This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Shapiro, “Kinematic optics”, 244. (For referencing see page 267)
Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, IV: 212 & 283 (references to this book will be made by section numbers). It should be noted that Dijksterhuis mainly focuses on the mathematical model of wave propagation.
Bos, “Huygens”, 609. Van Berkel further alludes to the influence of Parisian circles on the prominence of mechanistic philosophy in Huygens’ oeuvre: Van Berkel, “Legacy”, 55–59.
Preliminary results are published in: Dijksterhuis, “Huygens’ Dioptrica” and Dijksterhuis, “Huygens’s efforts”.
Dijksterhuis, Mechanisering, IV: 168–171, 284–287.
Hashimoto hardly goes beyond noting that “⋯two works were closely related in Huygens’s mind.”: Hashimoto, “Huygens”, 87–88.
Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, IV: 284–287 and Sabra, Theories, 159–230 are confined to Traité de la Lumière. Shapiro uses some of the manuscripts published in Oeuvres Complètes. Ziggelaar, “How”, draws mainly on OC19. Yoder has pointed out that the wave theory is no exception to the rule that in general, studies of Huygens’ work tend to focus on his published works.
Hashimoto has published a not too satisfactory article in which he discusses Huygens’ dioptrics in general terms. Apart from some substantial flaws in his analyses and argument, Hashimoto fails to substantiate some of his main claims regarding Huygens’ ‘Baconianism’. Hashimoto, “Huygens”, 75–76; 86–87; 89–90. For example, he reads back into Tractatus the utilitarian goal of De aberratione (60, compare my section 3.3.2), he thinks Huygens determined the configuration of his eyepiece theoretically (75, compare my section 3.1.2), maintains that Systema saturnium grew out of his study of dioptrics (89, compare my section 3.1.2) and that Huygens ‘went into the speculation about the cause of colors’ after his study of spherical aberration (89, compare my section 3.2.3)
Harting, Christiaan Huygens, 13–14. Harting based himself on manuscript material disclosed in Uylenbroek’s oration on the dioptrical work by the brothers Huygens: Uylenbroek, Oratio.
For example, the precise application of the sine law to dioptrical problems, for example, has hardly been studied. Shapiro, “The Optical Lectures” is a valuable exception, discussing Barrow’ lectures and their historical context. The relationship between the development of the telescope and of dioptrical theory — essential to my account of Dioptrica — has never been investigated in any detail. Van Helden has pointed out the weak connection between both in general terms: Van Helden, “The telescope in the 17th century”, 45–49; Van Helden, “Birth”, 63–68.
Hall, “Summary”, 311.
Westfall, Construction, 132–154; Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, 212; Elzinga, Research program and Westman, “Problem”, 100–101.
Hall, “Summary”, 305–306. As regards his studies of motion, Yoder has further specified this characterization; Yoder, Unrollling time, 169–179.
Hakfoort, Optics in the age of Euler, 183–184.
OC1, 47 and OC10, 721.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2005). Introduction — ‘the perfect Cartesian’. In: Lenses and Waves. Archimedes, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2698-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2698-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2697-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2698-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)