacea, in the healing art; and a power, in any mortal, to give perpetuity of motion to matter.” These were, substantially, the sentiments expressed by Dr. Rush, on the occasion; and the Writer believes he is pretty accurate in his recollection of the very words which the Doctor used.

372. See Notes on Virginia.

373. All the boundary-lines, mentioned above, were determined by astronomical observations. The manner in which the work was performed, with an account of the instruments used on those occasions, will be found in the fourth volume of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Some of Dr. Rittenhouse’s associates, in those arduous undertakings, were men of high reputation in the same departments of science; but his talents were principally relied on.

374. See Notes on Virginia.

375. Ibid.

376. It will, perhaps, have occurred to the reader, that besides such of the WORKS of Dr. Rittenhouse, as are referred to in the text, in some of which, the blended effects of genius, philosophical science and mechanical skill, were equally conspicuous, he put the Mint into operation. In the language of his worthy successor in the direction of that institution, “his lofty and correct mind, capable alike of ascending to the sublimest heights of science, and of condescending to regulate the minute movements of mechanical machinery, organized the Mint, and created the workmen and the apparatus.” His agency in directing the construction, and arranging the operative departments, of this important establishment, though less indicative of extraordinary mechanical genius than many of his other works, was nevertheless an arduous undertaking: it was conducted, as Mr. De Saussure very justly observed, “amidst complicated difficulties, from which the most persevering minds might have shrunk without dishonour.”

377. Dr. Rush, in his Eulogium on Rittenhouse, has introduced a short invocation, which aptly applies in this place: it is in these words; “Come, and learn by his example to be good, as well as great. His virtues furnish the most shining models for your imitation; for they were never obscured by a single cloud of weakness or vice.”

378. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall makes an observation, in reference to General Washington, which applies with equal force to Dr. Rittenhouse. “To estimate rightly his worth, we must contemplate his difficulties: we must examine the means placed in his hands, and the use he made of those means.” Pref. to Marshall’s Life of Washington.

379. Mr. Maclaurin having noticed that the Author of Nature has made it impossible for us to have any communication, from this earth, with the other great bodies of the universe, in our present state; and after remarking on some phænomena in the planetary system, makes the following just reflections, which correspond with those expressed by Dr. Rittenhouse, in the concluding pages of his Oration:—“From hence, as well as from the state of the moral world and many other considerations, we are induced to believe, that our present state would be very imperfect without a subsequent one; wherein our views of nature, and of its great Author, may be more clear and satisfactory. It does not appear to be suitable to the wisdom that shines throughout all nature, to suppose that we should see so far, and have our curiosity so much raised concerning the works of God, only to be disappointed in the end. As man is undoubtedly the chief being upon this globe, and this globe may be no less considerable, in the most valuable respects, than any other in the solar system, and this system, for ought we know, not inferior to any other in the universal system; so, if we should suppose man to perish, without ever arriving at a more complete knowledge of nature, than the very imperfect one he attains in his present state; by analogy, or parity of reason, we might conclude, that the like desires would be frustrated in the inhabitants of all the other planets and systems; and that the beautiful scheme of nature would never be unfolded, but in an exceedingly imperfect manner, to any of them. This, therefore, naturally leads us to consider our present state as only the dawn or beginning of our existence, and as a state of preparation or probation for farther advancement: which appears to have been the opinion of the most judicious philosophers of old. And whoever attentively considers the constitution of human nature, particularly the desires and passions of men, which appear greatly superior to their present objects, will easily be persuaded that man was designed for higher views than of this life. Surely, it is in His power to grant us a far greater improvement of the faculties we already possess, or even to endow us with new faculties, of which, at this time, we have no idea, for penetrating farther into the scheme of nature, and approaching nearer to Himself, the First and Supreme Cause.”

The striking coincidence of the foregoing sentiments, with those expressed by Dr. Rittenhouse; in addition to the sublimity of the conceptions; the cogency of the argument; and the weight of the concurring opinions of two so great astronomers and mathematicians, on a subject of such high importance to mankind; all plead an apology for the length of this extract, from Maclaurin’s Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.

380. Patrick Murdoch, M.A.F.R.S.

381. The words between inverted commas, in the above paragraph, are quoted from Rittenhouse’s Oration.

Notwithstanding the fanciful theories introduced into physics by Descartes, concerning his materia subtilis and vortices, and his doctrine of a plenum, which were prostrated by the general adoption of the Newtonian system, the improvements that had been made in the mathematical sciences and some other branches of physics, by the Cartesian system, produced a great revolution in the species of philosophy which till then prevailed. The philosophy of Descartes, erroneous and defective as, in some particulars, it was found to be, triumphed, by its superior energy, over the crude and feeble systems of the schools. The peripatetic doctrines which had revived in Europe, after she emerged from the barbarism and gloom that succeeded the final declension of the Roman empire, continued from that period to be the prevailing philosophy; and tinctured, also, the whole mass of the scholastic theology: but the systems of Descartes first dissipated most of the useless subtleties of the schoolmen; while the truths brought to light by the philosophy of Newton, still further exposed their absurdities. According to Dr. Reid (in his Essays on the intellectual and active powers of Man,) even the most useful and intelligible parts of the writings of Aristotle himself had, among them, become neglected; and philosophy was reduced to an art of speaking learnedly and disputing subtilely, without producing any invention of utility in the affairs of human life. “It was,” to use the language of Dr. Reid, “fruitful“fruitful in words, but barren of works; and admirably contrived for drawing a veil over human ignorance, and putting a stop to the progress of knowledge, by filling men with a conceit that they knew every thing. It was very fruitful also in controversies; but, for the most part, they were controversies about words, or things above the reach of the human faculties.”

382. The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson has remarked, that “Leibnitz persisted in affirming that Newton called Space, Censorium Numinis, notwithstanding he was corrected, and desired to observe that Newton’s words were, Quasi Censorium Numinis. See Boswell’s Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides.

383. This concise, yet beautiful and expressive sentence, is contained in St. Paul’s address to the Athenians, cited in the 17th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

384. A strong proof of this veneration will be found in Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration, wherein he expresses himself in these remarkable words:—“It was, I make no doubt, by a particular appointment of Providence, that at this time the immortal Newton appeared.”

385. Lord Strangford, in his Remarks on the Life and Writings of Camoens.

386. See his Oration.