Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.

DOI 10.1007/s00407-016-0177-0

On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel

transport

Giuseppe Iurato1 Giuseppe Ruta2

Received: 24 December 2015

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract The current literature on history of science reports that Levi-Civitas par-
allel transport was motivated by his attempt to provide the covariant derivative of
the absolute differential calculus with a geometrical interpretation (For instance, see
Scholz in The intersection of history and mathematics, Birkhuser, Basel, pp 203230,
1994, Sect. 4). Levi-Civitas memoir on the subject was explicitly aimed at simplify-
ing the geometrical computation of the curvature of a Riemannian manifold. In the
present paper, we wish to point out the possible role implicitly played by the principle
of virtual work in Levi-Civitas conceptual reasoning to formulate parallel transport.

1 Introduction

Tullio Levi-Civita (18731941) was one of the leading Italian mathematicians of his
time. He showed his attitude towards mathematics and mathematical physics in his
high school days, when he offered an ingenious attempt to prove Euclids fifth postulate
on parallel lines under the supervision of his teacher in mathematics, Paolo Gazzaniga
(18531930), a scholar in number theory.1 Levi-Civita took a degree in mathematics

1 Biographical notes are taken from Levi-Civitas obituary by Ugo Amaldi (18751957), Levi-Civita
(1954), vol. 1, IXXXX.

Communicated by: Umberto Bottazzini.

B Giuseppe Iurato
[email protected]
Giuseppe Ruta
[email protected]

1 University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

2 Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

123
 G. Iurato, G. Ruta

from the university of Padua, where among his teachers he had Giuseppe Veronese
(18531917),2 Francesco Flores dArcais (18491927),3 Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro
(18531925),4 and Ernesto Padova (18451896).5 Both Ricci-Curbastro and Padova
provided Levi-Civita with a strong training in mathematical physics and mechanics.
Ricci-Curbastro, in particular, provided him with firsthand absolute differential calcu-
lus methods, which were the inheritance of Beltramis investigations on Riemannian
manifolds Capecchi and Ruta (2015), Tazzioli (1993). Levi-Civita applied these meth-
ods to subjects other than differential geometry, such as mechanics. In 1902, he took
over the chair of higher mechanics in Padua, vacant after Padovas premature death. In
the some twenty years he spent in Padua until he was appointed to Rome, Levi-Civita
investigated a vast set of subjects in analytical mechanics. In the mid-1910s Levi-Civita
turned his attention to problems in both special and general relativity, treated analyti-
cally with the new powerful tools of the absolute differential calculus to which he had
contributed.6 In particular, he studied the curvature of four-dimensional Riemannian
manifolds, modelling space-time through the parallel transport of vectors over these
manifolds. He took into account the curvature of the manifold by varying some parame-
ters along paths lying on the manifold. Indeed, at every point of the manifold it is possi-
ble to consider a linear structure, the tangent space, which can be linked to the tangent
spaces at other points of the manifold through a well-determined new mathematical
notion, later called a connection, which, thus, originates from parallel transport.7
In the mathematical literature, we usually read that Levi-Civitas parallel transport
was motivated by his attempt to give a geometrical interpretation to the so-called
covariant derivative of absolute differential calculus. In addition, according to Nas-
tasi and Tazzioli (2005), Levi-Civita defined parallelism on a Riemannian manifold
through a new formulation of the law of inertia for a point moving on a geodetic line.8
With respect to Levi-Civitas original procedure in Levi-Civita (1917), we believe that
such an interpretation is possible only a posteriori, within the framework of a global
variational calculus. The same can be said for the consideration of Levi-Civitas par-
allelism as a local geometrical interpretation of covariant derivative, as in Pizzocchero

2 Veronese spent a period of time studying in Leipzig under the supervision of Felix Klein (18491825).
He provided contributions to projective hyper-spaces and non-Euclidean geometry.
3 Flores dArcais graduated in Pisa, and had Enrico Betti (18231892) and Ulisse Dini (18451918) among
his teachers. He is well known in the Italian school of mathematics of the days for his excellent handbooks
on calculus.
4 Ricci-Curbastro graduated in Pisa having Betti, Dini, and Eugenio Beltrami (18351900) among his
teachers. He perfected his studies with Klein and, jointly with Levi-Civita, is considered the father of
absolute differential calculus.
5 A pupil of Beltrami, Padova investigated mathematical physics in non-Euclidean spaces.
6 It is well known that Albert Einstein (18791955) claimed to feel indebted with him for absolute calculus.
7 Parallel transport and linear (affine) connection were introduced almost simultaneously by Levi-Civita,
Gerhard Hessenberg (18741925), Hermann Weyl (18851955) and Jan Arnoldus Schouten (18831971) in
connection with Einsteins general theory of relativity. Levi-Civita used (local) embedding of a Riemannian
manifold in some n-dimensional space. Weyl introduced parallel transport (hence, linear connection) on
arbitrary differential manifolds on a completely general basis, that is, with no reference to Riemann metrics,
see Maurin (1997), ch. 1, Sect. 1.1.
8 Sect. 1.3, p. 214.

123
On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel transport

(1998).9 On the other hand, in this paper we point out a possible a priori interpretation
of the intrinsic origin of Levi-Civitas parallelism based on the tacit use of schemes
of analytical mechanics and the principle of virtual work.
If we read Levi-Civitas paper Levi-Civita (1917) carefully, we see that Levi-Civita
aimed at simplifying the computation of the curvature of a Riemannian manifold by
re-examining the covariant behaviour of the Riemann symbols.10 In pursuing this, he
devoted the first fourteen sections of his memoir to introducing and explaining paral-
lelism on an arbitrary Riemannian manifold Vn of dimension n 2. From examining
these passages, we believe that Levi-Civitas strong education in mathematical physics
had a remarkable role in his developments by tacitly influencing his fashion of formal
reasoning. This was also due to the fact that, at that time, geometry and mechanics
had evanescent boundaries, and a language with many common traits and analogies
of meaning.
To begin with, when Levi-Civita considered tangent spaces at the various points
of the manifold, it is apparent that he tacitly adopted equations formally analogous
to those of virtual displacements compatible with a set of constraints. The implicit
mechanical interpretation of a Riemannian manifold as the space of the configura-
tions of a mechanical system with a finite set of degrees of freedom, subjected to a
set of holonomic constraints, is indeed possible and conceivable. Even if nowadays
this interpretation is standard, see Arnold (1986) for instance, we cannot take it for
granted at the beginning of the 20th century. Levi-Civita himself remarked that some
of his conditions were those of admissible first-order constrained displacements. Nev-
ertheless, this is only one of the possible interpretations of how Levi-Civita could have
proceeded in setting up and solving his initial aim of simplifying the computation of
Riemanns symbols.
Indeed, Levi-Civitas condition of parallelism is expressed by the vanishing of a
linear form built on the tangent space at a point of the manifold: it is apparent that such
a statement has many a formal resemblance with the well-known principle of virtual
work, deeply rooted in the Italian school of mathematical physics since the pioneer-
ing works by Joseph Louis Lagrange (17361813). Indeed, the use of various forms
of the principle of virtual work may be found in all scholars in Italian mathematical
physics and engineering, such as Gabrio Piola (17941850), Betti, Beltrami, Luigi
Federico Menabrea (18091906), Carlo Alberto Castigliano (18471884), Valentino
Cerruti (18501909) Capecchi and Ruta (2007, 2010, 2011, 2015), Ruta (2014), Ben-
venuto (1991), Todhunter and Pearson (1893), Timoshenko (1953). We cannot but
infer that such a key idea had a strong influence on the writings of Levi-Civita, edu-
cated at the same school, and this mechanical interpretation of Levi-Civitas condition
of parallelism is a possible, plausible historical interpretation. Moreover, it was Levi-
Civita himself who provided an additional expression of his differential condition of
parallelism in a form that is exactly like Lagranges general equation of analytical
mechanics. Piolas influence on the school that led to Levi-Civita is put forth and
suggested also in Andreaus et al. (2015).

9 Sect. 3, p. 337.
10 Levi-Civita (1917), Introduction.

123
 G. Iurato, G. Ruta

Thus, from our historical analysis it emerges that the principle of virtual work
could have been among one of the conceptual guides, or mental schemes, to build up
Levi-Civitas notion of parallel transport. This is corroborated also by what we find in
Bottazzini (1990), where the primary role played by the new results of general relativity
is stressed among the motivations of Levi-Civitas memoir of 1917 Levi-Civita (1917).
In the following, we first sketch some hints of the origin and the various formulation of
the principle of virtual work in the history of mechanics. Then we point out its possible
conceptual role in the early origin of the formal notion of parallel transport due to Levi-
Civita, by examining its presentation in the original paper Levi-Civita (1917).

2 Some hints on the principle of virtual work

Broadly speaking, in modern textbooks of mechanics we find that a system of bodies

is balanced if and only if the total power on any admissible (virtual) velocity field
vanishes. Passing from power to work means only a rescaling by a small time interval
t, and we get the principle of virtual work. Since the second half of 18th century, the
law of virtual work saw no appreciable changes from the formulation by Lagrange,
who in the first edition (1788) of his Mcanique analytique put Johann Bernoullis
principle of virtual velocities at the base of mechanics.
To be precise, in 1788 Lagrange (1853) Lagrange identified three main paradigms
in the history of statics, i.e. the lever, the composition of forces, and the principle
of virtual work. The paradigm of the lever would have been in force from antiquity
until up the early 18th century, when Pierre Varignon (16541722) worked out the
(de-)composition of forces Varignon (1725) by the graphical constructions known as
polygon of forces and funicular polygon Capecchi and Ruta (2015). The principle of
virtual work would become dominant after Lagrange. However, Lagranges predic-
tion was never fully realized because the principle of virtual work did not replace the
(de-)composition of forces, but at most outflanked it Capecchi (2012). Furthermore,
Lagranges picture is too schematic: indeed, some form of virtual work laws have
always existed in mechanics, even though with limited applications. Arabic and Latin
mechanics of the Middle Ages called attention to such a law, while in the Renaissance
we begin to see different wordings of it, often proposed as unique principle of statics.
The process reached its apex with Johann Bernoulli and Lagrange, and the French
school adopted Lagranges principle of virtual work, and applied it to continuum
mechanics.
A major difficulty in the formulations of virtual work laws is the status attributed to
constraints and their reactions. Before the 18th century, constraints had been treated
only as passive elements; after accepting models of matter based on particles consid-
ered as centres of forces, constraints began to be thought of as capable of providing
forces.11 Lagrange stated that the use of these forces released [us] from [the need of]
taking into account the constraints among bodies, and allows one to make use of the

11 According to Lagrange Lagrange (1853), in the period 17361742 the Bernoullis, Alexis Clairaut (1713-
1765) and Leonhard Euler (17071783) were among the first to assimilate constraint reactions to active
forces.

123
On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel transport

laws of motion of free bodies.12 In statics, constraint reactions are less problematic,
since they can be considered as the forces necessary to maintain the constraint. The
first to introduce them in calculations was probably Varignon (1725). It was the diffi-
culty of incorporating reactive forces in a consistent mechanical theory that led Johann
Bernoulli to formulate a law of virtual work, known after Lagrange as the principle of
virtual velocities, which provides a balance criterion without the intervention of these
undesirable entities. Johann Bernoullis statement is the sum of the powers each of
them multiplied by the distance travelled from the point where they are applied, in
the direction of this power, will always be zero.13 Lagrange in his Mcanique ana-
lytique suitably reformulated Bernoullis principle, shifting from his previous use of
the principle of least action. Even today, the principle of virtual work is considered
more general than that of least action, because it also allows non-conservative forces
to be taken into account. However, as a result of the heated discussions that followed
the publication of Lagrange (1853), Lagrange changed his mind, and in the second
edition (1811) of the Mcanique analytique he remarked that the principle of virtual
work is not obvious enough in itself to be selected as a founding principle.14 There
were also technical difficulties such as the question of the admissible displacements
to consider, and whether they should be compatible with the constraints.
In order to formulate Lagranges expression of the principle of virtual work, fol-
lowing him we must accept that inertia is another force, and add it to the active ones.
Thus, the total force on a particle vanishes, and all problems of dynamics are reduced
to those of statics.15
In modern language, Lagranges principle of virtual work states that a system of
particles is balanced when the active forces (puissances, i.e. powers) Fi to which it
is subjected satisfy16 
L = Fi P i = 0, (1)
i

where P i is the first-order displacement of the point of application of Fi . Thus, if a

system is in equilibrium, the virtual work of all active forces Fi will vanish for any
virtual displacement.
To keep into account constraint reactions R j also, we must add their work to that
of the active forces in Eq. (1). With this aim, we add the definition, implicitly assumed
by Lagrange, of smooth constraints. In modern terms, we assume that the work of
the reactions due to smooth constraints is non-negative for any irreversible virtual
displacement, while is zero for any reversible virtual displacement.17 In the special,

12 In Lagrange (1853), 1st ed., p. 179; our translation. See also Capecchi Capecchi (2012), p. 15.
13 Lagrange (1853), 1st ed., p. 11; our translation.
14 Lagrange (1853), 3rd ed., p. 21.
15 Lagrange claims such a thesis is DAlemberts, but DAlemberts actual principle is different Capecchi
(2012).
16 Lagrange (1853), 1st ed., p. 14.
17 See Levi-Civita and Amaldi (1949), vol. 1, ch. XV; vol. 2, part 1, ch. V, Sect. 3, n. 1821; Levi-Civita and
Amaldi (1965), part 1, ch. XIV, Sect. 2 , n. 48; part 2, ch. V, Sect. 3, n. 1719; Agostinelli and Pignedoli
(1961), vol. 2, ch. V, Sect. 1, n. 4; Agostinelli and Pignedoli (1988), ch. I, Sects. 1, 2; Finzi (1968), vol. 1,
ch. XIII, Sect. 4.

123
 G. Iurato, G. Ruta

yet fundamental, case of bilateral constraints, expressed by equalities, all compati-

ble virtual displacements are reversible. Hence, we assume that the virtual work of
constraint reactions is zero, then the principle of virtual work reads

L = 0, (2)

also called symbolic equation of statics.18 In Eq. (2), the virtual work is spent by active
forces plus inertia, since smooth constraints spend no work on admissible displace-
ments.
If the constraints are holonomic, they are expressed as equalities in the intrinsic
parameters of the system, and the vanishing of the virtual work of constraint reactions
assumes an interesting expression. This will become apparent in the following, where
we consider how such an expression may have probably influenced Levi-Civitas
notion of parallel transport.

3 Levi-Civitas parallel transport

In Levi-Civita (1917), Levi-Civita introduced his contribution by claiming that the

absolute differential calculus opened the way to Einsteins theory of gravitation; and,
since handling such technicalities was so important, he found it necessary to simplify
the calculation of intrinsic curvature. Thus, he went on, it was fundamental to begin
with the notion of parallelism in a Riemannian manifold.19
Levi-Civita started by considering two directions  ,   emerging from two infin-
itesimally near points P, P  of the Riemannian manifold Vn , embedded in an
N -dimensional Euclidean space S N .
In S N , the two directions  ,   are parallel if
   
angle  , f = angle 
 , f (3)

for any auxiliary direction f emerging from P. Parallelism on Vn is defined by requir-

ing that the condition in Eq. (3) holds for any direction f of the plane TPSN (Vn ) tangent
to Vn at P. This definition is intrinsic, since it depends on metrics in Vn , not in the
embedding space S N .
Levi-Civita emphasized that this condition depends on the path joining P with P  ,
being independent only in Euclidean spaces. Along a geodetic line, the tangents keep
their direction: this is a generalization of an intuitive property of a straight line in a
Euclidean space.20

18 Also said to be DAlembert-Lagrange principle as reformulated by Lagrange, Arnold (1986), ch. IV, or
general equation of virtual work, Belluzzi (1961), vol. I, ch. XV, Sect. 318. See also the references in the
previous footnote.
19 See also Pizzocchero (1998), Sect. 3.
20 Levi-Civita (1917), p. 3.

123
On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel transport

The key idea underlying parallelism in a Riemannian manifold, according to Levi-

Civita, is therefore expressed by Eq. (3) for two arbitrary concurrent unit vectors (germs
of directions in modern language), the origin of which moves along an arbitrary path
on the manifold.
Levi-Civita considered generic metrics21 on an arbitrary finite-dimensional mani-
fold22 Vn
n
ds 2 = aik dxi dxk . (4)
i,k=1

and embedded Vn in a Euclidean space S N with sufficiently great dimension N

n(n + 1)/2, so that it may be described by the system23

y = y (x1 , . . . , xn ), = 1, 2, . . . , N (5)

where the y are coordinates in S N , while the xn are intrinsic coordinates on Vn .

Remark that Eq. (5) describes also a discrete mechanical system with n degrees of
freedom subjected to N smooth holonomic bilateral constraints. This is a key point of
our possible interpretation of Levi-Civitas parallelism notion: the shift from a point
on Vn to one nearby is subjected to Eq. (5), hence its expression is analogous to the
admissible velocity field (or, modulo a rescaling, to the field of virtual displacements)
of an analog constrained mechanical system. It seems to us that Levi-Civitas education
in mathematical physics clearly emerges here.
Levi-Civita considered an arbitrary direction of S N by the unit vector f, with
direction cosines f , and another arbitrary direction at a point P of Vn . This last is
characterized by the unit vector  with direction cosines with respect to S N (of
course, since Vn is embedded in the ambient space S N , each direction belonging to Vn
also belongs to S N ).
The point P may be thought of as varying on a smooth curve C lying on Vn , parame-
terized by the abscissa s in Eq. (4), thus = (s). Let xi = xi (s), i = 1, 2, . . . , n
be the intrinsic parametric equations of C. Then, C may also be represented by the
parametric equations y = y (s), = 1, . . . , N when it is thought of as embedded
in S N via Eq. (5). Indeed, since xi = xi (s), i = 1, . . . , n, it is possible to write

C y (s) = y (x1 (s), . . . , xn (s)), = 1, . . . , N . (6)

It is apparent that, in the analog constrained system, s is an evolution parameter that

may be thought to coincide with time, and C is a trajectory in the manifold of admissible
configurations.

21 In doing so, Levi-Civita was the first to deal with forms of pseudo-Riemannian structures, see Bottazzini
(1990), pp. 305306.
22 Bianchi (1924b), ch. XXV.
23 Levi-Civita (1917), Eq. (1), p. 4.

123
 G. Iurato, G. Ruta

To find the unit direction emerging from a point P of C, Levi-Civita derived its
parametric representation, given by Eq. (6), with respect to the natural abscissa s 24


n
y
y = xi = 1, 2, . . . , N , (7)
xi
i=1

where a prime indicates a derivative with respect to s. Thus, Levi-Civita obtained the
direction cosines with respect to S N , while xi are the direction cosines of the same
unit direction with respect to Vn .
Levi-Civita supposed that at each point P of C there is a direction  of Vn , the
direction cosines of which are (i) , i = 1, 2, . . . , n with respect to Vn , and , =
1, . . . , N with respect to S N . Then, Eq. (7) yields25


n
y
= (l) = 1, 2, . . . , N . (8)
xl
l=1

which is a linear form on the direction cosines of the direction  of Vn .

When P varies along C, ordinary parallelism in S N implies the equality of the angle
between  and a direction f arbitrarily chosen. Levi-Civita introduced an intrinsic
notion of parallelism in Vn by considering two nearby points. He considered an arbi-
trarily fixed direction f of S N , the direction cosines of which are f , and the cosine
of the angle between f and 

  N

cos f ,  = f . (9)
=1

Then, he considered an infinitesimal variation ds of the natural abscissa s on Vn , which

implies that the cosine provided by Eq. (9) undergoes the variation

  
N
d cos f,  = ds  (s) f . (10)
=1

The ordinary parallelism between  and f would require Eq. (10) to vanish when
f varies in S N , implying that is uniform. Levi-Civita, however, imposed, as an
intrinsic condition of parallelism, the weaker condition that the angle between  and
f be constant when f varies on Vn . That is, he supposed the variation in Eq. (10) to
be zero only for the directions that are tangent to Vn as P varies along C.
Levi-Civita claimed26 that these directions are exactly those compatible with the
constraints (5). According to us, once again this is a hint that he had clearly in mind

24 Levi-Civita (1917), Eq. (4), p. 5.

25 Levi-Civita (1917), Eq. (7), p. 6.
26 Levi-Civita (1917), p. 7.

123
On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel transport

the mechanical analogy with his geometrical investigation. Thus, by replacing the f
with quantities proportional to them, Levi-Civitas intrinsic definition of parallelism
implies27
N
 (s)y = 0 (11)
=1

for any variation y , that is, in the analogous holonomic discrete mechanical system,
for any admissible displacement compatible with the constraints in Eq. (5). With a
suitable mechanical interpretation of the  (s), for instance by considering them as
a kind of mechanical action in S N , Eq. (11) is a formulation of the virtual work
principle in S N related to the smooth bilateral holonomic system defined by Eq. (5),
hence related to a Riemannian manifold.28 As already said, in this paper we wish
to emphasize this formal analogy, which might conceptually have led Levi-Civita to
work out his intrinsic geometrical notion of parallelism.
From Eq. (5) it follows that29
n
y
y = xk = 1, 2, . . . , N , (12)
xk
k=1

with xk arbitrary, so that Eq. (11) reduces to30


N
y
 (s) =0 (k = 1, 2, . . . , n), (13)
xk
=1

which are the formal conditions for the parallelism of the directions  moving along
C. Nevertheless, in Eq. (13) there are also parameters regarding S N , so that, in order
to have an intrinsic definition, it is necessary to involve only parameters regarding Vn .
To this aim, one has to replace the direction cosines with their expression given by
Eq. (8), so to involve the intrinsic direction cosines (i) , and to deduce31
d (i) n
i x j (l) = 0
jl
+ (i = 1, 2, . . . , n), (14)
ds
j,l=1

jl
where i are Christoffel symbols of second kind, defined as follows32


n  a a jk a jl 
jl kl
i = a ik + (i, j, l = 1, 2, . . . , n), (15)
x j xl xk
k=1

27 Levi-Civita (1917), Eq. (I), p. 7.

28 Grassini (1988), ch. 3, Sect. 2 , n. 2.6.
29 Levi-Civita (1917), unnumbered equation before Eq. (8), p. 7.
30 Levi-Civita (1917), Eq. (8), p. 7.
31 Levi-Civita (1917), Eq. (I ), p. 8.
a
32 Levi-Civita (1954), vol. IV, p. 8, Bianchi (1924a), ch. II.

123
 G. Iurato, G. Ruta

where the a ik are the components of the reciprocal form of (4). Levi-Civita showed
that Eq. (14) may be expressed by the covariant quantities associated with the (i) ,33
so that the intrinsic condition of parallelism has the same form of Lagrange equations
of motion on a Riemannian manifold.34
Thus, the intrinsic conditions characterizing Levi-Civitas notion of parallel trans-
port of the direction  along C as a function of its directional parameters 1 , . . . , n
with respect to Vn fall within the framework of absolute differential calculus. Further-
more, in the following sections of Levi-Civita (1917), Levi-Civita did not make any
explicit mention of covariant derivatives, except for a hint about Ricci-Curbastros
rotation coefficients.35 Then, Levi-Civita applied parallel transport to a Riemannian
manifold by making it possible to compute its curvature. So, it seems apparent to
us that, at least up to the definition of intrinsic parallelism, one possible key guide
to Levi-Civita was mathematical physics, not only pure geometry, and, in particular,
the principle of virtual work for a mechanical system subject to smooth holonomic
bilateral constraints, which may be considered as a formal guide-scheme in deducing
geometrical features.

4 Final remarks

From a historical standpoint, we claim that the virtual work principle played a possibly
remarkable conceptual role in the origin of Levi-Civitas notion of parallel transport
in a Riemannian manifold as expressed by Eq. (11) and its consequences. Coherently
with his mathematical-physical education, Levi-Civita used a language which clearly
referred to this principle and its formal schemata, for example when he used the term
constraint and the expression displacements compatible with constraint. Further-
more, he specified that Eq. (11) was obtained for all the displacements y compatible
with the constraints (5) (our translation), and emphasized this sentence in italics (see
Levi-Civita 1917). This is, according to us, a sign of a clear wish to refer to the so-
called symbolic equation of statics for an ideal mechanical system moving along a
line C of a Riemannian manifold. Such an equation is a nullity condition expressing
constitutive properties of smooth constraint reactions.36 Indeed, for the analog con-
strained mechanical system, the unit directions emerging from the points of V n
assume the role of admissible displacements, and the dual forms on them are reactions
provided by the geometrical links between the elements of the mechanical system.37
In a series of Spanish conferences held by Levi-Civita in 1921, the reference to
analytical mechanics is more explicit.38 Indeed, in discussing parallelism and curvature

33 Levi-Civita used the term moment, which was traditional in the Italian school of mathematical physics
of his time and denoted a mechanical action dual to a Lagrangian parameter of admissible (virtual) dis-
placements.
34 Levi-Civita (1917), eq. (I ), p. 12. The same comment on Eq. (14) may be found in later textbooks of
c
the Italian school of mathematical physics, e.g. Finzi and Pastori (1960), ch. X.
35 Levi-Civita (1917), Sect. 13.
36 Bernardini (1974), ch. XII, Krall (1940), part 1, ch. IV, Sect. 3.
37 Sommerfeld (1957), ch. II, Sect. 8.
38 See Levi-Civita (1924), pp. 97143.

123
On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel transport

in a general Riemannian manifold, Levi-Civita stated39 that the geometric notion

of parallelism resembles the physical notion of work. This is to say that geometric
parallelism, in its analytical substratum, is similar to the integral of the differential form
X 1 dx1 + X 2 dx2 . Starting from this initial physical framework, Levi-Civita provided
a purely analytical treatment of his notion of vectorial equipollence upon a surface.
Then, he discussed infinitesimal parallelism and its analytical expression by arguing
in terms of vector analysis, and reached a simple, characteristic formal condition of
parallelism on surfaces, given by the scalar product du = 0,40 where is a
generic unit vector of the tangent plane to the given surface, and du is the first-order
infinitesimal variation of a generic vector u belonging to the same tangent plane.
Afterwards, in Levi-Civita (1924), Sect. 4, p. 103, Levi-Civita started to speak
explicitly of virtual displacements and symbolic equation (we believe that he
understood of statics), and the virtual displacements were called into question many
times in his formal arguments, until he reached an equivalent formal expression of
du = 0, that is to say, P du = 0,41 which recallsLevi-Civita statedthe
principle of virtual work (Levi-Civita 1924, Sect. 4, p. 104). From this point onwards,
Levi-Civita used arguments of analytical mechanics, following a method similar to
one that applied the virtual work law to build up Lagranges equations (Levi-Civita
1924, Sect. 4, p. 109). Thus, he deduced equations (14) for a two-dimensional surface.
In Levi-Civita (1924), Sect. VIII, Levi-Civita generalized his results to an arbitrary
Riemannian manifold with a simple dimensional extension of the formal model just
worked out in a two-dimensional environment, until he had generalized the notion of
parallelism to an arbitrary manifold in Levi-Civita (1924), Sect. IX. Then, he deduced
equation (11), which now he stated to be valid for all virtual displacements (Levi-
Civita (1924), Sect. IX, p. 122).
In Levi-Civitas monograph devoted to absolute differential calculus,42 we find
further ex-post confirmation to our possible historical interpretation. Indeed, in this
monograph there are many references to the possible kinematical characterization
of parallelism in a Riemannian manifold. Levi-Civita also quoted works from the
early 1920s by Giuseppe Corbellini43 and Enrico Persico (19001969)44 on other
possible kinematical interpretations of his own intrinsic parallelism making use of
the geometry of developable surfaces.45 Levi-Civita further emphasized the possible
role of analytical mechanics in developing notions of differential geometry such as

39 Levi-Civita (1924), Sect. 2, p. 99.

40 Levi-Civita (1924), Eq. (1), p. 102. Note that in the Italian school of mathematical physics of the time
the symbol for the scalar product was .
41 Levi-Civita (1924), Eq. (1 ), p. 104.
42 Levi-Civita (1927), ch. V, (b), Sects. 1015. This monograph was suggested by the mathematician
Edmund Taylor Whittaker (18731956), who wanted to widen the first Italian edition of 1925 with the
addition of a third part, devoted to the physical application of absolute differential calculus to Einsteins
general relativity, extracted from Levi-Civita (1928).
43 We could not find any biographical data on him so far, apart from the fact that he published some notes
on intrinsic parallelism.
44 One of Levi-Civitas pupils, who edited his lectures on the absolute differential calculus, Levi-Civita
(1927).
45 Levi-Civita (1927), pp. 102104 (pp. 119121 of the Italian edition).

123
 G. Iurato, G. Ruta

that of parallelism, reaching as far as a formal equation characterizing his notion of

parallelism, equivalent to (and called by him) the symbolic equation of parallelism.
Furthermore, and this is very important for our argument, Levi-Civita himself stated
that this equation formally recalls the principle of virtual work. In addition, Levi-
Civita used the same principle in deducing another formal property of Riemannian
geometry applied to Einsteins general relativity, for instance when discussing the
geodetic principle for the dynamics of a material particle moving in a four-dimensional
space-time manifold.46
Thus, we have shown that the great tradition of the Italian school of mathematical
physics of the second half of the 19th century continued in the early decades of the 20th
century to produce important results also in the field of pure mathematics that were
strongly connected with the most advanced physical issues of the time, i.e. Einsteins
theory of general relativity (Bottazzini 1990, ch. XVI, Sect. 3).
We have stressed what possible formal schemata Levi-Civita followed in deducing
his intrinsic, geometric notion of parallelism in an arbitrary Riemannian manifold,
starting from the two-dimensional model provided by a material point moving along a
smooth surface according to analytical mechanics. Our historical reconstruction of the
possible mental route followed by Levi-Civita in working out this primary notion of
differential geometry is corroborated by both the formal analysis of the content of his
original 1917 memoir (in which our interpretation is supported by the identification of
an implicit use of a formalism analogous to that of analytical mechanics) and by the
analysis of two main texts of Levi-Civita drawn up soon after: his 1921 contribution to
a Spanish conference (included in Levi-Civita 1924) and his 1923 lectures recollected
in Levi-Civita (1927).

References
Agostinelli, C., and A. Pignedoli. 1961. Meccanica razionale, vol 2. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Agostinelli, C., and A. Pignedoli. 1988. Meccanica analitica, vol 2. Modena: Tipografia Mucchi.
Andreaus, U., F. dellIsola, and L. Placidi. 2015. At the origins and in the vanguard of peri-dynamics,
non-local and higher gradient continuum mechanics. An underestimated and still topical contribution
of Gabrio Piola. Mechanics and Mathematics of Solids 20: 887928.
Arnold, V.I. 1986. Matematicheskie metody klassicheskoi mekhaniki. MIR, Moscow, 1978. Italian transla-
tion: Metodi matematici della meccanica classica. Roma: Editori Riuniti.
Belluzzi, O. 1961. Scienza delle costruzioni, vol 4. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Benvenuto, E. 1991. An introduction to the history of structural mechanics. Berlin: Springer.
Bernardini, G. 1974. Fisica generale, 14th ed. Roma: Eredi Virgilio Veschi.
Bianchi, L. 1924a. Geometria differenziale, Vol 1, Parte 1. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Bianchi, L. 1924b. Geometria differenziale. Vol 2, Parte 2, Bologna: Zanichelli.
Bottazzini, U. 1990. Il Flauto di Hilbert. Storia della matematica moderna e contemporanea. Torino: UTET
Libreria.
Capecchi, D. 2012. History of virtual work laws. Boston: Birkhuser.
Capecchi, D., and G. Ruta. 2007. Piolas contribution to continuum mechanics. Archive for History of Exact
Sciences 61: 303342.
Capecchi, D., and G. Ruta. 2010. A historical perspective of Menabreas principle of elasticity. Meccanica
45: 199212.

46 Levi-Civita (1927), ch. XI, Sect. 12. See Davies and Yano (1975) for a historical account of the influence
of Levi-Civitas parallelism on differential geometry.

123
On the role of virtual work in Levi-Civitas parallel transport

Capecchi, D., and G. Ruta. 2011. Cerrutis treatment of linear elastic trusses. Meccanica 46: 12831298.
Capecchi, D., and G. Ruta. 2015. Strength of materials and theory of elasticity in 19th century Italy. Berlin:
Springer.
Capecchi, D., Ruta, G. 2015. Beltrami and mathematical physics in non-Euclidean spaces. GAMM
2015Proceedings of the 86th annual meeting of the International Association for Mathematics
and Mechanics. Lecce (Italy), March.
Davies, E.T., and Yano, K. 1975. The influence of Levi-Civitas notion of parallelism on differential geom-
etry. In Convegno Internazionale Celebrativo del Centenario della Nascita, Roma, 1719 Dicembre
1973, ed. Tullio Levi-Civita, 5376. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Finzi, B., and M. Pastori. 1960. Calcolo tensoriale e applicazioni, 2nd ed. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Finzi, B. 1968. Meccanica razionale, vol 2, 3rd ed. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Grassini, R. 1988. Meccanica razionale. Napoli: Liguori.
Krall, G. 1940. Meccanica tecnica delle vibrazioni. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Lagrange, J.L. 1853. Mchanique analitique. Desaint, Paris, 1788. 2nd ed.: Mcanique analytique. Courcier,
Paris, 18111815. 3rd ed.: Mcanique analytique, revue, corrige, et annote par M.J. Bertrand.
Mallet-Bachelier, Paris.
Levi-Civita, T. 1927. The absolute differential calculus, and calculus of tensors. In Italian edition: Lezioni
di calcolo differenziale assoluto, ed. by Enrico Persico, London and Glasgow: Blackie & Son Ltd,
Alberto Stock-Editore, Roma: Raccolte ecompilate a cura di Enrico Persico. 1925.
Levi-Civita, T. 1928. Fondamenti di Meccanica Relativistica, Redatti da Enrico Persico. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Levi-Civita, T., and Amaldi, U. 1949. Lezioni di meccanica razionale. Ristampa anastatica della nuova
edizione riveduta e corretta del, Bologna: Zanichelli, 198789.
Levi-Civita, T., and Amaldi, U. 1965. Compendio di meccanica razionale. Ristampa anastatica della seconda
edizione riveduta del 1938, Bologna: Zanichelli.
Levi-Civita, T. 1917. Nozione di parallelismo in una variet qualunque e conseguente specificazione geomet-
rica della curvatura riemanniana. In Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, XLII, 173215.
Opere IV, 139.
Levi-Civita, T. 195473. Opere matematiche. Memorie e note, vol 6. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Levi-Civita, T. 1924. Questioni di Meccanica Classica e Relativistica. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Maurin, K. 1997. The Riemann legacy. Riemann ideas in mathematics and physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Nastasi, P., and R. Tazzioli. 2005. Toward a scientific and personal biography of Tullio Levi-Civita (1873
1941). Historia Mathematica 32: 203236.
Pizzocchero, L. 1998. Geometria differenziale. In La matematica in Italia dopo lUnit. Il periodo tra le due
guerre mondiali, eds by S. Di Sieno, A. Guerraggio, P. Nastasi, Marcos y Marcos, Milano, 321379.
Ruta, G. 2014. Gabrio Piola and balance equations. In The complete works of Gabrio Piola:,Vol I. Advanced
structural materials 38:752784. Springer Int. Publ.
Scholz, E. 1994. Hermann Weyls contribution to geometry, 19171923. In The intersection of history and
mathematics, ed. S. Chikara, S. Mitsuo, and J.W. Dauben, 203230. Birkhuser: Basel.
Sommerfeld, A. 1957. Vorlesungen ber Theoretische Physik. Band 1: Mechanik, Becker & Erler, Leipzig,
1943. Italian translation: Lezioni di Fisica Teorica. vol. 1: Meccanica, Sansoni, Firenze.
Tazzioli, R. 1993. Ether and theory of elasticity in Beltramis work. Archive for History of Exact Sciences
46: 137.
Timoshenko, S.P. 1953. History of strength of materials, with a brief account of the history of theory of
elasticity and theory of structures. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Todhunter, I., and K. Pearson. 1893. A history of the theory of elasticity and of the strength of materials,
from Galilei to the present time. Cambridge: The University Press.
Varignon, P. 1725. Nouvelle mcanique ou statique. Paris: C. Jombert.

123