Optics, like Astronomy, has for its object of inquiry, first, the laws of phenomena, and next, their causes; and we may hence divide this science, like the other, into Formal Optics and Physical Optics. The distinction is clear and substantive, but it is not easy to adhere to it in our narrative; for, after the theory had begun to make its rapid advance, many of the laws of phenomena were studied and discovered in immediate reference to the theoretical cause, and do not occupy a separate place in the history of science, as in Astronomy they do. We may add, that the reason why Formal Astronomy was almost complete before Physical Astronomy began to exist, was, that it was necessary to construct the science of Mechanics in the mean time, in order to be able to go on; whereas, in Optics, mathematicians were able to calculate the results of the undulatory theory as soon as it had suggested itself from the earlier facts, and while the great mass of facts were only becoming known.

We shall, then, in the first nine chapters of the History of Optics, treat of the Formal Science, that is, the discovery of the laws of phenomena. The classes of phenomena which will thus pass under our notice are numerous; namely, reflection, refraction, chromatic dispersion, achromatization, double refraction, polarization, dipolarization, the colors of thin plates, the colors of thick plates, and the fringes and bands which accompany shadows. All these cases had been studied, and, in most of them, the laws had been in a great measure discovered, before the physical theory of the subject gave to our knowledge a simpler and more solid form.

FORMAL OPTICS.

CHAPTER I.

PRIMARY INDUCTION OF OPTICS.-RAYS OF LIGHT AND LAWS OF REFLECTION.

IN

N speaking of the Ancient History of Physics, we have already noticed that the optical philosophers of antiquity had satisfied themselves that vision is performed in straight lines;-that they had fixed their attention upon those straight lines, or rays, as the proper object of the science;-they had ascertained that rays reflected from a bright surface make the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence ;—and they had drawn several consequences from these principles.

We may add to the consequences already mentioned, the art of perspective, which is merely a corollary from the doctrine of rectilinear visual rays; for if we suppose objects to be referred by such rays to a plane interposed between them and the eye, all the rules of perspective follow directly. The ancients practised this art, as we see in the pictures which remain to us; and we learn from Vitruvius,' that they also wrote upon it. Agatharchus, who had been instructed by Eschylus in the art of making decorations for the theatre, was the first author on this subject, and Anaxagoras, who was a pupil of Agatharchus, also wrote an Actinographia, or doctrine of drawing by rays but none of these treatises are come down to us. The moderns re-invented the art in the flourishing times of the art of painting, that is, about the end of the fifteenth century; and, belonging to that period also, we have treatises upon it.

But these are only deductive applications of the most elementary optical doctrines; we must proceed to the inductions by which further discoveries were made.

1 De Arch. ix. Mont. i. 707.

2 Gauricus, 1504.

WE

CHAPTER II

DISCOVERY OF THE LAW OF REFRACTION.

E have seen in the former part of this history that the Greeks had formed a tolerably clear conception of the refraction as well as the reflection of the rays of light; and that Ptolemy had measured the amount of refraction of glass and water at various angles. If we give the names of the angle of incidence and the angle of refraction respectively to the angles which a ray of light makes with the line perpendicular to surface of glass or water (or any other medium) within and without the medium, Ptolemy had observed that the angle of refraction is always less than the angle of incidence. He had supposed it to be less in a given proportion, but this opinion is false; and was afterwards rightly denied by the Arabian mathematician Alhazen. The optical views which occur in the work of Alhazen are far sounder than those of his predecessors; and the book may be regarded as the most considerable monument which we have of the scientific genius of the Arabians; for it appears, for the most part, not to be borrowed from Greek authorities. The author not only asserts (lib. vii.), that refraction takes place towards the perpendicular, and refers to experiment for the truth of this: and that the quantities of the refraction differ according to the magnitudes of the angles which the directions of the incidental rays (primæ lineæ) make with the perpendiculars to the surface; but he also says distinctly and decidedly that the angles of refraction do not follow the proportion of the angles of incidence.

[2nd Ed.] [There appears to be good ground to assent to the assertion of Alhazen's originality, made by his editor Risner, who says, "Euclideum hic vel Ptolemaicum nihil fere est." Besides the doctrine of reflection and refraction of light, the Arabian author gives a description of the eye. He distinguishes three fluids, humor aqueus, crystallinus, vitreus, and four coats of the eye, tunica adherens, cornea, uvea, tunica reti similis. He distinguishes also three kinds of vision : "Visibile percipitur aut solo visu, aut visu et syllogismo, aut visu et anticipatâ notione." He has several propositions relating to what we sometimes call the Philosophy of Vision: for instance this: “E visi bili sæpius viso remanet in anima generalis notio," &c.]

The assertion, that the angles of refraction are not proportional to the angles of incidence, was an important remark; and if it had been steadily kept in mind, the next thing to be done with regard to refraction was to go on experimenting and conjecturing till the true law of refraction was discovered; and in the mean time to apply the principle as far as it was known. Alhazen, though he gives directions for making experimental measures of refraction, does not give any Table of the results of such experiments, as Ptolemy had done. Vitello, a Pole, who in the 13th century published an extensive work upon Optics, does give such a table; and asserts it to be deduced from experiment, as I have already said (vol. i.). But this assertion is still liable to doubt in consequence of the table containing impossible observations.

[2nd Ed.] [As I have already stated, Vitello asserts that his Tables were derived from his own observations. Their near agreement with those of Ptolemy does not make this improbable: for where the observations were only made to half a degree, there was not much room for observers to differ. It is not unlikely that the observations of refraction out of air into water and glass, and out of water into glass, were actually made; while the impossible values which accompany them, of the refraction out of water and glass into air, and out of glass into water, were calculated, and calculated from an erroneous rule.]

The principle that a ray refracted in glass or water is turned towards the perpendicular, without knowing the exact law of refraction, enabled mathematicians to trace the effects of transparent bodies in various cases. Thus in Roger Bacon's works we find a tolerably distinct explanation of the effect of a convex glass; and in the work of Vitello the effect of refraction at the two surfaces of a glass globe is clearly traceable.

Notwithstanding Alhazen's assertion of the contrary, the opinion was still current among mathematicians that the angle of refraction was proportional to the angle of incidence. But when Kepler's attention was drawn to the subject, he saw that this was plainly inconsistent with the observations of Vitello for large angles; and he convinced himself by his own experiments that the true law was something different from the one commonly supposed. The discovery of this true law excited in him an eager curiosity; and this point had the more interest for him in consequence of the introduction of a correction for atmospheric refraction into astronomical calculations, which had been made by Tycho, and of the invention of the telescope. In

his Supplement to Vitello, published in 1604, Kepler attempts to reduce to a rule the measured quantities of refraction. The reader who recollects what we have already narrated, the manner in which Kepler attempted to reduce to law the astronomical observations of Tycho,-devising an almost endless variety of possible formulæ, tracing their consequences with undaunted industry, and relating, with a vivacious garrulity, his disappointments and his hopes,-will not be surprised to find that he proceeded in the same manner with regard to the Tables of Observed Refractions. He tried a variety of constructions by triangles, conic sections, &c., without being able to satisfy himself; and he at last is obliged to content himself with an approximate rule, which makes the refraction partly proportional to the angle of incidence, and partly, to the secant of that angle. In this way he satisfies the observed refractions within a difference of less than half a degree each way. When we consider how simple the law of refraction is, (that the ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and refraction is constant for the same medium,) it appears strange that a person attempting to discover it, and drawing triangles for the purpose, should fail; but this lot of missing what afterwards seems to have been obvious, is a common one in the pursuit of truth.

2

The person who did discover the Law of the Sines, was Willebrord Snell, about 1621; but the law was first published by Descartes, who had seen Snell's papers. Descartes does not acknowledge this law to have been first detected by another; and after his manner, instead of establishing its reality by reference to experiment, he pretends to prove à priori that it must be true, comparing, for this purpose, the particles of light to balls striking a substance which accelerates them.

3

[2nd Ed.] [Huyghens says of Snell's papers, "Quæ et nos vidimus aliquando, et Cartesium quoque vidisse accepimus, et hinc fortasse mensuram illam quæ in sinibus consistit elicuerit." Isaac Vossius, De Lucis Naturâ et Proprietate, says that he also had seen this law in Snell's unpublished optical Treatise. The same writer says, "Quod itaque (Cartesius) habet, refractionum angulos sed ad lineas, id tuo Snellio, nomen more solito dissimulavit." and in his usual way, concealed it.”

2

momenta non exigenda esse ad acceptum ferre debuisset, cujus "Cartesius got his law from Snell,

1 L. U. K. Life of Kepler, p. 115. Huyghens, Dioptrica, p. 2.

3

Diopt. p. 53.