|
Mary
Somerville (nee Fairfax) was born at Jedburgh on
December 26, 1780, and died on November 30, 1872, at
Naples, aged nearly ninety-two years. In considering her
education, we have not to mention important seminaries,
where skilled teachers make it their chief business to
impart to others the knowledge for which they are
themselves eminent, but to speak only of studies pursued
in the calm of a quiet home. This, rightly understood,
is perhaps the most remarkable feature of her career.
There are few mathematicians so eminent as she
deservedly was, in whose fame great public schools and
universities do not in some degree partake. But we owe
almost to accident the discovery of the powers of Mary
Fairfax’s mind, while the gradual development of those
powers proceeded under the guidance of tutors unknown to
fame, and with access only to such assistance as could
be given by the friends of her own family.
Mrs. Somerville has herself described how it chanced
that the peculiar powers of her mind came first to be
recognised. She was in the habit of working at her
needle in the window-seat, while her brother took his
lessons in geometry and arithmetic. Fortunately (in her
case) the work which is regarded as most suitable to the
capacity of women leaves the mind unoccupied ; and
consequently there was nothing to prevent Mary Fairfax
from attending to the lessons intended for her brother.
She gradually became interested in the subject of these
lessons, and took care not only to be present regularly,
but to study her brother’s books in her own room. It
happened that, on one occasion, young Fairfax failed to
answer a question addressed to him, and his sister
involuntarily prompted him. The tutor was naturally
surprised that the quiet Mary Fairfax should have any
ideas beyond the needlework which had apparently engaged
her attention; but, being a sensible man, he was at the
pains to ascertain the degree and soundness of her
knowledge, and, finding that she had really grasped the
first principles of mathematics, he 6 took care that she
should have liberty to go on in her own way. If a boy
had shown similar fitness for mathematical research,
anxious attention would have been devoted to the choice
of books and teachers, school and university ; but the
case of a girl showing such tastes seemed to be
adequately met by according to her the privilege of
following her own devices. We shall never know
certainly, though it may be that hereafter we shall be
able to guess, what science lost through the all but
utter neglect of the unusual powers of Mary Fairfax’s
mind. We may rejoice that, through an accident, she was
permitted to reach the position she actually attained;
but there is scarcely a line of her writings which does
not, while showing what she was, suggest thoughts of
what she might have been.
While studying mathematics 4in her own way,’ she found a
difficulty which for a time threatened to interfere with
her progress. She was unable to read the Principia,
because she could not understand Latin. In this strait,
she applied, 4 after much hesitation,’ to Prof. Playfair.
She asked if a woman might, without impropriety, learn
Latin. After ascertaining the purpose which the young
lady had in view—possibly in doubt lest she might follow
in the steps of Anne Dacier —Prof. Playfair told her
that it would not, in his opinion, do her any harm to
learn Latin in order to read the Principia. It is
noteworthy, as having probably a bearing on the course
which Mrs. Somerville’s reading subsequently took, that
Playfair was one of the few in this country who at that
time appreciated the methods of the higher mathematical
analysis, and had formed a just opinion of their power—4
a power, however,’ as Sir John Herschel well remarks, 4
which he was content to admire and applaud rather than
ready to wield.’ His excellent review of the Mecanique
Celeste probably gave (as Herschel suggests) a stronger
impulse to the public mind in the direction of the
higher analysis than he could have communicated by any
researches of his own.
It was not, however, as a mathematician that Mrs.
Somerville first became known to the world. A subject of
research, exceedingly difficult and only to be pursued
successfully under very favourable conditions, was
undertaken by her during the life of her first husband,
Captain Greig, son of High-Admiral Greig of the Russian
Navy. She sought to determine by experiment the
magnetising influence of the violet rays of the solar
spectrum. ‘ It is not surprising,’ says Sir John
Hersehel on this subject, 4 that the feeble though
unequivocal indications of magnetism which she
undoubtedly obtained should have been regarded by many
as insufficient to decide the question at issue.’
Nevertheless it was justly regarded as a noteworthy
achievement that, in a climate so unsuitable as ours,
any success should have been attained in a research of
such extreme difficulty. That she achieved, and, what is
more, deserved success, will be inferred from the words
in which Sir John Hersehel indicates his own opinion of
the value of her results : 4 To us,’ he says, 4 their
evidence appears entitled to considerable weight; but it
is more to our immediate purpose to notice the simple
and rational manner in which her experiments were
conducted, the absence of needless complication and
refinement in their plan, and of unnecessary or costly
apparatus in their execution, and the perfect freedom
from all pretension or affected embarrassment in their
statement.’
In 1832 Mrs. Somerville published the work on which, in
our opinion, her fame in future years will be held
mainly to depend. The Mechanism of the Heavens was
originally intended to form one of the works published
by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,
though it soon outgrew the dimensions suited for such a
purpose. Indeed, it is remarkable that either Mrs.
Somerville herself or Lord Brougham, at whose suggestion
the work was undertaken, should suppose it possible to
epitomise Laplace’s magnum opus, or so to popularise it
as to bring it within the scope of the Society’s
publications.
It will be well, in weighing the value of the book, to
consider it first with reference to the purpose of its
author, though a judgment based on that consideration
alone would not be a fair one. These, then, are the
words in which Mrs. Somerville presents the scope and
purpose of her work :—
"A complete acquaintance with physical astronomy can
only be attained by those who are well versed in the
highest branches of mathematical and mechanical science
: such alone can appreciate the extreme beauty of the
results, and the means by which these results are
obtained. Nevertheless, a sufficient skill in analysis
to follow the general outline, to see the mutual
dependence of the several parts of the system, and to
comprehend by what means some of the most extraordinary
conclusions have been arrived at, is within the reach of
many who shrink from the task, appalled by difficulties
which perhaps are not more formidable than those
incident to the study of the elements of every branch of
knowledge, and possibly overrating them by not making a
sufficient distinction between the degree of
mathematical acquirement necessary for making
discoveries and that which is requisite for
understanding what others have done. That the study of
mathematics, and their application to astronomy, are
full of interest, will be allowed by all who have
devoted their time and attention to these pursuits ; and
they only can estimate the delight of arriving at truth,
whether it be the discovery of a world or of a new
property of numbers."
It cannot be doubted that Mrs. Somerville here indicates
her belief in the possibility of presenting her subject
in a form suited to the capacities of a large number of
readers, and to some extent advocates this as her
object. Whether she succeeded or failed in this purpose
must therefore be the first question to engage our
attention. Sir John Herschel considers that she
succeeded, 4 for all those parts of’ her subject, at
least, which the work 4 professes to embrace, that is to
say, the general exposition of the mechanical principles
employed, the planetary and lunar theories, and those of
Jupiter s satellites, with the incidental points
naturally arising out of them.’ With the utmost respect
for the authority of one who was so thorough a master of
the subject which Mary Somerville endeavoured to
popularise, I venture to express a different opinion. I
find it impossible to come to any other conclusion than
that, as respects the main purpose of her work, Mrs.
Somerville failed entirely; though I hasten to qualify
this statement by the remark that, in my opinion,
success was altogether impossible. I believe, in fact,
that neither Mrs. Somerville nor Sir John Hersehel
thoroughly apprehended the difficulty of conveying to
the general reader clear ideas respecting even the
elements of the subjects they severally endeavoured to
expound. But I feel bound to add that Mis. Somerville’s
failure, inevitable from the very nature of her task,
would in any case have been brought about by the manner
in which the task was accomplished. It will presently be
seen that, in saying this, I am, in fact, touching on
the most remarkable and distinguishing quality of Mrs.
Somerville’s mind.
There are two essential requisites in a treatise
intended to introduce a difficult subject to general
readers. First, there must be a clear apprehension of
the position of such readers, of what they can and of
what they cannot understand, and of the form in which
what is written for them may most usefully be presented.
It is not too much to say that if just ideas had been
entertained by Mrs. Somerville on this point, the
attempt to present the Mechanism of the Heavens in a
popular form would never have been made. But, secondly,
it is essential that in any work of the kind each
statement —each sentence, in fact—should be presented in
terms so precise as to be absolutely unmistakable. This
is not so necessary in advanced treatises—indeed, it is
too well known how large a proportion of our works on
advanced science are wanting in strict precision of
expression. But it is absolutely necessary in works
intended to popularise science. It is a somewhat
remarkable circumstance that in the Mechanism of the
Heavens—the boldest attempt ever made, perhaps, in this
direction—not only is precision of expression not a
notable feature, but, on the contrary, the most striking
fault in the work is the inexactness of the language.
Even Sir John Herschel, whose perfect familiarity with
the subject of the work would tend to render the fault
less obvious to him, was nevertheless struck by it: ‘The
most considerable fault we have to find,’ he wrote,
‘with the work before us consists in an habitual laxity
of language, evidently originating in so complete a
familiarity with the quantities concerned as to induce a
disregard of the words by which they are designated, but
which, to any one less intimately conversant with the
actual analytical operations than its author, must
infallibly become a source of serious errors, and which,
at all events, renders it necessary for the reader to be
constantly on his guard.’
These words form the penultimate sentence of Sir John
Herschel’s critique. I have preferred to speak first of
the subject touched on, so as to pass without
reservation to a more pleasing topic—the real and
unquestionable value of Mrs. Somerville’s chief work.
And, after all, the good qualities of the work are
intrinsic, while its main fault relates to a purpose
which the work never could have fulfilled, no matter how
carefully the fault had been avoided.
It is in this sense—regarding the work apart from its
special purpose, and judging of it only as a
contribution to advanced scientific literature—that we
may fairly say, with Sir John Herschel, that the work is
one of which any geometer might be proud. There is,
indeed, ample evidence of the disadvantage under which
Mrs. Somerville laboured, in the want of thorough
mathematical training; but so much the more wonderful is
it that she should have completely mastered her subject.
Every page indicates her appreciation of the methods
employed by Laplace and Lagrange. Where she does not
strictly follow the Mecanique Celeste, she evidences a
clear recognition of the purposes to be subserved by
adopting a different course. I would not be understood
as commending all the departures thus made ;*on the
contrary, there are cases where it appears to me that on
the whole it would have been preferable to have followed
the processes of the Mecanique Celeste more closely,
while there are others where certain more modern
processes might perhaps with advantage have been
introduced. But even in such instances we recognise in
the course pursued by Mrs. Somerville the decision of
one perfectly familiar with the subject in hand. And
many of the changes must undoubtedly be regarded either
as improvements, or else as altogether desirable when
the scale of Mrs. Somerville’s treatise is taken into
account. Amongst instances of the former kind must be
classed the method employed in the investigation of the
equations of continuity of a fluid; amongst instances of
the latter, I would specially cite the treatment of the
theory of elliptic motion, in the opening chapters of
the second book.
If however I were asked to point out the feature of this
work which, in my opinion, most strikingly indicated the
powers of Mrs Somerville’s mind, I should unhesitatingly
select the preliminary dissertation. In this we have an
abstract of the Newtonian philosophy such as none but a
master-mind could have produced. Apart from its
scientific value—and it has great scientific value—it is
a work of great literary merit. If it is not in plan and
purpose altogether original, inasmuch as it must be
regarded as to some degree an abstract of Laplace’s
Systeme clw Monde, it is nevertheless, as Herschel has
well remarked, an abstract so vivid and judicious as to
have all the merit of originality, and such as could
have been produced only by one accustomed to large and
general views, as well as perfectly familiar with the
particulars of the subject.’ Three years after the
appearance of the Mechanism of the Heavens, Mrs.
Somerville published the work by which she is probably
best known to general readers. The Connexion of the
Physical Sciences was, I believe, written at the
suggestion of Lord Brougham, as an expansion of the
admirable introduction to the Celestial Mechanism. It is
a work full of interest, not only to the student of
advanced science, but to the general reader. In saying
this we indicate its chief merit and its most marked
defect. It is impossible to conceive that any reader, no
matter how advanced or how limited his knowledge, could
fail to find many most instructive pages in this work;
but it is equally impossible to conceive that any one
reader could find the whole work, or even any
considerable portion, instructive or useful.
The fact was that Mrs. Somerville recognised, or which
is practically the same thing, wrote as if she
recognised, no distinction between the recondite and the
simple. She makes no more attempt at explanation when
speaking of the perturbations of the planets or
discussing the most profound problems of mofecular
physics, than when she is merely running over a series
of statements respecting geographical or climatic
relations. It would almost seem as though her mind was
so constituted that the difficulties which ordinary
minds experience in considering complex mathematical
problems had no existence for her. A writer, to whom we
owe one of the best obituary notices of Mrs. Somerville
which hitherto have appeared, tells us that the sort of
pressure Mrs. Somerville underwent from her publisher as
the earlier editions of the Connexion of the Physical
Sciences passed through the press 6 convinced her of her
own unfitness for popularising science. When there was
already no time to lose in regard to her proof sheets,
she had hint upon hint from Mr. Murray that this and
that and the other paragraph required to be made plainer
to popular comprehension. She declared that she tried
very hard to please Mr. Murray and others who made the
same complaint, but that every departure from scientific
terms and formulas appeared to her a departure from
clearness and simplicity; so that, by the time she had
explained and described to the extent required, her
statements seemed to her cumbrous and confused. In other
words, this was not her proper work.’
Respecting her two other works, I shall merely remark
that the Physical Geography appeared in 1848, and the
Molecular and Microscopic Science in 1869, when she had
reached the advanced age of eighty-eight years.
I may be excused for regarding Mary Somerville’s life
with reference rather to her astronomical and
mathematical researches than to her proficiency in other
branches of science. In this aspect of her career it is
difficult, great as was the reputation she deservedly
obtained, not to contemplate with regret those
circumstances, the effects of unfortunate prejudices,
whereby she was prevented from applying the full powers
of her mind to the advancement of science. It is certain
that no department of mathematical research was beyond
her powers, and that in any she could have done original
work. In mere mental grasp few men have probably
surpassed her ; but the thorough training, the scholarly
discipline, which can alone give to the mind the power
of advancing beyond the point up to which it has
followed the guidance of others, had unfortunately been
denied to her. Accordingly, while her writings show her
power and her thorough mastery of the instruments of
mathematical research, they are remarkable less for
their actual value, though their value is great, than as
indicating what, under happier auspices, she might have
accomplished.
I have mentioned that Mrs. Somerville was twice married.
By her first marriage she had one son, Mr. Woronzow G-reig,
since ,deceased. A few years after Captain Greig’s death
she married her cousin, Dr. Somerville, by which
marriage she had three daughters, two of whom survive
her. The latter years of her life (twenty-three years,
we believe) were passed in Italy. It has been said by
one who was well acquainted with the circumstances that
6 the long exile which occupied the latter portion of
her life was a weary trial to her. She carried a
thoroughly Scotch heart in her breast; and the true
mountaineer’s longing for her native country sickened
many an hour of many a tedious year. She liked London
life, too, and the equal intercourses which students
like herself can there enjoy ; whereas, in Italy, she
was out of place. She seldom met any one with whom she
could converse on the subjects which interested her
most; and if she studied, it could be for no further end
than her own gratification. It was felt by her friends
to be a truly pathetic incident that, of all people in
the world, Mrs. Somerville should be debarred the sight
of the singular comet of 1843; and the circumstance was
symbolical of the whole case of her exile. The only
Italian observatory which afforded the necessary
implements was in a Jesuit establishment, where no woman
was allowed to pass the threshold. At the same hour her
heart yearned towards her native Scotland, and her
intellect hungered for the congenial intercourse of
London; and she looked up at the sky with the mortifying
knowledge of what was to be seen there but for the
impediment which barred her access to the great
telescope at hand. With all her gentleness of temper and
her lifelong habit of acquiescence, she suffered deeply,
while many of her friends were indignant at the
sacrifice.’
I shall venture to quote, in conclusion, some remarks by
Sir Henry Holland on features of Mrs. Somerville’s
character and life which have been hidden from general
knowledge:— "She was a woman not of science only,’ he
tells us, "but of refined and cultivated tastes. Her
paintings and musical talents might well have won
admiration, even had there been nothing else beyond
them. Her classical attainments were considerable,
derived probably from that early part of life when the
gentle Mary Fairfax—gentle she must ever have been —was
enriching her mind by quiet study in her Scotch home.
... A few words more on the moral part of Mrs.
Somerville’s character; and here, too, I speak from
intimate knowledge. She was the gentlest and kindest of
human beings—qualities well attested even by her
features and conversation, but expressed still more in
all the habits of her domestic and social life. Her
modesty and humility were as remarkable as those talents
which they concealed from common observation.
Personal
Recollections from Early Life to Old Age of Mary
Somerville
By her Daughter Martha Soerville (1874)
|
