Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
Transformation of Euclid’s Optics in Late Antiquity
In: NunciusThe tradition of Euclid’s Optics includes a number of versions and translations, whether in Greek, Arabic or Latin. They differ from each other to various extents with respect to their form, structure and content. Textual divergence concerns the very core of geometric optics, i.e. the opening definitions and first propositions. In these parts the variance of the different versions is most striking. Thus the tradition of the Euclidean text involved a transformation of the visual model that cannot be explained merely philologically or by incidental elements in the process of transmission. This paper aims to explain these textual transformations as an intentional process of updating and adapting geometric optics to the best of its understanding at a given time. For this purpose, the different versions of Euclid’s Optics are placed in the context of and compared with late antique and early medieval sources. From Ptolemy through al-Haytham, experience had been used as an argument either to refute or to defend the geometric model of vision. Indeed, the visual ray hypothesis turns out to be more or less or not at all compatible with experience in the various versions of Euclid’s Optics. Their divergence thus provides evidence of a lively tradition of Euclidean Optics whose core has been transformed by discussing and testing the visual model on empirical grounds.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
2
M.F. Burnyeat, “Archytas and Optics,” Science in Context, 2005, 18:35–53.
-
3
Arthur E. Haas, “Antike Lichttheorien,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 1907, 20:345–386; David C. Lindberg, Theories of vision from al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 1–17.
-
6
Johan L. Heiberg, Litterargeschichtliche Studien über Euklid (Leipzig: Teubner, 1882), pp. 90, 130, 148.
-
8
Harry Edwin Burton, “The Optics of Euclid,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1945, 35:357–372.
-
30
W. Knorr, “Pseudo-Euclidean reflections” (cit. note 9), pp. 294–234, 42–43; Alexander Jones, “Peripatetic and Euclidean theories of the visual ray,” Physis, 1994, 31: 47–76, here pp. 51–56.
-
43
Euclid, “The Book of Euclid on the Difference of Aspects/ Kitāb Uqlīdis fī Ikhtilāf al-manāẓir”, in The Arabic version of Euclid’s Optics, 2 vols., edited by Elaheh Kheirandish (New York, Springer, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 1–229.
-
51
Text edited by Wilfred R. Theisen, The Mediaeval Tradition of Euclid’s ‘Optics’ (PhD dissertation: The University of Wisconsin, 1971), pp. 336–384.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 558 | 61 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 270 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 78 | 20 | 0 |
The tradition of Euclid’s Optics includes a number of versions and translations, whether in Greek, Arabic or Latin. They differ from each other to various extents with respect to their form, structure and content. Textual divergence concerns the very core of geometric optics, i.e. the opening definitions and first propositions. In these parts the variance of the different versions is most striking. Thus the tradition of the Euclidean text involved a transformation of the visual model that cannot be explained merely philologically or by incidental elements in the process of transmission. This paper aims to explain these textual transformations as an intentional process of updating and adapting geometric optics to the best of its understanding at a given time. For this purpose, the different versions of Euclid’s Optics are placed in the context of and compared with late antique and early medieval sources. From Ptolemy through al-Haytham, experience had been used as an argument either to refute or to defend the geometric model of vision. Indeed, the visual ray hypothesis turns out to be more or less or not at all compatible with experience in the various versions of Euclid’s Optics. Their divergence thus provides evidence of a lively tradition of Euclidean Optics whose core has been transformed by discussing and testing the visual model on empirical grounds.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 558 | 61 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 270 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 78 | 20 | 0 |