Chapter VI: Part 6

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

-----

The division-line, between East and West-Jersey, was to run from the south-east point of Little Egg-Harbour, on Barnegate Creek—being about midway between Cape-May and Sandy-Hook, to a creek, a little below Ancocus-Creek, on the river Delaware; thence, about thirty-five miles in a straight course, along the Delaware, up to 44° 40´ of north latitude.

The province of New-York passed a legislative act on this subject, in the year 1762; and the New-Jersey Assembly enacted a corresponding law, in 1764. Five commissioners—namely, John Stevens, James Parker, Henry Cuyler, William Donaldson, and Walter Rutherford—were appointed on this business, for the two provinces: their report was passed upon, by both; and it was confirmed by the King in council, the 1st of September, 1773. It is understood, that the division-line between East and West-Jersey remained unsettled, so late as the year 1789. But it nevertheless appears, that the territorial boundary between New-York and New-Jersey was fixed by Mr. Rittenhouse, forty-four years ago.

A recurrence shall now be had to a date anterior to our Philosopher’s employment in the transaction just mentioned.—Within the two years preceding that period, two objects of much importance to astronomical science, claimed a large share of the public attention, in this country: One of them, especially, had already actually engaged the investigations of the ablest astronomers of the other hemisphere, as well as our own; preparatory to the then approaching event, to which those researches were directed. The result of the expectations excited by both of those objects proved, on their final completion, highly honourable to the fame of Mr. Rittenhouse.

The first of these, in the order of time, was our Astronomer’s newly-projected Orrery; a general but concise description of which, was communicated by his friend, the Rev. Dr. Smith, to the Philosophical Society, on the 21st of March, 1768. Of this fine and eminently useful piece of mechanism, more particular mention shall be made in the sequel.

The other circumstance, just referred to, was the then approaching Transit of Venus over the Sun’s disk; an event which was to take place on the 3d day of June, 1769: And of Mr. Rittenhouse’s participation in the arduous labours of the astronomical world, on that very interesting occasion, the following narrative will furnish some account.

The American Philosophical Society, in their meeting on the 7th of January, 1769, had appointed the following gentlemen to observe that _rare phænomenon_,[108] as it was aptly styled by Dr. Smith; namely, the. Rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) John Ewing, Mr. Thomas Prior, Joseph Shippen, jun. Esq., Hugh Williamson, M. D., the Rev. Dr. Smith, Mr. David Rittenhouse, John Lukens, Esq. and Messrs. James Alexander, Owen Biddle, James Pearson, John Sellers, Charles Thomson, and William Poole. The gentlemen thus nominated were distributed into three committees, for the purpose of making separate observations at three several places; these were, the city of Philadelphia, Mr. Rittenhouse’s residence, in Norriton, and the Light-House near Cape Henlopen, on Delaware Bay. Dr. Ewing, an able mathematician and very respectable astronomer, had the principal direction of the Observatory in the City, which was erected on this occasion in the State-house Gardens; and Mr. O. Biddle, a person of much ingenuity, had the charge of superintending the observations at Cape Henlopen. Associated with Mr. Rittenhouse, on the Norriton committee, were the Rev. Dr. Smith, provost of the College of Philadelphia, well known as an astronomer and eminently skilled in the mathematics; Mr. Lukens, then surveyor-general of Pennsylvania, who possessed considerable abilities in the same departments of science; and Mr. Sellers, a respectable member of the provincial legislature, for the county of Chester. The Rev. Mr. Barton, with some other gentlemen of ingenuity and talents, voluntarily attended at Norriton, on this occasion; and rendered such assistance as they could, to the committee.

-----

Footnote 108:

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

-----

As the time approached near, when this extraordinary and almost unprecedented[109] astronomical phænomenon was to manifest itself, the public expectation and anxiety, which were before considerable, became greatly heightened. The ignorant—and those, generally, unacquainted with the nature of the looked-for event,—hearing much every where said on the subject, and seeing the preparations making for the occasion, had their curiosity wonderfully excited. To scientific men, the inestimable value of the approaching phænomenon suggested very different sensations. “Its importance to the interests of Astronomy and Navigation, had,” as Dr. Ewing observed at the time, “justly drawn the attention of every civilized nation in the world.” An accurate ascertainment of the Sun’s Parallax,—an important. and fundamental article in Astronomy, was a _desideratum_ not yet obtained. Only two Transits of Venus over the Sun, had been _observed_, prior to the 3d of June, 1769, since the creation of the world; and of these, the first alone was seen but by two persons:[110] Yet, as the learned gentleman just quoted has remarked,—“the Transits of Venus, alone, afford an opportunity of determining this problem” (the settling the Parallax of the Sun,) “with sufficient certainty: and these,” he adds, “happen so seldom, that there cannot be more than two in one century, and in some centuries none at all.”

-----

Footnote 109:

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

Footnote 110:

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

-----

To an object, then, of such vast importance to science, were proportioned the expectations of our Observers. But they could not fail to experience, at the same time, in common with their astronomical brethren in other parts of the world, a large portion of anxious apprehensions, lest a cloudy day—nay, even a solitary passing cloud,—should baffle entirely their exalted hopes, and destroy all the fruits of their arduous labours! Yet such an occurrence, as one or the other of these events, was evidently within the calculations of a probable incident.

Mr. Rittenhouse participated largely in these blended hopes and fears. He had, for some time before, been laboriously employed in making the requisite preparatory observations and calculations: and, as Norriton was now rendered eminently conspicuous, by being fixed on as a principal site for observing the very interesting phænomenon so near at hand, he had been assiduously engaged, at the same time, in preparing and furnishing an Observatory at that place, suitable for the occasion. This he began to erect early in November, 1768,—“agreeably,” to use his own words, “to the resolutions of the American Philosophical Society;” but, through various disappointments from workmen and weather, he was not enabled to complete it till the middle of April, 1769.[111]

-----

Footnote 111:

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

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

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

-----

The Norriton Observatory was commodiously situated near Mr. Rittenhouse’s mansion, on a pretty elevated piece of ground, commanding a good range of horizontal view. This temporary edifice was as well adapted to the purpose for which it was chiefly designed, as the nature of the materials of which it was constructed, and other circumstances, would permit. Some monies had been previously appropriated by the Philosophical Society, towards defraying the expenses necessarily incident to this occasion, at the three several places of observation: but the funds of the society, at their disposal for such purposes, were very limited; and it is believed that the quota of these funds assigned for the expenditures actually incurred for making the observations of the transit, at Norriton, was quite inconsiderable in its amount.

In order that ample justice may be done to the merits of Mr. Rittenhouse, for all the preparatory arrangements made by him on this occasion, the reader is here presented with an extract from Dr. Smith’s subsequent Report, to the Philosophical Society, of the proceedings of the Norriton Committee, and made in their behalf.—“I am persuaded” says the doctor, “that the dependance which the learned world may place on any particular Transit-Account, will be in proportion to the previous and subsequent care, which is found to have been taken in a series of accurate and well conducted observations, for ascertaining the _going_ of the time-pieces, and fixing the latitude and longitude of the place of observations, &c. And I am the more desirous to be particular in these points, in order to do justice to Mr. RITTENHOUSE, one of the committee; to whose extraordinary skill and diligence is owing whatever advantage may be derived, in these respects, to our observation of the Transit itself.”—“Our great discouragement at our first appointment,” continues the learned reporter, “was the want of proper apparatus, especially good Telescopes with Micrometers. The generosity of our Provincial Assembly soon removed a great part of this discouragement, not only by their vote to purchase one of the best reflecting Telescopes, with a _Dollond’s_ micrometer;[112] but likewise by their subsequent donation of one hundred pounds,” (this was in sterling money, = $444) “for erecting Observatories and defraying other incidental expences.[113] It was forseen, that on the arrival of the Telescope, added to such private ones as might be procured in the city, together with fitting up the instruments belonging to the honourable the Proprietaries of the province—viz. the equal Altitude and Transit Instruments and the large astronomical Sector,—nothing would be wanted for the city Observatory in the State-House Square, but a good Time-piece, which was easily to be procured. We remained, however, still at a loss, how to furnish the Norriton Observatory:[114] But even this difficulty gradually vanished.”

-----

Footnote 112:

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

Footnote 113:

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

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

Footnote 114:

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

-----

Thus it appears, that while the public contributions, and such astronomical instruments suitable for the occasion as were the public property, were principally at the disposal of the Philadelphia committee, the Observatory at Norriton—which seems to have been considered as a private establishment, belonging to an individual,—depended almost entirely on other resources. Even an excellent reflecting telescope (though without a micrometer,) the property of the Library Company of Philadelphia, and to which institution it was a donation from the Hon. T. Penn,—the same that had been used by Messrs. Macon and Dixon, when employed in settling the boundary lines of Pennsylvania and Maryland—was necessarily appropriated to the use of Mr. Owen Biddle, who was appointed by the Society to conduct the Observation of the Transit, near Cape Henlopen.

The Norriton Observatory was, notwithstanding, at last completely furnished with every instrument proper for the occasion. In consequence of some previous communications made by Dr. Smith to the Hon. Mr. T. Penn of London, and to the Rev. Mr. Maskelyne, the British astronomer-royal at Greenwich, the former worthy and liberal gentleman had sent, for the use of the Norriton committee, a reflecting Telescope with Dollond’s Micrometer—such as the doctor had expressed a wish to obtain; and requested, that after the committee should have made their observations with it, it should be presented in his name to the College.[115] Through the means of Dr. Smith, likewise, an astronomical quadrant of two and an half feet radius, made by Sisson, the property of the East-Jersey proprietaries, was procured by Mr. Lukens from the Earl of Stirling, surveyor-general of that province. This had been pretty early sent up by Mr. Lukens to Mr. Rittenhouse, and was used by him in ascertaining the latitude of his Observatory.

-----

Footnote 115:

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

-----

In addition to these and some other apparatus used at Norriton on the occasion—a catalogue and description of the whole of which, are contained in Dr. Smith’s before-mentioned report—the zeal, industry, and talents of Mr. Rittenhouse enabled him to furnish his Observatory with the three following described instruments, made by himself,[116] as described by Dr. Smith.

-----

Footnote 116:

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

-----

1. An _Equal Altitude Instrument_—its telescope three and an half feet focal length, with two horizontal hairs, and a vertical one in its focus; firmly supported on a stone pedestal, and easily adjusted to a plummet-wire four feet in length, by two screws, one moving in a North and South, the other in an East and West direction.

2. A _Transit Telescope_, fixed in the meridian, on fine steel points; so that the hair in its focus could move in no other direction than along the meridian; in which were two marks, South and North, about 330 yards distance each; to which it could be readily adjusted in an horizontal position by one screw, as it could in a vertical position, by another.

3. An excellent _Time-piece_—having for its pendulum-rod a flat steel bar, with a bob weighing about twelve pounds, and vibrating in a small arch. This went eight days, did not stop when wound up, beat dead seconds, and was kept in motion by a weight of five pounds.[117]

-----

Footnote 117:

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

-----

Thus was the Norriton Observatory furnished with all the more immediately necessary apparatus, in readiness for the important event which was the main object of these arduous exertions. Much credit was due to Dr. Smith, much to Mr. Lukens and the other gentlemen engaged on this occasion, for the assistance which he, and they, afforded Mr. Rittenhouse. Yet the doctor himself very candidly says—in reporting the proceedings of the Norriton committee to the Philosophical Society,—“other engagements did not permit Mr. Lukens or myself to pay much attention to the necessary preparations; but we knew that we had entrusted them to a gentleman on the spot, who had joined to a complete skill in _mechanics_, so extensive an _astronomical_ and _mathematical_ knowledge, that the use, management, and even the construction of the necessary apparatus, were perfectly familiar to him. Mr. Lukens and myself could not set out for his house till Thursday, June 1st; but, on our arrival there, we found every preparation so forward, that we had little to do, but to adjust our respective telescopes to distinct vision. He had fitted up the different instruments, and made a great number of observations, to ascertain the going of his Time-piece, and to determine the latitude and longitude of his Observatory. The laudable pains he hath taken in these material articles,” continues Dr. Smith in his report, “will best appear from _the work itself_,—which he hath committed into my hands, with the following modest introduction; giving me a liberty, which his own accuracy, care and abilities, leave no room to exercise.”[118]

-----

Footnote 118:

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

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

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

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

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

-----

_Norriton, July 18th 1769._

“Dear Sir,

“The enclosed is the best account I can give of _the Contacts_,
as I observed them; and of what I saw during the interval between
them. I should be glad you would contract them, and also the other
papers, into a smaller compass,—as I would have done myself, if I had
known how. I beg you would not copy any thing merely because I have
written it, but leave out what you think superfluous.—I am, with great
esteem and affection, yours, &c.

DAVID RITTENHOUSE.[119]

TO REV. DR. SMITH.”

-----

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.

-----