Robert Grosseteste on the Rainbow

Author(s): Carl B. Boyer

Source: Osiris, Vol. 11 (1954), pp. 247-258
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301673 .
Accessed: 15/11/2014 14:33
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.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Osiris.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RobertGrosseteste
on theRainbow
Historians and scientists in i8I4 were startled by the disclosure (i) that the Cartesian geometrical explanation of the
rainbow had been anticipated,in all but its quantitativeaspect,
by morethanthreehundredyears. The achievementof THEODORIC
OF FREIBERG in giving (some time between I304 and I3 I)
the
correctexplanation of both the primaryand secondarybows has
been justly acclaimed as one of the greatestof medieval contributionsto physicalscience; but the verymagnitudeof his accomplishovershadowedtheoriesofthe rainbowproposed
menthas effectually
during the preceding century,the high point of scholasticism.
For this reason it is desirable to call attentionto views on the
rainbow which were held just before the correct theory was
proposed.
Scientificexplanationsof the rainbow appear to go back at least
as far as the time of PERICLES (490-429 B.C.). To his tutor,
ANAXAGORAS (c. 500-428), is ascribed the view that the rainbow
is caused by the incidence of rays of the sun upon a round and
hollow cloud from which they are reflectedto the eye of the
observer (2). This plausible view underwentnumerous changes,
even in antiquity; but the reflectionof solar rays remained the
basis for all theoriesof the rainbow beforethe thirteenthcentury,
as well as formosttheoriespriorto i6oo. ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C.)
gave a complicated geometricalexplanation which obviated the
necessity for a hollow or spherical cloud, but he retained the
basic element of reflectionfrom a moist dark cloud (3). His
(i) By GIAMBATISTA VENTURI.
See his Commentarjsopra la storia e le teorie
dell' ottica,vol. I (only one published, Bologna, I8I4), PP. I49-I80.
(2) OTTO GILBERT, Die meteorologischen
Theorien des griechischenAltertums
(Leipzig, I907), p. 6o6 f.
(3) A. SAYILI, " The Aristotelian explanation of the rainbow," Isis, XXX
(I939) 65-83; T. L. HEATH, Mathematicsin Aristotle(Oxford, I949); FR. POSKE,
" Die Erklarung des Regenbogens bei Aristoteles," Zeitschriftfur Mathematik
und Physik,Historisch-literarische
Abteilung,XXVIII (I883), I34-I38.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

248

CARL B. BOYER

elaboratelydeveloped color theory,based apparentlyupon earlier

ideas of ANAXIMENES, attributedthe hues of the rainbow (which
he held to be three in number) to the mixing of the brightness
of the sun's rayswiththe darknessof the moistcloud. POSIDONIUS
(c. I30-50 B.C.) and SENECA(c. 3 B.C.-65 A.D.) questioned certain
elements of the Aristoteliantheory,but they were in agreement
that the rainbowis in some way caused by reflectionfroma cloud
as froma speculum (i).
The early medieval period added nothing essentially new to
the physicaltheoryof the rainbow. ISIDORE OF SEVILLE (c. 560-636)
characteristically
thoughthe saw some significancein the similarity
of the words " iris " and " aeris "; and, in harmony with the
ancient theoryof the four elements,he held, against ARISTOTLE,
that the bow was quadricolor (5). His views, somewhat similar
to SENECA'S, were paraphrased by the Venerable BEDE (677-785)
in England (6). More sophisticatedtheoriesof the rainbow were
proposed a littlelater by Muslim scholars. AVICENNA
(980-Io37)
franklyadmittedto being a peripatetic,but he departednevertheless fromthe Aristotelianrainbow theory. Independent observation had demonstratedto him that the bow is not formed in
the dark cloud but rather in the very thin mist lying between
the cloud and the sun or observer. The cloud, he thought,serves
simplyas the backgroundof this thin substance,much as a quicksilverliningis placed upon the rearsurfaceof the glass in a mirror.
AVICENNA would change the place not only of the bow, but also
of the color formation,holding the iridescence to be merely a
subjective sensation in the eye. The one element of the ancient
theorieswhich he retainedis the basic phenomenonof reflection.
AVICENNAmodestly closes with the frank statement," This is
all I know about the rainbow. Furtherclarificationmust be sought
of others" (7). Among the " others" one would have hoped
to include ALHAZEN (t I038), mathematician,physicist,and author
of the Treasuryof optics. ALHAZENperformedexperimentswith
(4) JOHN CLARKE, Physical sciencein the timesof Nero. Being a translation
of the Quaestionesnaturalesof Seneca (London, i9io), pp. i6-33.
(5) GUSTAVHELLMANN, Neudruckevon Schriftenund Karten fiberMeteorologie
und Erdmagnetismus,
vol. XV (Berlin, I904), P. I5 of introductionand p. 2 of text.
(6) HELLMANN, Neudrucke,XV, 7- I0.
(7) M. HORTEN, " Avicennas Lehre vom Regenbogen nach seinem Werk al
Schifa," Meteorologische
Zeitschrift,
XXX (19I3), 533-544.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE ON THE RAINBOW

249

a sphericalglass globe filledwith water, and he also made studies

of refraction. It is tantalizingthat he failed to associate these
with the rainbow and that in his Treasuryhe failsto mentionthe
bow. From his other writings,however,it is known thathe clung
to the old Anaxagorean idea of the bow as caused by reflection
froma concave cloud (8).
With the opening of the thirteenthcenturythe theoryof the
rainbow was little advanced over that in the days of SENECA and
ARISTOTLE.
The situation, however, was to change radically
during the next hundred years, in both the Latin and Arabic
civilizations; and in this movement GROSSETESTE (C. II75-I253)
occupies a key position. Among ROBERT'S numerous works is
one withthe title,De irideseu de irideetspeculo(9), writtenprobably
before I225 (io). This opens with the inauspicious assertionthat
the rainbow belongs both to physics, which tells " what," and
to perspective, which tells " because of what." Inasmuch as
ARISTOTLE had given only the physical quiddity of the situation,
ROBERT GROSSETESTE boasts that he himselfwill furnishthepropter
quid. Proceedingtraditionally,he outlinesthe usual threedivisions
of perspective: direct vision (optics), reflection(catoptrics) and
refraction(dioptrics). The last of the three he holds to be much
more difficultthan the others and, by nature of its profundity,
more marvelous. Through it the most distant things are made
to appear near and small thingsappear large, so that the smallest
letters can be read at a great distance. [This almost fiftyyears
beforeBACON'S Opus majus!] In reflectionthe angle of incidence
is in all cases equal to the angle of reflection;but in refraction
the phenomena depend upon the angle at which the object is
seen, the position and order of the rays, and upon the distance.
By refractionthe largest parts can be made to appear smallest,
and those farthestaway are made easily visible. And it is to this
thirdpart ofperspectivethat thescienceof therainbowbelongs(i i).
(8) JOSEPH WORSCHMIDT, " Die Theorie des Regenbogens und des Halo bei
Ibn al Haitham und bei Dietrich von Freiberg," Meteorologische
XXXI
Zeitschrift,
(I9I4),
484-487.
(g) Edited by LUDWIG BAUR in Beitrdge zur Geschichteder Philosophie des
Mittelalters,IX (Miinster i.W., I9I2), Texte, pp. 72-78.
(IO) JOSIAH C. RUSSELL, " Phases of Grosseteste'sintellectuallife," The Harvard

Theological
Review,XLIII (1950), 93-Ii6.
(I I) Ibid.,p. 75. Italicsaremine.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CARL B. BOYER

250

In these words GROSSETESTE brings out, possiblyforthe firsttime,

the association of the bow with the all-importantphenomenon
of refraction.Yet his contributionseems to have been overlooked
by historiansof physics,and it has become traditionalto ascribe
to WITELO-writingprobably in I269, sixteenyears afterGROSSETESTE had died-the first use of refractionin explaining the

rainbow(I2).

In presentinghis novel theory GROSSETESTE firstrefutesthe

traditionalidea that the rainbow is due to reflection
of the sun's
raysuponthesurfaceof a cloud as froma concave or convex mirror.
Were this the case, he held, the altitude of the bow would vary
directly-rather than inversely,as is the case-with the altitude
of the sun. Then he asserts that the bow is due instead to the
refractionof the rays withina convex moist cloud. The details
of his theoryare, in the light of modern views, singular indeed.
The interiorof the cloud he holds to be concave, " according
to the nature of light and heavy." As the moistureof the cloud
descends fromthe concavity,it formsa convex pyramidor cone
in which the portion near the earth is more condensed than is
the higher part. There are, therefore,four transparentmedia
through which the sun's rays pass-the pure air surrounding
the cloud, the cloud itself, the higher (hence rarer) moisture
coming fromthe cloud, and the lower and more dense moisture
in the pyramidalcone. Inasmuch as the sun's rays are refracted
upon passing fromone medium to the next, there must be three
refractionsin all. Refractionhad indeed enteredwith a vengeance
into the theoryof the rainbow. But unfortunatelyGROSSETESTE
seems to have leftlittleroomforreflection,
whichalso is an essential
ingredientin the modern theory.
It is not clear whether ROBERT GROSSETESTE had worked out
an actual geometricalpictureof his theory. He says that the bow
is not a complete circle but a figuresimilar to the curve on the
surface of a circular cone, the larger half of which falls upon
See J. C.

Geschichteder Physik (Leipzig, I879), p. 92;

Geschichteder Physik (3 vols., Braunschweig, I882I890),
I, I03; FLORIAN CAJORI, History of Physics (New York, i906), p. 26.
E. GERLAND, Geschichteder Physik (MUnchen & Berlin, I9I3), p. i98 f.; EDMUND
HOPPE, Histoire de la physique(transl. by HENRI BESSON, Paris, I928), p. 3i8;
See also GEORGE SARTON,Introduction
to thehistoryofscience(3 vols. in 5, Baltimore,
(I2)

POGGENDORFF,

FERDINAND

ROSENBERGER,

I927-1948),

II,

76i.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE ON THE RAINBOW

25 1

the earth and the smallerhalf upon the cloud. Hence, the higher
the sun, the smallerthe bow; and this, as ARISTOTLE had known,
explains why no bow is seen about noon. GROSSETESTE appears
to be concerned primarilywith the shape of the bow; he does
not explicitlystatethatthe elementof refractionhad been adduced
by him in order to explain the formationof colors. There is a
hint, however,that Robert may indeed have associated color and
refraction,for he says that the varietyof hues is due to the admixtureof light with the diaphanous media. Color depends not
only upon the purityor impurityof the medium, but also upon
the clarityand obscurityof the light,and upon the multitudeor
paucity of the rays. These six conditions,he held, generate all
of the colors; but he did not here go into detail.
It must be admittedthat GROSSETESTE'S theoryof the rainbow
is crude and fantastic,but it should also be recalled that this is
the firstattemptto bring refractioninto the picture. His treatise
on the rainbowundoubtedlywas widely read duringthe thirteenth
and fourteenthcenturies,for half a dozen manuscriptcopies of
the work are extant in libraries at Madrid, Oxford, Florence,
Groningen,Prague, and the Vatican (I3).
The account of the rainbow given by ROBERT GROSSETESTE
stands in markedcontrastto that of ALBERTUS MAGNUS (t I28o),
both in its brevityand its originality.The voluminousDe meteoris
libriIV of ALBERT includes twenty-ninechapterson the rainbow
and halo (14). Much of this material consists of comments on
opinions held by others fromHESIOD to his own times. He was
particularlyintriguedby metaphoricalallusions to the rainbow
in ancient literaturewhich, he concluded, showed that " philosophers, both natural and perspective,as well as poets, agree in
this,thatthe rainbow is an image of the sun on a aqueous cloud."
ALBERT suggests some modificationsin previous theory,but he
holds that these are in agreementwith the opinion of ARISTOTLE.
Instead of a spherical cloud he suggestsa pyramidof vapor, with
base on the earth and vertexin the cloud, and havingthe heavier
parts near the base. He then goes on to postulatefourtransparent
( 3) S. HARRISON
The Writingsof Robert Grosseteste,Bishop of
THOMSON,
(Cambridge UniversityPress, I940), P. I05.
Lincoln, I235-I253
(14) Opera (ed. by PETER JAMMY, 2I vols., Lugduni, i651), vol. II, De meteoris,
III, Tractatus IV.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

252

CARL B. BOYER

media: a thick black cloud; a subtle distillate of minute drops

in the upper part of the pyramidjust beneath the concave cloud;
heavier and more coagulated moisture in the lower part of the
pyramid;and, finally,air mixedin withthe whole. In the reflection
of the sunlightby these media, the rays are bent, the refraction
being at the extremitiesof the watery pyramid,just as when a
globe is cut somewhat above the middle. Rays at this extremity
are multipliedand generatethe rainbow; and those near the top,
being fartherfromthe dense portion,are red. The semicircular
formis due to the fact that a cone of rays from the sun strikes
the round pyramidof vapor. Only halfof the circleis seen because
the other rays are extinguished by the heavy material in the
pyramid. One can notresistthetemptationto see herethe influence
of ROBERT GROSSETESTE, a friend of the Franciscans, although
ALBERTUS MAGNUS, a Dominican, does not referto him. ALBERT's
studies at Paris may well have included ROBERT'S De iride; but
if so, the introductionof refractionseems not to have made a
deep impression. His use of the word refractiois not decisive,
forAristotelianworksused the termas synonymouswithreflection.
Moreover,neitherthe formof the bow nor its colors are attributed
to thisphenomenon. The circularityis the resultofthe intersection
of two cones, and the colors are due to the mixtureof light and
dampness. Except for the cone or pyramid of vapor, ALBERT'S
exposition is Aristotelian,whereas ROBERT'S indicated a marked
innovation.
It is certain that GROSSETESTE'S theoryof multiple refractions
was familiarto ROGER BACON (C. I214-I292),
who cites it only
to refuteit (I5). Exhorbitantclaims have been made for BACON'S
work on the rainbow,and one author (i6) goes so far as to assert
that BACON " representedexactlythe path of the luminous ray."
It is difficultto see, however, in what respect BACON's lengthy
explanation in the Opus majus (composed I266-I267)
is better
than,or even as good as, thatof his teacher,GROSSETESTE. BACON
does indeed mentionthe all-importantword " refraction" in this
(I5) In view of this, it is odd that the De iridehas been ascribed also to BACON,
although it appears now that there can be no doubt of GROSSETESTE's authorship.
See BAUR, " Die philosophischen Werke des Robert Grdsseteste Bischofs von
Lincoln," Beitrige zur Geschichtedes Philosophieder Mittelalters,IX, (Milnster
i. W., 1912), p. 83.
(i 6) HOPPE,
10c. cit.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

253

ROBERT GROSSETESTE ON THE RAINBOW

connection,but the referenceis verycasual: " The disappearance

of the aqueous vapor cannottake place throughthe rainbowexcept
by reason of the solar rays that cause it, for throughvarious reflectionsand refractionsan infinitenumberof rays are assembled,
and the assemblage of the rays is the cause of the resolutionand
disappearanceofthe waters,and therefore,the rainbowis produced
by multiple reflections. For the rays cannot assemble except
throughrefractionand reflection" (I7). The word " refraction"
must here be used veryloosely,forlater (i8) one reads that " the
observer alone produces the bow, nor is there anythingpresent
except reflection." Certainly he did not look upon the colors
of the bow as due to refraction,for he repeatedlyasserted that,
unlike the colors seen when lightrays pass througha glass prism,
those of the rainbow are purely subjective-an appearance only,
and not a reality. Nor, apparently,did BACON thinkthatrefraction
had anythingto do with the shape of the bow, for he goes on
to say that " they" are in errorwho hold the bow to be due to
refraction.He repeats almost verbatimGROSSETESTE'S explanation
in terms of three refractions;but he rejects this theoryon the
ground that rainbows are seen also in local water sprays," where
there cannot be three refractions." Instead, BACON explains the
formof the bow as due to the factthat " all parts must have the
same positionwith respectto the solar ray and the eye... For this
occurs only in the position of a circle, as is apparent in the reflectionsand refractionsof a concave mirrorand of othermirrors;
and thereforethere can be four or five circles of the rainbow
in the drops from which reflectionsto the eye are made at
angles equal to the angles of incidence, color can be produced
This
in them, and the phenomena of the rainbow appear" (i9).
passage raises the very pertinentquestion as to whether BACON
was indeed using the word " refraction" in the modern sense or
whetherit was not here synonymouswith " reflection,"a usage
common fromARISTOTLE to KEPLER.
One reads frequentlythat BACON was ahead of this time, yet
his account of the rainbow will strike the modern reader as
( I7) The opus majus of Roger Bacon (trans. by ROBERT
Philadelphia, I928), I, 50-5I.

BELLE

(i8) Ibid., II, 6o6.

(iv) Ibid., II, 6io.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BURKE,

2 vols.,

CARL B. BOYER

254

thoroughly" medieval" in the popular sense of the word. The

material cause of the bow he took to be the cloud; the effective
cause was the raysofthe sun; and the finalcause was the dissipation
of moist vapors which otherwise might cause a renewal of the
flood,contraryto God's promise. In spite of his vaunted mathematicalability,numerologyis a decisivefactorin BACON's assertion
that there are five colors in the bow-" For the number five is
better than all other numbers... Because the number five
distinguishesthings more definitelyand better, nature for this
reason ratherintends that there shall be five colors. Therefore
these five colors are in the rainbow, ratherthan other colors, in
accordance with the general arrangementof nature,which carries
into effectand purposes that which is better." In line with his
idea that the hues of the rainbow, unlike prismatic colors, are
optical illusions,BACON associated the fivecolors of the bow with
the five bodies in the eye (three humors and two coatings).
Retrogressivethough his theorywas in many respects,there is
an importantquantitativeaspect of BACON's work on the rainbow
which warrants admiration. Having advised an experimenter
interestedin the formationof the bow to study various modes of
color formation,BACON suggeststhat he then take " the required
instrument" and find the altitudesof the sun and the rainbow.
Ever since the days ofARISTOTLE it had been knownthatthe higher
the sun is, the lower is the bow; but BACON gave a remarkably
the maximum elevation of the rainbow.
accurate value-42?-for
value of420 is the apparant
BACON does notsay thatthe oft-repeated
radius of the bow, but this is implied in his statementthat all
parts of the bow must have the same position with respect to
the solar rays and the eye. This is possibly the earliest extant
measureofthe rainbow,and no moreaccuratevalue forthe primary
bow was given until the days of DESCARTES and NEWTON.
If there is room for doubt as to BACON'S use of refractionin
the theoryof the rainbow, there can be none when it comes to
his contemporary,the Polish physicistand philosopher,WITELO
(born c. I230).
He was educated at Paris, Padua, and Viterbo,
and hence may well have known of the work of GROSSETESTE,
if not also of that of BACON. About i269 (2o) he wrote a treatise
(zo) SARTON,Op. Cit., II (),
1270 and I278.

IO27, places the date of its compositionas between

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE ON THE RAINBOW

255

on Optics which is derived so largelyfromthe Treasuryof IBN

AL-HAITHAM as to earn for WITELO the soubriquet, "ALHAZEN' S
ape "; but the work closes with a tediouslylong section, a score
of folio pages, devoted to the rainbow in which the authorshows
distinctindependence of thought. Here one finds,unequivocally
expressed possibly for the firsttime, a theory based upon both
reflectionand refraction. WITELO compared the colors of the
rainbow with those seen when a round glass vase full of water
is exposed to the light of the sun which undergoes various refractionsas the rays pass from air to glass, then glass to water,
then water to glass, and finallyfromglass to air again. But, he
adds cautiously, " Yet these [prismatic]colors are not trulylike
the colors of the rainbow, for the formerare seen directlywhile
the latterare seen by reflection" (2 I). One can not help wondering
if these words were not suggested by GROSSETESTE'S multiple
refractionsand BACON's distinctionbetweenprismaticand rainbow
colors. In any case, WITELO'Swords seem to have a more modern
ring to them, even though one is disappointedby the vagueness
of his over-all picture of the rainbow.
WITELO, like ROBERT OF LINCOLN, firstrefutedthe older view
of the rainbow as resultingonly fromreflection. Were this the
case, he held, the bow should not move fromside to side as the
observer moves laterally. Instead, the bow is caused by an
aggregationof reflectedand refractedrays. One should not read
too much into these words, for WITELO apparentlydid not have
thenreflected,
in mind the modernidea of rayswhich are refracted,
and once more refractedbefore reaching the eye. In his theory
some rayswere reflectedonly,othersunderwentrefraction.Clouds
are a mixtureof dry and moist vapors. Light does not penetrate
the dryvapors, and hence some rays are reflectedfromthe surface
of the cloud; other rays penetratethe moist vapors and are refractedwithin the dense portions of the cloud. It is a peculiar
combinationof these rays, he thought,which causes the bow.
Ever since ancient Greek and Roman days there had been
conflictingand confused ideas as to the relationshipbetween the
raindropsand the cloud. ARISTOTLE had regardedthe dewy cloud
et Polonorumopticae (Basileae, 1572), p. 474.
(zI)
Vitellonisfilii Thuringorum
This is the well-knownRisner edition published withALHAZEN'S Opticae thesaurus.
17

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

256

CARL B. BOYER

as a multitude of tiny drops which reflectedthe solar rays; but

the droplets were too small to serve as mirrorsin which images
are seen, and so he had based his geometricalstudy upon the
aggregationof drops. One of the moot questions since his day
had been the way in which the individual drops fittedinto the
scheme as a whole. GROSSETESTEdisregardedthe problemof atomicity in a raincloud, treatinghis diaphanous media as continua.
WITELO raised the old question once more, although he gave no
satisfactoryanswer. Between the continuous aqueous vapor and
the discrete drops of rain water there is a dewy transitionstage
in which the rarerparts of the vapor are beginningto be round,
to condense, and to take on a downward motion. These dewy
particles are somewhat like little mirrors (in the sense of
ARISTOTLE) in which color, but not form, is presented; and, as
BACON had asserted, only those rays are reflectedwhich make
the properangle. The colors of the bow resultfromthe weakening
of light by the mixtureof dry and moist vapors. At one point
WITELO came close to the true approach to a studyof the rainbow,
for he noted that if a round glass vase full of water is exposed
to the sun, colors similarto those of the rainbow are seen. These
are caused by the four refractionswhich light undergoes as it
passes fromair into glass,then into water, then into glass again,
and finallyout into the air once more. But then WITELO makes
the disillusioningcommentthat these colors are not trulythose
of the rainbow,forthe formerare seen directlywhereas the latter
are seen by reflection.Evidentlythe role of refractionin the rainbow was quite a minorone, althoughto refraction
withinthe moist
vapor WITELO ascribed the putative constancy in the obliquity
of the plane of the rainbow to the horizontalsurface.
With the exceptionof WITELO'S work,the most popular optical
treatiseof the thirteenth
centurywas the Perspectivacommunis
(22)
of JOHN PECKHAM (t I292), Archbishop of Canterbury. This
is a much smaller book than WITELO'S Optics, and hence
correspondinglyless space is devoted to the rainbow. PECKHAM'S
theoryis a combinationof ideas expressedby GROSSETESTE, BACON,
and WITELO. The rainbow, PECKHAM says, is generatedby the
(22) A copy of the edition published by
available at Columbia University.

PETREIJS

at Nuremberg in

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1542

is

ROBERT GROSSETESTE ON THE RAINBOW

257

reflectionof rays in sphericaldrops which serve as mirrors. However, part of the cause lies in rays which penetrate the water
in the dewy vapor, converge to a point (as in refraction),then
divergeagain into a pyramidthe middle of which falls on a cloud.
The semicircularimpressionthus formedis then reflectedto the
observer. Hence the circularityof the bow is due to the cloud
ratherthan the rays. The diversityof colors arises partlyfrom
the cloud and partlyfromvariationsin the light rays. The rain
descends to a center, forminga round cone with gradually increasingdensity; and hence the nobler colors are along the higher
or exteriorpart of the bow. The concourse of rays reflectedfrom
the cloud with direct rays brings about an attenuationof vapors;
and hence the formationof the rainbow, which accompanies the
consumptionof the substance of rain, precludes a cataclysm. The
rainbow belongs to all three parts of perspective,for it is formed
by direct,reflected,and refractedrays.
If, as is commonly believed, the medieval period was an age
of excessive relianceupon authority,then the studyof the rainbow
in the thirteenthcenturymust be regarded as quite exceptional.
From GROSSETESTE on there was an earnest criticismof earlier
writers,ARISTOTLE not excepted; and the search for new and
improvedexplanationswas carriedout withremarkableenthusiasm.
Even ROGER BACON, who was so prone to criticizethe credulity
of his contemporaries, was compelled to admit that ROBERT
GROSSETESTE, in treatingof scientificmatters,neglectedthe books
of ARISTOTLE for his own experiments(23); and much of his spirit
seems to have persisted after ROBERT's death. One must admit
that the effortsof thecenturyfailedto effecta satisfactory
solution
of the rainbow problem; but this failureshould not obscure the
fact that an importantcontributionwas made the introduction
of the essential idea that refractionis necessaryforthe explanation
of the rainbow. What one misses most in the explanations of
the time is a clear-cut geometrizationof dioptrics comparable
to that of optics and catoptrics. Lack of a mathematicallyprecise
law of refractionmay have discouraged attemptsin this direction,
Robert Grosseteste,Bishop of Lincoln. A contribution
(23) F. S. STEVENSON,
to the religious,political and intellectualhistoryof the thirteenth
century(London,
i899);
also LYNN THORNDIKE, History of magic and experimentalscience(6 vols,.
New York, l929-1941),
II, 436-453.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

258

CARL B. BOYER

but, as the next century was to prove, a correctrainbow theory

neverthelesslay entirelywithin their power. GROSSETESTE had,
in fact,proposed in De iridea crude law equivalentto the statement
that the angle of refractionis half the angle of incidence; and
in another little treatise,De fractionibuset reflexionibus
radiorum
(published at Nurembergin I 503 as Libellusdephisicislineisangulis
etfigurisper quas omnesaccionesnaturalescomplentur)
(24), he sought
to explain the laws of reflectionand refractionin terms of lengths
of lines and a vague sort of principle of least action. But he did
not associate such ideas with a quantitativegeometricalstudy of
the rainbow. Had he done so, he mighthave come close to anticipating the work of DESCARTES. BACON and WITELO measured
the bow, but they did not study it with the precision afforded
by Euclidean geometry. Thus everyscholar of the centurymissed
the key to the solution which was discovered shortlyafterward
by THEODORIC (and simultaneouslyalso by the Persian mathematician QUTB AL-DIN)-passage of light rays though a large
spherical globe of water as through a magnifiedraindrop. The
syntheticview ofthe cloud as a whole had to give way to an analysis
of the behavior of light in the smallest component; but such an
analysismighthave been fruitlesshad not the thirteenthcentury
in general,and GROSSETESTE in particular,introducedthe magical
wordrefraction(25).
(BrooklynCollege
Brooklyn,N.Y.).

CARL

B.

BOYER.

(24) BibliothecaMathematica (3), I (1900)

55-59, II (1901) 443-444.
(25) Since this article was writtenthere has appeared a book which reduces it

largely to a work of supererogation. A. C. Crombie's volume on Robert

Grosseteste
and theoriginsofexperimentalscienceii00-I700
(Oxford,i953), includes
a fullaccount of theoriesof the rainbow in the thirteenthcentury,togetherwith
the influenceof these upon later writers. The reader thereforeis referredfor
furtherinformationto this scholarlytreatise.

This content downloaded from 64.6.237.113 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:33:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions