Advertisement

Archive for History of Exact Sciences

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 137–178 | Cite as

Thomas Harriot’s optics, between experiment and imagination: the case of Mr Bulkeley’s glass

  • Robert GouldingEmail author
Article

Abstract

Some time in the late 1590s, the Welsh amateur mathematician John Bulkeley wrote to Thomas Harriot asking his opinion about the properties of a truly gargantuan (but totally imaginary) plano-spherical convex lens, 48 feet in diameter. While Bulkeley’s original letter is lost, Harriot devoted several pages to the optical properties of “Mr Bulkeley his Glasse” in his optical papers (now in British Library MS Add. 6789), paying particular attention to the place of its burning point. Harriot’s calculational methods in these papers are almost unique in Harriot’s optical remains, in that he uses both the sine law of refraction and interpolation from Witelo’s refraction tables in order to analyze the passage of light through the glass. For this and other reasons, it is very likely that Harriot wrote his papers on Bulkeley’s glass very shortly after his discovery of the law and while still working closely with Witelo’s great Optics; the papers represent, perhaps, his very first application of the law. His and Bulkeley’s interest in this giant glass conform to a long English tradition of curiosity about the optical and burning properties of large glasses, which grew more intense in late sixteenth-century England. In particular, Thomas Digges’s bold and widely known assertions about his father’s glasses that could see things several miles distant and could burn objects a half-mile or further away may have attracted Harriot and Bulkeley’s skeptical attention; for Harriot’s analysis of the burning distance and the intensity of Bulkeley’s fantastic lens, it shows that Digges’s claims could never have been true about any real lens (and this, I propose, was what Bulkeley had asked about in his original letter to Harriot). There was also a deeper, mathematical relevance to the problem that may have caught Harriot’s attention. His most recent source on refraction—Giambattista della Porta’s De refractione of 1593—identified a mathematical flaw in Witelo’s cursory suggestion about the optics of a lens (the only place that lenses appear, however fleetingly, in the writings of the thirteenth-century Perspectivist authors). In his early notes on optics, in a copy of Witelo’s optics, Harriot highlighted Witelo’s remarks on the lens and della Porta’s criticism (which he found unsatisfactory). The most significant problem with Witelo’s theorem would disappear as the radius of curvature of the lens approached infinity. Bulkeley’s gigantic glass, then, may have provided Harriot an opportunity to test out Witelo’s claims about a plano-spherical glass, at a time when he was still intensely concerned with the problems and methods of the Perspectivist school.

Keywords

Refraction Spherical Mirror Concave Mirror Glass Ball British Library 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of parts of this article were presented at the Temper of Evidence conference at Caltech, and at the Durham Thomas Harriot Seminar, and also at the History and Philosophy of Science Seminar at Indiana University, Bloomington, and the Fellows’ Seminar at the Newberry Library, Chicago; suggestions and criticisms at all of those venues have improved this article. I am grateful to the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Council of Learned Societies for funding the research leave during which this article was completed, and to the Newberry Library as the host of my NEH residential Fellowship. The British Library and the Oslo University Library generously allowed the images in this article to be reproduced.

References

  1. Almond, Philip C. 2011. England’s first demonologist: Reginald Scot & “The Discoverie of Witchcraft”. IBTauris: London & New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ash, Eric. 2004. Power, knowledge and expertise in Elizabethan England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bacon, Roger. 1859. Opera quaedam hactenus inedita. In Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 15, ed. J.S. Brewer. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts.Google Scholar
  4. Bacon, Roger. 1897. The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon, 2 vols, ed. John Henry Bridges. Oxford: Clarendon press.Google Scholar
  5. Bacon, Roger. 1928. The Opus majus of Roger Bacon, 2 vols (trans: Robert Belle Burke). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
  6. Batho, Gordon R. 2000. Thomas Harriot and the Northumberland household. In Thomas Harriot: An Elizabethan man of science, ed. Robert Fox, 28–47. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Baxandall, David. 1923. Early telescopes in the science museum, from an historical standpoint. Transactions of the Optical Society 24(5): 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berryman, Sylvia. 1998. Euclid and the sceptic: A paper on vision, doubt, geometry, light and drunkenness. Phronesis 43(2): 176–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, Bernard. 1866. A genealogical history of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited, and extinct peerages of the British Empire. London: Harrison.Google Scholar
  10. Clagett, Marshall. 1984. The Inventa of John Dee concerning the parabola. In Archimedes in the middle ages, vol. 5.1-4, 489–576. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, Andrew, and Charles William Boase. 1885. Register of the University of Oxford, 5 vols. Oxford Historical Society Publications 1, 10–12, 14. Oxford: Oxford Historical Society.Google Scholar
  12. Clucas, Stephen. 2000. Thomas Harriot and the field of knowledge in the English renaissance. In Thomas Harriot: An Elizabethan man of science, ed. Robert Fox, 93–136. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Clulee, Nicholas H. 1977. Astrology, magic, and optics: Facets of John Dee’s early natural philosophy. Renaissance Quarterly 30(4): 632–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clulee, Nicholas H. 1988. John Dee’s natural philosophy: Between science and religion. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. della Porta, Giambattista. 1589. Magiae naturalis libri XX. Naples.Google Scholar
  16. della Porta, Giambattista. 1593. De refractione optices parte libri novem. Naples.Google Scholar
  17. Dupré, Sven. 2005. Ausonio’s mirrors and Galileo’s lenses: The telescope and sixteenth-century practical optical knowledge. Galilaeana 2: 145.Google Scholar
  18. Dupré, Sven. 2007. Images in the air: Optical games, magic and imagination. In Spirits unseen: The representation of subtle bodies in early modern European culture, ed. Christine Göttler and Wolfgang Neuber, vol. 9, 71–92. Intersections. Leiden; Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  19. Dupré, Sven. 2010. William Bourne’s invention: Projecting a telescope and optical speculation in Elizabethan England. In The origins of the telescope, ed. Albert Van Helden, 129–145. Amsterdam: KNAW Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eamon, William. 1994. Science and the secrets of nature: Books of secrets in medieval and early modern culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eastwood, Bruce S. 1967. Grosseteste’s ‘quantitative’ law of refraction: A chapter in the history of non-experimental science. Journal of the History of Ideas 28(3): 403–414.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Eastwood, Bruce S. 1970. Metaphysical derivations of a law of refraction: Damianos and grosseteste. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 6(3): 224–236.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Feingold, Mordechai. 1984. The mathematician’s apprenticeship: Science, universities and society in England, 1560–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Foster, Joseph. 1891. Alumni oxonienses: The members of the University of Oxford, 1500–1714: Their parentage, birthplace, and year of birth, with a record of their degrees. Oxford and London: Parker and Co.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, Robert (ed.). 2000. Thomas Harriot: An Elizabethan man of science. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, Robert (ed.). 2012. Thomas Harriot and his world: Mathematics, exploration, and natural philosophy in early modern England. Farnham, Surrey, England & Burlington. VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. Gage, John. 2000. Color and meaning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goulding, Robert. 2006. Deceiving the senses in the thirteenth century: Trickery and illusion in the secretum philosophorum. In Magic and the classical tradition, ed. William F. Ryan, and Charles S.F. Burnett, 135–162. London: Warburg Institute-Nino Aragno Editore.Google Scholar
  29. Goulding, Robert. 2012. Chymicorum in morem: Refraction, matter theory, and secrecy in the Harriot–Kepler correspondence. In Thomas Harriot and his world: Mathematics, exploration, and natural philosophy in early modern England, ed. Robert Fox, 27–51. Farnham, Surrey, England & Burlington, VT: AshgateGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffith, John Edwards. 1914. Pedigrees of Anglesey and Carnarvonshire families: With their collateral branches in Denbigshire, Merionethshire and other parts. Horncastle.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, Trevor H. 1972. Old conjuring books: A bibliographical and historical study with a supplementary check-list. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  32. Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard. 1841. A collection of letters illustrative of the progress of science in England from the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to that of Charles the Second. London: Historical Society of Science.Google Scholar
  33. Hart, W.H. 1867. Observations on some documents relating to magic in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Archaeologia 40(2): 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnston, S. 2006. Like father, like son? John Dee, Thomas Digges, and the identity of the mathematician. In John Dee: Interdisciplinary studies in English renaissance thought, ed. Stephen Clucas, 65–84. International Archives of the History of Ideas/Archives internationales d’histoire des idées 193. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Knorr, Wilbur. 1983. The geometry of burning-mirrors in antiquity. Isis 74(1): 53–73.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindberg, David C. 1971. Lines of influence in thirteenth-century optics: Bacon, Witelo, and Pecham. Speculum 46(1): 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindberg, David C. 1984. Optics in sixteenth-century Italy. In Novità celesti e crisi del sapere: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi galileiani, ed. Paolo Galluzzi, 131–148. Firenze: Giunti Barbèra.Google Scholar
  38. Lohne, J.A. 1959. Thomas Harriott (1560–1621): The Tycho Brahe of optics. Centaurus 6(2): 113–121.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Lohne, J. 1963. Zur Geschichte des Brechungsgesetzes. Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften 47(2): 152–172.Google Scholar
  40. Lohne, J. 1965. Regenbogen und Brechzahl. Sudhoffs Archiv 44: 401–415.Google Scholar
  41. Lohne, J. 1968. Der eigenartige Einfluß Witelos auf die Entwicklung der Dioptrik. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 4(5): 414–426.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Lohne, J. 1973. Kepler und Harriot: ihre Wege zum Brechungsgesetz. In Internationales Kepler-symposium, Weil der Stadt, 1971, ed. Fritz Krafft, Karl Meyer, and Bernhard Sticker, vol. 1, 187–214. Arbor scientiarum, Reihe A: Abhandlungen. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.Google Scholar
  43. Lohne, J. 1979. Essays on Thomas Harriot. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 20(3): 189–312.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Molland, A.G. 1974. Roger Bacon as magician. Traditio 30: 445–460.Google Scholar
  45. Pepper, Jon V. 1967. The study of Thomas Harriot’s manuscripts II: Harriot’s unpublished papers. History of Science 6: 17–40.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. Powell, Nia M.W. 2008. Bulkeley, Sir Richard (c.1540–1621). In Oxford Dictionary of national biography, ed. Lawrence Goldman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Power, A. 2006. A mirror for every age: The reputation of Roger Bacon. The English Historical Review 121(492): 657–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rashed, Roshdi. 1990. A pioneer in anaclastics: Ibn Sahl on burning mirrors and lenses. Isis 81(3): 464–491.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Rashed, Roshdi. 1993. Géométrie et dioptrique au Xe siècle: Ibn Sahl, al-Qûhî et Ibn al-Haytham. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
  50. Recorde, Robert. 1551. The Pathvvay to Knowledg Containing the First Principles of Geometrie, as They May Moste Aptly Be Applied Vnto Practise, Bothe for Vse of Instrumentes Geometricall, and Astronomicall and Also for Proiection of Plattes in Euerye Kinde, and Therefore Much Necessary for All Sortes of Men. London.Google Scholar
  51. Reeves, Eileen. 2008. Galileo’s glassworks: The telescope and the mirror. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Reeves, Eileen. 2010. Complete Inventions: The mirror and the telescope. In The origins of the telescope, ed. Albert Van Helden, 167–182. Amsterdam: KNAW Press.Google Scholar
  53. Ronan, Colin. 1993. The invention of the reflecting telescope. Yearbook of Astronomy, 129–140.Google Scholar
  54. Ryrie, Alec. 2008. The sorcerer’s tale: Faith and fraud in Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Scot, Reginald. 1584. The Discouerie of Witchcraft Vvherein the Lewde Dealing of Witches and Witchmongers Is Notablie Detected... London.Google Scholar
  56. Shirley, John W. 1951. An early experimental determination of Snell’s law. American Journal of Physics 19(9): 507–508.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  57. Shirley, John W. 1983. Thomas Harriot, a biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, A. Mark. 1982. Ptolemy’s search for a law of refraction: A case-study in the classical methodology of ‘saving the appearances’ and its limitations. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 26: 221–240.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, A. Mark. 1996. Ptolemy’s theory of visual perception: An English translation of the ‘optics’ with introduction and commentary. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 86(2): iii-300.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, A. Mark. 1999. Ptolemy and the foundations of ancient mathematical optics: A source based guided study. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 89(3): 1–172 (New Series).Google Scholar
  61. Smith, A. Mark. 2010a. Alhacen on refraction: A critical edition, with English translation, of Book 7 of Alhacen’s De Aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham’s Kitâb al-Manâzir, vol. 1. Introduction and Latin text. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 100(3): i-211.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, A. Mark. 2010b. Alhacen and Kepler and the origins of modern lens-theory. In The origins of the telescope, ed. Albert Van Helden, 147–165. Amsterdam: KNAW Press.Google Scholar
  63. Takahashi, Ken’ichi. 1992. The law of reflection in Its historical perspective. In The medieval Latin traditions of Euclid’s Catoptrica : A critical edition of De Speculis with an introduction, English translation, and commentary, ed. Ken’ichi Takahashi, 13–37. Kyushu: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tanner, Rosalind C.H. 1967. Thomas Harriot as mathematician: A legacy of Hearsay. Physis 9(235–47): 257–292.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. Tanner, Rosalind C.H. 1977. Nathaniel Torporley’s ‘Congestor analyticus’ and Thomas Harriot’s ‘De triangulis laterum rationalium’. Annals of Science 34(4): 393–428.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  66. The Dictionary of Welsh biography down to 1940. 1959. London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion.Google Scholar
  67. Toole-Stott, Raymond. 1976. A bibliography of English conjuring, 2 vols. Derby: Harpur and Sons.Google Scholar
  68. Van Helden, Albert. 1977. The invention of the telescope. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 67(4): 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Helden, Albert. 1984. Telescope building, 1850–1900. In Astrophysics and twentieth-century astronomy to 1950: Part A. The general history of astronomy, ed. Owen Gingerich, vol. IV.A, 40–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Venn, John, and John Archibald Venn. 1922. Alumni cantabrigienses; a biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliest times to, 1900, 6 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Williams, John. 1868. Berw and the Hollands. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 3rd ser., 54: 97–130.Google Scholar
  72. Williams, Jack. 2011. Robert Recorde: Tudor polymath, expositor and practitioner of computation. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zetterberg, J.Peter. 1980. The mistaking of ‘the Mathematicks’ for magic in Tudor and Stuart England. The Sixteenth Century Journal 11(1): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zik, Yaakov. 2003. Kepler and the telescope. Nuncius 18: 481–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in History and Philosophy of Science & Program of Liberal StudiesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations