Mary Somerville’s life as a mathematician and savant in nineteenth-century Great Britain
was heavily influenced by her gender; as a woman, her access to the ideas and resources
developed and circulated in universities and scientific societies was highly restricted.
However, her engagement with learned institutions was by no means nonexistent, and
although she was 90 before being elected a full member of any society (Società Geografica
Italiana, 1870), Somerville (Figure 1) nevertheless benefited from the resources and
social networks cultivated by such institutions from as early as 1812. A key intermediary
between Somerville and these societies was her husband, Dr. William Somerville, whose
mediation was vital to her access to knowledge and her subsequent career as a scientific
author. In this paper we will consider how spousal cooperation enabled the overcoming
of gendered barriers to scientific institutions in the nineteenth century.
Figure 1
Self-portait of Mary Somerville. Courtesy of Somerville College, University of Oxford.
In considering the role of women in science and mathematics, we see that scientific
societies and institutions usually play an exclusionary role. Women in Britain had
no access to higher education until the founding of Bedford College, London, in 1848,
and to this day, there has been no female Astronomer Royal (a prestigious post for
a nineteenth-century mathematician). Although no scientific learned society had a
formal statute barring women during Somerville’s lifetime, there was nonetheless a
great reluctance even to allow women into the buildings, never mind to endow them
with the rights of members. Except for the visit of the prolific author Margaret Cavendish
in 1667, the Royal Society of London did not invite women into their hallowed halls
until 1876, with the commencement of their second conversazione
[15, 163], which women were permitted to attend.1 As late as 1886, on the nomination
of Isis Pogson as a fellow, the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society chose to
interpret their constitution as explicitly excluding women
[12].2 National societies that aimed to promote mathematics specifically were not
founded until near the end of Somerville’s life, namely the London Mathematical Society
in 1865 and the Société Mathématique de France in 1872, and again there was a significant
delay before women were elected members.3
However, focusing too heavily on membership alone can distort our understanding of
the influence that these institutions exerted. It can furthermore lead to underestimating
the role played by informal knowledge exchange through letter correspondence and polite
sociability,4 activities that took place adjacent to the institutions themselves.5
As Charles Babbage (1791–1871) noted in his 1830 polemic against the Royal Society,
only 109 out of 714 fellows had contributed a paper to the Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (Phil. Trans.)
[4, 154–155], while Caroline Herschel (1750–1848), who was never affiliated even as
an honorary member, had thrice published descriptions of her discoveries of new comets.6
For women, membership itself could be the least significant interaction with these
institutions.
Mary Somerville as an Honorary Member
Mary Somerville (1780–1872, née Fairfax7) was a Scottish mathematician and scientist
who was remembered on her death as “one of the most distinguished astronomers and
philosophers of the day”
[31] in
[46, Vol. 1]. In her lifetime she published four books, which cumulatively went through
17 editions (not including the many pirated editions published in the United States
of America), as well as appearing in translation in French, German, and Italian. Somerville
also had papers published in the Philosophical Transactions and the Quarterly Review,
and extracts from her letters were published in the Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des
Sciences and the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal
[46].
Although her gender precluded her from attending university or holding full memberships
in scientific academies relevant to her mathematical and scientific research, Somerville
was awarded multiple honorary memberships. The earliest of these were in recognition
of her first book, Mechanism of the Heavens, published in 1831
[43]. A translation and adaptation of Pierre-Simon Laplace’s formative Traité de mécanique
céleste
[23], this book in four parts played a key role in the circulation of calculus in
Great Britain and was recommended to students studying at Cambridge University in
the 1830s
[9], [47, p. 172].
The Naval and Military Library and Museum of London was the first society to list
Somerville as an honorary member, on 21 September 1832. This was followed in 1834
by election to the Société de Physique et d’Histoire Naturelle de Genève and the Royal
Irish Academy, Dublin. Mary Somerville and Caroline Herschel were the first women
to be elected honorary members of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), in February
1835, and later that year, Somerville could add a certificate of honorary membership
of the Bristol Philosophical and Literary Society to her collection
[47, 172–176].8 Although Mary Somerville was never elected a Fellow of the Royal Society,
in 1832, sixty-four fellows pledged £156.10 to commission a marble bust of her to
be placed in the society’s meeting room (see Figure 2), in order to pay tribute to
“the powers of the female mind, and at the same time establish an imperishable record
of the perfect compatibility of the most exemplary discharge of the softer duties
of domestic life, with the highest researches in mathematical philosophy.”9
Figure 2
Marble bust of Mary Somerville by Francis Chantrey, Royal Society of London. Photograph
by the author, reproduced by permission of the Royal Society. Photograph by the author,
reproduced by permission of the Royal Society.
These honorary memberships appear not to have benefited Somerville in any meaningful
way. Payment of an admission fee and subsequent yearly subscription gave members of
the RAS access to the society’s meeting rooms and the right to append the letters
FRAS after their name
[4, 43]. In the letter from Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871, professor of mathematics
at University College London and secretary of the RAS) in which he informs Somerville
of her election to honorary membership, there is no suggestion that she is liable
for this admission cost. Nor is her entitlement to these privileges made clear.10
Indeed, although she was certainly aware of her honorary election to the RAS when
it occurred, and later mentioned the election in her autobiographic Personal Recollections
[47, 173], when visiting the society in 1844 she claimed to be unaware that the election
had even taken place!11 Whether this was because she had genuinely forgotten or because
she felt unable to assert her right to enter the building on the basis of her own
membership is impossible to say; nevertheless, this clearly suggests that she had
not made free use of the space since her election in 1835. None of the other societies
that bestowed honorary membership on Somerville were based in London (where she resided
until 1838), so even had she wanted to attend meetings or make use of the facilities,
that would have been expensive and difficult. Similarly, Somerville did not advertise
her affiliations with learned societies by appending the appropriate letters to her
name when signing her correspondence, nor in the title pages of her publications,
where she appeared merely as “Mrs Somerville” until 1835 and “Mary Somerville” from
then on.12
As we will see, thanks in large part to her husband, long before her honorary memberships
Somerville had already been successfully circumventing the barriers she faced to engage
with the communities centered on the learned academies in London, Paris, and Geneva.
Society Memberships of Dr. William Somerville
Mary Somerville married her cousin Dr. William Somerville (1771–1860) in May 1812.
Throughout his life, William was interested in natural philosophy, although, as was
still usual at the time he treated it, more as a “gentlemanly pursuit” than a serious
vocation. As an army surgeon, William was posted to South Africa in the 1790s, where
he wrote of his interactions with the local population, as well as descriptions of
the local wildlife (Fig. 3).13 He was later posted to Malta and Canada before returning
to Scotland in 1811, when he proposed to Somerville. After a brief time in Portsmouth,
the newly married couple settled in Edinburgh in 1813, when William was appointed
head of the Army Medical Department in North Britain
[34, 6–8].
Figure 3
Portrait of William Somerville. Oil on Canvas. Courtesy of Somerville College, University
of Oxford.
The social connections that the Somervilles made while in Edinburgh were vital to
their later entry into polite scientific society in London and during their tours
of Europe in 1817, 1824, and 1831. In January 1813, William was elected an Ordinary
Member14 of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), having been proposed by John Playfair
(1748–1819), who was then the holder of the chair in natural philosophy at the University
of Edinburgh and secretary of the RSE
[2, 542],
[50, 869].15 During the same election, zoologist Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) and mathematician
Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827) were elected as honorary members, both of whom the
Somervilles would later meet in Paris. In 1816, just before moving to London on William’s
appointment as a principal inspector of the Army Medical Board, the Somervilles became
acquainted with Leonard Horner (1785–1864, a factory inspector and FRSE from 1816),
possibly through their RSE connection. Horner played a key role in the Somervilles’
new life in London; through a letter of introduction, he facilitated their acquaintance
with Alexander (1770–1822) and Jane Marcet (1769–1858), a physician and scientific
author respectively. In his letter, Horner described William Somerville as “a very
good fellow, & his wife a very interesting woman. She is a person of extraordinary
acquirements, particularly in mathematics”
[34, 12].
The Somervilles appear to have been welcomed into London scientific society with open
arms
[34, 12–14]. By December 1817, William Somerville had been elected a Fellow of the
Royal Society, and Alexander Marcet was one of seventeen signatories on his certificate
of election alongside mathematician John Herschel (1792–1871), Astronomer Royal John
Pond (1767–1836), as well as chemists and future presidents of the society Sir Humphry
Davy (1778–1829) and William Hyde Wollaston (1766–1828).16 The certificate notes William’s
acquirements in natural history and mineralogy, and that he was by this point already
a fellow of the Linnean Society and the Geological Society.17
We highlight here that it was only William’s acquirements that made him eligible for
membership in the Royal Society; but what of Somerville’s acquirements? Playfair,
who nominated William for membership of the RSE, was certainly aware of her mathematical
aptitude, as together they had discussed Laplace’s Mécanique céleste, and in June
1812, he wrote a letter of introduction for the Somervilles, addressed to William
Herschel, in which he claimed that Somerville was “distinguished by knowledge of the
Mathematical Sciences rarely to be met with in men,” noting especially her studies
in geometry, algebra, and astronomy
[47, 81].18 A year earlier, Somerville had written to Playfair’s former mentee William
Wallace (1768–1843, professor of mathematics at the Royal Military College) with a
solution to a mathematical puzzle circulated in the New Series of the Mathematical
Repository, which was subsequently published in the periodical and for which Somerville
was awarded a silver medal; this led to a fruitful correspondence in which Wallace
supported Somerville’s mathematical studies by setting questions and critiquing her
solutions
[48]. Somerville’s reputation for excellence became so widely known that in 1822,
novelist Maria Edgeworth (1768–1849) described her as “the lady whom La Place mentions
as the only woman in England who understands his works,”19 and in 1826, when Henry
Brougham (1778–1868, first Baron Brougham and Vaux and founder of the Society for
the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge) desired to commission a translation of Mécanique
céleste into English, he claimed that if Somerville was unable to complete the work,
then it would have to be left undone, as “none else can”
[47, 161–162]. Furthermore, alongside knowledge of natural philosophy more broadly
or employment in universities, being “conversant” in mathematics was used as justification
for the election of 25 new fellows of the Royal Society during this time of Somerville’s
increasing renown, and in 1823, Lewis Evans was elected purely for being “a Gentleman
well skilled in Mathematics and Astronomy.”20 Therefore, the absence of Somerville’s
nomination, to the Royal Society at least, was clearly an issue of gender.
Nevertheless, Somerville was by no means isolated from scientific societies, for she
was able to engage in the polite sociability surrounding and connecting these closed
institutions, which was a key component of scientific and mathematical activity. Moreover,
William actively shared the benefits of his memberships, and, depending on the situation,
took on the roles of Somerville’s chaperone, secretary, representative, or even literary
agent. We will investigate each of these in turn, to illuminate the ways in which
Somerville’s engagement in mathematical and scientific communities was affected and
improved through her husband’s assistance.
William Somerville as Chaperone
On her marriage to William, Somerville’s social and geographical mobility was transformed,
since with a husband who shared her scientific interests and enjoyment of polite company,
she now had a constant companion and eager chaperone.
Although British women from the middle and upper classes had been global travelers
since at least the early eighteenth century, it was very rare for a woman to travel
alone. Very often, a woman would travel with her spouse as a companion or as a collaborator
taking an active part in observation and collecting, depending on the purpose of the
travel; without a family member to act as chaperone, women were otherwise dependent
on finding paid servants or local guides willing to accompany them
[29, 29].21 Travel costs were prohibitive enough to the Somervilles even without the
added cost of paying for a maid to act as a companion and provide childcare on the
go, and in 1832, Somerville lamented that she was forced to be “stationary all summer
[because] moving is so expensive”
[34, 94].22
The importance of a chaperone is underlined in Somerville’s letters from Francis Jeffrey
(1773–1850, editor of the Edinburgh Review), in which he implored her to attend the
1834 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS),
which took place in her former home city, Edinburgh. He expressed his great disappointment
that she was not intending to travel north for the meeting, both for the personal
loss of her good company and for the fact that the first Scottish meeting of the BAAS
would be deprived of the honor of her attendance. Jeffrey acknowledged the inconvenience
to William to be so far from London at that time as the reason for Somerville’s intended
absence, and asked,
if the inconvenience is insurmountable, should not you come without him? If I were
in your neighbourhood I should whisper this in your private ear, in the most seductive
terms ... the Dr did allow you to stay Heaven knows how many months in the profligate
Paris without him. I cannot but hope that he may consent your being as many weeks
in our moral Edinburgh.23
That Jeffrey should feel the need to convince Somerville to travel without her spouse
in a “private seductive whisper” strongly suggests that he was aware that it would
be a decision that could not be made lightly. Moreover, his recourse to the moral
standing of Edinburgh makes clear that the difficulties and dangers lay not just in
the travel itself (the journey from London to Edinburgh would have taken around 10
days by coach), but also in attending society and BAAS gatherings while in the city.24
With the accompaniment of her husband, Somerville was able to expand her circle of
acquaintances beyond Edinburgh by traveling not only within the UK, but to France,
Prussia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the Italian peninsula. Within a year of
their wedding in 1812, the Somervilles traveled to Marlow (near London) to visit Somerville’s
mentor William Wallace, with whom she had previously interacted only via letter. It
was perhaps at this time that Wallace gave Somerville his copy of Joseph Louis Lagrange’s
Théorie des fonctions analytiques and offered advice on which texts she should purchase
for her personal mathematical library
[47, 79].25 Wallace also escorted the newlyweds to Slough, where they met the astronomer
William Herschel (1738–1822) and his son John Herschel, who was later a signatory
on William Somerville’s certificate to election of the Royal Society and instrumental
in the preparation of Mechanism of the Heavens.26
In 1817, the Somervilles embarked on a journey through France, Switzerland, and the
Papal States. Letters of introduction to people of note who resided in travelers’
intended destinations were vital in facilitating entry into the local polite society
[29, 48]. Having already met Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774–1862) and François Arago (1786–1853)
in London, on arriving in Paris, the Somervilles gained easy access to the most prestigious
learned institutions and became acquainted with many of the best-known philosophers
of the day. During her two weeks in the city, Somerville heard papers read at the
Institut de France, visited astronomer Claude Louis Mathieu (1783–1875) at the Paris
Observatory, and received “the greatest attention” from Gabrielle Biot (1781–1851,
a scientific translator and wife of Jean-Baptiste), who organized a dinner in order
to introduce Somerville to “les personnes distinguees [sic],” including mathematician
Siméon-Denis Poisson (1781–1840) and geographer Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859).27
Near the end of their visit, the couple were hosted by Pierre-Simon Laplace at Arcueil;
that Somerville was able to meet and impress the mathematician whose work she was
so well known for having studied when few others in Britain were capable of doing
so was invaluable to both her intellectual pursuits and her reputation. The claim
that mathematicians benefit from discussing concepts and ideas with “colleagues” will
be, I hope, uncontroversial, and although Somerville had previously benefited from
such intellectual exchange through her aforementioned discussions of Laplace’s Mécanique
céleste with John Playfair, in his 1808 review of the work, Playfair himself admitted
to his own limited understanding of the advanced mathematics it contained
[36, 275]. At dinner in Arcueil, Somerville engaged Laplace in discussions of his
scientific works that were clearly not vacuous, since seven years later, he wrote
to Somerville claiming that “the interest which you deign to take in my work flatters
me all the more as there are few other readers and judges so enlightened”
[18, 1250–1251].28 Moreover, he enclosed a copy of the fifth edition of his Système
du monde for Somerville to add to her personal collection of mathematical texts, giving
her the freedom to consult it at her leisure.29 This endorsement from Laplace compounded
Somerville’s reputation as an expert mathematician and was echoed throughout contemporary
accounts of her life, not only in the description given by Edgeworth above, but even
showing up in the diary of Queen Victoria in 1838.30
Beyond an increased geographical mobility, Somerville’s marriage to William also increased
her mobility within polite scientific society itself. On moving to London in 1816,
the Somervilles took up residence at Hanover Square, in London’s fashionable West
End, where they were well positioned to engage in the social calls and occasions that
made up London society. In her Personal Recollections, Somerville recounts numerous
instances of engaging in informal experiments or making observations in the homes
and gardens of her friends. One such anecdote entails testing the power of a telescope
by making observations of double stars (a pair of stars that appear close together
and often require a powerful telescope to distinguish them individually) with Henry
(1777–1835) and Mary Frances Kater (1784–1833) until the early hours of the morning.
On their way home, the Somervilles noticed a light in the window of Thomas Young (1773–1829,
author of an anonymous partial translation of Mécanique céleste
[51]), and on ringing his bell, they were invited inside to see an Egyptian papyrus
that Young had just identified as a horoscope. The dates and details of such stories
as given by Somerville are often unreliable, but the impression remains (and is borne
out in extant correspondence) that she was able to enjoy close personal connections
as well as intellectual exchanges through her lively social life.
While there is little extant evidence of how Somerville was able to cultivate social
connections with such a vast array of notable scientists and luminaries, it is likely
that the Somervilles’ participation in scientific societies and institutions played
a key role. Hanover Square was within walking distance of the Royal Institution (RI)
on Albemarle Street, which soon after its founding in 1799 had been absorbed into
the London social season with “subscribers” attending lectures in the same way that
they would attend the opera or theater
[47, 107],
[25, 113]. Women were eligible for all levels of membership of the RI,31 and indeed,
between 1800 and 1812, women often outnumbered men in the audiences of lectures, which
covered scientific topics such as mechanics, chemistry, and botany, as well as painting,
architecture, and poetry
[25, 123–124]. While we know a little bit about William’s engagement with the RI,
namely that he was listed as an annual subscriber in 1816 and later named on the “List
of Managers of the Royal Institution”
[34, 11,91], less is known about Somerville’s. A “Mrs Greig of Great Russell Street”
subscribed to the RI in 1805, when Somerville lived in London with her first husband,
and a “Mrs Somerville of Hanover Square” subscribed to the lectures in 1825.32 Somerville
does not allude to her RI membership in 1805, but does recall attending the lectures,
frequently with William, on her return from traveling in Europe in 1818
[47, 107].
Founders of scientific societies consciously recognized the importance of facilitating
social connections; when the Royal Society of Edinburgh was founded in 1783, one of
its three objectives was to provide a “personal and informal” social space for fellows
(the other two being to assemble a library and publish a periodical)
[8, 8]. The Geological Society (of which William was a member) noted the importance
of connecting those with scientific interests as “the remarks which are made by separate
inquirers, however interesting in themselves, are less valuable from being unconnected”
[38, v–vi]. Thus as a member of multiple societies, as well as gentlemen’s clubs such
as the Athenaeum and exclusive dining clubs such as the Pow-Wow Club, William was
well placed to meet the brightest stars in British science
[34, 32].
William Somerville as Representative
Nonetheless, even with such an able and willing chaperone, there were doors that remained
closed to Somerville. In an undated letter from mathematician Charles Babbage, Babbage
gives the details of a dinner to which both William and Somerville are expected, and
then the time and location of the inaugural meeting of the Statistical Society, which
was cofounded by Babbage in 1834.33 Babbage and Somerville were well acquainted by
1834 and had shared a distinctly mathematical discourse; within their extant correspondence
we see Somerville invited to Babbage’s house to view his “calculating machine,” and
Babbage offering advice during the preparation of Mechanism of the Heavens. Multiple
letters mention the sharing of mathematical papers such as John Herschel’s and Augustus
De Morgan’s articles in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, and manuscripts of five of
Babbage’s own articles can be found in the Mary Somerville Papers (see Figure 4).34
Meanwhile, the correspondence between Babbage and William focuses for the most part
on social engagements. Yet it was only to William that the invitation to the inaugural
meeting of the Statistical Society was extended.
Figure 4
Front matter of manuscript copy of a Phil. Trans. paper by Charles Babbage.
Therefore, within the physical spaces of the scientific societies, William was required
to act as Somerville’s representative and advocate. One of the most visible and significant
instances of this took place in February 1826, when William communicated Somerville’s
paper “On the magnetizing power of the more refrangible solar rays” to the Royal Society.
When subsequently printed in the Phil. Trans., this paper was Somerville’s first publication
under her own name
[42].
According to their daughter, who edited Somerville’s Personal Recollections, William
would visit libraries of the learned societies on Somerville’s behalf to source books
she required
[47, 85]. This is corroborated in the lending records of the Royal Society, in which
his name appears 15 times between 1825 and 1840: in 1828, he took out two volumes
of Roger Long’s Astronomy, in five books
[26]; in 1832, he borrowed Poisson’s Nouvelle théorie de l’action capillaire, Biot’s
Précis élémentaire de physique expérimentale, and volume 106 of the Phil. Trans.,
which contained mathematical papers by both Babbage and John Herschel from their time
in the Analytical Society;35 entries in 1834 include Volume 9 of the Philosophical
Magazine and Volume 3 of the Mémoires d’Arcueil; and finally, in 1837, William borrowed
Volumes 1 to 13 of the Comptes Rendus. Therefore, Somerville had access to expensive
texts, many of which were published overseas and would otherwise have been very difficult
to source. Regardless of whether William did in fact borrow these books specifically
for Somerville, they would almost certainly have been available for her to read at
home. Moreover, during 1832, 1834, and 1837, Somerville was in the process of preparing
successive editions of her second book, On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences
(see below), and the texts borrowed by William would have been indispensable in preparing
and revising that work.
Communication of ideas at this time did not rely solely on printed texts; information
was passed to Somerville within epistolary correspondence itself. The astronomer Francis
Baily (1774–1884, cofounder and at that time a vice president of the RAS) wrote to
William in February 1833 that he “should be most happy to answer Mrs. Somerville’s
enquiries, relative to the compression of the Earth.”36 Although he felt he could
not add anything to what Somerville already knew, Baily used the measurements of the
Earth’s semiaxis and equatorial radius from George Biddell Airy’s 1830 paper on the
“Figure of the Earth” to give an estimate of the compression of the Earth
[1] and expressed his disappointment that those measurements did not make a closer
match with the compression calculated from pendulum experiments. Baily concluded his
letter by asking William to reassure Somerville that he would be “at all times most
happy to communicate [to Somerville] any information in [his] power.”
Moreover, while at a society council meeting in March 1832, William Somerville, on
behalf of his wife, solicited William Broderip (1789–1859, a magistrate, enthusiastic
shell collector, and an original fellow of the Zoological Society) for information
regarding plants of the Himalayas.37 The next day, Broderip wrote to Somerville directly
to supplement the “few hints [he] was able to give [William] during council.”38 Broderip
directs Somerville to John Gould’s A Century of Birds from the Himalaya Mountains
[16]; lists twenty varieties of flora to demonstrate that the same genera (although
different species) of flowers are found in both the Himalayas and the Alps; and begs
Somerville to visit the nursery of a “Mr. Knight” before the end of spring in order
to see his specimen of the Nepalese flower Rhododendron arboreum in bloom.
Therefore, although Somerville was not directly involved in the frequent comings and
goings of the social clubs and learned societies of nineteenth-century London, through
the active participation of her husband she was nonetheless able to engage with and
benefit from the easy and informal exchange of information that took place there.
Furthermore, similarly to her contemporaries, Somerville pursued mathematics alongside
at least mineralogy, botany, and chemistry; this breadth of interests allowed for
more meaningful engagement in a scientific community that placed little value on specialization
or esoteric knowledge.39
William Somerville as Secretary
Figure 5
Letter of 1838 from Henry Bowditch addressed to “Mrs Somerville, to the care of Dr
Somerville, Chelsea Hospital, near London.”
Although Somerville was a prolific letter writer and maintained a vast network of
personal correspondents throughout Western Europe for much of her life, a significant
proportion of her correspondence was mediated through her husband, not least because
William’s increased visibility as a professional man, specifically surgeon general
at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, meant that he was more easily contactable than Somerville;
if their personal address was unknown, letters could instead be addressed to that
institution, to be forwarded.
On returning to the United States of America after being hosted in Chelsea by the
Somervilles, Henry Ingersoll Bowditch (1808–1892, American physician and abolitionist)
wrote directly to Mary Somerville but addressed the letter “Mrs Somerville, to the
care of Dr Somerville, Surgeon of the Royal Chelsea Hospital.”40 In his letter, Bowditch
updated Somerville on the progress of his father Nathaniel Bowditch’s own annotated
translation of Laplace’s Mécanique céleste and, following on from a conversation with
William at Chelsea, where Bowditch heard of her desire for a sample of “Green Feldspar,”
sent a selection of minerals that he thought might be of interest to her. Bowditch
sent a further three letters to Somerville via the Royal Chelsea Hospital; the last
letter was again addressed “care of Dr Somerville” and was sent after a period of
silence lasting three years (see Figure 5).41
Similarly, Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874), a Belgian astronomer and mathematician whom
the Somervilles had met while visiting Brussels in 1824, addressed his letter of 26
September 1827 to Dr. William Somerville at the Chelsea Hospital (see Figure 6); it
was subsequently redirected to their rented accommodation in central London, 6 Curzon
Street (written in pencil)
[34, 51].42 Thus, in a community where families often had multiple houses or would
change location for the social season, it was beneficial to have a permanent professional
address to which letters could be sent.
Figure 6
Letter from Adolphe Quetelet addressed to “Monsieur le Docteur Somerville de la société
royale &c., hospital de Chelsea à Londres.”
In addition to being a reliable point of contact, William acted as a node through
which books and papers could be passed to Somerville. Quetelet accompanied his aforementioned
letter with the second volume of Correspondance mathématique et physique to be presented
to Somerville as “a small token of respect for the talents and amiable qualities for
which she is distinguished.”43 This volume was edited by Quetelet and contained a
French translation of Somerville’s 1826 paper on magnetism, written by himself
[39]. In another instance, the mathematician Augustus De Morgan sent William the volumes
of Jean Sylvain Bailly’s Histoire de l’astronomie moderne
[5], asking him to present them to “Mrs Somerville” and assure her that she can keep
them as long as she would like.44
Two years before her election to honorary membership in the Royal Astronomical Society,
at the Annual General Meeting of 1833, the council ordered the Greenwich Observations
to be made available to Somerville to assist in her work. The Greenwich Observations,
or The Astronomical Observations Made at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, was a compendium
of observations published annually under the remit of the astronomer royal. Both the
Royal Society and the RAS were granted the privilege of distributing a number of copies
as they saw fit; a list of recipients was printed in the Memoirs of the RAS, which
included observatories and scientific institutions across Europe, India, and the USA,
as well as around 50 individuals. Somerville’s name was included in Volume 5, in 1833,
up until Volume 27, published in 1859, after which the lists stopped appearing
[17].45 In the letter from Francis Baily of February 1833 (mentioned above), Baily
informed William that all volumes of the Greenwich Observations printed so far were
ready to be delivered to Somerville. Baily suggested that they be left for William
at the Athenaeum Club, where he could collect them at his convenience and ensure their
safe delivery to Somerville.46
William Somerville as Literary Agent
During the 1830s, Somerville began using her acquired knowledge to supplement her
income through the publication of books. Her husband thus began to take on a new role,
as an informal literary agent. That is to say, William took charge of the correspondence
with her publishers dealing with finances and accounts, and other business-oriented
tasks necessary to publish a book
[34, 117],
[32, 69]. The professional role of the “literary agent” was not formalized until the
late nineteenth century, but the gentlemen’s clubs in London had long been a space
for those with literary aspirations to make “strategic friendships” or to further
their business interests
[21, 131,133]. Thus, as an active member of the Athenaeum Club and Royal Society,
William was well placed to assist Somerville in becoming a published author.
Although Henry Brougham had been socially acquainted with Mary Somerville since the
turn of the century, it was to William he wrote when seeking an author for a translation
of Laplace’s Mécanique céleste. In his letter dated 27 March 1827, reproduced in
[47, 161–162], Brougham informed William that he wished for an account of Laplace,
in English, that explained its “vast merit, the wonderful truths unfolded or methodized—and
the calculus by which all this is accomplished.” When Brougham subsequently decided
that the account that Somerville had produced was too long and technical to be printed
as part of his Library of Useful Knowledge as initially planned, it was William who
then arranged for the work to be printed by John Murray (1778–1843, a fellow Scot
and publisher of Sir Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel in 1830)
[34, 75]. In addition, he sent some of the introductory sheets to Charles Babbage
and solicited potential titles under which the work might be printed. Although Babbage
was impressed by the pages he read, he was unable to offer any title suggestions in
his reply to William.47
After much deliberation, the title Mechanism of the Heavens was decided upon, and
the book appeared in print in November 1831. Around 70 copies were presented by Somerville
to her friends and contemporaries
[34, 118], many of whom replied with letters to William exclaiming their thanks and
delight; Francis Baily thought the work invaluable for the “improvement” of the public
and wished that he could soon pay his respects to Somerville in person.48 Editor of
the Edinburgh Review Macvey Napier wrote to William to discuss arrangements for a
review to appear in the March edition of said journal,49 and after hearing from John
Herschel about Somerville’s “great work on the Mécanique Céleste,” Quetelet wrote
to William to notify him that an announcement of the book would appear in Correspondances
Mathématiques et Physiques.50
In his letter of thanks, again addressed to William, Henry Kater remarks that “Mrs
Somerville has now publickly taken her station in science ... [which] is a very lofty
one & such as no woman ever before reached.”51 Although the public and private spheres
have often been identified as distinct and separate in nineteenth-century Britain,
with women becoming more and more confined to the domestic private sphere during this
time, Kater’s letter clearly highlights how the nature of Somerville’s presence in
these spheres, like that of so many other middle- and upper-class women at the time,
was anything but straightforward.52 Unable to fully engage in public scientific discourse
through memberships in learned societies or appointments at universities or observatories,
Somerville’s mathematical and scientific pursuits nonetheless relied upon and unfolded
in both spheres.
Almost immediately after the publication of Mechanism of the Heavens, Somerville began
preparing her next book. Although it contained no mathematical formulas, Connexion
of the Physical Sciences
[44] continued Somerville’s work in publicizing and advocating for the adoption of
the mathematics contained within Laplace’s work. Indeed, many of the passages on physical
astronomy are taken from her first book but are repurposed to demonstrate the fecundity
of the mathematics without going into technical details. For example, when discussing
the figure of the Earth, Somerville describes how “the moon’s eclipses show the earth
to be round, and her inequalities not only determine the form, but the internal structure
of our planet; results of analysis which could not have been anticipated”
[44, 42]. In her conclusion, it is mathematical analysis that provides the “connexion”
between the physical sciences, and will “ultimately embrace almost every subject in
nature in its formulae”
[44, 413].
William continued to assist Somerville in the preparation of this second book, consulting
with Francis Baily over the formatting and typesetting of measurements, and sending
sheets to William Whewell (1794–1866, former member of the Analytical Society and
later master of Trinity College, Cambridge) to be proofread before publication
[34, 130]. During her time in Paris between 1832 and 1833, Somerville had discussed
her upcoming work with the new professor of natural history at the University of Edinburgh,
James David Forbes (1809–1868). Since Connexion was not to be published until after
the academic year had begun, Forbes reached out to William to request a manuscript
copy of the work so he could give an account of it in his lectures.53 Two months later,
Forbes wrote again, thanking William for sending him the sheets of “Mrs Somerville’s
delightful book,” noting two corrections but refusing the request of writing a review
for the Quarterly Review, citing his prior commitments.54 Again, these letters to
William came after Forbes had written directly to Somerville earlier that same year
and had obviously met her in person when they both visited Paris. Thus for matters
of business, as the publication of her books was seen to be, many of Somerville’s
correspondents preferred to communicate through her husband, who, it seems, was only
too happy to oblige.
Final Remarks
Viewing the Somervilles as a collaborative couple adds a wholly new perspective to
existing literature on nineteenth-century scientific married couples. While
[27] goes some way to deconstructing the pervasive husband-creator/wife-assistant
narrative, nevertheless in the given case studies of heterosexual couples, it was
the man who was the more visible, productive, or respected member of the partnership,
especially when scientific labor was the primary focus. Moreover, Somerville’s close
engagement with the scientific institutions of the day, which were nominally closed
to women, adds greater depth to histories that usually focus on the “firsts” to overcome
barriers to their inclusion—first woman to publish a paper, first woman to be elected
a member, and so on.55 Through the collaboration of her husband, Somerville was able
to engage meaningfully with the scientific communities centered on these institutions,
over a century before the Royal Society eventually began electing women as members
or Cambridge University granted women degrees.
The ways in which Somerville actively benefited from her marriage to William were
multifaceted. With William to act as her willing chaperone, Somerville was able to
travel more freely within society and across Europe, enabling her to engage personally
with philosophers and savants throughout Western Europe. He also mediated much of
Somerville’s correspondence, including the receipts of books and papers, and acted
as a stable point of contact through his professional affiliations. Finally, as Somerville’s
career as an author grew, William gained a new role in their relationship by taking
ownership of the business-oriented tasks that were necessary to carry a book from
conception to publication.
Therefore, although Somerville was precluded from being elected to memberships of
learned academies and societies during her lifetime due to her gender, through the
active support of her husband, Dr. William Somerville, she was nonetheless able to
engage productively and meaningfully in the scientific and mathematical communities
of which they formed a significant part. In fact, it was his cooperation, rather than
her elections to honorary society memberships from the 1830s onward, that really enabled
Somerville to circumvent gendered barriers to her engagement.
Archival Resources and Acknowledgments
The majority of letters and certificates referenced here are held in the Mary Somerville
Papers at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, on behalf of Somerville College. The box,
folder, and page identifications are given in the text as, e.g., MS, Dep. c. 371,
MSK-1 41, Mary Francis Kater to Mary Somerville 12/04/1832. Quotations and images
are reproduced with the kind permission of the Principal and Fellows of Somerville
College, and Sir Edmund Ramsay-Fairfax-Lucy, Bart.
Thanks also to the Mistress and Fellows, Girton College, Cambridge, for permission
to quote from their Somerville Collection, and to the Royal Society of London for
permission to quote from the Herschel Papers.