-----
Footnote 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.
-----
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 a 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 abandon, 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 year 1776. A writer under the signature of
M. W. (and who is supposed to have been the late Rev. Matthew Wilson, a
respectable presbyterian clergyman, of Lewes,[181] in the county of
Sussex on Delaware,) published 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 “A few
Thoughts on Space, Dimension, and the Divisibility of Matters _in
infinitum_.”
-----
Footnote 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.
Footnote 180a:
This extraordinary man, who was the first Plumian professor of
astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge, was born July 10,
1682, and died prematurely June 5, 1716.
Footnote 180b:
The Rev. Mr. Vince, A. M. F. R. S. Plumian Professor of Astronomy and
Experimental Philosophy, in the University of Cambridge. See his
_Complete System of Astronomy_, vol. ii. p. 291.
Footnote 181:
The essay signed M. W. is dated from that place.
-----
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. 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 to 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 another 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.”
-----
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 183:
Alluding, probably, to Metaphysicians; for, neither Mr. M. W. nor Dr.
J. W. was distinguished as a Mathematician.
-----
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 hand-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 founded 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]
-----
Footnote 184:
Dr. Franklin was president of that convention.
Footnote 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.”
-----
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 agreed, 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.
-----
Footnote 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.
-----
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. Rittenhouse
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 and
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 this 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.
-----
Footnote 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.
-----
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 from 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 with 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.
-----
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 189a:
Not only the astronomical calculations of this once well-known and
highly esteemed Ephemeris, but its poetry also, (which is said to have
possessed a considerable share of merit,) were the productions of
Jacob Taylor, Esq. an old English gentleman, who, for some time,
executed the office of Surveyor-General of Pennsylvania. Franklin was
the printer and publisher of this Ephemeris: but many of the
productions of his pen, which appeared in it, and, among the rest, his
“Way to Wealth,” contributed towards rendering it a very popular
publication, of its kind. Franklin commenced the publication of “Poor
Richard’s Almanack,” in the year 1732, when he was but twenty-six
years of age.
-----
This separation of Mr. Rittenhouse from his wife and children—attended
too, as it was, by the most embarrassing 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]
-----
Footnote 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.
-----
A 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 so 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 particular persons. For this reason, I
would rather meet you at one of your 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.
-----
Footnote 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.
“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.”
Footnote 192:
John Jacobs, Esq.—This gentleman was a brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.
Footnote 193:
Israel Jacobs, Esq.—Another brother of Mrs. Rittenhouse.
-----
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 Philadelphia, 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 by 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.
“_Monticello in Albemarle, Virginia, July 19, 1778._
“Dear sir,
“I sincerely congratulate you on the recovery of Philadelphia, and
wish it may be found uninjured by the enemy. How far the interests of
literature may have suffered by the injury or removal of the Orrery
(as it is miscalled), the public libraries, and your papers and
implements, are doubts which still excite anxiety. We were much
disappointed in Virginia generally, on the day of the great
eclipse,[194] which proved to be cloudy in Williamsburg, where it was
total. I understand, only the beginning was seen at this place, which
is in Latitude 38° 8′ and Longitude West from Williamsburg, about 1°
45′ as is conjectured; eleven digits only were supposed to be covered.
It was not seen at all till the moon had advanced nearly one-third
over the sun’s disc. Afterwards, it was seen at intervals through the
whole. The egress particularly was visible. It proved, however, of
little use to me, for want of a time-piece that could be depended on;
which circumstance together with the subsequent restoration of
Philadelphia to you, has induced me to trouble you with this letter,
to remind you of your kind promise of making me an accurate clock,
which being intended for astronomical purposes only, I would have
divested of all apparatus for striking, or for any other purpose,
which by increasing its complication might disturb its accuracy. A
companion to it, for keeping seconds, and which might be moved easily,
would greatly add to its value. The theodolite, for which I spoke to
you also, I can now dispense with, having since purchased a most
excellent one.
-----
Footnote 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.
-----
“Writing to a Philosopher, I may hope to be pardoned for intruding
some thoughts of my own, though they relate to him personally. Your
time for two years past has, I believe, been principally employed in
the civil government of your country. Though I have been aware of the
authority our cause would acquire with the world from its being known
that Yourself and Doctor Franklin were zealous friends to it, and am
myself duly impressed with a sense of the arduousness of government,
and the obligation those are under who are able to conduct it; yet I
am also satisfied there is an order of geniuses above that obligation,
and therefore exempted from it. Nobody can conceive that nature ever
intended to throw away a Newton upon the occupations of a crown. It
would have been a prodigality for which even the conduct of Providence
might have been arraigned, had he been by birth annexed to what was so
far below him. Co-operating with nature in her ordinary economy, we
should dispose of and employ the geniuses of men according to their
several orders and degrees. I doubt not there are in your country many
persons equal to the task of conducting government: but you should
consider that the world has but one Rittenhouse, and that it never had
one before. The amazing mechanical representation of the solar system
which you conceived and executed, has never been surpassed by any but
the work of which it is a copy. Are those powers then, which, being
intended for the erudition of the world, are, like air and light, the
world’s common property, to be taken from their proper pursuit to do
the common-place drudgery of governing a single state, a work which
may be executed by men of an ordinary stature, such as are always and
every where to be found? Without having ascended Mount Sinai for
inspiration, I can pronounce that the precept, in the decalogue of the
vulgar, that they shall not make to themselves the ‘likeness of any
thing that is in the heavens above,’ is reversed for you, and that you
will fulfil the highest purposes of your creation by employing
yourself in the perpetual breach of that inhibition. For my own
country in particular, you must remember something like a promise that
it should be adorned with one of them. The taking of your city by the
enemy has hitherto prevented the proposition from being made and
approved by our legislature. The zeal of a true whig in science must
excuse the hazarding these free thoughts, which flow from a desire of
promoting the diffusion of knowledge and of your fame, and of one who
can assure you truly that he is with much sincerity and esteem your
most obedient and most humble servant.