Lenses and Waves
Lenses and Waves
Lenses and Waves
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
124 CHAPTER 4<br />
Harriot had reconsidered <strong>and</strong> reapplied traditional methods anew <strong>and</strong><br />
found – what might be called – an empirical law of refraction. As contrasted<br />
to Kepler, he had turned to the measurement of refraction, instead of the<br />
theoretical trench-plowing of his hapless correspondent. Harriot does not<br />
seem to have considered the ‘proper cause’ of refraction with which his law<br />
may have been understood. His accomplishments were known only to a<br />
small circle of acquaintances. It is possible that they spread through<br />
correspondence, but he became known as a discoverer of the law of<br />
refraction only in the twentieth century. 66<br />
Around 1620, Willebrord Snel was the next to discover the exact measure<br />
of refraction - again by means readily available to Kepler. He did not publish<br />
his discovery, but it became generally known in the 1660s. How he<br />
discovered the law will remain a matter of conjecture. Snel’s papers on optics<br />
are lost, except for the notes he made in Risner’s Opticae libri quatuor (1606)<br />
<strong>and</strong> an outline of a treatise on optics discovered in the 1930s. 67 Hentschel has<br />
been the first to make a thorough attempt at reconstruction. In his view, Snel<br />
was inspired by an ‘experimentum elegans’ described by Alhacen <strong>and</strong> copied<br />
by Witelo that involved a segmented disc lowered into water. This led him to<br />
study the refractaria <strong>and</strong>, facilitated by his geodetic expertise, to the law of<br />
refraction in secans form. 68 I do not fully agree with Hentschel’s analysis, for<br />
I think that the idea of a contraction of the unrefracted perpendicular ray<br />
may have opened to Snel a more direct route to his discovery. Whichever<br />
interpretation is preferable, the main point is that Snel employed means<br />
readily available to Kepler. What is more, his approach of rational analysis of<br />
mathematical regularities in a set of refracted rays was precisely how Kepler<br />
set about initially. He even analyzed the refractaria from various perspectives,<br />
which makes it all the more surprising that Snel was seemingly unfamiliar<br />
with Paralipomena. 69 It remains to be seen why Snel was successful - or: why<br />
he was satisfied with what he found, as contrasted to Kepler’s fruitless<br />
struggle. Maybe he was less strict in empirical matters or he was - like Harriot<br />
- just lucky with looking at the issue from the right perspective.<br />
Paralipomena <strong>and</strong> the seventeenth-century reconfiguration of optics<br />
The central concept of perspectiva was the visual ray, which established the<br />
visual relation between objects <strong>and</strong> observer. 70 In seventeenth-century optics<br />
the concept of ray underwent two substantial changes, both anticipated by<br />
Kepler: the subordination of vision to light <strong>and</strong> the physicalization of the ray.<br />
66<br />
Lohne, “Geschichte des Brechungsgesetzes”, 160-161. Harriot corresponded with Kepler after the<br />
publication of Paralipomena. The correspondence broke off, however, before Harriot could reveal his<br />
findings. KGW2, 425.<br />
67<br />
The notes are in Vollgraff, Risneri Opticam. The outline was discovered by Cornelis de Waard, who<br />
transcribed <strong>and</strong> translated it in Waard, “Le manuscript perdu de Snellius”. A German translation is given<br />
in Hentschel, “Das Brechungsgesetz”, 313-319.<br />
68<br />
Hentschel, “Das Brechungsgesetz”, 302-308.<br />
69<br />
Hentschel, “Das Brechungsgesetz”, 334 note 22.<br />
70<br />
Smith, “Saving the appearances”, 86-89.