4-4-7. H. Poincaré à Joseph Bertrand

Nancy, le 24 Avril 1886

Monsieur le Secrétaire Perpétuel,

J’ai l’honneur de vous adresser ci-joint une note en réponse à une récente réclamation de priorité de M. Mathiessen. Je vous prie de vouloir bien, si vous le jugez convenable, la communiquer à l’Académie dans sa prochaine séance.

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Secrétaire Perpétuel, l’assurance de mon profond respect,

Poincaré

ALS 2p. Archives de l’Académie des sciences de Paris.

Time-stamp: "26.08.2024 22:40"

Notes

• 1 An extract of Ludwig Matthiessen’s letter to Hermite was communicated to the Paris Academy of Sciences on 12 April (Matthiessen, 1886). Ludwig Matthiessen (1830–1906) wrote his thesis on figures of equilibrium in Kiel, and from 1874 was professor of physics at the University of Rostock. He was elected to the Leopoldina Academy in 1885.
• 2 Poincaré’s note was duly communicated to the Paris Academy of Sciences on 27 April, 1886. Matthiessen (1886) contested Poincaré’s attribution, in 1885a; 1885b, of the discovery of annular figures of equilibrium to W. Thomson and P.-G. Tait. Poincaré (1886, reed. Lévy 1952, 37) acknowledged the oversight, while affirming that Matthiessen’s method was inferior both to that of Kovalevskaya and to his own approach. Matthiessen’s letter to Hermite further suggested that several of his own publications dealt with Poincaré’s piriform figure (Poincaré, 1885c), including Matthiessen (1871, 1883). Poincaré (1886, reed. Lévy 1952) countered that the Rostock physicist had treated only the equilibrium figures known at the time, which obviously did not include the pear. However, Poincaré, in response to Liapunov’s letter of 9 October, 1885 (§ 3-32-1), seized the occasion to acknowledge that Liapunov had “preceded him on some points”. Fifteen years later, Poincaré summarized his response to Matthiessen in his Analyse des travaux scientifiques (Poincaré 1921, 111, reed. in Lévy 1952, 8).