Part 14

-----

Footnote 51:

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

Footnote 52:

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

-----

In recording these Memoirs of the Life of an American Philosopher, whose name adds dignity to the country that gave him birth, it is the design of the author to represent him as he truly was; and in doing so, he feels a conscious satisfaction, that his pen is employed in delineating the character of a man, who was rendered singularly eminent by his genius, his virtues and his public services. Deeply impressed with the magnitude and importance, as well as delicacy of the subject, the writer has not undertaken the task without some hesitation. He is sensible of the difficulties attending it, and conscious of his inability to do justice to its merits. Arduous, however, as the undertaking is, and since no abler pen has hitherto attempted any thing more, on this subject, than to eulogize some of the prominent virtues and talents of our philosopher, his present biographer will endeavour, by the fidelity with which he shall portray the character of that truly estimable man, to atone for the imperfections of the work in other respects. Possessing, as he does, some peculiar advantages, in relation to the materials necessary for this undertaking, he flatters himself it will be found, that he has been enabled thereby to exhibit to his countrymen, and the world generally, a portrait, which, in its more important features, may prove deserving of some share of public regard.

-----

Footnote 53:

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

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

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

“Philosophical Hall, Dec. 17, 1796.—In Meeting of the American Philosophical Society,

“Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of this society be presented to Dr. Benjamin Rush, for the eloquent, learned, comprehensive, and just Eulogium, which he has this day pronounced, upon the character of our late respected President, Dr. David Rittenhouse.

“Resolved, unanimously, That Dr. Rush be requested to furnish the society with a copy of the Eulogium, to be published under their direction.

“An extract from the minutes:—SAMUEL MAGAW, ROBERT PATTERSON, W. BARTON, JOHN BLEAKLEY, Secretaries.”

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

-----

Sir William Forbes, in the introduction to his interesting Account of the Life and Writings of the late Dr. Beattie, reminds his readers, that “Mr. Mason prefaces his excellent and entertaining Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Gray, with an observation more remarkable for its truth than novelty;” that “the Lives of men of letters seldom abound with incidents.”—“A reader of sense and taste, therefore,” continues Mr. Mason, “never expects to find, in the Memoirs of a Philosopher or Poet, the same species of entertainment or information, which he would receive from those of a Statesman or General. He expects, however, to be informed or entertained. Nor will he be disappointed, did the writer take care to dwell principally on such topics as characterize the man, and distinguish that peculiar part which he acted in the varied drama of society.”

Yet these observations of Mr. Gray’s biographer, though pretty generally correct, admit of some qualification and many exceptions, depending on a variety of circumstances. It is true, that a mere narrative of the life of a “philosopher,” as well as of a “poet,” considered only as such, and abstractedly, must be expected to be devoid of much “incident” that can interest the generality of readers. But, both philosophers and poets have, in some instances, been also statesmen; sometimes, even generals: both have, not unfrequently, distinguished themselves as patriots, and benefactors of mankind.

In writing the life of our philosopher, the plan of a dry recital of only such circumstances and occurrences as have an immediate relation to the individual, has not been pursued. Biographical Memoirs, it is conceived, do not confine a writer to limits so narrow, but permit him to take a much greater latitude. It is even allowable, in works of this kind, to introduce historical facts, memorable events, proceedings of public bodies, notices of eminent men, evidences of the progress and state of literature, science and the arts, and the actual condition of civil society, in the scene that is contemplated; together with occasional reflections on those and similar subjects. Some of these objects may not seem, perhaps, to be necessarily or very intimately connected with the principal design, the life of the person treated of: but such of them as should, at first view, appear to have the most remote relation to that object, may be afterwards discovered to be both useful and interesting in a discussion of this nature; while others serve to elucidate the main scope of the work. A latitude of this description, in the compilation of memoirs, seems to be quite consistent with the genius and spirit of works of that nature; and the modern practice of memoir-writers has been conformable to this view of the subject.

-----

Footnote 54:

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

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

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

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

-----