Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Isis Volume 52 Issue 3 1961 (Doi 10.2307/228079) Richard C. Dales - Robert Grosseteste's Scientific Works
Isis Volume 52 Issue 3 1961 (Doi 10.2307/228079) Richard C. Dales - Robert Grosseteste's Scientific Works
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
Robert
Grosseteste's
Scientific
Works
By Richard C. Dales*
great deal of attention and interest has recently been directed at Robert
Grosseteste, particularly because of his scientific methodology. The most
recent and perhaps the most brilliant work dealing with this aspect of Grosseteste's many-sided activity is A. C. Crombie's Robert Grosseteste and the
Origins of Experimental Science.' In this book Dr. Crombie is primarily interested in Grosseteste's methodology, and in his scientific works only as they
illustrate the methodology. He proposes and argues well that Grosseteste first
worked out a theory of scientific method, notably in his commentary on the
Posterior Analytics, and then applied the method in his own scientific investigations. In developing his thesis, Crombie usually begins his discussion of
each part of Grosseteste's method with an appropriate quotation from the
commentary on the Posterior Analytics and then, where possible, cites sections of the scientific works to illustrate how the idea was put into practice;
or he cites methodological remarks made in the scientific works to illustrate
methodological principles presumably already arrived at before the work had
been undertaken.
This procedure has several difficulties. In the first place, it assumes that
the commentary on the Posterior Analytics precedes all the scientific works,
an assumption which, it will be shown below, there is some reason to question.
And in the second place, it does not pay adequate attention to the chronological relationship between Grosseteste's scientific works and the development of his ideas in them.
I have selected for treatment in this article several of Grosseteste's tractates which may be classified as natural science.2 It shall be my purpose
primarily to present an exposition of the contents of these works, secondarily
to call attention to Grosseteste's methodology in the course of the exposition,
and finally to attempt where possible to establish their chronological order.
* Lewis and Clark College. A preliminary
version of this paper was read at the 1958
meeting of the Pacific Coast Branch of the
American Historical Association. Further research was aided by a grant from the Danforth
Foundation.
1A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and
the Origins of Experimental Science, 11001700 (Oxford, 1953).
2 I have excluded De sphera and the other
astronomical works because their great im-
381
382
RICHARD C. DALES
20...." The crudity of the method and concepts employed in the work would indicate
that it is not much later than 1220.
5 De lineis contains two almost certain references to Averroes (cf. Crombie, op. cit.,
49-50); De natura locorum presupposes De
lineis and uses Michael Scot's translation of
Avicenna's Abbreviatio de animalibus.
383
II
A. Early Works
I. De generatione stellarum6
De generatione stellarum is not a particularly noteworthy essay. Methodologically it has little to recommendit. Grosseteste proves of stars that they
are not of the same nature as their spheres; that they are not simple bodies
but are composed of the four elements; that they are not perfectly transparent, but vary in their transparency; that they are not parts of their own
spheres, since the sphere and the star are both circular and do not have the
same center; a star and its sphere are not uniform, but differ essentially in
their light, and so are of a diverse creation. The treatise closes with a criticism of the chemists for supposing that the fifth essence is present through
humiliation in mixed bodies. The essay is as loose in structure and as indefinite in purpose as this summary makes it appear. It proceeds by stating a
syllogism, then proving the minor premise by other syllogisms, then the major,
citing in the process any authorities which seem pertinent. Then follows another syllogism not necessarily related to the preceding and the process is
repeated.
Two aspects of this work should be especially noted for comparison with
Grosseteste's later works: the crudity of its discussion of color, completely
dependent on Aristotle,7 and the belaboring of the assertion, derived from
Aristotle, that there are degrees of transparency.8 This second point Grosseteste takes for granted in his later works and he even makes it an essential
part of his theories of color (cf. De colore and De iride) and heat (cf. De
calore solis).
2. De generacione sonorum9
384
RICHARD C. DALES
word for word, to parts of Grosseteste's treatise on the Liberal Arts and his
commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Dr. Baur has printed the appropriate sections of these three works in parallel columns in order to facilitate comparison.?1In none of these works is the investigation of the generation
of sound the main object. De generacione sonorum is closely connected in
spirit with De artibus liberalibus; its primary interest is in phonetics, the relation of sounds to the shapes of letters, etc., and the discussion of sound in
general is simply an introduction to the main part of the essay.
A comparison of the three discussions of sound reveals that they are of
almost the same length, although De generacione sonorum is longest by a few
lines. It is extremely difficult to decide on the basis of the texts which is the
earliest. Baur has suggested1 that De generacione sonorum is the first draft
of the section on sound in the commentary on the Posterior Analytics. Although it was probably written before the commentary, it cannot for this
reason be considered a "rough draft." The treatment of sound in De generacione sonorum is the most comprehensive of the three and excels the other
two in five respects. First, the presentation is systematic and tight rather than
discursive; second, appeal to experience, limited though it is, is an integral
part of the method of investigation, as it is not in the other two; third, the
treatment of the transmission of the pulses of the vibrating body is much
expanded; fourth, the reception of these pulses by the ear is mentioned only
in De generacione sonorum; and, fifth, the important distinction between a
sensation and a perception is made only in this work.
De generacione sonorum omits the resolutio-whether because Grosseteste
felt it unnecessary in view of his purpose or because of the early composition
date of the work is not clear-and presents the reader at once with a hypothesis: When an object capable of making a sound is struck, parts of the object
go forth from their natural place. The nature of the object then exerts a force
reinclining these parts to their natural place; but in their return the parts
overshoot the mark and the process is repeated in the opposite direction. This
creates a subtle vibration in the outer parts of the sounding object, which is
evident both to sight and touch. When these parts go forth from their natural
place, there result an extension of the parts along the longitudinal diameter
and a constriction along the transverse diameter; and the opposite occurs when
they return. When these parts vibrate, they move the air contiguous to them
in a manner similar to their own motion, and the air thus moved reaches the
ears.12This creates a sensation of the body which the soul then takes notice
of, and there arises a heard sense.
The remainder of the essay concerns phonetics and related topics and lies
outside the scope of this investigation. It will be noted that the use of experience is limited to verification of the vibration of a sounding object by sight
and touch, and that the introduction of geometrical considerations concerning
the extension and constriction of the longitudinal and transverse diameters is
really superfluous, since no deduction follows from it.
10Baur, op. cit., pp. 58*-59*.
"Ibid., p. 59*.
2Cf. Boethii, De musica, lib. I, cap. 3:
"Idcirco difinitur sonus: Aeris percussio indissoluta usque ad auditum" (Migne, Pat. Lat.,
LXIII, col. 1173).
385
Baur, op. cit., pp. 87-89; cf. Thomson, op. cit., p. 104; cites Aristotle (Philosophus).
386
RICHARD C. DALES
From these five principles, Grosseteste, in the compositio, deduces the observed phenomena of dew, rain, snow and hail. When rays are condensed in
the depth of the water, he says, the water will become hot. But insofar as it
becomes hot it does not remain under the nature of water, but passes over to
the nature of air. Then, since it is not the nature of air to be under water, it
rises in a bubble above the water. If anyone wishes to see this, let him put
clear water in a clear vessel and place it over a flame; he will see the bubbles
generated and ascending because of the heat of the fire.
When many bubbles rise above the water at the same time, they maintain
themselves because of their humid nature, and from these comes vapor or
steam from which clouds arise. But the qualities and properties of the bubbles
vary according to the proportion of each of the four elements in them, for
there are all four elements in such a bubble: earth, because of the place of
generation; water, for obvious reasons; fire, in the generation of heat; and
the generated air, resulting from the heat. When water predominates in the
generated bubbles, they are called "humid vapor"; when earth predominates
they are called "dry smoke"; and when air is abundant, they will be a dense
vapor. Therefore, the bubbles are more subtle or more gross according to the
subtlety or grossness of the generating heat.
In the morning and evening, when the heat is weak, subtle bubbles flutter
upwards from the surface of the water. And when these little bubbles are
destroyed by the heat they fall to the surface of the earth and become dew.
But if the heat is greater, it makes the bubbles-or cloud-rise to the first
(of the three) interstices of the air. When heat destroys the bubbles here,
drops of rain fall.
But when a cloud ascends to the second interstice, there is made a greater
abstraction of heat and the bubbles are destroyed there by the heat successively only, not suddenly, wherefore that which is soft is relinquished, just
like wool, and becomes snow.
If, however, a cloud be suddenly driven upwards to the second interstice,
it is suddenly destroyed by the heat, and each round bubble becomes a round
stone, or hail. This occurs especially when the heat is great.
This essay is to be compared to four other works, De calore solis (which
it anticipates in several respects), De accessione et recessione maris, De lineis,
angulis et figuris, and De natura locorum. One is struck by Grosseteste's remarks on the reflection of rays in the depths of water in De impressionibus
elementorum. It is obvious from this that this work preceded De lineis (in
which the laws of reflection and refraction are carefully studied), De iride,
and De calore solis, since in it Grosseteste is apparently unaware that rays
would be reflected from the surface of the water and would be refracted at
the surface. And since he does not use the concepts of "incorporation"and
"scattering," but attributes change simply to the heating of water by condensed rays, it would also be earlier than De cometis, De accessione et recessione maris, and De colore. Another point on which this essay is to be
compared to De calore solis and De natura locorum is the discussion of the
way in which the sun heats. That the sun does not generate heat as a hot
body is a point which is incorporated in De calore solis. In the latter work,
387
however, the proof of this assertion is more elaborate, involving the immutability of the fifth essence and the non-intersectionof rays on high and is much
more mathematical than in De impressionibuselementorum,where the proposition that the sun generates heat as a hot body is falsified experimentally.
One part of the falsification of this point creates a problem in determining
the relationship of De calore solis to De natura locorum and De accessione et
recessione maris. In De impressionibus elementorum, Grosseteste mentions
that there is greater heat in valleys than on mountain tops. This same observation is used for slightly differentreasons in De accessione et recessione maris
and De calore solis. In De natura locorum, however, where Grosseteste is concerned to prove the rules that the shorter and straighterthe line and the shorter
the pyramids the paths of rays take, the stronger is their action, he says that
essentialiter mountains are hotter than valleys, but accidentaliter coldness
sometimes dominates mountain tops because of the higher-blowing winds or
because some mountains reach up into the middle interstice of the air, which
is very cold. By every other test, De calore solis seems to be later than De
natura locorum, while De impressionibus elementorum and De accessione et
recessione maris are certainly earlier than either. Why then did Grosseteste
first alter an opinion for geometric reasons, and then return to his original
position without explaining away what he had said in De natura locorum?
2. De accessione et recessione maris14
In his study of the tides, entitled De accessione et recessione maris, or De
fluxu et refluxu maris, Grosseteste does not use the structural scheme of resolutio and compositio. He begins by showing the causa materialis communis
and the causa materialis propria of motion among us. First communis: The
spheres of the four elements are so arranged that earth is in the center and
is not further condensible; fire is on the outside and is not further capable of
rarefaction; but water and air, between these two, are particularly suited to
be moved because they can be condensed and rarefied. Then propria: In air
and water, since they themselves are moved greatly by condensation and rarefaction, is every generable and corruptible motion.
He then states that he will omit speaking of the motion of air and speak
rather of the motion of water. This discussion is divided into three major
14MSS. Assisi, Comun. 138, fols. 261D262B; Florence, Marucell. c. 163, fols. 18A-19C;
Prague, Nat. Mus. XII E 5, fols. 410-42A;
Vatican, Barb. lat. 165, fols. 402D-403B; cf.
Thomson, op. cit., p. 89; and F. Pelster, "Zwei
unbekanntephilosophischeTractate des Robert
Grosseteste," Scholastik, 1926, 1: 572-573;
cites Alpetragius. This work has been edited
by Ezio Franceschini-"Un inedito di Roberto
Grossatesta: la 'Quaestio de accessu et recessu
maris,' Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scholastica,
1952, 44: 11-21-but Prof. Franceschini was
not able to use the excellent Prague MS. My
text differs slightly from his, but not enough
to make any significant difference in the following summary. Grosseteste'sauthorshiphas
been denied by F. M. Henquinet, Archivum
Franciscanum Historicum, 1932, 25: 553 and
388
RICHARD C. DALES
parts: (1) the material and efficient causes of the motion of the sea; (2) the
causes of the increase and decrease of the rise of the sea; (3) bodies of fresh
water which do not have tides, which do have tides but do not seem to, and
which have tides and seem to.
In section (1) he begins by discussing the efficient cause. It is, he says, a
power of the sky or a power of a star in the sky, since an element is not moved
by itself or by another element, but rather by a material form. He then cites
Alpetragius' explanation of the tides:15 By a power of the furthermost sky,
which is above the sphere of the fixed stars, all lower spheres are moved from
east to west as far as the sphere of water. But each sphere receives as much
less of the ultimate power as it is lower, since this power is the power of a
body, and undergoes diminution at a distance. The earth, however, because
of its maximum distance from the farthest sphere, remains completely immobile. Therefore the water of the sea is moved by a power of the furthest
sky from east to west, and from this he says a crushing together of the waters
occurs, and a rise. But it approaches its former place because of its heaviness and when the reversion is completed it again begins to be moved and to
rise as far as its heaviness allows. And then consequently it reflows. And these
two rises and falls take a time more than one day and its night.
Grosseteste refutes this explanation by showing that the observed times of
the tides would not result from it nor would the sea behave as it does.
In addition to this refutation, however, some positive assertions result from
the criticism of Alpetragius. In the first place, says Grosseteste, we perceive
by experience that the rise and fall of the sea is from a certain rarefaction and
condensation of it. This is evident from the fact that ships in the sea are more
elevated in the time of rise than of fall,16 since the fall comes about because
of a subtlety of the parts and the rise because of condensation. In the second
place, experience also tells us that in the time of rise, the water is found to be
hotter than in the time of fall, again because of the lesser subtlety of the parts.
And in the third place, no planet or fixed star could cause the tides, because
the motion of the sea follows the motion of no heavenly body more than that
of the moon, as will be proved below.
The rules of the astronomers, he continues, lead to the same conclusion:
there are two great luminaries,the sun and the moon, which are the first principles of all generation and corruption. The sun principally affects changes in
the air, but the moon, being wet and cold, principally affects the water. It is
thus sufficiently evident, he says, that the moon is the efficient cause of the
tides. We must now investigate in what manner it is the cause.
When the moon rises on the horizon of any sea, it first sends forth its luminous rays into the midst of the sea and, strongly impressingits power, it moves
this sea and increases it. This motion is increased until the moon arrives at
the meridionalcircle. However, when it crosses over the meridional circle, the
15Kitab al-hai'a, translated into Latin by
Michael Scot in 1217; cf. G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science (Baltimore,
1931) II, pt. i, pp. 400-401and F. J. Carmody,
Arabic Astronomical and Astrological Science
in Latin Translation (Berkeley and Los An-
389
effective power is lessened and the sea recedes to its former place until the
moon arrives at the east. When again it passes over from the east to the middle
of the sky under the earth, the sea is increased; and when it passes from the
middle of the sky under the earth the sea diminishes until the moon again
arrives at its rise. And thus in one revolution of the moon from rise to rise
there are accomplished two rises of the sea in the same place above whose
horizon is the rise of the moon; wherefore the rises and falls are thus divided
into four quarters.
At this point, Grosseteste is somewhat dissatisfied with his own explanation.
It is clear enough, he says, how the moon acts on the sea while it is in the sky
above the earth, for while it is rising it impresses its power more strongly than
when it is setting. But when the moon exists in the two quarters which are
under the horizon of the sea, it is not present nor is it illuminating that sea.
And since celestial bodies do not act on lower bodies except by their light, it is
doubtful how the moon can be the principle of the motion of the sea. To this,
he notes, the astronomersanswer that opposite quarters in the sky have similar
effects. But one must ask whether this holds true, and the matter is in need
of further speculation.
Despite his mild dissatisfaction with his scheme, Grosseteste proceeds to
correlate the observed times of the tides with the position of the moon and its
relation to the sun with the results that should follow from his explanation.
Just as the time of the revolution of the moon from rise to rise exceeds the
time of a day and night, he says, so the time of two diverse and complete rises
and falls of the sea exceeds the time of a day and night. "I seek to know,
therefore," Grosseteste says, "by how many hours the rising of the moon precedes the rising of the sun." It is known by how many hours the rising of the
sea follows or precedes the beginning of the day, and that one lunation contains
twenty-nine days and some few minutes. Therefore, in seven and one-quarter
days and a few minutes, the moon will be a quarter of the circle toward the
horizon away from the sun; whence in a third of this time, when the sun is in
ortu, the moon will be in the middle of the sky under the earth, and than will be
the beginning of a revolution, since in the beginning of this time will have been
the start of the sea's rise.
He then deduces the consequences of other relative positions of the sun and
moon, finds that they are verified by "what sailors say," and closes his discussion of the efficient cause of the sea's motion.
And so, the consequencesof this explanationhaving been drawn and verified
by observation, it now remains to discuss in detail the causa materialis propria.
It is the property of waters to be congregated in a deep and broad place; in
such waters is much matter of vapors and winds. Whence the moon, rising
and impressing her power, generates in these waters many vapors and stirs up
the winds. But that water, being incapable of division or expurgation because
of the grossness and viscosity of its parts, passes through itself and excites
itself because of the enclosed vapors.
In order to make clear his meaning here, Grosseteste discusses how this
contrasts with the behavior of sweet water. Sweet water, he says, being subtle
and penetrable, allows the winds and vapors to be withdrawn and so does not
390
RICHARD C. DALES
Assisi, Comun. 138, fol. 262A; Florence, Marucel. c. 163, fol. 19A; Prague, Nat. Mus. XII,
E 5, fol. 42A.
391
This work should apparently be dated'8 after De impressionibus elementorum because in it, for the first time, Grosseteste uses the concepts of incorporation of rays in matter and the scattering of parts of matter producing
heat when rays intersect in a point. But that it is definitely earlier than De
natura locorum (1230-31) is evident in two places.
First, in De fluxu et refluxu maris Grosseteste assumes that the moon's rays
increase in strength as the moon is rising and decrease as it is declining, but
he sees no reason to explain why this is so. In De natura locorum, however,
he presents a more detailed presentation of this part of his explanation of the
tides, giving mathematical reasons for the phenomenon:
Because the lunar rays rising above the sea of any region have longer lines
and pyramids and are less straight and fall less at equal angles and are less
reflected on themselves and are more broken, therefore they are weaker than
when the moon rises toward the center of the sky. For then all the rays have
shorter lines and straighter pyramids and fall more at equal angles and are
more perpendicular and more returning on themselves and less broken... and
therefore they are of stronger operation. Therefore when the moon rises, its
rays because of their weakness are only able to loosen the vapors from the
depth of the sea and they are not able to consume them or to draw them out
completely to the air.... But when the moon rises to the middle of the sky, on
account of the power of the rays it is able both to consume these resolute
vapors and elevate them to the air. And when it arrives at the meridian, then
it completely consumes and extracts them, and because when the cause ceases
the effect also ceases, therefore the waters of the sea then naturally run again
into their own place lest a vacuum be made.19
A similar explanation is utilized concerning the sun's rays in De calore solis.
Second, Grosseteste's puzzlement in De fluxu et refluxu maris as to why
opposite quarters of the world should have similar effects is solved by him in
De natura locorum:
And therefore the reflection of rays solves this, since the lunar rays are multiplied toward the sky of the stars, which is a dense body. And therefore,
through its medium we are not able to see the heaven, which is scarcely
luminous, just as Alpetragius and Messalahe say. And other reflected rays
fall on the opposite quarter at equal angles.20
3. De cometis et causis ipsarum21
Grosseteste's work on comets was probably written after De fluxu maris
because of its use of the concept of the incorporation of rays in a dense medium
and the more extensive knowledge of optics shown in the beginning of the
18 There is other evidence for the date of
this work. The earliest MS is dated by Thomson ca. 1225 (Assisi, Comun. 138). But we
must allow at least ten years leeway in dating
on paleographicalgrounds along. The ascrip-
20Ibid., p. 70.
S. H. Thomson, "The Text of Grosseteste's De Cometis,"Isis, 1933, 19: 19-25; addenda S. H. Thomson, "Grosseteste's Questio
21
392
RICHARD C. DALES
work. But, on the other hand, the strongly qualitative nature of Grosseteste's
study and its extensive use of the principle of sublimation would seem to place
it in the middle period, before his predilection for mathematics transformed
the nature of his scientific works (as in De colore, De calore solis and De
iride). We may therefore date De cometis with some confidence between 1228
and 1230. It is consequently the last work of the middle period.
De cometis begins with a refutation of four current theories about the nature
of comets and provides us with an excellent example of Grosseteste's method
of falsification. He feels that these false theories result from loose analogies
with things known and from haphazard experiments not systematically employed, made by people who do not adequately consider the laws of the special
sciences.
The first theory which he tests is that the tail which a comet draws behind it
is a radiosity of the sun reflected by a star. This is a conclusion jumped to by
people who have noted that the visible rays of the sun are reflected by a mirror
with visible radiation and that the stars are mirrors reflecting rays which fall
upon themselves; but it can be refuted in two ways. In the first place, a
radiosity is not reflected visibly except when the reflected rays are mixed with
a transparent medium having a terrestrial rather than a celestial nature. And
secondly, the tail of a comet is not always extended opposite the Sun as it
should be, since all reflected rays go in opposite directions at equal angles.
A second theory is held by certain people who, knowing that from a concurrence of rays an inflammableobject is ignited, think that many rays come
together in the highest air by which combustible fumes are elevated, and there
by means of a concurrence of rays the fumes are set on fire; and this very
inflammationappears to be the tailed star. This theory is also refuted in two
ways. First, if there were a concourse of rays descending straight from the
planets, it could not burn for very long since the planets change their positions
swiftly; but comets are seen to have lasted for six months. (On the other
hand, if the concourse of rays descended straight from the stars it would be
stable and permanent.) Second, if this were a concourse of ascending reflected
rays such as from a concave mirroror a congregationof rays such as would be
brought about by their passing through a transparent sphere, then the occurrence here of a concourse of rays would be a natural sublunary body the
duration of which could not be long, nor would its motion necessarily follow
the motion of the heavens. But, as mentioned above, the duration of comets
is sometimes very long, and their motion does follow the daily motion of the
heavens.
There is a third theory held by those who, knowing that many things close
to each other appear from a distance to be continuous, and knowing that a
galaxy is a congregationof nearby stars "run together" in the judgment of the
sight, think that a comet is an aggregation of nearby stars and that a comet
appears when a numberof erratic stars run together. This can easily be refuted
by noting that comets do not always appear in the paths of erratic stars, but
more often outside them.
The fourth and final theory to be refuted here is that held by certain people
who, knowing that it is possible that one thing might appear to be of some
393
394
RICHARD C. DALES
395
different densities and the properties of the pyramid and cone. De natura
if.
396
RICHARD C. DALES
mentary on the Physics, ca. 1229; in De lineis, angulis et figuris, ca. 1230;
397
p. 78.
398
RICHARD C. DALES
399
medium of the air, a dense body. When these rays fall on the earth's surface,
they are reflected at equal angles; so if they fall perpendicularly (as they will
between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn when the sun is at the zenith),
the incident and reflected rays go along the same line in opposite directions,
and there is a maximum of scattering and thus of heat. A similarly violent
scattering and great heat can be produced by the concentration of rays refracted through a spherical body or reflected from a concave mirror.
North and south of the tropics, however, the sun's rays must always fall at
less than right angles, so the paths of incidence and reflection will not be the
same. It follows from this hypothesis that the farther a place is from the
equator, the more obtuse will be the angle at which the sun's rays fall and
are reflected, and so the scattering and heat will be proportionately less. This
accords with observation.
There are, however, variations in temperature which cannot be accounted
for solely by the hypothesis suggested and verified above. Consequently,
Grosseteste turns his attention from the rays themselves to the medium in
which they are partially incorporated,i.e., the air. He proposes that the density of the transparentmedium and the correspondingdegree of incorporation
of the sun's rays are also directly proportional to the amount of heat generated. Then once again he deduces the consequences of his hypothesis and tests
them either by reason or by experience.
In the fifth element, he says, even if the sun's rays did intersect (and they
do not), no heat would be generated because there is no dense nature; hence
there is no incorporationand no scattering is possible. In the upper layer of
air-on mountain tops, for instance-where the air is thinnest and the degree
of incorporation slight, the least amount of heat is generated, as observation
shows. But in a valley, where the air is more dense, there is a greater incorporation of rays and therefore more scattering and more heat.
3. De iride37
Perhaps the last of Grosseteste's scientific works is De iride. It alone among
his physical investigations explicitly asserts and clearly employs the principle
of the subordination of sciences. It also assumes and uses the laws of compound refraction developed in De lineis.
In the lengthy and carefully-reasoned resolutio, which occupies over half
of the entire work, he introduces his principle of subordinationby noting that
speculation concerning the rainbow is the province of both optics and physics;
the physicist is concerned with quid, the experienced fact, and the student of
optics with propter quid, or the reason for the fact.
The science of optics may be divided into three parts, according to the
method of transition of the visual ray to the seen thing. In the first part,
called de visu, the transit of the visual ray is straight, through the medium of
37 Baur, op. cit., pp. 72-78; partial transla-
400
RICHARD C. DALES
a transparent body placed between the viewer and the seen thing. In the second, called de speculis, its transit is along a line straight toward a body which
acts as a mirror and reflects the ray toward the seen thing. In the third part,
"which," he remarks, "has remained unknown and untouched among us to the
present time," the transit of the ray is through many transparent bodies of
diverse kinds in which the visual ray is bent at their points of contact and
makes an angle. This is clear from the following experiment described in de
speculis:38 if something is placed in a vessel, and one then steps back to a point
from which the thing can not be seen, and then water is poured in, the thing
which was put into the vessel will be seen. This third part, perfectly known,
shows us how to make distant things appear near, large things appear small,
etc. "It is perfectly evident in geometrical demonstrations how by means of
a transparent medium of known size and shape placed at a known distance
from the eye, a thing of known distance and size will appear according to
place, size, and position."
It must now be decided to which of these three parts of optics the science
of the rainbow belongs. A rainbow could not be made by solar rays by a
direct approach from the sun falling on a concave cloud, for they would not
form a bow. Nor is it possible that a rainbow be made by the reflection of
the sun's rays upon the convexity of the mist descending from the cloud as
upon a convex mirror in such a way that the concavity of the cloud should
receive the reflected rays and thus a rainbow appear. If this were so, the rainbow would not always be in the shape of a bow, and when the sun were high
the rainbow would appear high and large and when the sun were low the bow
would be less. Just the contrary of this is evident to the senses.
Therefore it is to the third part of optics that the science of the rainbow
belongs, and the task now remaining is to deduce a rainbow from the principles established above. Having proved that a rainbow could not arise from
the sun's rays falling directly on a concave cloud or by the simple reflection
of these rays, Grosseteste sees as the only remaining possibility that the rainbow must be made by the compound refraction of the sun's rays in the mist
of a convex cloud.
The exterior of a cloud, he says, is convex, its interior concave, and that
part of a cloud which we can see must be less than a hemisphere. When moisture descends from the concavity of a cloud, the moisture must be pyramidally convex at the top, descending to the ground, and therefore more condensed
near the earth than in the upper part. There are consequently four different
transparent media through which the rays of the sun penetrate: the pure air
containing the cloud; the cloud itself: the higher and rarer part of the moisture descending from the cloud; and finally the lower and denser part of this
moisture.
From this hypothetical figure, Grosseteste attempts to deduce geometrically
the phenomenon of the rainbow. The rays of the sun are refracted at the
point of contact of air and cloud, then of cloud and moisture. Because of
these refractions the rays run together in the density of the moisture and are
refracted there again and spread out into a figure like the curved surface of
38Euclid, Catoptrica, Post. 7.
401
a cone expanded in the direction opposite the sun. Therefore its shape is an
arc and no39rainbow is seen in the south. So far, deduction (although faulty)
matches observation.
Because the apex of the above-mentioned figure is near the earth and its
expansion opposite the sun, half or more of the figure must fall on the earth,
the remainder on a cloud opposite the sun. Therefore, when the sun is near
rising or setting the rainbow appears semicircular and is greater, and otherwise varies inversely with the elevation of the sun. Deduction and observation again match.
Grosseteste then introduces his theory of light and color developed in De
colore40 to account for the variety of color in different parts of the same rainbow and from one rainbow to another, and closes his inquiry.
III
From these investigations of Grosseteste's scientific works, several conclusions may be drawn. In the first place, he was evidently not a great observer
or experimenter. Most of the experiments to which he refers in his works are
those he had read about, and if he performed them at all it was only to satisfy
his curiosity about them. Others are simply appeals to every-day experience,
and some of these are questionable, especially in De fluxu et refluxu maris
where he says that at high tide the water is found to be hotter and ships draw
less water than at low tide. There are also several instances where it seems
that a simple experiment could have definitely established a hypothesis which
Grosseteste accepts for inadequate reasons (for example, that the air is the
medium through which sound waves are carried to the ears, in De generacione
sonorum), or could have prevented his making faulty assumptions in constructing his hypotheses (as in De iride, where he assumes there will be two
refractions in a mist of varying density). In no case does he contrive an experiment for the explicit purpose of testing a hypothesis.
In the second place, it seems doubtful that Grosseteste first worked out his
method in his theoretical works and then applied it in special investigations.
Rather we have seen a progressive refinementof method from the rather crude
De generacione stellarum to the intricate, complex, and beautifully conceived
De calore solis and De iride. Indeed, his theoretical works may well have been
done concurrently with his scientific investigations. It is fairly certain that
his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, in which he states the principles of
subordination of sciences and of resolutio and compositio, was done between
1228 and 1232.41 De lineis, angulis et figuris and De natura locorum, which
powerfully influenced his later works, were written about 1230-1231. This
leaves in doubt only the date of the very important commentary on Aristotle's
Posterior Analytics. All in all, there seem to be more serious difficulties involved in insisting on a date of around 1220 than in admitting a date of 1228
39 Following Crombie'semendation,op. cit.,
p. 126.
40 This, of course, is problematical. For
41 R. C. Dales, "Robert Grosseteste's Commentarius in Octo Libros Physicorum Aristotelis," Medievalia et Humanistica, 1957, 11:
12-13.
402
RICHARD C. DALES
1230-Introduction of Averroes to
Latin Europe (cf. R. de Vaux, "La
premiere entree d'Averroes chez les
Latins," Revue des Sciences Philosophique et Theologique, 1933, 22:
193-245).
1235-Grosseteste becomes Bishop of
Lincoln.
* Indicates dates are fairly certain; for the rest, the order is probably correct, but the dates
are simply approximations.
42