*From `A Short Account of the History of Mathematics' (4th edition, 1908)
by W. W. Rouse Ball.*

*Pierre Simon Laplace*
was born at Beaumont-en-Auge in Normandy on March 23, 1749, and died
at Paris on March 5, 1827. He was the son of a small cottager or
perhaps a farm-labourer, and owed his education to the interest
excited in some wealthy neighbours by his abilities and engaging
presence. Very little is known of his early years, for when he became
distinguished he had the pettiness to hold himself aloof both from his
relatives and from those who had assisted him. It would seem from a
pupil he became an usher in the school at Beaumont; but, having
procured a letter of introduction to D'Alembert, he went to Paris to
push his fortune. A paper on the principles of mechanics excited
D'Alembert's interest, and on his recommendation a place in the
military school was offered to Laplace.

Secure of a competency, Laplace now threw himself into original research, and in the next seventeen years, 1771-1787, he produced much of his original work in astronomy. This commenced with a memoir, read before the French Academy in 1773, in which he shewed that the planetary motions were stable, and carried the proof as far as the cubes of the eccentricities and inclinations. This was followed by several papers on points in the integral calculus, finite differences, differential equations, and astronomy.

During the years 1784-1787 he produced some memoirs of exceptional power. Prominent among these is one read in 1784, and reprinted in the third volume of the Méchanique céleste, in which he completely determined the attraction of a spheroid on a particle outside it. This is memorable for the introduction into analysis of spherical harmonics or Laplace's coefficients, as also for the development of the use of the potential - a name first given by Green in 1828.

If the co-ordinates of two points be
and
,
and if
,
then the reciprocal of
the distance between them can be expanded in powers of
*r*/*r*`'`,
and the
respective coefficients are Laplace's coefficients. Their utility
arises from the fact that every function of the co-ordinates of a
point on the sphere can be expanded in a series of them. It should
be stated that the similar coefficients for space of two dimensions,
together with some of their properties, had been previously given by
Legendre in a paper sent to the French Academy in 1783. Legendre had
good reason to complain of the way in which he was treated in this
matter.

This paper is also remarkable for the development of the idea of the potential, which was appropriated from Lagrange, who had used it in his memoirs of 1773, 1777 and 1780. Laplace shewed that the potential always satisfies the differential equation

and on this result his subsequent work on attractions was based. The quantity

This memoir was followed by another on planetary inequalities, which was presented in three sections in 1784, 1785, and 1786. This deals mainly with the explanation of the ``great inequality'' of Jupiter and Saturn. Laplace shewed by general considerations that the mutual action of two planets could never largely affect the eccentricities and inclinations of their orbits; and that the peculiarities of the Jovian system were due to the near approach to commensurability of the mean motions of Jupiter and Saturn: further developments of these theorems on planetary motion were given in his two memoirs of 1788 and 1789. It was on these data that Delambre computed his astronomical tables.

The year 1787 was rendered memorable by Laplace's explanation and analysis of the relation between the lunar acceleration and the secular changes in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit: this investigation completed the proof of the stability of the whole solar system on the assumption that it consists of a collection of rigid bodies moving in a vacuum. All the memoirs above alluded to were presented to the French Academy, and they are printed in the Mémoires présentés par divers savans.

Laplace now set himself the task to write a work which should ``offer a complete solution of the great mechanical problem presented by the solar system, and bring theory to coincide so closely with observation that empirical equations should no longer find a place in astronomical tables.'' The result is embodied in the Exposition du système du monde and the Méchanique céleste.

The former was published in 1796, and gives a general explanation of the phenomena, but omits all details. It contains a summary of the history of astronomy: this summary procured for its author the honour of admission to the forty of the French Academy; it is commonly esteemed one of the masterpieces of French literature, though it is not altogether reliable for the later periods of which it treats.

The nebular hypothesis was here enunciated. According to this hypothesis the solar system has been evolved from a globular mass of incandescent gas rotating around an axis through its centre of mass. As it cooled this mass contracted and successive rings broke off from its outer edge. These rings in their turn cooled, and finally condensed into the planets, while the sun represents the central core which is still left. On this view we should expect that the more distant planets would be older than those nearer the sun. The subject is one of great difficulty, and though it seems certain that the solar system has a common origin, there are various features which appear almost inexplicable on the nebular hypothesis as enunciated by Laplace.

Another theory which avoids many of the difficulties raised by Laplace's hypothesis has recently found favour. According to this, the origin of the solar system is to be found in the gradual aggregation of meteorites which swarm through our system, and perhaps through space. These meteorites which are normally cold may, by repeated collisions, be heated, melted, or even vaporized, and the resulting mass would, by the effect of gravity, be condensed into planet-like bodies - the larger aggregations so formed becoming the chief bodies of the solar system. To account for these collisions and condensations it is supposed that a vast number of meteorites were at some distant epoch situated in a spiral nebula, and that condensations and collisions took place at certain knots or intersections of orbits. As the resulting planetary masses cooled, moons or rings would be formed either by collisions of outlying parts or in the manner suggested in Laplace's hypothesis. This theory seems to be primarily due to Sir Norman Lockyer. It does not conflict with any of the known facts of cosmical science, but as yet our knowledge of the facts is so limited that it would be madness to dogmatize on the subject. Recent investigations have shown that our moon broke off from the earth while the latter was in a plastic condition owing to tidal friction. Hence its origin is neither nebular nor meteoric.

Probably the best modern opinion inclines to the view that nebular condensation, meteoric condensation, tidal friction, and possibly other causes as yet unsuggested, have all played their part in the evolution of the system.

The idea of the nebular hypothesis had been outlined by Kant in 1755, and he had also suggested meteoric aggregations and tidal friction as causes affecting the formation of the solar system: it is probable that Laplace was not aware of this.

According to the rule published by Titius of Wittemberg in 1766-but
generally known as Bode's Law, from the fact that attention was called
to it by Johann Elert Bode in 1778 - the distances of the planets from
the sun are nearly in the ratio of the numbers 0 + 4, 3 + 4,
6 + 4, 12+4, etc., the (*n*+2)th term being
( 3) + 4.
It would be an interesting fact if this could be deduced from the
nebular, meteoric, or any other hypotheses, but so far as I am aware
only one writer has made any serious attempt to do so, and his
conclusion seems to be that the law is not sufficiently exact to be
more than a convenient means of remembering the general result.

Laplace's analytical discussion of the solar system is given in his Méchanique céleste published in five volumes. An analysis of the contents is given in the English Cyclopaedia. The first two volumes, published in 1799, contain methods for calculating the motions of the planets, determining their figures, and resolving tidal problems. The third and fourth volumes, published in 1802 and 1805, contain applications of these methods, and several astronomical tables. The fifth volume, published in 1825, is mainly historical, but it gives as appendices the results of Laplace's latest researches. Laplace's own investigations embodied in it are so numerous and valuable that it is regrettable to have to add that many results are appropriated from writers with scanty or no acknowledgement, and the conclusions - which have been described as the organized result of a century of patient toil - are frequently mentioned as if they were due to Laplace.

The matter of the Méchanique céleste is excellent, but it is by no means easy reading. Biot, who assisted Laplace in revising it for the press, says that Laplace himself was frequently unable to recover the details in the chain of reasoning, and, if satisfied that the conclusions were correct, he was content to insert the constantly recurring formula, ``Il est aisé à voir.'' The Méchanique céleste is not only the translation of the Principia into the language of the differential calculus, but it completes parts of which Newton had been unable to fill in the details. F. F. Tisserand's recent work may be taken as the modern presentation of dynamical astronomy on classical lines, but Laplace's treatise will always remain a standard authority.

Laplace went in state to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ``M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.'' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ``Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.'' Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ``Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.''

In 1812 Laplace issued his Théorie analytique des probabilités. The theory is stated to be only common sense expressed in mathematical language. The method of estimating the ratio of the number of favourable cases to the whole number of possible cases had been indicated by Laplace in a paper written in 1779. It consists in treating the successive values of any function as the coefficients in the expansion of another function with reference to a different variable. The latter is therefore called the generating function of the former. Laplace then shews how, by means of interpolation, these coefficients may be determined from the generating function. Next he attacks the converse problem, and from the coefficients he finds the generating function; this is effected by the solution of an equation in finite differences. The method is cumbersome, and in consequence of the increased power of analysis is now rarely used.

This treatise includes an exposition of the method of least squares, a remarkable testimony to Laplace's command over the processes of analysis. The method of least squares for the combination of numerous observations had been given empirically by Gauss and Legendre, but the fourth chapter of this work contains a formal proof of it, on which the whole of the theory of errors has been since based. This was effected only by a most intricate analysis specially invented for the purpose, but the form in which it is presented is so meagre and unsatisfactory that in spite of the uniform accuracy of the results it was at one time questioned whether Laplace had actually gone through the difficult work he so briefly and often incorrectly indicates.

In 1819 Laplace published a popular account of his work on probability. This book bears the same relation to the Théorie des probabilités that the Système du monde does to the Méchanique céleste.

Amongst the minor discoveries of Laplace in pure mathematics I may mention his discussion (simultaneously with Vandermonde) of the general theory of determinants in 1772; his proof that every equations of an even degree must have at least one real quadratic factor; his reduction of the solution of linear differential equations to definite integrals; and his solution of the linear partial differential equation of the second order. He was also the first to consider the difficult problems involved in equations of mixed differences, and to prove that the solution of an equation in finite differences of the first degree and the second order might be always obtained in the form of a continued fraction. Besides these original discoveries he determined, in his theory of probabilities, the values of a number of the more common definite integrals; and in the same book gave the general proof of the theorem enunciated by Lagrange for the development of any implicit function in a series by means of differential coefficients.

In theoretical physics the theory of capillary attraction is due to Laplace, who accepted the idea propounded by Hauksbee in the Philosophical Transactions for 1709, that the phenomenon was due to a force of attraction which was insensible at sensible distances. The part which deals with the action of a solid on a liquid and the mutual action of two liquids was not worked out thoroughly, but ultimately was completed by Gauss: Neumann later filled in a few details. In 1862 Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson) shewed that, if we assume the molecular constitution of matter, the laws of capillary attraction can be deduced from the Newtonian law of gravitation.

Laplace in 1816 was the first to point out explicitly why Newton's theory of vibratory motion gave an incorrect value for the velocity of sound. The actual velocity is greater than that calculated by Newton in consequence of the heat developed by the sudden compression of the air which increases the elasticity and therefore the velocity of the sound transmitted. Laplace's investigations in practical physics were confined to those carried on by him jointly with Lavoisier in the years 1782 to 1784 on the specific heat of various bodies.

Laplace seems to have regarded analysis merely as a means of attacking physical problems, though the ability with which he invented the necessary analysis is almost phenomenal As long as his results were true he took but little trouble to explain the steps by which he arrived at them; he never studied elegance or symmetry in his processes, and it was sufficient for him if he could by any means solve the particular question he was discussing.

It would have been well for Laplace's reputation if he had been content with his scientific work, but above all things he coveted social fame. The skill and rapidity with which he managed to change his politics as occasion required would be amusing had they not been so servile. As Napoleon's power increased Laplace abandoned his republican principles (which, since they had faithfully reflected the opinions of the party in power, had themselves gone through numerous changes) and begged the first consul to give him the post of minister of the interior. Napoleon, who desired the support of men of science, agreed to the proposal; but a little less than six weeks saw the close of Laplace's political career. Napoleon's memorandum on his dismissal is as follows: ``Géomètre de premier rang, Laplace ne tarda pas à se montrer administrateur plus que médiocre; dès son premier travail nous reconnûmes que nous nous étions trompé. Laplace ne saisissait aucune question sous son véritable point de vue: il cherchait des subtilités partout, n'avait que des idées problématiques, et portait enfin l'esprit des `infiniment petits' jusque dans l'administration.''

Although Laplace was removed from office it was desirable to retain his allegiance. He was accordingly raised to the senate, and to the third volume of the Méchanique céleste he prefixed a note that of all the truths therein contained the most precious to the author was the declaration he thus made of his devotion towards the peacemaker of Europe. In copies sold after the restoration this was struck out. In 1814 it was evident that the empire was falling; Laplace hastened to tender his services to the Bourbons, and on the restoration was rewarded with the title of marquis: the contempt that his more honest colleagues felt for his conduct in the matter may be read in the pages of Paul Louis Courier. His knowledge was useful on the numerous scientific commissions on which he served, and probably accounts for the manner in which his political insincerity was overlooked; but the pettiness of his character must not make us forget how great were his services to science.

That Laplace was vain and selfish is not denied by his warmest admirers; his conduct to the benefactors of his youth and his political friends was ungrateful and contemptible; while his appropriation of the results of those who were comparatively unknown seems to be well established and is absolutely indefensible - of those whom he thus treated three subsequently rose to distinction (Legendre and Fourier in France and Young in England) and never forgot the injustice of which they had been the victims. On the other side it may be said that on some questions he shewed independence of character, and he never concealed his views on religion, philosophy, or science, however distasteful they might be to the authorities in power; it should be also added that towards the close of his life, and especially to the work of his pupils, Laplace was both generous and appreciative, and in one case suppressed a paper of his own in order that a pupil might have the sole credit of the investigation.

This page is included in a collection of mathematical biographies taken from A Short Account of the History of Mathematics by W. W. Rouse Ball (4th Edition, 1908).

Transcribed by

(

School of Mathematics

Trinity College, Dublin