Over forty years after Patrick Henry delivered his speech and eighteen years after his death, biographer William Wirt published a posthumous reconstruction of the speech in his 1817 work Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. This is the version of the speech as it is widely known today and was
reconstructed based on the recollections of elderly witnesses many
decades later. A scholarly debate persists among colonial historians as
to what extent Wirt or others invented parts of the speech including its
famous closing words.
Portrait by George Bagby Matthews after Thomas Sully, c. 1891
The Second Virginia Convention met at St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, on March 20, 1775. Delegates selected a presiding officer, and they elected delegates to the Continental Congress. At the convention, Patrick Henry—a delegate from Hanover County—offered amendments to raise a militia independent of royal authority in terms that explicitly recognized that war with the British Empire was inevitable, sparking the opposition of convention moderates. On March 23, Henry defended his amendments and purportedly concluded with the following statement:
If we were base enough to desire
it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat
but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may
be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it
come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace,
Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale
that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of
resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we
here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life
so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
As he concluded, Henry plunged a bone paper knife towards his chest in imitation of the Roman patriot Cato the Younger.
A nineteenth-century engraving of Patrick Henry's speech includes
another except of it, with the reaction if those hearing it: "Caesar
had His Brutus, Charles the First, His Cromwell — And George the Third" —
("Treason!" cried the Speaker — "Treason, treason!" echoed from every
part of the house). Henry faltered not for an instant, but rising to a
loftier attitude, concluded thus - "may profit by their example. If this
be treason, make the most of it."
St. John's Church, Richmond, where Patrick Henry delivered the speech.
According to Edmund Randolph, the convention sat in profound silence for several minutes after Henry's speech ended. George Mason, who later drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, said that the audience's passions were not their own after Henry had addressed them. Thomas Marshall told his son John Marshall, who later became Chief Justice of the United States, that the speech was "one of the boldest, vehement, and animated pieces of eloquence that had ever been delivered."Edward Carrington, listening by a window, was so affected by the speech that he requested to be buried there, and in "1810, he got his wish."
Henry's speech ultimately swayed the convention, and it was resolved that the colony be "put into a posture of defence: and that Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Carter Nicholas, Benjamin Harrison, Lemuel Riddick, George Washington, Adam Stephen, Andrew Lewis, William Christian, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Zane,
Esquires, be a committee to prepare a plan for the embodying arming and
disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that
purpose." Despite this resolution, many moderate delegates remained uncertain
where the resistance urged by Henry and other radicals would lead, and
few counties formed independent militia companies at the urging of the
convention. Nevertheless, Henry was named as chairman of the committee
assigned to build a militia.
A month later, Lord Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, ordered Royal Navy sailors to remove all stocks of gunpowder from the powder magazine at Williamsburg, Virginia.This flashpoint—later known as the Gunpowder Incident—became Virginia's equivalent of the Battle of Lexington. Upon learning of Dunmore's decision, Patrick Henry led his militia
toward Williamsburg to force return of the gunpowder to the colony. The stand-off was resolved without conflict when a payment of £330 (equal to £53,178 today) was made to Henry. Fearing for his safety, Dunmore retreated to a naval vessel, ending
royal control of the colony. Henry became the independent state's first governor in July 1776.
Over 40 years after Patrick Henry delivered his speech and 18 years
after Henry's death, a reconstruction of the speech was printed in
Wirt's 1817 biography Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. Wirt corresponded with elderly men who had heard the speech in their
youth as well as others who were acquainted with people who were there
at the time. All concurred that Henry's speech had produced a profound effect upon
its audience, but only one surviving witness attempted to reconstruct
the actual speech.
St. George Tucker attempted a two-paragraph reconstruction of the speech in a letter to Wirt, but Tucker noted that it was "in vain... to give any idea of his speech". Using Tucker's two paragraphs, Wirt "filled in the blanks" and created a speech that was far longer in length. The original letter with Tucker's remembrances has been lost.
For 160 years, Wirt's reconstruction of Henry's speech was
accepted as fact. In the 1970s, historians began to question the
authenticity of Wirt's rendition. According to the only written first-hand account of the speech, Henry's 1775 speech used graphic name-calling that does not appear in Wirt's 1817 rendition. Furthermore, Wirt's reconstruction is devoid of Henry's rhetorical
custom of invoking fear of Indian attacks in promoting independence from
Britain. Given Wirt's artistic liberties in reconstructing the speech, it is
possible that Henry never uttered the quotation, "Give me liberty or
give me death," and scholars question to what extent the speech we know is the work of Wirt or Tucker.
According to historian Bernard Mayo, most scholars are skeptical of the accuracy of Wirt's rendition of Henry's speech. Nevertheless, "its expressions... seemed to have burned themselves into
men's memories. Certainly, its spirit is that of the fiery orator who
in 1775 so powerfully influenced Virginians and events leading to
American independence."
The hand of fate is over us, and Heav'n
Exacts severity from all our thoughts.
It is not now a time to talk of aught
But chains or conquest, liberty or death.
There had been similar phrases used preceding Henry's speech. The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath made in the context of Scottish independence was a letter to Pope John XXII
that contained the line: "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor
honours that we are fighting, but for freedom—for that alone, which no
honest man gives up but with life itself". It is commonly cited as an
inspiration for the Declaration of Independence by many, including Trent Lott in a speech before the United States Senate.
The 1713 play, Cato, a Tragedy, was popular in the American Colonies and well known by the Founding Fathers who frequently quoted from the play. George Washington had the play performed for the Continental Army at Valley Forge. It contains the line, "It is not now time to talk of aught/But chains
or conquest, liberty or death" (Act II, Scene 4). The phrase "Liberty or
Death" also appears on the Culpeper Minutemen flag of 1775.
Phrases equivalent to liberty or death have appeared in a variety of other places. In the summer of 1787, the armed citizens' militia of the Dutch Republic paraded and drilled beneath banners extolling "Liberty or Death". Soon after, amid the French Revolution, the sentence that would become the national motto of France
"Liberté égalité fraternité" ("Liberty, equality, fraternity") was
sometimes written as "Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort"
("Liberty, equality, fraternity or death").
The Society of United Irishmen in the 1790s and 1800s adopted 'Liberty or Death' as a slogan. During the 1798 rebellion appeals to the population were printed out featuring the heading "Liberty or Death!". It was also a rallying cry of the 1804 Castle Hill convict rebellion in Australia staged by United Irishmen convicts.[30][31][32]
In March 1941, the motto of the public demonstrations in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia against the signing of a treaty with Nazi Germany was "Better grave than slave" (Bolje grob nego rob).
In the 1964 speech "The Ballot or the Bullet" in Cleveland, Malcolm X
said, "It'll be ballots, or it'll be bullets. It'll be liberty, or it
will be death. The only difference about this kind of death—it'll be
reciprocal."
In 2012, Ren Jianyu, a Chinese 25-year-old former college student village official, was given a two-year re-education through labor sentence for an online speech against the Chinese Communist Party. A T-shirt of Ren saying "Give me liberty or give me death!" (in Chinese) was presented as evidence of his guilt.
In the 2022 COVID-19 protests in China, a man in Chongqing
was filmed giving a speech criticizing harsh lockdown measures,
shouting "Give me liberty or give me death!" in Chinese repeatedly to
the cheers of onlookers.
Text displayed on a 1793 placard announcing the sale of expropriated property.
Soon after the Revolution, the motto was often written as "Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity, or Death." "Death" was later dropped for being too
strongly associated with the excesses of the revolution.The French Tricolour has been seen as embodying all the principles of the Revolution—Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Some claim that Camille Desmoulins invented the phrase, in number 35 of Révolutions de France et de Brabant, published on 26 July 1790. However, it is not confirmed as this is only the first official mention of the phrase. Speaking of the July 1790 Fête de la Fédération festival, he described "the citizen-soldiers rushing into each other's arms, promising each other liberty, equality, fraternity." (French: les soldats-citoyens se précipiter dans les bras l’un de l’autre, en se promettant liberté, égalité, fraternité.)
Several months later, Maximilien Robespierre popularized the phrase in his speech "On the organization of the National Guard" (French: Discours sur l'organisation des gardes nationales), on 5 December 1790, article XVI, which was disseminated widely throughout France by the popular Societies.
Discours sur l'organisation des gardes nationales Article XVI. They
will wear these words engraved on their uniforms: THE FRENCH PEOPLE,
& below: LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY. The same words will be
inscribed on flags which bear the three colors of the nation. (French: XVI.
Elles porteront sur leur poitrine ces mots gravés : LE PEUPLE FRANÇAIS,
& au-dessous : LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ. Les mêmes mots seront
inscrits sur leurs drapeaux, qui porteront les trois couleurs de la
nation.)
— Maximilien Robespierre, 1790
Credit for the motto has been given also to Antoine-François Momoro (1756–1794), a Parisian printer and Hébertist organizer. During the Federalist revolts in 1793, it was altered to "Unity, indivisibility of the Republic; liberty, equality, brotherhood or death" (French: Unité, Indivisibilité de la République; Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la mort).
In 1839, the philosopher Pierre Leroux claimed it had been an anonymous and popular creation. The historian Mona Ozouf underlines that, although Liberté and Égalité were associated as a motto during the 18th century, Fraternité wasn't always included in it, and other terms, such as Amitié (Friendship), Charité (Charity) or Union were often added in its place.
In 1791, the emphasis upon Fraternité during the French Revolution, led Olympe de Gouges, a female journalist, to write the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen as a response. The tripartite motto was neither a creative collection, nor really institutionalized by the Revolution. As soon as 1789, other terms were used, such as "la Nation, la Loi, le Roi" (The Nation, The Law, The King), or "Union, Force, Vertu" (Union, Strength, Virtue), a slogan used beforehand by masonic lodges, or "Force, Égalité, Justice" (Strength, Equality, Justice), "Liberté, Sûreté, Propriété" (Liberty, Security, Property), etc.
In other words, liberté, égalité, fraternité was one slogan among many others. During the Jacobin revolutionary period, various mottos were used, such as liberté, unité, égalité (liberty, unity, equality); liberté, égalité, justice (liberty, equality, justice); liberté, raison, égalité (liberty, reason, equality), etc. The only solid association was that of liberté and égalité, with fraternité being ignored by the Cahiers de doléances as well as by the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Fraternité was only alluded to in the 1791 Constitution, as well as in Robespierre's draft Declaration of 1793, placed under the invocation of (in that order) égalité, liberté, sûreté and propriété
(equality, liberty, safety, property)—though it was used not as a
motto, but as articles of declaration, as the possibility of a universal
extension of the Declaration of Rights: "Men of all countries are
brothers, he who oppresses one nation declares himself the enemy of
all." Fraternité did not figure in the August 1793 Declaration.
Liberty consists of being able to
do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural
rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that
guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
Equality was defined by the Declaration in terms of judicial equality and merit-based entry to government (art. 6):
[The law] must be the same for all,
whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes,
shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and
employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction
than that of their virtues and talents.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité actually finds its origins in a May 1791 proposition by the Club des Cordeliers, following a speech on the Army by the Marquis de Guichardin. A British marine held prisoner on the French ship Le Marat in 1794, wrote home in letters published in 1796:
The republican spirit is inculcated
not in songs only, for in every part of the ship I find emblems
purposely displayed to awaken it. All the orders relating to the
discipline of the crew are hung up, and prefaced by the words Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la Mort, written in capital letters.
The compatibility of liberté and égalité was not in doubt in the first days of the Revolution, and the problem of the antecedence of one term on the other not lifted. Abbé Sieyès considered that only liberty ensured equality, unless equality was to be the equality of all, dominated by a despot, while liberty followed equality ensured by the rule of law. The abstract generality of law, theorized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his 1762 book The Social Contract,
thus ensured the identification of liberty to equality, liberty being
negatively defined as an independence from arbitrary rule, and equality
considered abstractly in its judicial form.
This identification of liberty and equality became problematic
during the Jacobin period, when equality was redefined, for instance, by
François-Noël Babeuf, as equality of results, and not only a judicial equality of rights. Thus, Marc Antoine Baudot considered that the French temperament was inclined towards equality than liberty, a theme which was re-used by Pierre Louis Roederer and Alexis de Tocqueville. Jacques Necker considered that an equal society could only be found on coercion.
An Alsatian sign, 1792: Freiheit Gleichheit Brüderlichk. od. Tod (Liberty Equality Fraternity or Death) Tod den Tyranen (Death to Tyrants) Heil den Völkern (Long live the Peoples)
The third term, fraternité, was the most problematic to insert
in the triad, as it belonged to another sphere, that of moral
obligations rather than rights, links rather than statutes, harmony
rather than contract, and community rather than individual liberty. Various interpretations of fraternité existed. The first one, according to Mona Ozouf, was one of "fraternité de rébellion" (Fraternity of Rebellion), that is the union of the deputies in the Jeu de Paume Oath of June 1789, refusing the dissolution ordered by the King Louis XVI: "We swear never to separate ourselves from the National Assembly,
and to reassemble wherever circumstances require, until the
constitution of the realm is drawn up and fixed upon solid foundations."
Fraternity was thus issued from Liberty, and oriented by a common
cause.
Another form of fraternité was that of the patriotic
Church, which identified social links with religious links and based
fraternity on Christian brotherhood. In this second sense, fraternité preceded both liberté and égalité, instead of following them as in the first sense. Thus, two senses of Fraternity: "one, that followed liberty and
equality, was the object of a free pact; the other preceded liberty and
equality as the mark on its work of the divine craftsman."
Another hesitation concerning the compatibility of the three terms arose from the opposition between liberty and equality as individualistic values, and fraternity as the realization of a happy community, devoid of any conflicts and opposed to any form of egotism. This fusional interpretation of Fraternity opposed it to the project of individual autonomy and manifested the precedence of Fraternity on individual will.
In this sense, it was sometimes associated with death, as in Fraternité, ou la Mort!
(Fraternity or Death!), excluding liberty and even equality, by
establishing a strong dichotomy between those who were brothers and
those who were not, in the sense of "you are with me or against me", brother or foe. Louis de Saint-Just thus stigmatized Anarchasis Cloots' cosmopolitanism, declaring "Cloots liked the universe, except France."
With the Thermidor and the execution of Robespierre, fraternité
disappeared from the slogan, reduced to the two terms of liberty and
equality, re-defined again as simple judicial equality and not as the
equality upheld by the sentiment of fraternity. In 1799, the First Consul (Napoleon Bonaparte) established the motto liberté, ordre public (liberty, public order).
19th century
Following
Napoleon's rule, the triptych dissolved itself, as none believed it
possible to conciliate individual liberty and equality of rights with equality of results and fraternity. The idea of individual sovereignty and of natural rights
possessed by man before being united in the collectivity, contradicted
the possibility of establishing a transparent and fraternal community. Liberals accepted liberty and equality, defining the latter as equality of rights and ignoring fraternity.
Early socialists rejected an independent conception of liberty, opposed to the social, and also despised equality, as they considered, as Fourier, that one had only to orchestrate individual discordances, to harmonize them, or they believed, as Saint-Simon, that equality contradicted equity, by a brutal levelling of individualities. Utopian socialism thus only valued fraternity, which was, in Cabet's Icarie, the sole commandment.
This opposition between liberals and socialists was mirrored in
rival historical interpretations of the Revolution, with liberals
admiring 1789, and socialists admiring 1793. The July Revolution of 1830, establishing a constitutional monarchy headed by Louis-Philippe, substituted ordre et liberté (order and liberty) to the Napoleonic motto Liberté, Ordre public.
Despite this apparent disappearance of the triptych, the latter
was still being thought in some underground circles, in Republican secret societies, masonic lodges such as the "Indivisible Trinity," far-left booklets or during the Canuts Revolt in Lyon. In 1834, the lawyer of the Society of the Rights of Man (Société des droits de l'homme), Dupont, a liberal sitting in the far-left during the July Monarchy, associated the three terms together in the Revue Républicaine, which he edited:
Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he can not achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity
Two interpretations had attempted to conciliate the three terms,
beyond the antagonism between liberals and socialists. One was upheld by
Catholic traditionalists, such as Chateaubriand or Ballanche, the other by socialist and republican such as Pierre Leroux. Chateaubriand gave a Christian interpretation of the revolutionary motto, stating in the 1841 conclusion to his Mémoires d'outre-tombe:
Far from being at its term, the
religion of the Liberator is now only just entering its third phase, the
political period, liberty, equality, fraternity
Neither Chateaubriand nor Ballanche considered the three terms to be
antagonistic. Rather, they took them for being the achievement of
Christianity. On the other hand, Pierre Leroux did not disguise the
difficulties of associating the three terms, but superated it by
considering liberty as the aim, equality as the principle and fraternity
as the means. Leroux ordered the motto as Liberty, Fraternity, Equality, an order supported by Christian socialists, such as Buchez.
Against this new order of the triptych, Michelet supported the traditional order, maintaining the primordial importance of an original individualistic right. Michelet attempted to conciliate a rational communication with a fraternal communication, "right beyond right", and thus the rival traditions of socialism and liberalism. The republican tradition would strongly inspire itself from Michelet's synchretism.
With the 1848 February Revolution, the motto was officially adopted, mainly under the pressure of the people who had attempted to impose the red flag over the tricolor flag. The 1791 red flag was the symbol of martial law and of order, not of insurrection. Lamartine opposed popular aspirations, and in exchange of the maintaining of the tricolor flag, conceded the Republican motto of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, written on the flag, on which a red rosette was added. It also appeared for the first time on coins.
Fraternity was then considered to resume, and to contain both
Liberty and Equality, being a form of civil religion, which, far from
opposing itself to Christianity, was associated with it in 1848establishing social links, as called for by Rousseau in the conclusion of the Social Contract.
Fraternity was not devoid of its previous sense of opposition
between brothers and foes, with images of blood haunting revolutionary
Christian publications, taking in Lamennais' themes. Thus, the newspaper Le Christ républicain (The Republican Christ) developed the idea of the Christ bringing forth peace to the poor and war to the rich.
On 6 January 1852, the future Napoleon III, first President of the Republic, ordered all prefects to erase the triptych from all official documents and buildings, conflating the words with insurrection and disorder. Auguste Comte applauded Napoleon, claiming equality to be the "symbol of metaphysical anarchism", and preferring to it his diptych "ordre et progrès", "order and progress", which became the motto of Brazil, Ordem e Progresso. Proudhon criticized fraternity as an empty word, which he associated with idealistic dreams of Romanticism. He preferred to it the sole term of liberty.
Pache, mayor of the Paris Commune, painted the formula "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la mort" on the walls of the commune. It was under the Third Republic that the motto was made official. It was then not dissociated with insurrection and revolutionary ardours, Opportunist Republicans such as Jules Ferry or Gambetta adapting it to the new political conditions. Larousse's Dictionnaire universel deprived fraternity of its "evangelistic halo" (Mona Ozouf), conflating it with solidarity and the welfare role of the state.
Some still opposed the Republican motto, such as the nationalist Charles Maurras in his Dictionnaire politique et critique, who claimed liberty to be an empty dream, equality an insanity, and only kept fraternity. Charles Péguy,
renewing with Lamennais' thought, kept fraternity and liberty,
excluding equality, seen as an abstract repartition between individuals
reduced to homogeneity, opposing "fraternity" as a sentiment put in
motion by "misery", while equality only interested itself, according to
him, to the mathematical solution of the problem of "poverty."
Péguy identified Christian charity and socialist solidarity in this conception of fraternity. On the other hand, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, the most important French author of pseudo-scientific racism and supporter of eugenism, completely rejected the republican triptych, adopting another motto, "déterminisme, inégalité, sélection"
(determinism, inequality, selection). According to Ozouf, the sole use
of a triptych was the sign of the influence of the republican motto,
despite it being corrupted in its opposite.
20th century
The Coat of arms of France (1905–present) depicts a ribbon with the motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité".
Following the Liberation, the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF) re-established the Republican motto Liberté, égalité, fraternité, which was incorporated into the 1946 and the 1958 French constitutions.
In 1956, the Algerian woman militant Zohra Drif, who during the Algerian War planted a bomb in the Milk Bar Cafe in which three French women were killed, justified this and other violent acts by the FLN,
by asserting that the French Authorities did not see their dedication
to the principles of Equality and Liberty as relevant in Algeria.
Other nations
Many other nations have adopted the French slogan of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" as an ideal.
Since its founding, "Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood" has been the lemma of the Social Democratic Party of Denmark. In the United Kingdom the political party the Liberal Democrats
refer to "the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community" in
the preamble of the party's Federal Constitution, and this is printed
on party membership cards.
The Czech slogan "Rovnost, volnost, bratrství" was a motto of the Czech national gymnastics organization Sokol
at the end of the 19th century. Liberal values of the fraternal
organization manifested themselves in the Czech independence movement
during World War I, when many Sokol members joined armies of the Allies and formed the Czechoslovak Legion to form independent Czechoslovakia in 1918.
The Philippine National Flag has a rectangular design that
consists of a white equilateral triangle, symbolizing liberty,
equality, and fraternity; a horizontal blue stripe for peace,
truth, and justice; and a horizontal red stripe for patriotism
and valor. In the center of the white triangle is an eight-
rayed golden sun symbolizing unity, freedom, people's
democracy, and sovereignty.
Some former colonies of the French Republic, such as Chad, Niger, and Gabon, have adopted similar three-word national mottos. Haiti has used it on its coins since 1872, having used "Liberte Egalite" on earlier coinage since 1828.
All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Since 1848, the motto has been present on the throne of the Grand masters of Latin Freemasonry. Freedom also alludes to the inner freedom from spiritual chains that are broken with the initiatory work. Lodovico Frapolliit, former Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, suggested to substitute "fraternity" with "solidarity".
Curvilinear (top), affine (right), and Cartesian (left) coordinates in two-dimensional space
In geometry, curvilinear coordinates are a coordinate system for Euclidean space in which the coordinate lines may be curved. These coordinates may be derived from a set of Cartesian coordinates by using a transformation that is locally invertible
(a one-to-one map) at each point. This means that one can convert a
point given in a Cartesian coordinate system to its curvilinear
coordinates and back. The name curvilinear coordinates, coined by the French mathematician Lamé, derives from the fact that the coordinate surfaces of the curvilinear systems are curved.
Well-known examples of curvilinear coordinate systems in three-dimensional Euclidean space (R3) are cylindrical and spherical coordinates. A Cartesian coordinate surface in this space is a coordinate plane; for example z = 0 defines the x-y plane. In the same space, the coordinate surface r = 1 in spherical coordinates is the surface of a unit sphere,
which is curved. The formalism of curvilinear coordinates provides a
unified and general description of the standard coordinate systems.
Curvilinear coordinates are often used to define the location or distribution of physical quantities which may be, for example, scalars, vectors, or tensors. Mathematical expressions involving these quantities in vector calculus and tensor analysis (such as the gradient, divergence, curl, and Laplacian)
can be transformed from one coordinate system to another, according to
transformation rules for scalars, vectors, and tensors. Such expressions
then become valid for any curvilinear coordinate system.
A curvilinear coordinate system may be simpler to use than the
Cartesian coordinate system for some applications. The motion of
particles under the influence of central forces is usually easier to solve in spherical coordinates than in Cartesian coordinates; this is true of many physical problems with spherical symmetry defined in R3. Equations with boundary conditions
that follow coordinate surfaces for a particular curvilinear coordinate
system may be easier to solve in that system. While one might describe
the motion of a particle in a rectangular box using Cartesian
coordinates, it is easier to describe the motion in a sphere with
spherical coordinates. Spherical coordinates are the most common
curvilinear coordinate systems and are used in Earth sciences, cartography, quantum mechanics, relativity, and engineering.
Orthogonal curvilinear coordinates in 3 dimensions
Coordinates, basis, and vectors
Fig. 1 - Coordinate surfaces, coordinate lines, and coordinate axes of general curvilinear coordinates.Fig. 2 - Coordinate surfaces, coordinate lines, and coordinate axes of spherical coordinates. Surfaces:r - spheres, θ - cones, Φ - half-planes; Lines:r - straight beams, θ - vertical semicircles, Φ - horizontal circles; Axes:r - straight beams, θ - tangents to vertical semicircles, Φ - tangents to horizontal circles
For now, consider 3-D space. A point P in 3-D space (or its position vectorr) can be defined using Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) [equivalently written (x1, x2, x3)], by , where ex, ey, ez are the standard basis vectors.
It can also be defined by its curvilinear coordinates (q1, q2, q3)
if this triplet of numbers defines a single point in an unambiguous
way. The relation between the coordinates is then given by the
invertible transformation functions:
The surfaces q1 = constant, q2 = constant, q3 = constant are called the coordinate surfaces; and the space curves formed by their intersection in pairs are called the coordinate curves. The coordinate axes are determined by the tangents
to the coordinate curves at the intersection of three surfaces. They
are not in general fixed directions in space, which happens to be the
case for simple Cartesian coordinates, and thus there is generally no
natural global basis for curvilinear coordinates.
In the Cartesian system, the standard basis vectors can be derived from the derivative of the location of point P with respect to the local coordinate
Applying the same derivatives to the curvilinear system locally at point P defines the natural basis vectors:
Such a basis, whose vectors change their direction and/or magnitude from point to point is called a local basis. All bases associated with curvilinear coordinates are necessarily local. Basis vectors that are the same at all points are global bases, and can be associated only with linear or affine coordinate systems.
For this article e is reserved for the standard basis (Cartesian) and h or b is for the curvilinear basis.
These may not have unit length, and may also not be orthogonal. In the case that they are orthogonal at all points where the derivatives are well-defined, we define the Lamé coefficients (after Gabriel Lamé) by
These basis vectors may well depend upon the position of P; it is therefore necessary that they are not assumed to be constant over a region. (They technically form a basis for the tangent bundle of at P, and so are local to P.)
In general, curvilinear coordinates allow the natural basis vectors hi
not all mutually perpendicular to each other, and not required to be of
unit length: they can be of arbitrary magnitude and direction. The use
of an orthogonal basis makes vector manipulations simpler than for
non-orthogonal. However, some areas of physics and engineering, particularly fluid mechanics and continuum mechanics,
require non-orthogonal bases to describe deformations and fluid
transport to account for complicated directional dependences of physical
quantities. A discussion of the general case appears later on this
page.
In orthogonal curvilinear coordinates, since the total differential change in r is
so scale factors are
In non-orthogonal coordinates the length of is the positive square root of (with Einstein summation convention). The six independent scalar products gij=hi.hj of the natural basis vectors generalize the three scale factors defined above for orthogonal coordinates. The nine gij are the components of the metric tensor, which has only three non zero components in orthogonal coordinates: g11=h1h1, g22=h2h2, g33=h3h3.
A vector v (red) represented by • a vector basis (yellow, left:e1, e2, e3), tangent vectors to coordinate curves (black) and • a covector basis or cobasis (blue, right:e1, e2, e3), normal vectors to coordinate surfaces (grey) in general (not necessarily orthogonal) curvilinear coordinates (q1, q2, q3). The basis and cobasis do not coincide unless the coordinate system is orthogonal.
Spatial gradients, distances, time derivatives and scale factors are
interrelated within a coordinate system by two groups of basis vectors:
basis vectors that are locally tangent to their associated coordinate pathline: are contravariant vectors (denoted by lowered indices), and
basis vectors that are locally normal to the isosurface created by the other coordinates: are covariant vectors (denoted by raised indices), ∇ is the deloperator.
Note that, because of Einstein's summation convention, the position
of the indices of the vectors is the opposite of that of the
coordinates.
Consequently, a general curvilinear coordinate system has two sets of basis vectors for every point: {b1, b2, b3} is the contravariant basis, and {b1, b2, b3}
is the covariant (a.k.a. reciprocal) basis. The covariant and
contravariant basis vectors types have identical direction for
orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems, but as usual have inverted
units with respect to each other.
In the Cartesian coordinate system , we can write the dot product as:
Consider an infinitesimal displacement . Let dq1, dq2 and dq3 denote the corresponding infinitesimal changes in curvilinear coordinates q1, q2 and q3 respectively.
By the chain rule, dq1 can be expressed as:
If the displacement dr is such that dq2 = dq3 = 0, i.e. the position vector r moves by an infinitesimal amount along the coordinate axis q2=const and q3=const, then:
Dividing by dq1, and taking the limit dq1 → 0:
or equivalently:
Now if the displacement dr is such that dq1=dq3=0, i.e. the position vector r moves by an infinitesimal amount along the coordinate axis q1=const and q3=const, then:
A vector v can be specified in terms of either basis, i.e.,
Using the Einstein summation convention, the basis vectors relate to the components by[2]: 30–32
and
where g is the metric tensor (see below).
A vector can be specified with covariant coordinates (lowered indices, written vk) or contravariant coordinates (raised indices, written vk).
From the above vector sums, it can be seen that contravariant
coordinates are associated with covariant basis vectors, and covariant
coordinates are associated with contravariant basis vectors.
A key feature of the representation of vectors and tensors in terms of indexed components and basis vectors is invariance
in the sense that vector components which transform in a covariant
manner (or contravariant manner) are paired with basis vectors that
transform in a contravariant manner (or covariant manner).
Fig. 3 – Transformation of local covariant basis in the case of general curvilinear coordinates
Consider the one-dimensional curve shown in Fig. 3. At point P, taken as an origin, x is one of the Cartesian coordinates, and q1 is one of the curvilinear coordinates. The local (non-unit) basis vector is b1 (notated h1 above, with b reserved for unit vectors) and it is built on the q1 axis which is a tangent to that coordinate line at the point P. The axis q1 and thus the vector b1 form an angle with the Cartesian x axis and the Cartesian basis vector e1.
It can be seen from triangle PAB that
where |e1|, |b1| are the magnitudes of the two basis vectors, i.e., the scalar intercepts PB and PA. PA is also the projection of b1 on the x axis.
However, this method for basis vector transformations using directional cosines is inapplicable to curvilinear coordinates for the following reasons:
By increasing the distance from P, the angle between the curved line q1 and Cartesian axis x increasingly deviates from .
At the distance PB the true angle is that which the tangent at point C forms with the x axis and the latter angle is clearly different from .
The angles that the q1 line and that axis form with the x axis become closer in value the closer one moves towards point P and become exactly equal at P.
Let point E be located very close to P, so close that the distance PE is infinitesimally small. Then PE measured on the q1 axis almost coincides with PE measured on the q1 line. At the same time, the ratio PD/PE (PD being the projection of PE on the x axis) becomes almost exactly equal to .
Let the infinitesimally small intercepts PD and PE be labelled, respectively, as dx and dq1. Then
.
Thus, the directional cosines can be substituted in transformations
with the more exact ratios between infinitesimally small coordinate
intercepts. It follows that the component (projection) of b1 on the x axis is
.
If qi = qi(x1, x2, x3) and xi = xi(q1, q2, q3) are smooth (continuously differentiable) functions the transformation ratios can be written as and . That is, those ratios are partial derivatives of coordinates belonging to one system with respect to coordinates belonging to the other system.
Constructing a covariant basis in three dimensions
Doing the same for the coordinates in the other 2 dimensions, b1 can be expressed as:
Similar equations hold for b2 and b3 so that the standard basis {e1, e2, e3} is transformed to a local (ordered and normalised) basis {b1, b2, b3} by the following system of equations:
By analogous reasoning, one can obtain the inverse transformation from local basis to standard basis:
Jacobian of the transformation
The above systems of linear equations can be written in matrix form using the Einstein summation convention as
.
This coefficient matrix of the linear system is the Jacobian matrix
(and its inverse) of the transformation. These are the equations that
can be used to transform a Cartesian basis into a curvilinear basis, and
vice versa.
In three dimensions, the expanded forms of these matrices are
In the inverse transformation (second equation system), the unknowns
are the curvilinear basis vectors. For any specific location there can
only exist one and only one set of basis vectors (else the basis is not
well defined at that point). This condition is satisfied if and only if
the equation system has a single solution. In linear algebra, a linear equation system has a single solution (non-trivial) only if the determinant of its system matrix is non-zero:
which shows the rationale behind the above requirement concerning the inverse Jacobian determinant.
Generalization to n dimensions
The formalism extends to any finite dimension as follows.
The coordinates of this space can be denoted by: x = (x1, x2,...,xn). Since this is a vector (an element of the vector space), it can be written as:
where e1 = (1,0,0...,0), e2 = (0,1,0...,0), e3 = (0,0,1...,0),...,en = (0,0,0...,1) is the standard basis set of vectors for the space Rn, and i = 1, 2,...n is an index labelling components. Each vector has exactly one component in each dimension (or "axis") and they are mutually orthogonal (perpendicular) and normalized (has unit magnitude).
More generally, we can define basis vectors bi so that they depend on q = (q1, q2,...,qn), i.e. they change from point to point: bi = bi(q). In which case to define the same point x in terms of this alternative basis: the coordinates with respect to this basis vi also necessarily depend on x also, that is vi = vi(x). Then a vector v in this space, with respect to these alternative coordinates and basis vectors, can be expanded as a linear combination in this basis (which simply means to multiply each basis vectorei by a number vi – scalar multiplication):
The vector sum that describes v in the new basis is composed of different vectors, although the sum itself remains the same.
Transformation of coordinates
From a more general and abstract perspective, a curvilinear coordinate system is simply a coordinate patch on the differentiable manifoldEn (n-dimensional Euclidean space) that is diffeomorphic to the Cartesian coordinate patch on the manifold. Two diffeomorphic coordinate patches on a differential manifold need
not overlap differentiably. With this simple definition of a curvilinear
coordinate system, all the results that follow below are simply
applications of standard theorems in differential topology.
The transformation functions are such that there's a one-to-one
relationship between points in the "old" and "new" coordinates, that is,
those functions are bijections, and fulfil the following requirements within their domains:
is not zero; meaning the transformation is invertible: xi(q) according to the inverse function theorem.
The condition that the Jacobian determinant is not zero reflects the
fact that three surfaces from different families intersect in one and
only one point and thus determine the position of this point in a unique
way.
Vector and tensor algebra in three-dimensional curvilinear coordinates
Elementary vector and tensor algebra in curvilinear coordinates is used in some of the older scientific literature in mechanics and physics and can be indispensable to understanding work from the early and mid-1900s, for example the text by Green and Zerna. Some useful relations in the algebra of vectors and second-order
tensors in curvilinear coordinates are given in this section. The
notation and contents are primarily from Ogden, Naghdi, Simmonds, Green and Zerna, Basar and Weichert, and Ciarlet.
where denotes the tensor product. The components Sij are called the contravariant components, Sij the mixed right-covariant components, Sij the mixed left-covariant components, and Sij the covariant components of the second-order tensor. The components of the second-order tensor are related by
The metric tensor in orthogonal curvilinear coordinates
At each point, one can construct a small line element dx, so the square of the length of the line element is the scalar product dx • dx and is called the metric of the space, given by:
gives a relation between the metric tensor and the Lamé coefficients, and
where hij are the Lamé coefficients. For an orthogonal basis we also have:
Example: Polar coordinates
If we consider polar coordinates for R2,
(r, θ) are the curvilinear coordinates, and the Jacobian determinant of the transformation (r,θ) → (r cos θ, r sin θ) is r.
The orthogonal basis vectors are br = (cos θ, sin θ), bθ = (−r sin θ, r cos θ). The scale factors are hr = 1 and hθ= r. The fundamental tensor is g11 =1, g22 =r2, g12 = g21 =0.
The alternating tensor
In an orthonormal right-handed basis, the third-order alternating tensor is defined as
In a general curvilinear basis the same tensor may be expressed as
Adjustments need to be made in the calculation of line, surface and volumeintegrals.
For simplicity, the following restricts to three dimensions and
orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. However, the same arguments apply
for n-dimensional spaces. When the coordinate system is not orthogonal, there are some additional terms in the expressions.
The magic of this theory will hardly fail to impose itself on anybody
who has truly understood it; it represents a genuine triumph of the
method of absolute differential calculus, founded by Gauss, Riemann,
Ricci, and Levi-Civita.
Some useful relations in the calculus of vectors and second-order
tensors in curvilinear coordinates are given in this section. The
notation and contents are primarily from Ogden, Simmonds, Green and Zerna, Basar and Weichert, and Ciarlet.
Let φ = φ(x) be a well defined scalar field and v = v(x) a well-defined vector field, and λ1, λ2... be parameters of the coordinates
Geometric elements
Tangent vector: If x(λ) parametrizes a curve C in Cartesian coordinates, then
is a tangent vector to C in curvilinear coordinates (using the chain rule). Using the definition of the Lamé coefficients, and that for the metric gij = 0 when i ≠ j, the magnitude is:
Tangent plane element: If x(λ1, λ2) parametrizes a surface S in Cartesian coordinates, then the following cross product of tangent vectors is a normal vector to S with the magnitude of infinitesimal plane element, in curvilinear coordinates. Using the above result,
The expressions for the gradient, divergence, and Laplacian can be directly extended to n-dimensions, however the curl is only defined in 3D.
The vector field bi is tangent to the qi coordinate curve and forms a natural basis at each point on the curve. This basis, as discussed at the beginning of this article, is also called the covariant curvilinear basis. We can also define a reciprocal basis, or contravariant curvilinear basis, bi.
All the algebraic relations between the basis vectors, as discussed in
the section on tensor algebra, apply for the natural basis and its
reciprocal at each point x.
Fictitious forces in general curvilinear coordinates
By definition, if a particle with no forces acting on it has its position expressed in an inertial coordinate system, (x1, x2, x3, t), then there it will have no acceleration (d2xj/dt2 = 0). In this context, a coordinate system can fail to be "inertial" either
due to non-straight time axis or non-straight space axes (or both). In
other words, the basis vectors of the coordinates may vary in time at
fixed positions, or they may vary with position at fixed times, or both.
When equations of motion are expressed in terms of any non-inertial
coordinate system (in this sense), extra terms appear, called
Christoffel symbols. Strictly speaking, these terms represent components
of the absolute acceleration (in classical mechanics), but we may also
choose to continue to regard d2xj/dt2
as the acceleration (as if the coordinates were inertial) and treat the
extra terms as if they were forces, in which case they are called
fictitious forces. The component of any such fictitious force normal to the path of the
particle and in the plane of the path's curvature is then called centrifugal force.
This more general context makes clear the correspondence between the concepts of centrifugal force in rotating coordinate systems and in stationary curvilinear coordinate systems. (Both of these concepts appear frequently in the literature.) For a simple example, consider a particle of mass m moving in a circle of radius r with angular speed w relative to a system of polar coordinates rotating with angular speed W. The radial equation of motion is mr” = Fr + mr(w + W)2. Thus the centrifugal force is mr times the square of the absolute rotational speed A = w + W of the particle. If we choose a coordinate system rotating at the speed of the particle, then W = A and w = 0, in which case the centrifugal force is mrA2, whereas if we choose a stationary coordinate system we have W = 0 and w = A, in which case the centrifugal force is again mrA2.
The reason for this equality of results is that in both cases the basis
vectors at the particle's location are changing in time in exactly the
same way. Hence these are really just two different ways of describing
exactly the same thing, one description being in terms of rotating
coordinates and the other being in terms of stationary curvilinear
coordinates, both of which are non-inertial according to the more
abstract meaning of that term.
When describing general motion, the actual forces acting on a particle are often referred to the instantaneous osculating circle
tangent to the path of motion, and this circle in the general case is
not centered at a fixed location, and so the decomposition into
centrifugal and Coriolis components is constantly changing. This is true
regardless of whether the motion is described in terms of stationary or
rotating coordinates.