-----
Footnote 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.”
-----
The result of the Norriton Observations of the Transit of Venus—as well
as those also made under the auspices of the American Philosophical
Society, at Philadelphia and Cape Henlopen—will be found, in detail, in
the first volume of the Transactions of that Society.[120] And “the Work
itself,” to which Dr. Smith refers, in his Report of the Proceedings of
the Norriton Committee, bears ample testimony to the transcendent
Astronomical Abilities of Mr. Rittenhouse.—Four days after the Transit,
Dr. Smith transmitted to the Hon. Mr. Penn, in London, a short account
of the Norriton Observations, more particularly mentioning the times of
the Contacts, and a few other circumstances attending them. This was
speedily communicated by Mr. Penn to the Rev. Mr. Maskelyne,[121] the
Astronomer Royal; who, acknowledging the receipt of the communication,
by a note, dated at Greenwich the 2d of August, 1769, says—“I thank you
for the account of the Pennsylvania Observations (of the Transit,) which
seem _excellent_ and _complete_,[122] and do honour to the gentlemen who
_made_ them[123], and those who promoted the undertaking;— among whom, I
reckon yourself[124] in the first place.”[125]
-----
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.”; 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.
Footnote 121a:
The Schehallien is a mountain in Scotland, being one of the highest
points in that range of mountains called the Grampian-Hills. The
elevation of the Schehallien above the surface of the sea is about
1760 feet. W. B.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.”
-----
Here the observation will emphatically apply;—Laus est, â viro laudato
laudari.
Before this interesting occurrence in the life of Mr. Rittenhouse is
finally passed over, the reader’s attention is solicited to the
beautiful and animated description given by Dr. Rush, in his Eulogium,
of the sensations which must have been more particularly experienced by
that extraordinary man, on the near approach of the long-expected
Phænomenon.—“We are naturally led here,” says the learned Professor, “to
take a view of our Philosopher, with his associates, in their
preparations to observe a phænomenon which had never been seen but
twice[126] before, by any inhabitant of our earth, which would never be
seen again by any person then living, and on which depended very
important astronomical consequences. The night before the long-expected
day, was probably passed in a degree of solicitude which precluded
sleep. How great must have been their joy, when they beheld the morning
sun!—‘and the whole horizon without a cloud;’ for such is the
description of the day, given by Mr. Rittenhouse, in the report referred
to by Dr. Smith. In pensive silence and trembling anxiety, they waited
for the predicted moment of observation: it came,—and brought with it
all that had been wished for, and expected, by those who saw it.—In our
Philosopher, it excited—in the instant of one of the contacts of the
planet with the sun, an emotion of delight so exquisite and powerful, as
to induce fainting. This,” then remarks Dr. Rush, “will readily be
believed by those who have known the extent of that pleasure which
attends the discovery, or first perception of Truth.”
Footnote 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
Rudolphine Tables: that these Tables of Lansbergius were in an error
of 16′ for the latitude of Venus, while the Rudolphine 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.
On the 9th of November, following, there was a Transit of Mercury over
the Sun. An account of this phænomenon,—as observed at Norriton by
William Smith, d. d. John Lukens, Esq. and Messrs. David Rittenhouse and
Owen Biddle, the Committee appointed for that Observation by the
American Philosophical Society,—was drawn up and communicated to the
Society, by direction and in behalf of the Committee, by Dr. Smith: this
will be found in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions. In this
report it is remarked, that—“the first time that ever Mercury was
observed on the Sun’s disk, was by Gassendus at Paris, October 28th
1631, O. S. and that the Transit of Nov. 9th was the fourth in that
class; the two intermediate ones, each at forty-six years distance,
having been observed by Dr. Halley, in 1677 and 1723.”
Mr. Maskelyne, the celebrated English Astronomer before
mentioned,[127]—in a letter to Dr. Smith, of the 26th of December,
1769—expressed a wish “that the difference of Meridians of Norriton
and Philadelphia, could be determined by some measures and bearings,
within one-fiftieth or one-hundredth part of the whole; in order to
connect,” continues Mr. Maskelyne, “your observations of the Longitude
of _Norriton_ with those made by Messrs. Mason and Dixon, in the
course of measuring the degree of Latitude.”—This request of the
Astronomer Royal was communicated to the Philosophical Society of
Philadelphia; in consequence of which, Dr. Smith, Mr. Lukens and Mr.
Rittenhouse, were appointed to make the terrestrial measurement
required. These gentlemen, having taken to their assistance Mr.
Archibald M’Clean and Mr. Jesse Lukens, two able and experienced
Surveyors, commenced their operations at Norriton, early on the 2d day
of July following, and completed their survey on the 4th day of that
month. The Report of the able Committee, to which this business was
assigned by the American Philosophical Society, is also contained in
the first volume of the Transactions of that learned Body. After
giving various calculations, resulting from the operations of that
committee, the Reporter says—“Hence, by the above measurement and
work, we get Norriton Observatory 52″ of time West of the Observatory
in the State-house Square; which is exactly what we got by that
excellent element, the external contact of Mercury with the Sun, Nov.
9th 1769.”—“The external contact,” continues the Reporter, “gave it
something more; owing, no doubt, to the difference that will arise
among Observers, in determining the exact moment when the thread of
light is compleated: and the mean of all our Observations gives the
difference of Meridians, between Norriton and Philadelphia, only 4″ of
time more than the terrestrial measurement, and the external contact
of Mercury, gave it,—which may be taken as a very great degree of
exactness; if we consider that the difference of Meridians, between
the long-established Observatories of Greenwich and Paris, (as Mr. De
la Lande writes, Nov. 18th 1762,) was not then determined within 20″
of time—For, he says, ‘some called it 9′ 15″; others, 9′ 40″;’ but
that he himself commonly used 9′ 20″, though he could not tell from
what Observations it was deduced.[128]—Finally, the Report fixes
Philadelphia to be 5^h 0′ 37″, and Norriton, 5^h 1′ 29″ West from
Greenwich.[129] The Latitude of Norriton, as deduced from the actual
mensuration just mentioned, connected with Observations previously
made by Mr. Rittenhouse—predicated also, in part, on antecedent
Calculations of Messrs. Mason and Dixon, who, (having been furnished
with a complete Astronomical Sector,) had ascertained the southernmost
point of the City of Philadelphia to be in Latitude 39° 56′ 29″,4.
N.—is stated, in the same Report, as being 40° 9′ 31″. It came out, by
the measurement, 25″.09 less North, with respect to the southernmost
point of Philadelphia, than Mr. Rittenhouse’s Observations had given
it; and, in making these, he had no better Instrument than Sisson’s
two-and-an half feet Quadrant. Nevertheless, the framer of the Report
remarks, “as both were fixed by celestial observations and experienced
Men, the small difference ought perhaps to be divided; and if a mean
be taken, to reconcile it with the terrestrial measure, the Lat. of
the south point of Philadelphia would be 39° 56′ 42″; and that of
Norriton, 40° 9′ 43″.[130]
-----
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 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″.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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″.
-----
The same Volume of the American Philosophical Transactions that
comprehends the communications of these Proceedings—as well as various
Observations, made at different places, on the then recent Transit of
Venus—contains also a Memoir, by Dr. Smith, deducing the Sun’s Parallax
from a comparison of the Norriton and some other American Observations
of the Transit of Venus, in 1769, with the Greenwich and some other
European Observations of the same: And with this paper, its learned
writer has incorporated a communication, on the same subject, made to
him by Mr. Rittenhouse.
Until about the period at which the latest of these favourite
transactions of Mr. Rittenhouse took place—namely, his geometrical
employment in ascertaining the Latitude and Longitude of Norriton and
Philadelphia, respectively,—he continued to reside on his farm at
Norriton. And here he still carried on, with the aid of some apprentices
and journey-men, his self-acquired occupation of a Clock and
Mathematical Instrument-maker: combining, at intervals, with these
mechanical pursuits, an unceasing attention to his philosophical studies
and researches; and occasionally employing himself, principally with a
view to his health, in some of the occupations of Husbandry. Ever an
economist of Time, of which he well knew the inestimable value, none of
his hours which could be spared from necessary sleep were suffered to be
unemployed. In this rural abode, he enjoyed the comforts of domestic
life amidst his little family, consisting only of an amiable wife and
two young children. In short, no part of his time was unengaged, or
uselessly passed; although he, not unfrequently, felt the solace of
friendly calls, and was gratified by visits from persons of science,
worth, and distinction.
The writer of these memoirs designed to narrate those circumstances most
worthy of notice, in the Life and character of Mr. Rittenhouse, in their
chronological order; and this plan will be generally adhered to. Having
followed our philosopher in his astronomical and mechanical pursuits, up
to the year 1770, it therefore becomes proper to recur to a period of
his life some few years earlier, in order to introduce the history of
his Orrery,[131] before mentioned; a piece of mechanism which is
admitted, by all competent judges of its merit, to be one of the
greatest of his works.
-----
Footnote 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.
-----
The Planetarium invented by Mr. George Graham,[132]—and a model of which
was improperly retained by Mr. Rowley, its constructor,—had, long before
the appearance of Mr. Rittenhouse’s machine, acquired the name of an
Orrery; in compliment to Richard Boyle, Earl of Orrery,[133] who merely
patronized the construction of one, from the artist Rowley’s pirated
model. This complimentary appellation of Mr. Graham’s then newly
invented Planetarium is said to have been bestowed upon it by Lord
Orrery’s friend, Sir Richard Steele:[134] and, the name being thus
applied to _that_ machine, all those of the nature of _Planetaria_,
subsequently constructed,—however variant in usefulness or design, from
the original one bearing the name of an “Orrery,”—were denominated
_Orreries_.[135] In compliance, then, with long established usage, Mr.
Rittenhouse modestly called his Planetarian-machine, from the first
projection of it, an Orrery; although the entire merit, both of the
invention and construction, belonged to himself.[136]
-----
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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’s _Astron._
Footnote 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.”
-----
It is not ascertained, at what time Mr. Rittenhouse first conceived the
plan of that extensive, complicated and inestimable Orrery, which he
afterwards executed. Probably, he had long thought on the subject,
before he publicly announced his design. It is certain, however, that
before the beginning of the year 1767, there was some correspondence and
some understanding, respecting it, between himself and the Rev. Mr.
Barton. It appears in fact, that, prior to that period, Mr. Barton had
been fully apprized of his brother-in-law’s desire to carry into effect
his meditated design of constructing a complete Orrery, on a plan
entirely new; and that some arrangement was previously made, between
these gentlemen; by which Mr. Barton undertook to indemnify Mr.
Rittenhouse, for such actual expenditures as he should incur in making
the machine and his loss of time while employed in the work, not
exceeding a stipulated sum; provided he should not be able to dispose of
it, when finished, at a price then fixed on. The prudential caution of
our young Philosopher (then about thirty-four years of age,) and the
public spirit of his friend, grounded on the confidence he had in the
artist’s talents and abilities, were alike evinced on this occasion.
The first written communication made by Mr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Barton,
on the subject of the Orrery, is contained in a letter under the date of
Jan. 28th, 1767: it is in these words:—“I am glad you took the pains to
transcribe, and send me, Martin’s _Account of Orreries_.”[137] “Two
forms (he says) have principally obtained, the Hemispherical Orrery and
the Whole Sphere. But the idea given us by the former, is very unnatural
and imperfect. An Orrery, then, adapted to an Armillary Sphere is the
only machine that can exhibit a just idea of the true System of the
World.”—“But in my opinion,” says Mr. Rittenhouse, “the latter is
likewise very unnatural; for, what has a Sphere, consisting of a great
number of metaline Circles, to do with the true System of the World? Is
there one real, or so much as apparent Circle, in it? (the bodies of the
Sun and Planets excepted.) Are they not all merely imaginary lines,
contrived for the purpose of calculation? I did not intend to let one of
them have a place in my Orrery, except the Zodiac, on which I would have
the true latitude and longitude of each planet pointed out by its proper
Index.”
-----
Footnote 137:
See Note 131.
-----
“I did not design a Machine, which should give the ignorant in astronomy
a just view of the Solar System: but would rather astonish the skilful
and curious examiner, by a most accurate correspondence between the
situations and motions of our little representatives of the heavenly
bodies, and the situations and motions of those bodies, themselves. I
would have my Orrery really useful, by making it capable of informing
us, truly, of the astronomical phænomena for any particular point of
time; which, I do not find that any Orrery yet made, can do.”
“But,” continues Mr. Rittenhouse, “perhaps it may be necessary to comply
with the prevailing taste: If so, my plan must be entirely altered;—and
this is a matter that must be settled between you and me, before I can
proceed. However, I shall send you, in my next, a particular account of
my design; such as I would have it, if not limited by the fear of making
it too expensive.—A specimen (if I may so call it) of the most curious
part of it, though much smaller than that intended for the Orrery, is
now in hand, and I hope will soon be finished.”
To this letter Mr. Barton returned the following answer.
“_Lancaster, February 21st, 1767._
“Dear Brother,
“I received, a few days ago, yours of the 28th ult.—after it had
undergone the torture of some Dutchman’s pocket, which compelled it to
force its way through the cover: However, the inside did escape
without many fractures; so that I had the pleasure of getting it into
my hands in such a condition that I could read it.
“Had I known your distress, at the time you received my letter, I
should have sincerely felt for you. I well know the anxiety of an
husband, on such occasions, and my heart will ever join in sympathy
with him: For you, my feelings would have been doubled, as a husband,
as my friend and brother. Glad I am, therefore, that I have no
occasion to condole with you, but rather to rejoice; and I most
sincerely and affectionately congratulate you, on the escape and
recovery of your good girl, and wish you joy of your daughter. I
desire to offer my best regards to sister Nelly, for the compliment
she intended me, had her child been a boy. Her intention was kind, and
I hope to have the continuance of her favourable opinion of me.
“I am much pleased with your remarks on Spherical Orreries, or rather
on the circles generally adapted to such Orreries. Mr. Rowning seems
to be so much of the same opinion, that I could not deny myself the
pleasure of transcribing some part of his account of Orreries, and of
an imaginary machine, which he thinks might be made very useful.[138]
Several of his hints appear to me ingenious, and I hope they will not
be unacceptable to you.
“I would have you pursue your Orrery in your own way, without any
regard to an ignorant or prevailing taste. All you have to study is
truth, and to display the glorious system of Copernicus in a proper
manner;—and to make your machine as much an original, as possible. I
beg you will not limit yourself in the price. I am now perfectly
convinced, that you can dispose of it to advantage; and should be
sorry you would lose one hour more in fears or doubts about it. In
fact, I have laid such plans for the disposal of it, that I have
almost a moral certainty of having a demand for more than one of the
kind. I have not time to write you as fully as I could wish, as the
transcribing from Rowning has detained me so long, and I am this
moment setting out for Caernarvon.
“My letter to the Proprietor[139] is delayed, till I can send him the
account of your design, which you are pleased to promise me. You say
you have “a specimen” in hand: I should be glad to know what it is.
“I shall not neglect the things you mentioned to me, as I shall always
receive a pleasure in serving you.... She joins me in love to father,
mother and all friends.—I am, in haste, dear Davy, your very
affectionate friend and brother,
“THOMAS BARTON.
“P. S. Forgive this wretched scrawl—I have not time to examine whether
I have committed any errors in copying Mr. Rowning.
“I beg leave to recommend Huygens’, Cotes’, Helsham’s, and Power’s
Philosophy to you. You will be much pleased with them.
-----
Footnote 138:
See _A Compendious System of Natural Philosophy_, &c. by J. Rowning,
M. A. part iv. chap. 15.
-----
“I wish you would purchase Bion’s Description of Philosophical and
Mathematical Instruments, &c.”
“MR. DAVID RITTENHOUSE.”
-----
Footnote 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.”
-----
His next letter to Mr. Barton, covering the promised Account of his
Orrery, is dated the 27th of March, 1767: and this, it will be
perceived, is very nearly a year before a description of it was
communicated to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. In
this letter, he says—“Rowning’s opinion of Orreries pleases me more than
any thing I had met with before. The idea of his _imaginary_ machine
naturally presents itself to persons conversant in Astronomy; but, if
actually made, it could not answer the purpose, unless prodigiously
large,—which I presume is the reason it has never been done.
“I send you a description of _my_ imaginary machine: the foundation of
it is now laid; and I hope that part of it, containing the mechanical
Astronomy of the Moon, will be finished some time this spring: _then_ we
shall be able to judge, whether my abilities are equal to the
undertaking.”
The “Description” here referred to, in Mr. Rittenhouse’s own
hand-writing, is new before the writer of these Memoirs; and is thus
endorsed by the Rev. Mr. Barton—“Original Description of Mr.
Rittenhouse’s Orrery, first communicated to Thomas Barton.”—For the
satisfaction of those, who may not have an opportunity of seeing the
American Philosophical Society’s Transactions, in which this short
account of the Orrery was afterwards published; and, as this _original_
description of it differs somewhat from the _printed_ one, it is
presumed that the introduction of the former into this work, will not be
unacceptable to the reader.
The impossibility of conveying to the mind of any one, even the most
intelligent and skilful, by means of either any delineation upon paper
in the nature of a diagram, or by words, an adequate idea of so complex
and multiform a machine as the one now about to be described, will
instantly be conceived. Indeed no description, alone, can render the
nature of its construction, and the many curious and useful purposes it
is capable of answering, perfectly intelligible to the most scientific
Astronomer. Mr. Rittenhouse’s very concise description of his Orrery
will, therefore, necessarily be found defective: it is thus worded by
himself.
---
“DESCRIPTION OF A NEW ORRERY.
“This Machine is intended to have three faces, standing perpendicular to
the horizon: that in the front to be four feet square, made of
sheet-brass, curiously polished, silvered, and painted in proper places,
and otherwise ornamented. From the centre arises an axis, to support a
gilded brass ball, intended to represent the Sun. Round this ball move
others, made of brass or ivory, to represent the Planets: They are to
move in elliptical orbits, having the central ball in one focus; and
their motions to be sometimes swifter, and sometimes slower, as nearly
according to the true law of an equable description of areas as is
possible, without too great a complication of wheel-work. The orbit of
each Planet is likewise to be properly inclined to those of the others;
and their Aphelia and Nodes justly placed; and their velocities so
accurately adjusted, as not to differ sensibly from the tables of
Astronomy in some thousands of years.
“For the greater beauty of the instrument, the balls representing the
planets are to be of a considerable bigness; but so contrived, that they
may be taken off at pleasure, and others, much smaller, and fitter for
some purposes, put in their places.
“When the Machine is put in motion, by the turning of a winch, there are
three indexes which point out the hour of the day, the day of the month,
and the year (according to the Julian account,) answering to that
situation of the heavenly bodies which is then represented; and so
continually, for a period of 5000 years, either forward or backward.
“In order to know the true situation of a Planet at any particular time,
the small set of balls are to be put each on its respective axis; then
the winch to be turned round until each index points to the given time.
Then a small telescope, made for the purpose, is to be applied to the
central ball; and directing it to the planet, its longitude and
inclination will be seen on a large brass circle, silvered, and properly
graduated, representing the zodiac, and having a motion of one degree in
seventy-two years, agreeable to the precession of the equinoxes. So,
likewise, by applying the telescope to the ball representing the earth,
and directing it to any planet,—then will both the longitude and
latitude of that planet be pointed out (by an index and graduated
circle,) as seen from the earth.
“The two lesser faces are four feet in height, and two feet three inches
in breadth. One of them will exhibit all the appearances of Jupiter and
his Satellites—their eclipses, transits, and inclinations; likewise, all
the appearances of Saturn, with his ring and satellites. And the other
will represent all the phænomena of the moon, particularly, the exact
time, quantity, and duration of her eclipses—and those of the sun,
occasioned by her interposition; with a most curious contrivance for
exhibiting the appearance of a solar eclipse, at any particular place on
the earth: likewise, the true place of the moon in the signs, with her
latitude, and the place of her apoge in the nodes; the sun’s
declination, equation of time &c. It must be understood, that all these
motions are to correspond exactly, with the celestial motions; and not
to differ several degrees from the truth, in a few revolutions, as is
common in Orreries.
“If it shall be thought proper, the whole is to be adapted to, and kept
in motion by, a strong pendulum-clock; nevertheless, at liberty to be
turned by the winch, and adjusted to any time, past or future.”
“N. B. The diurnal motions of such planets as have been discovered to
revolve on their own axes, are likewise to be properly represented; both
with regard to the Times, and the situation of their Poles.”
---
The foregoing is a literal copy of the original manuscript; and such
readers of this article as may think proper to compare it with the
printed description of Mr. Rittenhouse’s Orrery, communicated to the
American Philosophical Society by Dr. Smith, on the 21st of March 1768,
and contained in the first volume of that Society’s Transactions, will
find some (though, on the whole, not very essential) differences, in the
two descriptions. The concluding paragraph, indeed,—designated, in each,
by a N. B.—is materially variant in the two: and it appears, by its
having been announced in the published (and later) account of this
machine, that, “the clock part of it may be contrived to play a great
variety of Music,” (a suggestion wholly omitted in Mr. Rittenhouse’s
original communication, made to the Rev. Mr. Barton,) that the
philosophic Artist had been afterwards induced, in one particular at
least, “to comply with the prevailing taste.”[140] But this may be
readily accounted for: our artist had previously made some extremely
curious and beautiful Time-pieces, to each of which was attached the
mechanism of a Musical Clock, in addition to a limited Planetarium, in
miniature. These were in the hands of gentlemen of respectability and
taste:[141] and they were much and generally admired, as well for the
great ingenuity displayed by the constructor, in these combined and
pleasing operations of his machinery, as for the superior accuracy and
beauty of the workmanship; qualities eminently conspicuous in all his
mechanical productions.
-----
Footnote 140:
This design was, however, finally abandoned.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 141a:
The area of the face of the dial plate is twenty inches square, and
the motions and places of the planets of our system are represented on
a circular area of eight inches in diameter.
-----
It appears, that when Mr. Rittenhouse sent the foregoing description of
his projected Orrery to Mr. Barton—that is to say, on the 27th of March,
1767[142]—the “foundation” of it was “laid.” But, notwithstanding his
earnest wishes prompted him to the utmost diligence, in his exertions to
finish it, many circumstances concurred to retard its completion. The
magnitude of the undertaking—the multiplicity of the work—and, perhaps,
the difficulty of sometimes readily procuring, even from Philadelphia,
the necessary materials,—all conspired, to prevent as early a completion
of the machinery as he had anticipated: and, added to these causes of
unavoidable delay, was the yet unabandoned pursuit of his professional
business.
-----
Footnote 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.
-----
The Orrery was, nevertheless, then his favourite object. On the 18th of
June, 1767, he wrote to Mr. Barton, thus—“I hope you will persuade your
Pequea friends to stay for the clocks, till harvest is over; and then, I
think, I may venture to promise them, for ready money: but, at this
time, one part of the Orrery is in such forwardness, that I am not
willing to lay it by till it is done. I hope it will far exceed the
description I gave you of it. To-morrow morning I am to set off for
Reading, at the request of the Commissioners of Berks county, who wrote
to me about their town-clock. They had employed a ... to make it, who,
it seems, is not able to go through with it: if I should undertake to
finish it, this will likewise retard the great work.”
Amidst the more important philosophical pursuits which engaged Mr.
Rittenhouse’s attention before his removal to Philadelphia, as well as
after he fixed his residence in that city, he now and then relaxed the
energy of his mind from its employment in laborious investigations, by
bestowing a portion of his time on minor objects in physical science;
and indeed, sometimes, even on little matters of ingenuity, curiosity
and amusement. As instances of this, he addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barton
the letter under the date of the 20th of July, 1768, which will be found
in the Appendix; and also another, dated the 4th of February, 1770, to
which there is the following postscript:
“I have,” says he, “seen a little curiosity, with which you would be
pleased; I mean the glass described by Dr. Franklin, wherein water may
be kept in a boiling state, by the heat of the hand alone, and that for
hours together. The first time I shall be in Lancaster, where I hope to
be next June, I expect to prevail on you to accompany me to the
Glass-house,[143] where we may have some of them made, as well as some
other things I want.”—A description of this instrument, then usually
called _Dr. Franklin’s Pulse-Glass_,[144] by means of which water may be
made to boil, _in vacuo_, by the heat of the human hand, was
communicated by Mr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Barton in a subsequent letter.
-----
Footnote 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 workmanship, 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-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.
Footnote 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.
-----
MEMOIR
OF THE
LIFE OF DAVID RITTENHOUSE;
CONTINUED,
FROM THE TIME OF HIS SETTLEMENT IN PHILADELPHIA.
In the autumn of 1770, our Philosopher changed the place of his
residence; removing, with his family, into the city of Philadelphia. To
this exchange of his beloved retirement, at his Norriton farm, for the
scene of noise and activity presented by a great town, he must have been
induced by the flattering prospects of advantage to himself and
usefulness to the public, pointed out to him by his friends: and among
these, Dr. Smith was one of the most urgent for the measure. The
following extract of a letter, dated the 27th of January, 1770, and
addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barton by that gentleman, will explain his
motives, and at the same time exhibit Mr. Rittenhouse’s views, on that
occasion: it will also afford strong evidence of the Doctor’s friendship
for our philosopher.
“As my esteem for Mr. Rittenhouse increases, the more I know him,” said
Dr. Smith, “I set on foot a project, assisted by my neighbours, the
Wissahickon millers, to get him recommended to the Assembly, to be put
in as a trustee of the loan-office, in the bill now before the house. I
first broke the matter to the speaker;[145] telling him, Mr. Rittenhouse
ought to be encouraged to come to town, to take a lead in a manufacture,
optical and mathematical, which never had been attempted in America, and
drew thousands of pounds to England for instruments, often ill finished;
and that it would redound to the honour of Philadelphia to take a lead
in this, and of the Assembly, to encourage it. The speaker took the
proposal well, and, in short, so did every person applied to; and when
the vote passed, the day before yesterday, for the three trustees, the
whole house rose for Rittenhouse’s name; so that Mr. Allen,[146] who was
hearty among the rest for him, observed—“_Our name is Legion, for this
vote_,”—though Dr. M—— got in only by the speaker’s casting vote.
-----
Footnote 145:
Joseph Galloway, Esq. a representative in assembly from the county of
Bucks. He was speaker of the house, from the year 1766 to 1773,
inclusively; excepting a short interval in the session of 1768-9, in
which Joseph Fox, Esq. officiated as speaker.
Footnote 146:
William Allen, Esq. chief-justice of the supreme court of
Pennsylvania, and a member of assembly from the county of Cumberland.
-----
“This will give you pleasure, as it shews that a good man is capable of
sometimes commanding all parties; and it will be creditable for Mr.
Rittenhouse, even if the bill should not succeed for the present. The
salary to each of the trustees is 200_l._[147] Both the Mr. Ross’s,[148]
Mr. Biddle,[149] and Mr. Carpenter,[150] were hearty in their interest
for Rittenhouse,—so was Minshull;[151] and I hope you will thank them
all. The governor[152] declared (and with more frankness than usual,)
when I waited on him,—“Mr. Rittenhouse’s name shall never be an
objection with me, in this or any other bill: on the contrary, I shall
rejoice if the bill come to me in such a form, as that I can shew my
regard for him.”
-----
Footnote 147:
Equal to 533 Spanish or American dollars.
Footnote 148:
John and George Ross, Esqrs. lawyers of great respectability, and
brothers; the former a resident in Philadelphia; the latter in
Lancaster. Mr. George Ross was a member of the first congress; and was
appointed by the assembly on the 5th of April, 1775, judge of the
admiralty-court for Pennsylvania.
Footnote 149:
Edward Biddle, Esq. a lawyer of eminence, and a representative in
assembly for the county of Berks, in which he resided. This gentleman
was one of the delegates appointed to the congress of the 10th of May,
1775, under an unanimous resolution of the assembly, passed in
December, 1774; but, having succeeded Mr. Galloway as speaker of that
house, in the session of 1774-5, he did not take his seat in congress,
with his colleagues. These were John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys,
John Morton, George Ross, Thomas Mifflin, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
Willing and James Wilson, Esqrs.
Footnote 150:
Emanuel Carpenter, Esq. long a respectable member of assembly from
Lancaster county.
Footnote 151:
Thomas Minshull, Esq. a respectable member of the house, from York
county.
Footnote 152:
The Hon. John Penn.—This worthy gentleman, a grandson of the
celebrated William Penn, was lieutenant-governor of Pennsylvania,
under the chief proprietaries of the province, from October 1763, to
May 1771; and again, from August 1773, until the revolution.
-----
“Yet, my dear friend,” adds Dr. Smith, “I fear this bill will not pass;
and the Governor may be reduced to the hard dilemma, of even _striking
out_ the name he would wish _in_, if he had the nomination himself. The
house insist on putting the names in the bill, before it goes up: the
Governor contends, that he ought to have at least a share in the
nomination. This matter has been long litigated. The governor, to
maintain his right, always strikes out _some_ names—even though he
approves of them, and puts in others. This he did last year, and put in
the name of Dr. M——, and the other trustee now in the bill. The house
would not admit his amendment, then; but now, this year, they take two
of the very men the governor had appointed last year, vote them in
themselves, and join Mr. Rittenhouse with them. The governor cannot well
_negative_ any of those approved by him, before; yet he must negative
_some one_, to assert his right;—and I believe it would really give him
pain, if _that_ one should be _David_.
“I am thus particular,” continues the Doctor, “that you may understand
the whole, and not think our friend slighted by the government, even if
this thing should not succeed. All the council[153] are hearty for Mr.
Rittenhouse; and if he does not get this matter, he will not be long
without something else. But I hope some expedient may be hit upon, to
compromise the matter, should the bill not have faults in itself, that
may set it aside.”
-----
Footnote 153:
The proprietary’s and governor’s council, consisting of James
Hamilton, William Allen, Joseph Turner, William Logan, Richard Peters
(D. D.), Lynford Lardner, Benjamin Chew, Thomas Cadwallader, Richard
Penn, James Tilghman, Andrew Allen, and Edward Shippen, jun. Esquires.
Joseph Shippen, jun. Esquire, officiated many years as provincial
secretary and clerk of the council.
-----