Metaphysical Derivations of a Law of Refraction: Damianos and Grosseteste

Author(s): Bruce S. Eastwood

Source: Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 3 (29.V.1970), pp. 224-236
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133302 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 16:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archive for History of Exact
Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Derivations
ofa Law ofRefraction:
Metaphysical
Damianos
andGrosseteste
Bruce S. Eastwood
Communicated
byM. Clagett

ofDamianos(fourth
In a peculiarsensetheopticaltreatises
century
A.D.)1
thesamelevelofachieveRobert
Grosseteste
and
(ca. 1167 1253)represent
ofoptics.Although
Damianos
mentin thehistory
separatedby ninecenturies,
workson opticssimilardegrees
and Grossetesteincorporate
in theirrespective
ofreflection
and refraction.
Bothmademuch
of sophistication
in thetreatment
andreflection,
butfailedto dealwithmore
oftheequalityofanglesofincidence
Forinstance,
thefocalpointofa paraofreflection.
complexknownphenomena
either
of
our
was
described
bolicmirror,
undiscussed
authors, accurately
by
by
forrefraction,
covered
Apollonius2andAlhazen.3Likewise
intheworks
briefly
Mostintriguing
is the
treatment.
to be analyzedbelow,thereis onlyelementary
Damianos
and
Grosseteste
which
stated.
law
refraction
of
they
quantitative
inaccurate
to thereadertheamazingly
notionthattheangleofrefraction
present
findshisrationale
eachwriter
is exactlyhalftheangleofincidence.
Furthermore,
ofeconomy
lawin theprinciples
anduniformity.
forthisquantitative
Appealing
forthe
to thesea prioribases,eachseizedon thesameform,
thoughincorrect,
of the relevantoptical
The backgrounds
law of refraction.
and developments
frameworks.
revealthesimilarnatureoftheirconceptual
treatises
1 Dated thusby George Sarton, Introduction
:
totheHistoryofScience(Baltimore
Friedrich Hultsch, "Damianos (3)",
Williamsand Wilkins,1927),I, 354,following
ed. G.Wissowa (Stuttderclassischen
Altertumswissenschaft,
Paulys Real-Encyclopdie
1901),IV (8erHlbbd.), 2055. Hultsch notesthat Damianos is
gart: Metzlerscher,
ifHeliodorus (hisfatheror master)is olderthan
bestplacedin thefourth
century,
Theon Alexandrinus (midfourthcentury).
2 See, e.g.,ThomasL. Heath, "The fragment
on burningmirrors
of Anthemius
mathematicum
and the'Fragmentm
3e Folge,
Mathematica,
Bobiense',"Bibliotheca
VII (1907), 232; Christian Belger, "Ein neues FragmentmMathematicum
Bobiense,"Hermes,XVI (1881),271-2.
3 For medievalLatin version,translatedby Gerard of Cremonaor his school,
Hohlberparabolische
v. J.L. Heiberg & E. Wiedemann," Ibn al HaitamsSchrift
3e Folge,X "(1909- 10), 201- 37; Englishtransi,
Mathematica,
spiegel,"Bibliotheca
ofArabictextin H. J.J.Winter & W. 'Arafat, Ibn al-Haithamon theParaboloidal
FocussingMirror,"Journalof theRoyalAsiaticSocietyof Bengal: Science,3rdser.,
XV (1949),25-40.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Derivationsofa Law ofRefraction

225

I.
hisonly
ascribedto Damianoshas cometo be considered
The opticaltreatise
of the fourteenth
Now knownonlyfromGreekmanuscripts
withdifficulty.
it alternately
and later,4the workhas appearedundertitlesassigning
century
to Damianosand to Heliodoros ofLarissa.5Hultsch notesthatmanuscripts
chapters(as editedby
assigningthe workto Damianos containedfourteen
Heliodoran
werefollowed
while
authorship
indicating
superscriptions
Schne),
firstthirteen
He
that
we
should
ascribe
the
concludes
thirteen
chapters.
by only
to
the
fourteenth
to
both
and
under
identical
Heliodoros,
titles,
chapters,
as student(orson)ofHeliodoros
Damianos.In thiscase,Damianos,mentioned
To complicate
hismaster's
workand addeda finalchapter.6
inthetitle,redacted
the issuethereappearsa muchmoreextendedversiondrawnup by Angel
fourteen
Vergetiusin 1657;7thematerial
however,
chapters,
beyondtheoriginal
fromthelast chaptersofthequadrivialtreatiseon geometry
derivesprimarily
by GeorgiusPachymeres(1242- ca. 13IO).8Vergetius' motiveforthis additionseemsto have beeningenuous
enough- the additionalmoneypaid for
a longerwork.9
copying
of Damianosis cloakedin fargreaterobscurity
The personality
thanthe
thatthe name"Domninos"
treatiseascribedto him.It has beenmaintained
led onescholarto attribute
the
of"Damianos". Thisassertion
was a corruption
Howofan anti-Nichomachan
bookon arithmetic.
opticaltreatiseto thewriter
as an independent
is well-known
ofLarissa, themathematician,
ever,DoMNiNOS
via the articleon himby Suidas, confirmed
by Damascius and
personality
certifiable
aboutthe life
Marinus.10
On the otherhand,nothingis presently
date
and workof Damianosbeyondthe presenttreatiseand its approximate
(fourth
century).
Damianoshad beforehiman availableopticaltraditionof greatrichness
- yetseemsto havemadeparsimonious
- Grossetestewaslessfortunate
use
ofit in his ownoptics.In catoptrics
alonetherewas detailedworkby Archi4 Damianos,Schrift
ed. Richard Schne
berOptikmitAuszgenaus Geminos,
(Berlin:Reichsdruckerei,
1897),PP-vi- viii.
5 Ibid., p. 5; Paul Tannery, "Rapport sur une missionen Italie," Mmoires
Villars,1912), II, 320- 1; Hultsch, Pauly-Wissowa,
scientifiques
(Paris: Gauthieriv, 2054-5.
6 Ibid. However,thereremainssomedoubt01 thisamongmorerecentscholars,
e.g.,in Paul Ver Eecke's ed. and transi,of Euclide, L'Optiqueet la Catoptrique
"The wholequestion
(Paris:Descleet Brouwer,
1938),p. xlii;cf.Sarton's statement,
is veryobscure."in Introduction,
I, 354.
7DamianiHeliodorideOpticislibriduo,ed. ErasmusBartholin (Paris:Cramoisy,
1657); v. Tannery,"Rapport",p. 319.
8 Also,therewas added a longfragment
fromHero's Catoptrics
as a termination
ofthefirstofthetwobooksin Bartholin's edition.The materialfromPachymeres,
of Euclid's Optics,
the secondbook of Bartholin, is an abridgment
constituting
withPachymeres,and foundas wellin an isolatedand anonymous
apparently
original
statein Parisms. gr. 2477,whichwas copiedby Vergetius. Tannery, "Rapport",
of
p. 320; Ver Eecke, Optiqueet Catoptrique,
p. xliii. For Pachymeres'treatment
edd. P. Tannery & E. Stephanou
optics,v. Quadriviumde GeorgesPachymre,
(VaticanCity:Bibl. Apost.Vat., 1940),pp. 318- 28.
9 Tannery, "Rapport",pp. 322- 3.
10Paul Tannery,"DomninosdeLarissa",Mmoires
scientifiques
(Paris:GauthierVillars,1912),II, 105- 6.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226

B. S. Eastwood:

MEDEs,11
Apollonius,12Hero,13Ptolemy,14and a Euclidean author;15Damianos
uses littlefromthem.Makingexplicitreferenceto the optical worksof Hero16
and Ptolemy,17he seemsto have givenno seriousattentionto theirtreatments
of refraction.It is even possiblethat he did not make first-hand
use of them,
more
sources.18
he
have
Or
general,encyclopedic
preferring
may
ignoredor mismaterialsuch as Ptolemy's discussionof refractive
understoodthe moredifficult
angles;19he certainlycontradictsPtolemy on this. Damianos thus seems to
remainon the mostelementaryplane in his "hypotheses"on light.
The brief20treatiseby Damianos aims primarilyto establishthe identityof
visual rays withlightrays. The extramission
theoryof vision21is assumedfrom
11Testimonyto a treatiseby Archimedeson burningmirrors
can be foundin
variarum
ed. Theophilus Kiessling (Leipchiliades,
JoannesTzetzes, Historiarum
zig: Vogel,1826),p. 479; also Apuleius Madaurensis,Opera,ed. R. Helm (Leipzig:
Teubner,1905),II, i, 18- 9. An excellentsurveyon thequestionofan Archimedean
is A. Rome,"Notessurles passagesdescatoptriques
d'Archimde
conservs
Catoptrics
de Bruxelles,LU (1932),
Annalesde la SocitScientifique
par Thond'Alexandrie,"
30- 41. The treatiseitselfhas notsurvived.
12Supran. 3. ThisworkofApollonius is notextant.
13Hero of Alexandria, Opera omnia,edd. L. Nix & W. Schmidt (Leipzig:
Teubner,1900),II, 1, pp. 303-65.
14The relevantportionsof Ptolemy's Opticsin L'Optiquede Claude Ptolme
dans la versionlatined'aprsVarabede VmirEugnede Sicile,ed. Albert Le jeune
(Louvain:Bibliothquede l'Universit,
1956).
15That is, the Catoptrics
ascribedto Euclid. Whileclearlynot by Euclid, this
workmay well be a productof Theon, whoseredactionof Euclid's Opticsshows
is generally
inferior
to the original,
inferiority
e.g.,in prop.22, just as the Catoptrics
to theOptics.See J.L. Heiberg, Litterar
StudienberEuklid (Leipzig:
geschichtliche
Teubner,1882),pp. 7, 150- 2; Euclid, Operaomnia,edd. J.L. Heiberg & H. Menge
of termsfor"ray" on p. xlix);
(Leipzig:Teubner,1895),VII, p. I (notecomparison
Ver Eecke, Optiqueet Catoptrique,
p. xxix. See esp. The argumentsof Albert
surla catoptrique
Lejeune, Recherches
grecque(Brussels:Palais des Acadmies,1957),
by Euclid as well.
pp. 112- 49; ibid., pp. 145- 6 arguesforan originalCatoptrics
16Damianos,Optik,p. 20. Friedrich Hultsch, in a reviewof Schne's edition
XVIII (1898), 1414))
of Damianos' Optics((BerlinerPhilologische
Wochenschrift,
as well.
containeddetailson refraction
maintainsthatHero's Catoptrics
17Damianos,Optik,p. 4.
18The eclectic,encyclopedic
trend
ofdata on a topicwas an established
collecting
beforeDamianos, as is shownby William H. Stahl, Roman Science(Madison:
U. ofWisconsin,
1962).
19CertainlyTheon ignoredor misunderstood
Ptolemy on refraction(Rome,
"
Catoptriquesd'Archimde",pp. 39- 40). That a major workin optics may be
or used is evidencedby the historyof Alhazen's
knownbut notwidelyunderstood
usedinstead,and phenomopticsin medievalIslam; Alkindi's opticswas commonly
ofAlhazen's
to be misunderstood
ena ofrefraction
continued
despitetheavailability
works.
20In Schne's edition,
a separatelistofchapterheadings,
theGreektext,including
fillsless than elevenpages. The firstprintededition,on whichthe editionsof the
werebased,requiresonlyelevenpagesforparallelcolumnsof
17thand 18thcenturies
the Greektext withLatin translation;v. "HeliodoriLarissaeiCapita Opticorum,"
di Euclide... & ... Specchi,
secondappendix(unnumbered
pages) to La Prospettiva
transi.Egnatio Danti (Florence:Juntas,1573)21In the historyof opticsthispositionwas a majortraditionin Antiquityand
can be foundin Edmund
theMiddleAges.A carefuland briefsurveyofthistradition
derOptik(Leipzig:Weber,1926),pp. 5- 25; forthe Greco-Roman
Hoppe,Geschichte

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ofa Law ofRefraction

Derivations

227

forour author.Insteadthe
the firstchapterand seemsto implyno problems
whether
of
visual
and
solar
or redirect,reflected,
rays,
completeparallelism
of an
is shown.Acknowledging
fracted,
Plato,22he too admitsthe necessity
Damianostellus,there
exterior
as wellas an interior
basisforvision.However,
aresomepeoplewhoseeyesemitstrongenoughlightto see unaidedin thedark;
sucha personwas theemperor
Tiberius.23
Thegeneral
ofthisrelatively
treatise
areworth
contents
unknown
summarizing
at leastbriefly,
thefourteen
chaptersdealingwiththefollowing
subjects.
fromtheeye.
1. Visionoccursby emanation
2. Whatemanatesfromus is truelight.
and are propagated
in a right-angled
cone.
3. Visualraysare rectilinear
Visual
must
emanate
the
form
of
a
in
4.
cone.
rays
exclusively
ratherthanacuteorobtuse;thisis
5. The coneofraysmustbe right-angled,
and observation.
supported
by boththeory
6. Visualrayspassthrough
invisible
poresin thepupil,yettheraysirradiate
the
between
everypoint
rays.
7-Anyobjectseenis viewedundera rightangleor less.If theformer,
then
theobjectmustbe on thediameter
ofthebase ofthecone;otherwise,
thismay
or maynotbe thecase.
8. An objectseenundera largerangleappearslargerbecauseofthegreater
ofraysstriking
number
it.
9. We see bestand primarily
alongtheaxis oftheconeofvision.
10.We areaccustomed
to seeingforward,
andwe therefore
to see any
attempt
or
to
it
as
ahead.
ahead,
objectdirectly
interpret being
11.The apex ofthevisualconeis withintheeye,and thepupilenclosesthe
one-fourth
ofthesurfaceoftheeye,a sphere.
cone,whichin turnintersects
12.Visionis completed
eitherby directraysor brokenrays.Of brokenrays
twosortsoccur,reflected
andrefracted.
and reflection
ourvisualraysact identically
13. In bothrectilinear
projection
as do solarrays.Bothvisualand solarraysoperateinstantaneously
overgreat
distances.
Bothvisualand solarraysare reflected
alongthesamelines.
14. Bothreflection
andrefraction
followa definite
law.Thisis thelaw ofequal
based
on
the
of
The
law
is effective
forbothvisual
angles,
principle equality.
and solarrays.
traditiona usefulworkis Vasco Ronchi, Histoirede la lumire,transi.J. Taton
of the emissiontheorywas based upon its
(Paris: Colin,1956),ch. 1. The strength
earlylinkeagewithgeometrical
optics.Aristotle'sPosteriorAnalyticslinkedoptics
to geometry.
WhileEudoxus was unwilling
to playthemetaphysical
directly
gamein
Euclid seemedto findit usefulin geometrical
geometrical
astronomy,
optics.The
an acceptableviewforGalen,
greatsuccessof Euclidean opticsmadeextramission
Ptolemy,Theon, and, of course,Damianos.
22Damianos,Optik, 20
p.
(ch.13).
23Probablyon the basis of Suetonius, Tiberius Damianos assertsthis in
68,
ch. 2 (d. cit.,p. 4).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

228

B. S. Eastwood :

Clearly,forrefractionwe must look at Damianos' last chapter almost exfromthe earlierparts will serve,however,to
clusively.Additionalinformation
illuminatefurtherthe overall frameworkof the argumentfor refraction.The
whole of chapter14 runs as follows.
of our visual rays do not
and refraction
One shouldrecognizethat reflection
occurby chance,withouta definitelaw. Both occurwithoutexceptionunder
equal angles,based on the surfaceof the object at whichour visual rays are
reflectedor refracted.Hero the mechanicianhas provenin his catoptricsthat
two pointsare connectedmorecloselyby reflectionat equal angles than by
at any other,unequal angles.He has proven,he said, that ifNature
reflection
she will
does not wish to permitour visual ray to wanderabout fruitlessly,
let it break at equal angles. Likewiseit can be shownthat when our visual
occurs at
ray penetratesan object, thus alteringits direction,the refraction

ori ned r' iaxXoiOt

xfc^justsqo
rfjtpeco
equal angles (ojllolco ei%0rj0eT(U,

But hereuponit is clear that solar rays as

yvioL).
tzqo OolniTEAeTVLi
well are bent at equal angles.For one cannotmaintainthat the phenomenon
occursaccordingto the principleof equalitywithvisual rays,but according
to inequalityand chance withsolar rays. And we have shownabove that in
at least, both solar rays and visual rays bend at equal angles in
reflection,
reflection.24
as well as in the earlychapters,on direct
In the finalchapteron refraction,
vision,Damianos searchesout as simplea geometricalsituationas possibleto
account forthe phenomena.In the firstsix chapterswe findthat he develops
not onlythe notionof visionas a trulyilluminating
processbut the notionof a
The
cone is chosen,
from
the
of
visual
cone
right-angled
eye.
rays
right-angled
we learn in chapter5,25because it is the most determinate,most defined,form
fortheformer
thedefiniteto theindefinite,
ofcone: Nature,beingrational,prefers
is better! In chapter14, the same sort of metaphysicalappeal suggestsitself.
because an inequality
as well as reflection,
Equal anglesare chosenforrefraction
cone of rays) would be indefiniteand a matter
of angles (like a non-rectangular
of chance. Some sort of metaphysicalprincipleof simplicityseems to operate
here,accordingto the text. An authoritativebasis is claimed in the Catoptrics
ofHero ; likewise,a tacit appeal to theOpticsof Ptolemy is obviousin chapter5
on the rectangularcone.26In both cases Damianos goes beyondhis authorities
in applyingtheirconclusionsto his situations.To reach a quantitativelaw of
refractionhe draws on the quantitativelaw of reflection.Hero showed that
24Optik,pp. 20- 2. It shouldbe notedthat the translationgivenhere is not
and thatboththe
in accordwiththesenseoftheoriginal,
verbatim,
thoughstrictly
Greektextand Schne's Germantranslation
(pp. 21- 3) have beenused as basis
seeDanti (ed.cit.supran. 21),
forthisEnglishversion.ForItalianand Latinversions,
n. pp. [f.4v and ff.5v- 6r of the twotextsrespectively].
25Damianos,Optik,pp. 6- 8.
the
26Damianos clearlyhad in mindPtolemy,who experimentally
determined
ofthevisualcone; v.d. cit.(n. 15 supra),pp. 35- 6.
shape(approximately)
rectangular
in Ptolemycan be foundin Albert
oftheopticalcone,orpyramid,
A fulldiscussion
grecque(Louvain:
Lejeune, Euclideet Ptolme:deuxstadesde Voptiquegomtrique
Bibl. de l'Universit,
1948),pp. 42-55-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Derivationsofa Law ofRefraction

229

occursat equal angles,becausethisis theshortest

and quickestpath.27
reflection
of
to arrive
makesuse ofthemetaphysical
He, likeothers,28
principle economy
at hisconclusion:
he insiststhatNaturedoesnothing
in vain.Takingup where
Hero leftoff,Damianosaddsanother
thatofuniformity.
principle,
metaphysical
Without
tojustify
heassumes(inthepassagegivenabove)
evenbothering
himself,
thatreflection
and refraction
and subjectto essentially
are similarphenomena
similarlaws: a uniformity
and refraction.29
existsbetweenthelawsofreflection
If thereis an equalityofanglesin reflection,
thentheremustalsobe an equality
ofanglesin refraction.30
Damianosgoesno further
in describing
justwherethese
we can make
are,but theonlyreasonable
equal anglesofrefraction
assumption
is tolocatethemoneithersideoftheactualpathoftherayinthedensermedium
intowhicha visualraypasses.The refracted
visualraybisectstheangleformed
and theimaginary
unrefracted
by a perpendicular
pathoftherayin thedenser
medium.
visual ray before refraction

/
_

common surface of two media

visual ray after refraction

angle a = angle b

Fig. 1

The fruitfulness
oftheprinciple
ofuniformity
is notexhaustedhereby aptotheproblem
ofrefracting
Damianos
alsowieldsa methodologiplication
angles.
cal principle
ofuniformity
to arguethatbothvisualraysand solarraysfollow
the ascertained
law of refraction,
and thatbothtypesof ray are therefore
of
thesameessence.31
To arguethatvisualraysdiffer
fromsolarrays
in refraction
27Ed. cit. (n. 4 supra),p. 324; note that Hero assumesthe
path of the rays
to be theshortest
possiblepath,and he provesonlythatequal anglesgivethisshortest
path.
28E.g., Aristotle, De celoI, 4, 271a.
29Ptolemyconsidered
reflection
and refraction
as twocases ofthesamephenomenon(Lejeune, EuclideetPtolme,
ed. Lejeune,
p. 74,n. 4; e.g.,Optiquede Ptolme,
p. 246). Hero (ed. cit. n. 14 supra,p. 322) used "fractio"as a generictermto cover
all typesofbentrays.In mostRomanauthorstherewasnoconception
ofthedifference
betweenreflection
and refraction,
in Seneca, Cuestiones
naturalesI, vii, 1- 2.
e.g.,
30Without
evidence,it has been suggestedthat the statementof
documentary
is an errorofa latercopyist,notto be foundin Damianos'
equal anglesin refraction
derAugenheilkunde
imAlterthum,
Graefethought;v. Julius Hirschberg,Geschichte
SaemischHandbuchder gesamtenAugenheilkunde,
XII (Leipzig: Breitkopfund
Hrtel,1899),p. 171.
31SimeonSeth, Conspectus
rerum
naturalium
eh. 74 (Anecdota
Atheniensia
etalia,
ed. ArmandDelatte, Liege: Vaillant-Carmanne,
1939,II, 73), refersto Ptolemy's

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

230

B. S. Eastwood :

wouldbe unnecessary,
and uneconomical
in Damianos*view.Thus
unfounded,
the
to
of
in
14
chapter exemplifies
appeal
principles economyand uniformity
boththemetaphysical
the
law
and themethodological
and
senses,
quantitative
ofrefraction
is basedsolelyon metaphysical
principles.
Is thereany possiblealternative
to the interpretation
we have givento
Damianos'law of refraction?
The reference
to equal anglescannotbe to the
to thesurface
oftherefracting
medium,
equalanglesformed
bytheperpendicular
forthereference
is clearlyto theactualpathofthevisualray,and
in reflection
If we
a parallelsituation(theactualpathoftheray)is intended
forrefraction.
to theanglesofincidence
assumethattheequalityofanglesrefers
andrefraction,
as thiswouldgiveunbentrays.But
the wholepointof refraction
disappears,
a peculiarsensethisis exactlywhat
Hultsch32hasingeniously
that
in
suggested
Damianosmeant.Statingthatthe samelaw was undoubtedly
in Hero's Cata
Hultsch
feels
the
law
refraction
more
detailed
that
in
form,
envisages
optrics
to
at
close
the
a
an
twice,
perpendicular.
throughglassplate(a parallelepiped) angle
Theraywouldthenleavetheplateat thesameangleas it entered,
givingequal
must
haverecogof
that
Damianos
and
This
means
refraction.
incidence
angles
fromair to glassand back
ofreciprocal
nizedtheexistence
anglesin refraction
to air,fortheequalityofanglesbefore
andafterleavingtheglasswould
entering
- unlessthe bendingof the ray at an interface
be
requiresucha recognition
ofreciprocal
Thatknowledge
deniedaltogether.
angleswasavailableto Damianos
on
is clearfromhis reference
to Ptolemy'sOptics.Whetherthisinformation
a likely
to be seen.To postulate
was assimilated
refraction
byDamianosremains
ofangles
answerwe shouldremember
certainthingsaboutPtolemy'sdiscussion
and watertablesforair-water,
ofrefraction.
Whilehe givesrefraction
air-glass,
forraystravelling
are recorded
in thereversedirection.
glass,no observations
ofanglesin
ofthereciprocity
in hisminda clearconception
Havingformulated
forwater-glass
refraction
betweentwomedia- evenmakinghis observations
- Ptolemydeclined
to treatthequestion
onthebasisofsuchknowledge
systematically.33
Seemingly,
anystudentofopticsshouldbe able to see thereciprocal
Yet as able a studentas
law in Ptolemyand to workout its consequences.
Ptolemy's
to comprehend
failedcompletely
Witelo, in thethirteenth
century,
it
he
as
the
text
understood
forfollowing
becauseofa greater
concern
meaning,
science
of
state
The
ratherthanforconducting
optical
experiments.34 degraded
tenor
and non-experimental
by thetimeof Theon coupledwiththesimplicist
In Aristotelis
to thequintessence.
viewofthevisualpneumaappertaining
Simplicius,
de celo,ed. J.L. Heiberg (Berlin:Reimer,1894),p. 20, supportsthe notionthat
Ptolemy consideredvisual and illuminating
rays to be quintessential;Simplicius
comparesPtolemy's view withthoseof Plotinus and Xenarchos. See Le jeune,
Euclideet Ptolme,
pp. 64- 6.
32Op. cit. (n. 16 supra),col. 1414.
33Optiquede Ptolme,
p. 158 for
grecque,
p. 243,n. 31,and Lejeune, Catoptrique
ofthislaw. ReasonsforPtolemy'sfailureto providereciprocal
thegeneralstatement
of anglesof rediscussionof his wholetreatment
tables,as well as an enlightening
in
inter
can
be
Lejeune,
pp.
alia,
grecque, 155- 66.
fraction,
found,
Catoptrique
34Witelo, ptica,ed. Friedrich Risner (Basel: Episcopius,1572), p. 412.
Witelo's error,patentenoughto a moderneye,has been notedmanytimes,e.g.,
derOptik(Berlin:Rckerund Pchler,1838),I, 80-2.
by Emil Wilde, Geschichte

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Derivations
ofa Law ofRefraction

231

of Damianos' treatise,stronglysuggestthat Damianos was unenlightenedand

of anglesof refraction.
unconcernedoverso detaileda questionas the reciprocity
The geometryof his opticscan onlybe describedas metaphysical,not mathematical; in the only place whereany seriousgeometryis discussed,he errs,and
he errsdespitethe availabilityofa correctsolutionsincethetimeofArchimedes.
In chapter11 Damianos notes that the pupil,whichenclosesthe cone of visual
of the surfaceof the ocular sphere.This statement
rays, comprisesone-fourth
an exact point of originfor
seems very definitelyto be aimed at determining
the cone of vision,i.e., in the middle of the eye;35 certainlyhis penchantfor
simplicityand exactnessextendedhere as elsewhere.There is posited a rightangled cone, with its apex at the centerof a sphere,intersectinga sectionof
the sphericalsurfaceequal to r2n. Yet Archimedes demonstratedmuch earlier
that the area of the intersectedsegmentwould be 3/5r2^.36Nor does Damianos
showignoranceof the treatise37
(On theSphereand theCylinder),but rathersome
it. He may have taken the
confusionand perhaps inabilityin comprehending
ratherthan to volumesas
to
refer
to
surface
areas
proposition
(I,
34)
pertinent
it does, forthe basic proposition- not its corollary,which Damianos should
have used - gives the ratio of 1 : 4 forthe volumesof a rightangled cone (with
M
heightequal to the sphere'sradius)and a sphere. An even simplerpossiblebasis
forthe errorwould be extrapolationfroma planar (triangleand circle)situation,
whereDamianos' explicitratio of 4:4 would be correct,to a solid (cone and
natureof such an erroris consonant
sphere)situation.The veryunsophisticated
withthe wholetone of Damianos' Optics.The absenceof any and all geometrical
is notable. Instead, referenceand allusionto geometrycreate an
demonstration
aura of exactness,where the really significantstatementsare in the realm of
metaphysicsratherthan mathematics.With respectto the nature of light,of
the importantstatementshe makes are thosebased
and of refraction,
reflection,
Damianos' quantitativelaw of
on the principlesof economyand uniformity.
35This appearsto be Ptolemy's view (Lejeune, Euclideet Ptolme,
p. 55) and
the way Galen, Hunayn ibn Ishq, Alhazen, and mostlatermedieval
is certainly
the rays,whethervisualor solar,to forma cone.This view,
Europeansunderstood
in turn,influenced
ocular anatomy;in orderto avoid the problemof refraction,
Galen and most of his medievalsuccessorssaw the eye as a seriesof concentric
circles(thetunicsand humors),so thatraysforming
a conewithits apex at thecommoncenterwouldnotbe refracted,
becauseoftheirperpendicularity
to eachsuccessive
layer.
36De sphaeraetcylindro
Euclideangeometry.
I, 34 (corollary)
plussomeelementary
Archimedes,Opera omnia,ed. J.L. Heiberg (Leipzig: Teubner,1910), I, 132;
v. TheWorksofArchimedes,
ed. and transi.T. L. Heath (Cambridge:
U.P.,
Cambridge
1897),p. 44. Damianos' erroron thispointwas firstnotedin Hirschberg,Augenheilkundeim Alterthum,
pp. 169- 170.
37Damianos,Optik,p. 4 quotesbook1,postulate1 ofthework(d.cit.n. 34
supra,
I, 8; Eng. transi,cit. p. 3).
38Whetheror not Damianos had read thisparticularproposition
is not certain,
is Theon's apparentignorance
ofPtolemy's
thoughprobable.A parallelcircumstance
ofhorizonmagnification
in theOptics,forTheon makesuse of a contraexplanation
dictorytheorygiven earlierby Ptolemy in the Almagest(Rome, "Catoptrique
d'Archimde",
pp. 39- 40); Theon may have read onlypart of Ptolemy's Optics,
or he mayhave misunderstood
the discussionof refraction,
forhe certainly
weakens
partsof Euclid's Optics(v. Ver Eecke, Optiqueet Catoptrique,
pp. xxvii- xxviii).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

232

B. S. Eastwood:

ofuniformity
is givenon thebasisoftheprinciple
in order
refraction
primarily,
a parallelwithreflection.
and
therefore
to establish
in
refraction
Reflection, turn,
ofeconomy.
as well,accordswiththeprinciple
II.
and its openly
natureofDamianos'law ofrefraction
The non-experimental
intheopticalworkofRobertGrosseteste
aremirrored
foundations
metaphysical
To juxtaposeand comparetherefraction
lawsofthese
in thethirteenth
century.
connection
betweenthem.In fact,what
twopersonsis notto claima historical
lackofpositiveconnection.
is theapparent
There
makesthesimilarity
interesting
ofa Latinversionorsummary
ofDamianos'
no tradition
seemsto be absolutely
theRenaissance.
Yet Grosseteste
to thework,before
optics,notevenreferences
and Damianossharea similaroutlookon science.Froman outlookinspired
by
as ancillaryinto authorities
and experience
Platonism,each sees reference
basesforsynthesis.39
WhileDamiawithout
formation,
metaphysical
meaningless
in
his
Grosseteste
these
bases
to
nos makesonlybriefreference
optics,
develops
oflight,whichhe immediately
a veritable
appliesto thestudyof
metaphysics
hisoptics,metaphysical
principles
playan important
physicallight.Throughout
works
last
of
his
the
in
science,Grossesignificant
part.In whatwas probably
De iride
his
the
In
of
rainbow.
the
teste dealtwith problem explaining
treatise,
he
relies
of
use
some
while
data,
upon
ultimately
empirical
making
(ca. I235),40
in orderto designa theoryof the
of economyand uniformity
the principles
law ofrefraction.
lie behindhis quantitative
The sameprinciples
rainbow.41
a
small
use
to
amountof the
seems
Grosseteste
as
only
Just Damianos,
available
works
to
of
lack
But
the
attention
his
time.
before
done
work
optical
of
of
a
lack
is
writer
earlier
the
of
case
the
in
availability many
replacedby
as
of suchGreekwriters
Whilethe opticaltreatises
worksforthelaterwriter.
thirthe
Archimedesand Apolloniusseemto have vanishedpermanently
by
and Ptoleextantcontributions
teenthcentury,
(fragmentary)
byAnthemius42
oftheIslamic
contribution
my43
wereunavailableto Grosseteste.The primary
of Alhazen, seemsnot to have been
worldto thisscience,the De aspectibus
39The development
ofthispointrequiresa separatepaperin itself;sucha paper,
entitled"Mediaeval Empiricism:the Case of Grosseteste's Optics", appears in
Speculum,43 (1968),306-21.
40Text in Die philosophischen
Werkedes Robert
Grosseteste,
BischofsvonLincoln,
Aschendorff,
ed. LudwigBaur (Mnster:
1912),pp. 72-8; datedthusby Richard e.
Scientific
Works,"Isis, LI (196I), 402.
Dales, "Robert Grosseteste's
41see Bruce S.Eastwood, "Robert Grosseteste's
Theoryof the Rainbow: A
int.hist.dessciences,
Archives
of
Science,"
the
in
Non-experimental
History
Chapter
19 (1966),313- 32.
42 Anthemius

is nignly regarded

oy tne Araos,

e.g., m tne ^aim

liui&illiuh ui

Alhazen's De speculiscomburentibus
(trans,late 12thcent.),but Witelo alone (PerofAnthemius.v. Heiberg &
IX, 39-" 43) amongtheLatinsshowsknowledge
spectiva
of
Wiedemann, ParabolischeHohlspiegel",p. 219; G. L. Huxley, Anthemius
Mass., 1959),PP-3, 40- 2.
Traites:A Studyin LaterGreekGeometry
(Cambridge,
43Ptolemy'sOpticsappearsto have becomecurrent
m northwestern
Europeonly
his scientific
work,viz.,fromca. 1250; Lejeune, Optique
afterGrosseteste finished
de Ptolme,
p. 31-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ofa LawofRefraction
Derivations

233

in anycase,it is certainly
availableuntilafterGrosseteste'sscientific
period;44
neverusedby Grosseteste.The natureofhis opticsis largelydetermined
by
he clearlyhas beforehim.Littlebeyondthe
levelofthetreatises
theelementary
Hero's Catoptrics(LiberPtolemeide speculis),
Euclidean Opticsand Catoptrics,

the opticaltradition
of the
and Alkindi's De aspectibus
appearsto constitute
of
these
discusses
firstthirdofthethirteenth
None
and
refraction, only
century.
and directlightare treated.With
thesimplest
geometrical
aspectsofreflection
Grosseteste has a relatively
to refraction,45
theseplus a fewbriefreferences
ofopticallaws.
unlimited
fieldforspeculation
and development
else Grosseteste showshow
morethananywhere
In his law of refraction
be
can
appliedin detailto the businessof
speculative,
principles
metaphysical
science.In a notablepassageofDe iridehe laysdownthelaw thattheangleof
refraction
equals halfthe angleof incidence(whenpassingfroma rarerto a
Thislaw is closelyfollowed
densermedium).
by stillanotheropticallaw,onefor
thelocationof an imagein refraction,
basedon thesameprinciple.
Threeconhis wholeapproachtowards
secutiveparagraphsby Grosseteste illuminate
thelaw ofrefraction,
he said.
In thefirstparagraph,
optics.46
containing
Thesizeoftheangulardeclination
oftherefracted
rayfroma straight
ingress
Firstwe conceiveofa raywhichpassesfromthe
canbe visualizedas follows.
themediumoftheairand meetsa secondtransparent
eyethrough
body;we
the straight
extendintothe secondtransparency
linealongwhichthisray
we
travels,and thenfromthepointat whichtheraymeetsthetransparency
drawintothedepthofthattransparency
a linewhichis perpendicular
to its
surface.I say thenthatthe path of the rayin the secondtransparency
is
alonea line dividing
equallytheangle[myitalics]whichis formed
by the
directextension
oftherayuponthesurfaceofthesecondtransimaginary
parencyintothatmedium.47
The passageclearlydescribes
thecase ofrefraction
froma lessto a moredense
medium.
Afterconstructing
a straight
linepassingthrough
bothmediaand per44George Sarton, "The Traditionof the Optics of Ibn al Haitham", Isis,
XXXIX (1938),403- 6; but cf.Marshall Clagett, Archimedes
in theMiddleAges
(Madison:U. Wis. Press,1964),I, 669. The issueis stillveryunclear.Whatseemsto
be theearliestsurviving
Latin manuscript
of thisworkis in the Crawford
Libraryof
the Royal Observatory,
MS. 9- 11- 3 (20), dated 10 May 1269; but the
Edinburgh,
colophonsuggestsworkingknowledgeof the treatiseby a "MagisterJohannes
Londoniensis" forsometimepreviously.
45Beingthe onlygeometrical
treatment
is
clearlyavailable,the mostimportant
in a pseudo-Euclidean
De speculis(not the Catoptricaattributedby Proclus to
dreioptische
edd.
Euclid), appearingin Alkindi,Tideus,und Pseudo-Euklid:
Werke,
A. A. BjORNBO& S. VoGL(Leipzig:Teubner,1911),pp. 105- 6 (prop.14 only).
46In moreextendedformthefollowing
analysismaybe foundin Bruce S. Eastwood, "Grosseteste's'Quantitative'Law of Refraction:A Chapterin the History
ofNon-experimental
Science,"/. Hist.Ideas, 28 (1967),403- 14,Somenewemphases
aremadein thepresentpaper,whiletheearlierarticledealsas wellwiththefollowing
here: (l) the epistemological
basis of Grosseteste's optics,
pointsunmentioned
confusions
abouttheexistenceof a quantitativelaw ofrefraction
in the
(2) scholarly
optics,and (3) speculationon the qualitativeas opposedto the quantitativeaspects
in thestudyoflight.
47Baur, Werke,
p. 74.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

234

B. S. Eastwood:

he pointsout the direction

to theinterface,
takenby a ray in the
pendicular
had it continued
densermediumin relationto thepathit wouldhavefollowed,
That
is
the
unrefracted.
and
indicated
path
by
phrase"dividentiaper
directly
This
has
obvious
an
peculiarterminology
meaning- that
aequalia angulum."
a pathbisecting
theangleformed
therayin thedensermediumfollows
between
to the surfaceand the imaginary
the perpendicular
rectilinear
of
continuation
thereis a lessobvious
intothedenser.However,
therayfromtherarermedium
To speakof " divisionof an
onlypartiallyexplicit,in the phrasing.
meaning,
angleintoequal parts"ratherthanof halvingthatanglemay seemno more
theresultforphysics
is thesame,
thanan alternative
Certainly
wayofspeaking.
is quitedifferent.
i.e.,theopticallaw thatr= %i; buttheresultformetaphysics
thatr= 'i, he wouldsimplyhavebeenwrong.
Had Grossetestesaidexplicitly
likeDamianosbeforehimhe was
thenotionofequality,however,
In stressing
of
as a basisforscientific
law.
to
a
uniformity
principle
appealing metaphysical
let us
seemtoo ingenious
an exerciseoftoo littleevidence,
Lest theconclusion
in De iride.Onlythencan we
theimmediately
consider
succeeding
paragraphs
the
to
of
full
the
appeal
equality.
significance
appreciate
thenextone lays downtheprinciple
thefirstparagraph,
upon
Reinforcing
law is based.The textrunsas follows.
whichthehalf-angle
of a ray,
in the refraction
That the quantityof the angleis so determined
showus, by whichwe knowthatthe angleofreflection
similarexperiences
is equal to the angleof incidence.
Andit is shown
of a rayupona mirror
thateveryoperation
ofnature
ofnaturalphilosophy,
to us by thisprinciple
shortest
mostordered,
and bestmeanspossible.48
is by themostfinite,
as Damianosgavein
HereGrossetestehas statedexactlythesameconclusion
occursat equalangles,refraction
ofhisOptics.Becausereflection
thelastchapter
of
alsomustoccurat equal angles.Why?Becauseofthemetaphysical
principle
Grosseteste
asserted
the
and
Hero
both
by Damianos)
(followed
economy,
and reflection.
ofan equalitybetweentheanglesofincidence
Finding
necessity
Grosseteste (like
and refraction,
betweenreflection
no essentialdifference
to the latter.He says
fromthe former
Damianos)easilymadethe transition
" similar
thisin
are
reflection
and
that
refraction
Certainly
experiences."
openly
had confused
thetwotypes
sinceAntiquity
itselfwas no novelview,as writers
But Grosseteste proceedsfromthismethodological
of phenomena.49
principle
Not onlyis it probableto
use oftheprinciple.
to a metaphysical
ofuniformity
to do so! Uniformity
it is necessary
as similar,
and reflection
refraction
consider
oflightmustfollownatural
ofNaturehere.All phenomena
becomesa principle
48Ibid.,pp. 74-5.
49The exampleof the rainbowis te mostcommon,as it was alwaysconsidered,
to magnification
Seneca referred
the resultof reflection.
by wateras a case of reed. Paul Oltramare (Paris:BellesLettres,
v. Snque, Questions
naturelles,
flection;
p. 76, n. 4 notes that even Ptolemy
196I), I, 33. Lejeune, Euclide et Ptolme,
The opening
as twocasesofthesamephenomenon.
andrefraction
reflection
considered
lineof Pseudo-EucLiD,De speculis,14 (art.cit. n. 45 supra)suggeststhatreflection
Aristotelian "De prosimilar.The medievalpseudoare essentially
and refraction
describesthe passageof lightthrougha densesphereas
elementorum"
prietatibus
reflection
(B. N. ms. lat. 478,f. 58r; Vat. ms. lat. 2083,f.209r- v).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Derivationsofa Law ofRefraction

235

and refraction,
different
lawsin a simplemanner,he appearsto say. Bothreflection
must
of
accord
with
the
law
same
of equal
of
the
species phenomenon,
aspects
of
order
is
the
reflection.
in
Where
does
this
degree
highest
angles. Equality
orderedequality appear in refraction?It can no longerbe a relationshipof
incidenceto refraction,and so it becomes a bisectionof the imaginaryangle
formedwithinthe secondmedium.
of the two phenomena,reflectionand refraction,
is argued
The uniformity
in
established
Grosseteste's
the
law
forthe
mind by
again and conclusively
in
refraction.
The
third
reflection
and
of
formulates
location an image
paragraph
the law as follows.
A thingwhichis seen throughmany transparentmedia does not appear to
be as it trulyis, but seems to be at the conjunctionof the departingrays,
extendedfromthe eye along a straightline, and of a line drawn fromthe
to the surfacenearerthe eye of the secondtransviewedobject perpendicular
parentmedium.Moreover,this is shownto us throughthat experience,and
similarreasons,by whichwe know that a thingseen in a mirrorappears at
the junctureof the extendedline of sightand of a line drawnperpendicular
to the surfaceof the mirror.50
Here again the illuminating
and refraction
parallelof reflection
appears. On the
basis of the well-knownlaw of image locationin reflection,Grosseteste gives
the law forimage locationin refraction.
Again he appeals to "similarreasons/'
refraction.
each case the law describedcould be
In
reflection
and
connecting
statedby the followingwords; the locationof the imageis definedby the intersectionof a perpendicularto the surfacefromthe viewed object and a direct
continuation
beyondthe surfaceof the lineof visionfromthe eye to the medium.
The phrasingis identicalforboth reflectionand refraction,
but the actual geoThe
verbal
is
evidence
of
a
different.
similarity,
metry quite
metaphysicaluniformis
more
to
Grosseteste
than
difference.
important
ityprinciple,
anydiagrammatic
Like Damianos he is hardly concernedfor detailed geometricaltreatmentof
The sortof geometryused in opticsby Ptolemy, Alhazen,
opticalpropositions.
and Witelo is of littleuse to Grosseteste. For him the applicability,rather
than the application,of geometryto optics is sufficient.Geometryrepresents
certituderatherthan exactitude,and gives respectabilityto the metaphysical
treatmentof light.A readingof his De lineis,angulis,et figuriswill makes this
abundantlyclear; one need not go as far as the cosmogonyof De luce to find
lightmetaphysicsin the workof Grosseteste.51
50Baur. Werke,
P. 7S.
51For some discussionof light metaphysicsin Grossetestev. A. C. Crombie,
RobertGrosseteste
and the Originsof ExperimentalScience,1100- 1700 (Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1962),chs. 5- 6; Robert Grosseteste, On Light(De luce),transi.
Clare C. Riedl (Milwaukee:MarquetteU. P., 1942); Ludwig Baur, Die Philosophie
des RobertGrosseteste,
Bischofsvon Lincoln(f 1253) (Mnster:Aschendorff,
1917),
involved
pp. 76- 109. None of thesemakes muchof the geometrical
metaphysics
(cf.Baur, Philosophie,
pp. 16- 7,whichmissesthepointofGrosseteste's separation
ofphysicsand mathematics)
is givento it in mydiscussion
in op. cit.,
; briefattention
n. 39 supra.
17a

Arch.Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. 6

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

236

ofa Law ofRefraction

B. S. Eastwood : Derivations

Using geometryas the handmaidenof physicsand metaphysics,Damianos

and Grosseteste develop optical discussionswhich contain more speculation
embodiedin the
than mathematics.The metaphysicalprincipleof uniformity,
of
is
used
each
to
a
notion
design quantitativelaw of
expressed
by
equality,
The initialidentityof outlookfoundon this
refraction
on the basis of reflection.
point in two so widelyseparated authorsis witnessto the directivepower of
elementarytreatiseson geometricalopticscombinedwitha Neoplatonicenvironment.For thesetwogenericelementsare commonto Grosseteste and Damianos.
Each seemsto have made use of simplegeometricaloptics,overlaidwitha Neoplatonic interestin the reality,physical and metaphysical,of mathematical
entities.52On these bases they laid down the earliestextant statementsof a
quantitativelaw of refraction.53
52A highlysuggestive
workon thisthemeis Philip Merlan, FromPlatonismto
2ndedition(The Hague: Nijhoff,
I960).
Neoplatonism,
53Thoughpointedlyinaccurate,theywerethe earliestattemptsto formulate
a
and taking
law. Both Ptolemyand Alhazen, knowingmuchmoreaboutrefraction
a law; thefailureto calculate
werenotso rashas to formulate
seriously,
experiments
ofcourse,an obstacleto sucha formulation.
in termsoftrigonometric
function
wTas,
Notably,thosewhoapproachedsciencewitha moreNeoplatonicbentseemedintent
in naturewithoutpayingmuch attentionto the
on discovering
only regularity
evidencesofsuchregularity.
of Social Sciences
Department
ClarksonCollegeofTechnology
Potsdam,NewYork
(ReceivedNovember4, 1969)

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.15 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:27:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions