T/ae Theory of Pinhole Images from Antiquity

to tbe Tbirteentb Century

DAVID C. LINI)BEI:m
Communi cat ed by M. CLAGETT
I. Introducti on
The pri nci pl es under l yi ng t he camera obscura were first correct l y anal yzed
by IBN AL-HAITHAM. I n his Perspect i va (i.e., t he t hi r t eent h- cent ur y Lat i n t r ans-
l at i on of his Ki t ~b al -man~zi r), AL-HAITHAM describes t he following observat i ons,
whi ch are surel y equi val ent t o what l at er became known as t he camera obscura:
The evidence t hat lights and colors are not intermingled i n air or i n t ransparent
bodies is t hat when a number of candles are i n one place, [although] in various and
distinct positions, and all are opposite an aperture t hat passes t hrough to a dark
place and i n the dark place opposite the aperture is a wall or an opaque body, the
lights of those candles appear on the [opaque] body or the wall distinctly according
to the number of candles; and each of t hem appears opposite one candle along a
[straight] line passing through the aperture. If one candle is covered, onl y the light
opposite [that] one candle is extinguished; and if the cover is removed, the light
ret urns . . . . Therefore, lights are not intermingled in air, but each of t hem is extended
along straight lines. 1
Evi dent l y rays of l i ght passi ng t hr ough a smal l aper t ur e (regarded as a poi nt by
compari son wi t h t he ot her di mensi ons i nvol ved i n t he experi ment ) r emai n di st i nct
and cast a clear i mage on a screen behi nd t he aper t ur e; if all rays passi ng t hr ough
t he aper t ur e shoul d be considered, i t is evi dent t hat t he screen receives an in-
ver t ed and reversed i mage of t he ent i re scene opposi t e t he apert ure.
But t he case of "poi nt - aper t ur es " is a t ri vi al versi on of t he pr obl em of i mages
formed t hr ough all apert ure. Since ant i qui t y i t had been recognized t hat even
when t he di mensi ons of t he aper t ur e are not negligible - - t hat is, when t he aper-
t ure may not be regarded as a poi nt - - l i ght passi ng t hr ough it, under appropri at e
condi t i ons, casts an i mage havi ng t he shape of t he l i ght source r at her t han t he
shape of t he apert ure. For exampl e, t he aut hor of t he Pseudo-Ari st ot el i an Prob-
lemata calls at t ent i on t o t he anomal ous fact t hat sunl i ght passi ng t hr ough quadri -
1 opticae thesaurus Alhazeni Arabis libri septem, nunc pri mum editi a Federico
Risnero (Basel, t 572), Bk. I, sec. 29, p. 17: " Et significatio quod luces et colores non
perrnisceantur ill aere neque ill corporibus diaphanis est quod, quando i n uno loco
fuerint rnulte candele in locis diversis et distinctis et fuerint ornnes opposite uni
forarnini pert ranseunt i ad locurn obscurum et fuerit ill oppositione illius forarninis ill
obscuro loco paries aut corpus non di aphanum, luces illarurn candelarurn apparent
super corpus vel super illurn parietern distincte seculldurn nurnerum candelarurn
illarurn, et quelibet illarurn apparet opposita uni Calldele secundurn linearn trans-
euntern per foramen. Et si cooperiatur una Calldela, dest ruet ur lux opposita uni
candele t ant urn; et si auferat ur coopertoriurn, revert et ur lux . . . . Luces ergo non
adrniscentur in aere, sed quaelibet illarum ext endi t ur super verticationes rectas."
On this edition of IBN AL-HAITHAM'S Perspectiva and on the t ransl at i on of this
work from Arabic to Latin, see my i nt roduct i on to the forthcoming repri nt of the
1572 (RIsNE~) edition or my "Alhazen' s Theory of Vision and Its Reception in the
West, " Isis, vol. 58 (t967), pp. 322, 330.
Pi nhol e I mages 155
l a t e r a l ope ni ngs s t i l l p r o d u c e s a c i r c ul a r i ma g e ; a n d he not es , as wel l , t h a t whe n
t h e s un i s ecl i ps ed, i t s i ma g e o b s e r v e d t h r o u g h a s i eve or l e a ve s i s al so ecl i ps ed. 2
Thi s s e c ond a n d mo r e f o r mi d a b l e a s p e c t of t h e p r o b l e m was al so f i r s t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
a n a l y z e d b y IBM AL-HAITHAM. Al t h o u g h AL-HAITHAM'S t h e o r y wa s de f e c t i ve i n
mi n o r wa y s (for e x a mp l e , i n i t s l a c k of ge ne r a l i t y) , he r e c ogni z e d t h a t wh a t e v e r
t h e s h a p e of t h e a p e r t u r e , t h e i ma g e e x h i b i t s t h e s ha pe of t h e l u mi n o u s s our ce
whe n t i l e a p p r o p r i a t e r a t i o s o b t a i n b e t we e n t h e d i s t a n c e of a p e r t u r e t o i ma g e
a n d of a p e r t u r e t o s our ce a n d b e t we e n t i l e r a di i of t he a p e r t u r e a n d t h e s our ce.
He u n d e r s t o o d al so t h a t t h e i ma g e i s a c ompos i t e , f o r me d b y t i l e s u p e r i mp o s i t i o n
of n u me r o u s o v e r l a p p i n g i ma ge s c a s t b y i n d i v i d u a l p o i n t s or u n i t a r e a s of t h e
l u mi n o u s sour ce. Thi s t h e o r y of IBN AL-HAITHAM was l a t e r r e f i ne d a n d ge ne r a l i z e d
b y hi s f o u r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c o mme n t a t o r , KAMAL AL-DIN AL-F~.RISI. 3
The essence of t h e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r mu l a t e d b y AL-HAITHAM a n d AL-FARISI is i l -
l u s t r a t e d i n Fi g u r e i .a Ci r cl e A BCD on t h e s ur f a c e of t i l e sun r e pr e s e nt s t h e e x t r e me
t
Fi g. 1
2 Bk. XV, chaps. 6, 911bt - - 5; 11, 9t 2b10- - 15.
a On IBNAL-HAITHAM'S t heor y, see JosEeH W~RSCHMm% " Zu r Theor i e der
Camer a obs cur a bei I bn al Hai_tam," Sitzungsberichte der physikalisch-medizinischen
Societdt in Erlangen, vol. 46 (I 914), pp. 151- - t 54; EILHARD WIEDEMANN, "Uber di e
Camer a obscur a bei I bn al Ha i t a m, " Ibid., pp. 155- - t 69 (a Ger man t r a ns l a t i on of
iBN AL-HAITHAM'S On the Shape o/ the Eclipse); WIEDEMANN, " Ue b e r di e er st e Er -
w~itinung der Dunke l ka mme r dur ch I b n al Ha i t a m, " Jahrbuch [i~r Photographie und
Reproduktionstechnik, vol . 24 (1910), pp. t 2- - 13. On AL-FXRISI, see WIEDEMANN,
"l Jber di e Er f i ndung der Camer a obs cur a, " Verhandlungen der deutschen physikalischen
Gesellsehaft, vol . 12 (1910), pp. a 77- - t 82.
4 AL-HA_ITHAM and AL-FARISI di d not expr ess t hei r t heor i es i n pr eci sel y t he s ame
t er ms as I wi l l empl oy; nor di d t he y ut i l i ze a spher i cal source a nd a t r i a ngul a r aper t ur e.
However , my e xpl a na t i on does no vi ol ence t o t hei r t heor i es concept ual l y.
t 56 D. C. LINDBERG:
p o i n t s f r om whi c h r a y s of l i ght c a n d e s c e n d t h r o u g h t h e t r i a n g u l a r a p e r t u r e .
Ra y s f r om p o i n t A pa s s t h r o u g h t h e a p e r t u r e t o i l l u mi n a t e a s ma l l t r i a n g u l a r
a r e a a t A' . Ra y s f r om p o i n t C i l l u mi n a t e a s i mi l a r a r e a a t C' , a n d s i mi l a r l y f or
o t h e r p o i n t s on a n d wi t h i n ci r cl e A BCD. I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t r a y s e ma n a t i n g f r om
al l p o i n t s on ci r cl e A B CD i l l u mi n a t e o v e r l a p p i n g t r i a n g u l a r a r e a s l o c a t e d on
ci r cl e A ' B ' C' D' , t h u s p r o d u c i n g a c i r c ul a r i ma g e of t h e s un wi t h i n ci r cl e A ' B ' C' D' .
Sh o u l d t h e si ze of t h e a p e r t u r e be de c r e a s e d or t h e d i s t a n c e b e t we e n t h e s un
a n d t h e a p e r t u r e i nc r e a s e d, t h e t r i a n g u l a r p a t c h e s of i l l u mi n a t i o n wo u l d e x h i b i t
a c o r r e s p o n d i n g de c r e a s e i n si ze, whi c h wo u l d l e a d t o a s h a r p e n i n g of t h e i ma ge .
No w i t i s e v i d e n t f r om t i l e f i gur e t h a t t h e s h a p e a n d c l a r i t y of t h e i ma g e a r e
d e t e r mi n e d b y t wo f a c t o r s : ( t ) t h e t r i a n g u l a r i t y of t h e i ma g e s c a s t b y i n d i v i d u a l
p o i n t s of t h e l u mi n o u s b o d y , a r i s i ng f r om t i l e s h a p e of t h e a p e r t u r e ; a n d (2) t h e
c i r c ul a r p a t t e r n i n whi c h t he s e t r i a n g u l a r i ma g e s a r e s u p e r i mp o s e d , a r i s i ng f r om
t h e s ha pe of t h e l u mi n o u s b o d y . Ne a r t h e a p e r t u r e t h e f o r me r f a c t o r p r e d o mi n a t e s ;
howe ve r , as t h e d i s t a n c e b e t we e n t h e a p e r t u r e a n d t h e s cr een i s i nc r e a s e d, t h e
l a t t e r f a c t o r g r a d u a l l y c ome s t o p r e d o mi n a t e .
The We s t e r n h i s t o r y of t hi s t h e o r y of i ma g e s f o r me d b y a p e r t u r e s o f / i t c i t e
si ze - - wh i c h I s ha l l r ef er t o as t h e t h e o r y of pi nhol e i ma g e s - - a p p e a r s t o be
e n t i r e l y i n d e p e n d e n t of AL-HAITHAM a n d AL-FARISI. Th e pa s s a ge q u o t e d f r om
AL-HAITHAM a bove , whi c h out l i ne s hi s t h e o r y of p o i n t - a p e r t u r e s , c o n s t i t u t e s hi s
o n l y di s c us s i on of pi nhol e i ma g e s or t h e camera obscura i n t h e Perspeet i va. Hi s
f a r mo r e e l a b o r a t e t h e o r y of p i n h o l e i ma g e s f i ni t e i n si ze a p p e a r s onl y i n a n o t h e r
t r e a t i s e , On the Shape o / t h e Eclipse," a n d n e i t h e r t hi s n o r AL-FARISI' S c o mme n t a r y
on i t wa s a v a i l a b l e i n a n y l a n g u a g e e x c e p t Ar a b i c be f or e t i l e t we n t i e t h c e n t u r y . 5
A c o mp a r a b l e a n a l y s i s wa s n o t t o be f o u n d i n t i l e We s t be f or e t h e p u b l i c a t i o n
of JOHANNES KEPLER' S Ad Vi t el l i onem par al i pomena (1604) a n d FRANCESCO
5 WERN~ER'S suggest i on t h a t LEONARDO DA VINCI ma y somehow have gai ned access
t o AL-F~RISI' S c omme nt a r y need not be t a ke n seri ousl y, for t her e seems t o be l i t t l e
i f a nyt hi ng i n L]EONARDO'S ma nus c r i pt s t h a t he coul d not have obt a i ne d f r om PECHAM
or WlTELO, whose wor ks he knew; c]. OTTo WXRNER, Zur Phy s i k Leonardo da Vi nci s
( Er l angen, t 910), pp. 1 t 0 - - 1 1 t . Th a t LEONARDO knew PEC~I,AM'S 7~erspectiva com-
muni s is e vi de nt f r om t he f act t h a t he quot es f r om i t s pr ef ace (see ANI)R~ CHASTEL,
Ar t et humc~nisme ~ Florence au t emps de Laurent le Magni / i que [Pari s, a959], p. 417) ;
LEONARDO ci t es WITXLO on sever al occasi ons i n hi s not ebooks (see The Notebooks
o/ Leonardo dot Vi nci , ed. EDWARD MACCURDY, VO1. 1 [New Yor k, t 958], pp. 996,
1168, 1 t 71). On LEONARDO and pi nhol e i mages, see al so EUC-~NE MfJNTZ, "L6onar d
de Vi nci et l ' i nve nt i on de l a Chambr e notre, ' " Revue scienti/ique, Seri es 4, vol . 10
(1898), pp. 545- - 547; M.A.RIO GLIOZZI, " L' i n v e n z i o n e del l a camer a os cur a, " Arehei on,
vol . 14 (t932), pp. 221- - 229.
I t is equal l y i mpr oba bl e t h a t L~vI BEN GERSON, who pr ovi de d one of t he be t t e r
account s of pi nhol e i mages i n t he Mi ddl e Ages, coul d ha ve known t he wor ks of
AL-HAITHAM ( apar t f r om hi s Perspectiva) and AL-FXRISI; t her e i s no evi dence t h a t
ei t her of t hes e wor ks was t r a ns l a t e d i nt o La t i n or Hebr ew, a nd i t is unl i kel y t h a t
Lz vI knew mor e t ha n a s ma t t e r i ng of Ar abi c. On LEvi ' s t he or y of pi nhol e i mages,
see MAXIMILIAN CIIRTZI~, " Di e Dunke l ka mme r . Ei ne Unt er s uchung t i ber di e Vor ge-
schi cht e der s el ben, " Hi mme l und Erde, vol . 13 (1901), pp. 225- - 236, wher e LEvi ' s
t he or y is di scussed and t he r e l e va nt t e xt s publ i s hed; c/. JosEP~I CARLEBACH, Lewi
ben Gerson als Mat hemat i ker (Berlin, 1910), pp. 30- - 34. On Lx v I ' s knowl edge of Ar abi c,
see Ma x SELIGSOI~N, " Le v i ben Ger s hon, " i n The Jewi sh Encycl opedi a (New Yor k,
1901--1906), vol . 8, pp. 26- - 28; c/. ~X~IMA H. ALDERBLUM, A Sdy o/ Gersonides i n
Hi s Proper Perspective (New Yor k, 1926), p. 3t .
Pinhole Images 157
MAUROLYCO'S Phot i smi de l umi ne et umbra (161t). Ot hers who have been credi t ed
wi t h t he fi rst correct West er n anal ysi s of t he camera obscura, such as LEVI BEN
GERSON, LEONARDO DA VINCI, GIROLAMO CARDANO, and GIAMBATTISTA DELLA
PORTA, cont r i but ed l i t t l e if anyt hi ng t o t hi s aspect of t he probl em. 6
Lest i t appear t hat I am undul y concerned about a t ri vi al di st i nct i on - - smal l
aper t ur es and l arge aper t ur es are, af t er all, member s of a single cont i nuum - - l et
me poi nt out t ha t hi st ori cal l y, finite and poi nt aper t ur es have const i t ut ed t wo
di st i nct cases. Many of t he hi st ori cal figures associ at ed wi t h t he camera obscura
deal t wi t h onl y one or t he ot her or, if t hey deal t wi t h bot h cases, di d so in separ at e
works. Moreover, t her e is ver y l i t t l e r esembl ance bet ween t he r espect i ve theories.
I f t he aper t ur e ma y be r egar ded as a poi nt , t he ent i re t heor y consists of t wo st at e-
ment s : (t) l i ght is pr opagat ed in st r ai ght lines, and (2) l i ght r ays i nt ersect i ng in
t he aper t ur e do not mingle. Indeed, IBN AL-HAITI-IAM'S anal ysi s of t he i mages
f or med b y candl es t hr ough a poi nt - aper t ur e had no ot her pur pose t han t o pr ove
t hese t wo proposi t i ons. Ther e is t hus not hi ng ver y abst r use about ei t her t he
phenomenon or i t s expl anat i on.
By cont r ast , if t he aper t ur e is r egar ded as havi ng di mensi ons of si gni fi cant
size, t he quest i on of shape ent ers t he probl em, and difficult quest i ons are posed:
I f t he aper t ur e is square, why is t he i mage r ound ? Or, t o t ake account of t he
phenomena in mor e detail, why does t he i mage have t he shape of t he aper t ur e
di r ect l y behi nd t he aper t ur e and t he shape of t he l umi nous obj ect f ar behi nd
t he aper t ur e ? And t o rai se t hese quest i ons was, as i t t ur ned out in t he event ,
t o cast doubt on t he rect i l i near pr opagat i on of l i ght or t o suggest t hat one mus t
consi der secondar y as well as pr i ma r y radi at i on. Moreover, a pr oper sol ut i on t o
t he pr obl em of finite aper t ur es requi res a geomet r i cal anal ysi s of pyr ami ds issuing
f r om t he l umi nous body and an under st andi ng of t he manner in whi ch t he i mages
of i ndi vi dual poi nt s are super i mposed t o pr oduce a composi t e i mage - - el ement s
ent i r el y absent f r om t he t heor y of poi nt - aper t ur es.
If, t hen, we are per mi t t ed (or obligated) to consi der t he t heor y of finite and
poi nt aper t ur es separ at el y, and if MAUROLYCO and KEPLER f or mul at ed t he fi rst
compl et el y correct West er n anal yses of i mage- f or mat i on b y fi ni t e aper t ur es, t he
quest i on of ant ecedent s necessari l y arises. The ver y l anguage in whi ch cl ai ms on
behal f of MAUROLCO and KEPLER are couched - - " f i r s t correct anal ys i s " - -
i mpl i es t he exi st ence of pri or i ncorrect analyses. Who made t hese pri or a t t e mpt s ?
Wh y di d t he pr obl em i nt erest t hem ? Why were t hey unsuccessful ? Di d t he y
cont r i but e in a ny si gni fi cant way t o t he event ual t heor y ? Unt i l t hese quest i ons
6 LBvI and LEONARDO, for example, accurately describe the phenomena of large
apertures; but LEONARDO offers no expl anat ory analysis whatsoever, and LEvi ' s
analysis, although on the right track, is hardl y advanced enough to constitute a
complete and accurate account.
Besides those already cited, the following works deal wi t h t he hi st ory of pinhole
images and t he camera obscura: PIERRE DUI-IEM, Le syst~me du monde (Paris, t 913- -
1959), vol. 3, pp. 505--5t 7; vol. 5, pp. 203--205; GUILIELMO LIBRI, Histoire des
sciences mathdmatiques en Italie, vol. 4 (Paris, 1841), pp. 303--314; JAMES WATER-
HOUSE, "Camera Obscura: History, " ill The Encyclopaedia Britannica ( t t t he d. ) ,
vol. 5 (New York, 1910), pp. 105--107; JosEPH W/JRSCHMIDT, "Zur Geschichte,
Theorie und Praxis der Camera obscura," Zeitschri/t [~r mathematischen und natur-
wissenseha/tlichen Unterricht aller Schulgaltungen, vol. 46 (1915), pp. 466--476.
158 D. C. LINDBERG:
h a v e be e n a ns we r e d, t h e h i s t o r y of t h e c ame r a obscura wi l l be i nc ompl e t e . One of
t h e mo s t i mp o r t a n t c h a p t e r s i n t hi s " p r e h i s t o r y " i s t h e p e r i o d l e a d i n g u p t o a n d
i n c l u d i n g t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y wi t h i t s g r a n d s y n t h e s i s of o p t i c a l knowl e dge ,
c r e a t e d b y ROGER BACON, WlTELO, a n d JOHN PECHAM. I n t h e 1 2 5 0 ' s - - t 2 7 0 ' s ,
al l t h r e e of t he s e me n u n d e r t o o k a na l ys e s of i ma g e - f o r ma t i o n b y a p e r t u r e s of
f i ni t e si ze - - WlTELO once, BACON t wi ce, a n d PECHAM f our t i me s . Th e r e ma i n d e r
of t hi s e s s a y wi l l a t t e mp t t o e l u c i d a t e t h e i r t he or i e s of pi nhol e i ma g e s as wel l as
t h e a n t e c e d e n t t he or i e s u p o n whi c h t he i r s wer e ba s e d.
II. Ps eudo- Ari s t ot l e, Al ki ndi , and Ps e udo- Euc l i d
Th e Ps e u d o - Ar i s t o t e l i a n Probl ernat a d e s c r i b e d t h e p h e n o me n a a n d pos e d t h e
p r o b l e m of pi nhol e i ma g e s : " W h y i s i t t h a t wh e n t h e s un pas s es t h r o u g h q u a d r i -
l a t e r a l s , as f or i n s t a n c e i n wi c ke r wor k, i t does n o t p r o d u c e a f i gur e r e c t a n g u l a r
i n s h a p e b u t c i r c ul a r ? " 7 Th e a u t h o r of t hi s t r e a t i s e al so a t t e mp t e d an e x p l a n a t i o n
of t h e p h e n o me n a . He a d mi t t e d , a t t h e out s e t , t h a t i f s ol a r r a y s a r e r e c t i l i ne a r ,
whe n i n c i d e n t t h r o u g h a n a p e r t u r e h a v i n g r e c t i l i n e a r si des t h e y mu s t p r o d u c e
a n i ma g e b o u n d e d b y s t r a i g h t l i nes. Ho we v e r , t h e r a y s g r a z i n g t h e edges of t h e
a p e r t u r e (or p a r t i a l l y c ut off b y t h e b o u n d i n g ma t e r i a l ) a r e we a k a n d t he r e f or e
a r e n o t p e r c e i v e d ; c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e i ma g e i s s e n s i b l y r ound.
For if t he r a ys wer e s t r a i ght t he f i gur e f or med b y t he sun woul d necessar i l y be
bounde d b y s t r a i ght lines. Fo r when t he r a ys f al l s t r a i ght on t o a s t r a i ght l i ne t h e y
do pr oduce a r ect i l i near fi gure. Now t hi s is wha t happens wi t h t he r a ys ; for t h e y
f al l on t he s t r a i ght l i ne of t he wi cker wor k a t t he poi nt wher e t h e y shi ne t hr ough,
and t hese ar e s t r a i ght l i nes, so t h a t t h e y f al l as a s t r a i ght line. ]But because t hose
pa r t s of t he r a ys whi ch ar e c ut off a t t he ext r emi t i es of t he s t r a i ght l i nes ar e weak,
t he pa r t s a t t he angl e ar e not vi si bl e; b u t al l t h a t is s t r a i ght i n t he cone pr oduces
a l i ne, b u t t he r es t pr oduces no l i ne, b u t t he r a ys f al l wi t hout bei ng not i ced, s
Th e a u t h o r c o r r o b o r a t e s t hi s t h e o r y b y de s c r i bi ng s e v e r a l o t h e r e x a mp l e s i n
whi c h we f ai l t o pe r c e i ve wh a t i s r e a l l y t h e r e : s een f r om a di s t a nc e , s qua r e s
a p p e a r c i r c ul a r , a n d s phe r e s s eem t o h a v e f l a t sur f aces.
I n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h e c r e s c e n t - s h a p e d i ma g e p r o d u c e d whe n a s ol a r ecl i ps e
i s o b s e r v e d t h r o u g h a s ma l l ope ni ng, t h e a u t h o r of t h e Pr o b l e ma t a i n t r o d u c e s a n
e l e me n t t h a t wa s t o b e c o me s t a n d a r d f ar e i n l a t e r di s cus s i ons . Th e r e a r e t wo cones
of i l l u mi n a t i o n , j o i n e d t o g e t h e r a t t h e i r ve r t i c e s - - one cone l o c a t e d b e t we e n t h e
s un a n d t h e a p e r t u r e , t h e o t h e r b e t we e n t h e a p e r t u r e a n d t h e e a r t h. ( I t i s i mp l i c i t
7 Bk. XV, chap. 6, 91l bt , t r . W. S. HETT (London, 1936), vol . 1, p. 333.
s I bi d. , 911b5--20, ed. cit, vol . 1, pp. 333- - 335. E. S. FORSTER'S t r a ns l a t i on of
t hi s s ame passage ( The Wor k s o/ Ari st ot l e, ed. W. D. Ros s , vol. 7 [Oxford, t 927])
var i es cons i der abl y i n det ai l , b u t wi t hout i nt r oduci ng a ny di f f er ences t h a t ar e essent i al
for our pur poses. FORSTER'S t r a ns l a t i on fol l ows: " F o r t he f i gur e al so f or med b y t he
sun mus t be cont ai ned b y s t r a i ght lines, i f t he r a ys ar e s t r a i ght ; for when t h e y f al l
i n a s t r a i ght l i ne on t o a s t r a i ght l i ne, t he y f or m a f i gur e cont ai ned b y s t r a i ght lines.
And t hi s is wh a t happens wi t h t he r a ys ; for t h e y f al l on t he s t r a i ght l i ne of t he wi cker -
work, a t t he poi nt wher e t he y shi ne t hr ough, and ar e t hemsel ves s t r ai ght , so t h a t
t hei r pr oj e c t i on is a s t r a i ght l i ne. But because t he pa r t s of t he vi si on whi ch ar e c ut
off t owa r ds t he ext r emi t i es of t he s t r a i ght l i nes ar e weak, t he pa r t s of t he f i gur e
a bout t he angl es ar e not seen; b u t wh a t t her e is of s t r a i ght l i ne i n t he cone descr i bes
a s t r a i ght line, whi l e t he r es t does not , b u t t he si ght fal l s on p a r t of t he f i gur e wi t hout
per cei vi ng i t . "
Pi nhol e I mages t 59
i n t hi s d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t t h e p a i r of cones i s c o mp o s e d of r e c t i l i n e a r r a y s i n t e r -
s e c t i n g a t t h e c o mmo n ve r t e x. ) Cons e que nt l y, whe n a r a y i s r e mo v e d f r om t h e
u p p e r cone, as d u r i n g a n ecl i pse, a c o r r e s p o n d i n g r a y i s e l i mi n a t e d f r om t h e l owe r
c one 2 A c r e s c e n t - s h a p e d l u mi n o u s b o d y wi l l t he r e f or e gi ve r i se t o a c r e s c e nt -
s h a p e d i ma ge , as i n a s ol a r ecl i pse. Ne ve r t he l e s s , " s u c h c r e s c e nt s ar e n o t f o r me d
b y t h e moon, wh e t h e r i n ecl i pse or wa x i n g or wa ni ng, b e c a u s e t h e r a y s f r om i t s
e x t r e mi t i e s a r e n o t c l e a r - c ut , b u t i t s heds i t s l i ght Ewith s t r e n g t h a n d c l a r i t y
onl y~ f r om t h e mi ddl e , a n d t h e mi d d l e p o r t i o n of t h e c r e s c e nt i s b u t s mal l . 1
Thi s e r r one ous concl us i on was t o be r e p r o d u c e d b y IBN AL-HAITHAM i n hi s t r e a -
t i se, On the S h a p e o~ t he Ec l i ps e .
ALI<I~DI i n t r o d u c e s pi nhol e i ma g e s b r i e f l y i nt o hi s De as pect i bus i n or de r t o
p r o v e t h e r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n of l i ght , n A candl e, A B G ( Fi g. 2), i s p l a c e d
D H
[_
E
Fi g. 2
o p p o s i t e a p e r t u r e UZ, b e h i n d whi c h i s l o c a t e d s cr een H T . I f a s t r a i g h t l i ne i s
d r a wn f r om K, t h e o u t e r edge of t h e i l l u mi n a t e d p o r t i o n of t h e s cr een, j u s t
g r a z i n g t h e edge of t h e a p e r t u r e a t U, i t wi l l e n c o u n t e r t he l i ght a t p o i n t B.
The r e f or e l i ght i s p r o p a g a t e d i n s t r a i g h t l i nes.
A mo r e e l a b o r a t e di s cus s i on of pi nhol e i ma ge s a p p e a r s i n p r o p o s i t i o n s 9 a n d
t 0 of t h e Ps e u d o - Eu c l i d e a n De s peeul i s , 12 a n I s l a mi c c o mp i l a t i o n of t h e o r e ms
d r a wn p r i ma r i l y f r om HERO' S Cat opt ri ea, EUCLID' S Opt i ca, a n d t h e Ps e u d o -
Eu c l i d e a n Cat opt r i ca of THEON Or ALEXANDRIA. 1~ Thi s De s pecul i s , whi c h ci r cu-
l a t e d wi d e l y i n t h e We s t d u r i n g t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , i s of u n c e r t a i n da t e ,
9 The t e x t does not speci f y t h a t t he r a y is el i mi nat ed f r om t he opposite si de of
t he l ower cone. Al t hough t hi s seems t o follow obvi ous l y f r om t he ge ome t r y of t he
cones and t he r ect i l i near pr opa ga t i on of l i ght , t he er r or s of l a t e r aut hor s on t hi s poi nt
mus t ma ke us caut i ous i n a t t r i but i ng such unde r s t a ndi ng t o PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE;
C]. PSEUDO-EUCLID and PECHAM, below.
10 t3k. XV, chap. 1t , 912620, t r. FORSTER. I n t he f i nal cl ause of t he quot at i on,
t he a ut hor means t h a t onl y a smal l p a r t of t he cr escent is coext ensi ve wi t h t he cent r al
por t i on of t he moon, f r om whi ch t he s t r onges t r a ys issue.
n Pr op. 6, i n A. A. BJ6RNBO and SEBASTIAN VOGL, " Al ki ndi , Ti deus und Ps eudo-
Eukl i d, Dr ei opt i sche We r ke , " A bhandl ung z ur Geschichte der mat hemat i schen Wi s s e n-
scha/ten, vol . 26, pt . 3 (1912), pp. 8- - 9. ALXINDI'S De aspectibus was t r a ns l a t e d f r om
Ar abi c t o La t i n b y GERARD OF CREMONA i n t he t wel f t h cent ur y.
12 I bi d. , pp. 102- - t 03.
18 On t he pr oba bi l i t y t h a t THEON was t he compi l er of t he l a t t e r work, see PAUL
VER EECI~E, i nt r oduc t i on t o hi s Eucl i de, L' Opt i que et la Catoptrique (Pari s, 1959),
p. xxi x.
11 Arch. Hi st . Ex a c t Sci . , Vol . 5
t 60 D. C . LI NDBERG :
though VOGL has speculated t hat propositions 4- - 6 depend on ALKIRDI'S De
as pect i bus . 14
Proposition 9 of De s pe c ul i s is essentially a recapitulation of ALKINDI'S proof
of the rectilinear propagation of light, described above. The only difference - - al-
though an i mport ant one - - is t hat it turns ALI{INDI'S proof around. Employing
the fact of the rectilinear propagation of light as a premise, the author proves
t hat the image cast by the sun (A) through aperture A B (Fig. 3) is wider t han
the aperture.
K I
Z H T
Fig. 3
Proposition t 0 turns to the problem, first raised by PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE and
destined for a place of great importance in subsequent discussions, of an eclipse
observed through an aperture. The author recognizes t hat
w h e n t h e s u n i s e c l i p s e d , t h a t p a r t o f i t s l i g h t w h i c h e n t e r s t h r o u g h a n o p e n i n g i s
d i m i n i s h e d , i . e . i t i s n o t r o u n d ; n o r i s i t s i n c i d e n c e o n t h e s u r f a c e o f t h e e a r t h a c -
c o r d i n g t o l i n e T Z [ F i g . 3 1 , b u t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a m o u n t o f t h e e c l i p s e , a n d t h e
d i m i n u t i o n o f t h e l i g h t i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e d i m i n u t i o n o f [ t h e s u n p r o d u c e d b y ]
t h e e c l i p s e . I ~
T h e a u t h o r o f D e s p e c u l i s a p p e a r s t o h a v e a f i r m g r a s p o f t h e e s s e n t i a l p h e n o m e n a
o f p i n h o l e i m a g e s . H o w e v e r , a s h e a d d s m o r e g e o m e t r i c a l d e t a i l , h i s f u n d a m e n t a l
l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s r e v e a l e d :
L e t t h e s u n b e e c l i p s e d ; a n d l e t i t s e c l i p s e d p a r t b e a r c D G U a n d t h e p a r t o f i t s
b o d y t h a t t h e n s e n d s f o r t h t h e r a y b e a r c D E U . A n d l e t t h e r a y o f a r c D E U p a s s
t h r o u g h t h e a p e r t u r e t o t h e s u r f a c e o f t h e e a r t h , w h i c h i s E r e p r e s e n t e d b y ] l i n e T Z .
T h e r e f o r e , l i n e T H i s t h e p a r t o f t h e r a y i n c i d e n t o n t h e e a r t h ( i . e . T Z ) . A n d E t h e
i l l u m i n a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d b y ] l i n e H Z i s r e m o v e d f r o m t h e r a y a b o v e t h e s u r f a c e o f
t h e e a r t h , f o r i t i s t h a t E p a r t o f t h e e a r t h ] w h i c h i s i l l u m i n a t e d b y t h e r a y f r o m a r c
1 4 B J S R N B O & V O G L , o p . c i r . , p . 1 1 8 . O n t h i s t r e a t i s e , s e e a l s o S E B A S T I A N V O G L ,
" ~ b e r d i e ( P s e u d o - ) E u k l i d i s c h e S c h r i f t , D e s p e c u l i s ' , " A r c h l y ] i ~ r d i e G e s c h i c h t e d e r
Naturwissenschc~]ten u n d der Techni k, vol. 1 (1909), pp. 419--435.
15 BJ{SRNBO & VOGL, Op. cir., pp. 102--103: "Culn autem sol eclipsatur, tunc illud
luminis eius, quod per fenestram ingreditur, diminutum est, scilicet non rotundum;
neque casus eius super superficiem terrae est sicut ]inea tz, sed est secundum quanti-
tatem eius eclipsis; et est diminutio luminis proportionalis diminutioni eclipsis."
Pi nhol e I mages 161
DGU. Ther ef or e t he pr opor t i on of l i ne HZ t o ar c DGU is t he same as t he pr opor t i on
of l i ne TH to ar c DE U. TM
Th e a u t h o r s e e ms n o t t o r eal i ze t h a t , a c c or di ng t o hi s t h e o r y , l i ght f r om a r c
DEU mu s t b e n d a r o u n d t h e c or ne r a t A t o i l l u mi n a t e r egi on HT. P r e s u ma b l y
he ha s be e n mi s l e d b y hi s bel i ef t h a t t h e i ma g e mu s t be e c l i ps e d i n t h e s a me
p r o p o r t i o n as t he sun, whi ch, f r om a c a s ua l l ook a t t h e g e o me t r y of t h e f i gur e,
woul d s eem t o r e q u i r e t h a t a r c DEU i l l u mi n a t e r egi on HT a n d a r c DGU i l l u mi n a t e
r e gi on HZ.
Bef or e l e a v i n g t h e Ps e u d o - Eu c l i d e a n De speculis, we mu s t e x a mi n e one f u r t h e r
pr opos i t i on, whi c h (as i t a p p e a r e d i n De speculis) h a d n o t h i n g a t al l t o do wi t h
pi nhol e i mages , b u t whi c h was t o be gi ve n a p r o mi n e n t pl a c e i n WITELO' S t h e o r y
of pi nhol e i ma g e s i n t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . The p r o b l e m t o whi c h p r o p o s i t i o n 1 t
i s a d d r e s s e d i s t h a t of a c c o u n t i n g f or t h e f a c t t h a t r a y s i s s ui ng f r om t h e c e n t e r
of t h e s un t o obs e r ve r s s e p a r a t e d b y a s ma l l d i s t a n c e ar e s e n s i b l y pa r a l l e l . Th e
e x p l a n a t i o n a p p e a r i n g i n t he e n u n c i a t i o n of t h e p r o p o s i t i o n - - " s ol ar r a y s a p p e a r
p a r a l l e l t o sense b e c a u s e of t h e s mal l nes s of t h e s pa c e b e t we e n t h e m c o mp a r e d
t o t h e i r l e n g t h " - - is s a t i s f y i n g enough, b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y an a b s u r d d e mo n -
s t r a t i o n f ol l ows. Su p p o s e r a y s AB a n d AG ( Fi g. 4) i s s ui ng f r om t he c e n t e r of
G N L Z MS B
Fi g. 4
t he sun, a n d d r a w t h e r e ma i n i n g l i nes i n s uch a wa y t h a t EH e qua l s HG a n d D T
equal s TB. ( Al t hough n o t a s s e r t e d b y t h e a u t h o r , i t was s u r e l y obvi ous t h a t GN
e qua l s NL a n d MS e qua l s SB. ) I t follows, t he r e f or e , t h a t
t he pr opor t i on of EU t o DE is gr eat er t ha n t he pr opor t i on of HQ t o HT. For DE
equal s f2F; b u t HT is l onger t ha n QF, and t he pr opor t i on of EU t o ED is t he same
as t he pr opor t i on of HK t o HT. 1~ But HQ is p a r t of HK; t her ef or e t he pr opor t i on
~ Ibid., p. t 03: " Ve r b i gr at i a quasi sol ecl i pset ur , et si t eel i psi s ei us ar cus dgu,
et si t par s cor por i s eius, quae pr ohi ci t r a di um t unc, ar cus deu, et i ngr e di a t ur r adi us
ar cus deu per f enes t r am ad super f i ci em t er r ae, quae est l i nea tz, est ergo quod ex
r adi o c a di t t unc super t er r am, quae est l i nea tz, l i nea th. Et deest ad c ompl e me nt um
r adi i s upr a super f i ci em t er r ae l i nea hz; i psa namque est, qnae i l l umi na t ur ex r adi o
ar cus dgu. Er go pr opor t i o l i neae hz ad a r c um dgu est si eur pr opor t i o l i neae t h ad
a r c u m de~A."
~ At t hi s poi nt I have emended ]~J(~RNBO'S emendat i on of t he t ext . The MSS
r ead "hi ad kt , " t 3 J 6 R NB O' S emended t e x t "kt ad hi," b u t cl ear l y "hk ad ht " re-
pr esent s t he a ut hor ' s i nt ent i on.
19"
t 62 D. C. LINDBERG:
of HQ t o HT is much smal l er t h a n t he pr opor t i on of E U t o ED. Al so, b y t he s ame
a r r a nge me nt i t is de mons t r a t e d t h a t t he pr opor t i on of GN t o GB is much smal l er
t ha n t he pr opor t i on of HQ t o HT . is
So f a r t h e d e mo n s t r a t i o n i s s ound. Bu t t h e n c ome s t he s t a r t l i n g c onc l us i on:
Ther ef or e, as t he bases ar e f ur t her el ongat ed f r om A, t he a mount b y whi ch each
base sur passes t h a t whi ch is a dj a c e nt t o i t i n t he di r ect i on of A is less. Therefore,
when i t comes t o t he poi nt wher e t he excess of t he l ar ger of t hose [bases~ t o t h a t
whi ch pr ecedes i t is of a q u a n t i t y i mper cept i bl e t o sense, t he l i nes i ssui ng t o t he
ext r emi t i es of t hose bases a ppe a r par al l el . Ther ef or e when l i ne GB does not seem t o
ext end s ens i bl y be yond l i ne HT , t he t wo l i nes HG a nd B T ar e sensi bl y par al l el . 19
Thi s c onc l us i on i s, of cour s e, c o mp l e t e l y f al l aci ous . F r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r a t i o
of t h e e x t r e me s e g me n t of t h e ba s e (GN) t o t h e e nt i r e ba s e g r a d u a l l y decr eas es ,
i t does n o t f ol l ow t h a t t h e e x t r e me i t s el f b e c o me s of ne gl i gi bl e ma g n i t u d e . I n f a c t ,
t h o u g h s e t t i n g o u t t o p r o v e t h a t r a y s i s s ui ng f r om t h e c e n t e r of t h e s un t o
obs e r ve r s s e p a r a t e d b y a s ma l l d i s t a n c e a r e s e n s i b l y pa r a l l e l , t h e a u t h o r of t hi s
p r o p o s i t i o n ha s e n d e d b y p r o v i n g (or, a t l eas t , concl udi ng) t h a t r a y s e mi t t e d i n
wi d e l y d i v e r g e n t di r e c t i ons ( such as AG a n d A B ) a r e s e n s i b l y p a r a l l e l whe n suf -
f i c i e n t l y r e mo t e f r om t h e i r s our ce.
III. Roger Bacon
At l e a s t t wo of t h e t h r e e t r e a t i s e s so f a r di s c us s e d wer e a v a i l a b l e t o ROGER
BACON whe n he wr o t e hi s De mul t i pl i cat i one s peci er um a n d Opus mai us i n t h e
l a t e t 2 5 0 ' s a n d e a r l y t 260' s . BACON ci t es t h e Ps e u d o - Eu c l i d e a n De specul i s i n
hi s di s c us s i on of pi nhol e i ma g e s a n d ALI~INI)I' S De aspect i bus el s ewher e i n hi s
wor ks . Re g a r d i n g t h e Ps e u d o - Ar i s t o t e l i a n Probl emat a t h e r e i s s ome u n c e r t a i n t y ;
t hi s wo r k wa s t r a n s l a t e d f r om Gr e e k t o La t i n b y BAI~THOLOMEW OF MESSlNA
b e t we e n t 258 a n d 1264, 20 t h e v e r y p e r i o d d u r i n g whi c h BAcoN was c o mp o s i n g
De mul t i pl i cat i one s peci er um a n d t h e v a r i o u s wr i t i ngs t h a t wer e l a t e r i n c o r p o r a t e d
i n t o t h e Opus mai us . 21 I n t h e Opus t ert i um, wr i t t e n o n l y s l i g h t l y l a t e r , BAcoN
r ef er s t o "t r ans l at or Me i n / r e d i nupe r a domi no rege Carolo devi ct i , " 22 u n d o u b t e d l y
is Ibid. , pp. 103- - 104: " . . . pr opor t i o eu ad de est maj or pr opor t i one hq ad hr.
Es t eni m de aequal i s q]; sed hi est l ongi or q/, et pr opor t i o eu ad ed est si cut pr opor t i o
hk ad hr. Sed hq est par s hk; ergo pr opor t i o hq ad ht est mul t o mi nor pr opor t i one
eu ad ed. Secundum hanc quoque di s pos i t i onem demons t r at ur , quod pr opor t i o g n
ad gb mul t o pl us e xi s t i t mi nor pr opor t i one hq ad hr. "
19 Ibid. , p. t 04: " Quant o pl us i gi t ur el ongant ur bases ab a, est super f l uum, quo
quaeque basi s s upe r a t eam, quae s equi t ur i ps a m ad p a r t e m a, mi nus. Po s t q u a m ergo
ad hoc per veni t ur , u t s uper f l uum mai or i s e a r um a pud earn, quae i ps a m sequi t ur , non
s i t qua nt i t a t i s sensu per cept i bi l i s, t unc l i neae egr edi ent es super e xt r e mi t a t e s i l l ar um
ba s i um vi de nt ur aequi di s t ant es . Po s t q u a m i gi t ur l i nea gb non vi de t ur super f l uer e
l i neae ht sensi bi l i t er , vi de nt ur duae l i neae hi , bt aequi di s t ant es s ecundum s ens um. "
2o j . T. ~V[UCKLE, C. S. B. , " Gr e e k Wor ks Tr a ns l a t e d Di r e c t l y i nt o La t i n Bef or e
t 350, " Medi aeval Studies, vol . 5 (t943), p. 108.
31 EASTON da t e s De vault, spec. t o a bout t 262. I t is not cer t ai n wheI1 BAcoN wr ot e
p a r t I V of t he Opus mai us, wher e pi nhol e i mages ar e di scussed; per haps i n t he l at e
1250' s. C[. STEWART C. EASTON, Roger Bacon and Hi s Sear ch/ or a Uni versal Science
(Oxford, t 952), p. 1 t l .
32 Opera quaedam hactenus inedita, ed. J. S. BREWER (London, 1859), p. 91.
Pi nhol e I mages t 63
a r ef er ence t o BARTHOLOMEW OF MESSINA, t he chi ef t r a ns l a t or i n t he school
f ounde d b y MANFRED, Ki ng of Sicily. WlNGATE gat her s f r om BACON'S r e ma r ks
" t h a t t he var i ous ver si ons of Ba r t h o l o me w a nd hi s school wer e avai l abl e i n
No r t h - We s t Eu r o p e . . . al mos t as soon as t h e y wer e ma d e . " 23 I n a n y case, t he
Problemata is not of cr uci al i mpor t ance, si nce i t s di scussi on of pi nhol e i mages
h a d been s ur pas s ed i n mos t r espect s b y PSEUDo- EucLI D' S De speculis.
A gl ance at t he t wo sect i ons i n whi ch BACON t r eat s pi nhol e i mages r eveal s
ne a r l y i dent i cal ar gument s , t he sect i on i n De multiplicatione specierum bei ng
sl i ght l y ful l er; we can t her ef or e deal wi t h t he t wo passages as a uni t . The c ont e xt
f or BACON'S di scussi on is t he t e n d e n c y of l i ght t o pr opa ga t e i t sel f spher i cal l y
f r om i t s source, and BACON i nt r oduces t he p h e n o me n a of pi nhol e i mages becaus e
t h e y pr ovi de an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t r e ngt he n t he case f or spher i cal pr opagat i on.
He r ecogni zes t h a t s ome peopl e ma y f i nd a count er - i ns t ance i n t he f act t h a t
l i ght passi ng " t h r o u g h an obl ong or mul t i - cor ner ed a pe r t ur e is i nci dent i n a
s hape c onf or mi ng t o t he s hape of t he aper t ur e, especi al l y if t he aper t ur e is r a t he r
~" " 24 " n J
l arge, si nce if i t is t oo smal l t he l i ght is i nci dent i n a r o u n d ngur e. ~u~ BACON
is abl e t o r epl y t h a t
al t hough in a small di st ance t he l i ght does not assume t he requi red ~circular] shape,
i t does acqui re t hi s shape i n a sufficient distance. For t he larger t he apert ure, t he
great er t he di st ance Erequired] for i t t o assume t hi s shape, since t he larger dimensions
of a many- si ded aper t ur e are more el ongat ed f r om a circle and sphere. 25
Ho w can t hi s p h e n o me n o n be expl ai ned ? BACON appear s t o ha ve t wo ex-
pl anat i ons . I n t he Opus maius, he poi nt s out t h a t whe n l i ght is i nci dent t h r o u g h
a smal l ( but finite) aper t ur e, "i t s houl d be not e d t h a t t he sides of t he smal l aper -
t ur e ar e not f ar apar t , and t her ef or e t he l i ght is abl e t o r egai n i t s Eproper] s hape
i n a s hor t di s t ance. " 26 I t is uncl ear whe t he r or not t hi s abi l i t y of l i ght t o " r e g a i n
i t s pr ope r s h a p e " r epr es ent s al so an abi l i t y t o wi t h d r a w f r om r ect i l i near i t y i n
f a vor of ci r cul ar i t y. I n a n y case, t he i dea is not f ur t he r devel oped i n t he Opus
maius, a nd f or a ful l er anal ysi s we mu s t r el y on De multiplicatione specierum.
He r e BACON not es t h a t sol ar r a ys i nci dent t h r o u g h a gi ven aper t ur e f or m a mor e
r ounde d i mage at noon t h a n t he i n mor ni ng, f r om whi ch i t is evi dent t h a t speci es
ar e not i n t he s ame condi t i on at all t i mes a nd pl aces. He concl udes t h a t sol ar
r a ys ar e weaker i n t he mor ni ng becaus e t h e y pass obl i quel y t h r o u g h t er r est r i al
va por s ; " t he r e f or e t h e y acqui r e a r o u n d f i gur e Emore r eadi l y] at noon, si nce
t h e y ar e s t r onger Et hen]. " 27 Cl ear l y t he abi l i t y of r a ys t o f or m a ci r cul ar i mage
28 S. D. ~vVINGATE, The Mediaeval Latin Versions o I the Aristotelian Scientilic
Corpus, with Special Relerence to the Biological Works (London, 193t), p. 93.
2~ De mult. spec., I I , chap. 7, ed. J. I-I. BRIDGES, in The Opus Maj us ol Roger
Bacon (London, 1900), vol. 2, p. 492: ". . . l ux cadens per f or amen obl ongum vel
mul t i angul um cadi t in fi guram secundum fi gurat i onem foraminis, praeci pue si sit
al i quant ul um magnum, qui a si sit val de par vum, t unc l umen in fi gura cadi t r ot unda. "
25 Ibid.: " .. licet in di st ant i a par va non acqui r at sibi fi guram debi t am, t amen
in sufficienti di st ant i a acqui ret . Quant o eni m foramen est maj us, t ant o in maj ori
di st ant i a acquirit, qui a scilicet maj ores dimensiones forami ni s mnl t i l at eri magis a
circulo et sphaer a el ongant ur . "
26 Opus maius, IV, Dist. 2, Chap. 3, ed. Bridges, vol. 1, p. i 18 : " di cendum est,
quod l at era par vi forami ni s par um di st ant , et ideo l ux in par va di st ant i a pot est
f i gur am suam recuperare . . . . "
27 De mult. spec., ed. BRIDGES, p. 493 : ". . . et ideo acqui r unt sibi fi guram r ot unda m
in meridie, quoni am fortiores sunt . "
1 6 4 D . C . L I N D B E R G :
a f t e r pa s s a ge t h r o u g h a n o n c i r c u l a r a p e r t u r e does n o t f ol l ow f r om t h e r e c t i l i n e a r
p r o p a g a t i o n of l i ght , s i nce i t i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e r a ys .
Bu t t h e r e i s al so a s e c o n d e x p l a n a t i o n , f o u n d i n b o t h t h e Opus ma i u s a n d De
mul t i pl i c at i one s peci er um, whi c h i s e n t i r e l y g e o me t r i c a l a n d does n o t cal l t h e
p r i n c i p l e of r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n i nt o que s t i on. Cons i de r a wa l l as r e mo t e f r om
t h e a p e r t u r e as t h e a p e r t u r e i s f r om t h e sun. Two p y r a mi d s or cones a r e t h u s
f or me d, j o i n e d a t a c o mmo n v e r t e x i n t h e a p e r t u r e . I t is e v i d e n t f r om t he g e o me t r y
of t hi s a r r a n g e me n t ( a s s umi ng t h e r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n of l i ght ) t h a t
t he speci es of t he sun woul d become equal t o t he por t i on of t he sun mul t i pl yi ng t he
speci es . . . . Fo r t he angl es of t he t wo t r i angl es, whi ch have as bases t he chor d of t he
por t i on of t he sun mul t i pl yi ng t he speci es and t he chor d of t he speci es f al l i ng on t he
wal l , ar e equal , si nce t he y ar e ve r t i c a l l y oppos i t e; and b y hypot hes i s t he si des of
t hose t r i angl es ar e equal . Cons equent l y t he bases, whi ch ar e t he chor ds of por t i ons
of t he sun and of t he speci es of t hose por t i ons, ar e equal . . . . 22
Ho we v e r , i f a n y c h o r d (or d i a me t e r ) of t h e i ma g e i s e qua l t o t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
c h o r d of t h e s un, t h e t wo mu s t be of i d e n t i c a l s hape.
Al t h o u g h t hi s i s a n i mp r e s s i v e a r g u me n t - - a n d i n d e e d a c or r e c t one - - i t f ai l s
t o s ol ve t h e p r o b l e m of i ma g e s f o r me d b y t h e p r o j e c t i o n of l i ght t h r o u g h l a r ge
a p e r t u r e s . By s e l e c t i ng t h e s un as t h e l u mi n o u s s our ce a n d p l a c i n g t h e i ma g e as
f ar b e y i n d t h e a p e r t u r e as t h e s un i s i n f r ont of i t , BACON ha s i n ef f ect r e d u c e d
t he a p e r t u r e t o a p o i n t - - whi c h i s t o a v o i d c omi ng t o t e r ms wi t h i t s s hape. Of
cour s e, no c r i t i c i s m of BACON i s i n t e n d e d ; he c a n h a r d l y be b l a me d f or s ol vi ng
o n l y t h e p r o b l e m of i mme d i a t e i n t e r e s t t o hi m. Hi s p u r p o s e was t o d e mo n s t r a t e
t h a t l i ght a s s ume s a c i r c ul a r s h a p e a t a s uf f i c i e nt d i s t a n c e f r om t h e a p e r t u r e a nd,
t he r e f or e , t h a t l i ght ha s a ge ne r a l t e n d e n c y t o wa r d s phe r i c i t y. Wh y l i ght a s s ume s
t he s h a p e of t h e a p e r t u r e d i r e c t l y b e h i n d t h e a p e r t u r e he u n d o u b t e d l y r e g a r d e d
as s e l f - e vi de nt . Th e g e o me t r y i n v o l v e d i n t h e t r a n s i t i o n b e t we e n t h e t wo cases,
t h o u g h t o us t h e c r uc i a l ma t t e r , wa s of l i t t l e i n t e r e s t t o hi m.
IV. Wi t e l o
WITELO s h a r e d t h e c o mmo n c o mmi t me n t of a n c i e n t a n d me d i e v a l t h i n k e r s t o
t he r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n of l i ght . I n t h e f i r s t t h e o r e m of Bo o k I I of hi s Pe r -
spect i va, he d e mo n s t r a t e s t h a t " t h e r a y s of al l l i ght s a n d t h e mu l t i p l i c a t i o n s of
al l f or ms p r o c e e d a l ong s t r a i g h t l i ne s . " ~9 Bu t a l t h o u g h he n e v e r e x p l i c i t l y deni es
t hi s concl us i on, hi s di s c us s i on of p i n h o l e i ma g e s a p p e a r s a t t i me s t o r a i s e d o u b t s .
I n t h e o r e m 39 of Bo o k I I , WITELO ma k e s t h e a s t oni s hi ng a t t e mp t t o p r o v e t h a t
22 I bi d. , pp. 492- - 493: " . . . speci es sol i s f i at aequal i s pr opor t i oni sol i s mul t i pl i -
cant i speci em i l l am . . . . Angul i eni m duor um t r i angul or um, quor um uni us basi s est
chor da por t i oni s i n sole mul t i pl i cant i s speci em, et al t er i us chor da speci ei cadent i s
s uper par i et em, s unt aequal es, qui a c ont r a ponunt ur ; et ex hypot he s i l a t e r a t r i angu-
l or um i l l or um s unt aequal i a; quar e bases s unt aequal es, quae s unt chor dae por t i onum
solis et suae speci ei . . . . "
29 Perspectiva, ed. RISNER ( bound wi t h t he 1572 edi t i on of ALHAZI~N'S Perspectiva),
p. 6t : " R a d i i quor umcunque l umi num et mul t i pl i cat i ones f or ma r um s ecundum r ect as
l i neas p r o t e n d u n t u r . " Al l quot a t i ons f r om WITELO'S Perspect i ve have been dr a wn
f r om t hi s edi t i on, t hough I have al t er ed punc t ua t i on and spel l i ng on occasi on. As I
have ar gued el sewhere (c]. my i nt r oduc t i on t o t he r e pr i nt of t he RISNER edi t i on) ,
t hi s t e x t f ai t hf ul l y r epr es ent s t he ma nus c r i pt t r a di t i on.
Pi nhol e I mages 165
r a y s ( a p p a r e n t l y r ect i l i near ) pr oc e e di ng f r om a si ngl e p o i n t a n d pa s s i ng t h r o u g h
a n o n c i r c u l a r a p e r t u r e f or m a r o u n d e d i ma g e - - a n d he does so wi t h o u t r e c our s e
t o PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE'S s t r a t a g e m of c l a i mi ng t h a t l i ght i s p r e s e n t b u t uns e e n
a t t h e c or ne r s or edges of t h e i mage. Th e a r g u me n t i s s i mp l e :
Si nce al l r a ys pr oceedi ng f r om one poi nt of a l umi nous body mor e cl osel y a ppr oa c h
sensi bl e par al l el i s m accor di ng t o t he Egreater~ l engt h of t he lines, i t is evi dent t h a t
t he r ays i nci dent t hr ough t he ve r y angl es, accor di ng t o t he di sposi t i on of angul ar
aper t ur es, di r ect t hems el ves t owa r d par al l el i s m wi t h t he r a y i nci dent per pendi cul ar l y
(or near l y so) on t he pl ane of t he aper t ur e ~i.e., t he r a y f al l i ng cent r al l y on t he aper -
t ur e] . Ther ef or e t h e y wi t hdr a w t hemsel ves f r om angul ar i t y, a nd t hus t he l i ght i nci dent
on t he sur f ace behi nd t he a pe r t ur e begi ns t o be r ounded. 3
I t wo u l d s e e m as t h o u g h t h e r a y s mu s t " w i t h d r a w t h e ms e l v e s " n o t me r e l y
f r om a n g u l a r i t y , b u t al so f r om r e c t i l i n e a r i t y . Bu t WITELO does n o t a p p e a r t o
h a v e c onc e i ve d i t so. I t i s t r u e t h a t i n hi s vi e w al l t h e r a ys , i nc l udi ng t hos e a t
t h e cor ner s , " d i r e c t t h e ms e l v e s t o wa r d p a r a l l e l i s m" wi t h t h e r a y i n c i d e n t pe r -
p e n d i c u l a r l y on t h e c e n t e r of t he a pe r t ur e . ( Si nce t h e r a y s pa s s i ng t h r o u g h t h e
c or ne r s a r e i n i t i a l l y mo r e obl i que t h a n t h e ot her s , i t ma y be t h a t he c onc e i ve d
t h e ef f ect t o be g r e a t e s t f or t hem. ) Bu t t hi s a p p r o a c h t o pa r a l l e l i s m, f a r f r om
r e q u i r i n g a di ve r ge nc e of t h e r a y s f r om r e c t i l i n e a r i t y , was - - os t e ns i bl y, a t l e a s t - -
b a s e d u p o n t h e v e r y pr i nc i pl e of r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n ; f or a t t hi s p o i n t WI TEL0
h a d r e c our s e t o t h e pr opos i t i on, whi c h a p p e a r e d f i r s t i n t h e Ps e u d o - Eu c l i d e a n
De s peeul i s , t h a t r ect i l i near r a y s d i v e r g i n g f r om a si ngl e p o i n t a p p r o a c h s e ns i bl e
pa r a l l e l i s m wi t h i nc r e a s i ng d i s t a n c e f r om t he i r sour ce. I n f act , WITELO r e p r o d u c e s
t h e e nt i r e d e mo n s t r a t i o n f r om De s pecul i s , s l i g h t l y e l a b o r a t e d a n d wi t h al l t h e
f a l l a c i ous r e a s oni ng of t h e or i gi na l i n t a c t . 3~
Th u s f a r WITELO ha s d e a l t o n l y wi t h t h e s peci al cas e i n whi c h l i ght i s s ues
f r om a s i ngl e p o i n t ; a n d he ha s p r o v e d t h a t s uch l i ght pa s s i ng t h r o u g h a non-
c i r c ul a r a p e r t u r e p r o d u c e s an i ma g e s o me wh a t r o u n d e d a t t h e cor ner s . Wh e n he
c ons i de r s l u mi n o u s o b j e c t s of f i ni t e di me ns i ons , he di s c ove r s a n o t h e r caus e c a p a b l e
of c o n t r i b u t i n g t o r oundne s s . Li g h t i s a c t u a l l y di f f us e d i n e v e r y di r e c t i on f r om
e v e r y p o i n t of t h e l u mi n o u s b o d y . Ther ef or e, r a y s i n t e r s e c t a t al l p o i n t s i n t h e
me d i u m a n d c o n t i n u e b e y o n d . Wi t h o u t p r o v i d i n g f u r t h e r de t a i l , WITELO con-
cl udes t h a t t he s e i n t e r s e c t i n g r a ys , p a r t i c u l a r l y t hos e t h a t i n t e r s e c t a t t h e pe -
r i p h e r y of t h e a p e r t u r e , a r e r e s pons i bl e f or t h e c i r c u l a r i t y of t h e i ma g e :
I t is evi dent t h a t r ays i nt er s ect one anot her a t ever y poi nt , and t he r a ys of l ower
poi nt s of t he l umi nous body i nt er s ect r ays of hi gher poi nt s a t poi nt s on t he edges
~o Perspectivc~, p. 75: " Qu o n i a m eni m omnes r adi i ab uno pUllCtO l umi nosi cor por i s
pr ocedent es s ecundum l i near um l ongi t udi nem ad e qui di s t a nt i a m sensi bi l em pl us ac-
cedunt , p a t e r quod r adi i s ecundum f or ami num angul ar i um di s pos i t i onem i psi s angul i s
i nci dent es se a ppl i c a nt equi di s t ant i e r adi i per pendi cul ar i t er vel ci r ca super f i ci ei fora-
mi ni s i nci dent i s. Re t r a h u n t ergo se ab angul ar i t at e, et sic l umen super f i ci ei f or ami ni
obi ect e i nci dens i nci pi t r ot unda r i . "
~1 I bi d. C[. Bk. I I , t heor em 35, pp. 73- - 74. Al t hough WITELO cer t ai nl y does re-
pr oduce PSEUDO-EUCLID'S ent i r e demons t r at i on, i t shoul d be not ed t h a t he empl oys
i t i n t he " p r o o f " of a s l i ght l y di f f er ent pr oposi t i on. Wher eas PSEUDO-EuCLID cl ai med
t o de mons t r a t e t h a t r a ys i ssui ng f r om t he cent er of t he sun t o obser ver s s e pa r a t e d
b y a smal l di s t ance ar e sensi bl y par al l el - - a t r u t h t h a t we al l gr ant , even i f t he
de mons t r a t i on was f al l aci ous (and i r r el evant t o t h a t pr oposi t i on) - - WITELO cl ai med
t o de mons t r a t e t he abs ur d pr opos i t i on t h a t " r a y s pr oceedi ng Eat a consi der abl e angl e]
t66 D. C. LINDBERG:
of t he aperture and ext end beyond; and thus, light of this sort passing t hrough aper-
tures becomes rounded, which would not occur to the same degree if rays passing
t hrough t he aperture issued from only one poi nt of the luminous body. as
To l earn in mor e det ai l what coul d be meant by i nt er sect i on as a cause of circu-
l ari t y, we must t nr n t o WITELO'S cont empor ar y, JoHN PECHAM.
But first, i t ma y be well t o present in full, Book n, t heor em 40 of WITELO'S
Per s pect i va, whi ch summar i zes his t heor y of pi nhol e i mages:
[Theorem] 40. When a luminous ray is incident perpendicularly on t he middle
poi nt of a square aperture, t he light falling on t he surface of a body parallel t o [and
behind] t he plane of t he apert ure is square, but approaching a certain [degree of]
circularity.
Let E [Fig. 5] be the center of t he luminous body and A BCD t he square aperture,
to the middle poi nt of which (i.e., F) falls ray E F perpendicularly. And let GHK L be
@ H
L K
Fig. 5
t he surface of a dense body parallel to the plane of t he aperture. I say t hat the light
incident on t hat surface will be square. For two pyrami ds are formed havi ng one
vert ex (point E) , t he greater of which has GHK L as its base and t he smaller of which
has A B C D as its base; and these bases are parallel. These bases are therefore similar
by Book I, [theorem] 99, of this Etreafise]. Therefore, since by hypothesis base A B C D
is square, i t is evi dent t hat base GHK L is also square. And this is t he first Epart of
the] proposition. But since, by Etheorem~ 35 of this Ebook], longer rays approach a
certain parallelism, t he figure approaches a certain circularity because of t he com-
pression 88 of t he rays or their intersection at points on t he lines bounding t he apertures,
as we said above. Therefore t he proposition is evident. 8
from one poi nt of a luminous body approach sensible parallelism as t he length of
t he lines increases." Nevertheless, it must be confessed t hat if t he demonst rat i on
proves anything, it is WITELO'S proposition rat her t han PSEUDO-EUCLID'S; t hat is,
t hough fallacious, t he demonst rat i on is at least rel evant to WITELO'S proposition,
but not to PSEUDO-]~UCLID'S.
I must admi t t hat I was startled to find WITELO reproducing this demonst rat i on
from De specul/s wi t h no apparent awareness of its absurdity. Fr om studying other
parts of WITELO'S Pef$~zgeG[iv~, I had been impressed t hat he was an exceptionally
compet ent geometer. I t is now necessary to add that, on occasion at least, he was
also uncritically eclectic.
32/bid., Bk. II, t heorem 39, p. 75: " . . . pat er quod ipsi in quolibet punct o se
intersecent, et radii inferiorum puct orum ipsius corporis luminosi in punctis linearum
fenestre alios radios superiorum punct orum secant et ultra prot endunt ur; et sic l umen
huiusmodi fenestras pertransiens rot undat ur, quod non adeo accideret si solum ab
uno punct o luminosi corporis egrederentur radii fenest ram penet rant es. "
~3 " Co mp r e s s i o n " appears to denote merely t he t endency of rectilinear rays to
approach sensible parallelism wi t h increasing distance, i.e. the geometrical effect
described above rat her t han a physical effect.
Pinhole Images t 67
Also evident is WITI~LO'S hesitancy to commit himself unambiguously regarding
"compressi on" or "i nt ersect i on" or both as the cause of circularity and his
unwillingness or inability to elaborate on the exact meaning of "i nt ersect i on. "
It is surprising t hat the fundamental contradiction in proving, in the first place,
t hat by the rectilinear propagation of rays the image must be square and, in the
second place, t hat by the rectilinear propagation of rays (via Ps~uDo-ElJcLID'S
theorem) the image becomes rounded, seems to have escaped WITELO. Perhaps
the redeeming feature of his theory, from our standpoint, it its reference to
intersection as a possible cause of circularity.
V. J o h n Pe c h a m
The man who devoted the most attention to the theory of pinhole images in
the thirteenth century was undoubtedly JOHN PECnA, Archbishop of Canterbury
and author of the most popular optical handbook of the later Middle Ages. 35
PECHAM applied himself to the problem in four different works: (1) his TractaEus
de perspectiva, a rambling and poorly organized discussion of optical phenomena,
which may have been an early draft of the Perspectivc~ communis," (2) the Per-
@ectiva communis; (3) his Tractatus de sphera," and most fully in (4) his revision
of the Perspectiva communis. The four treatments are far from equal: t hat in
the Tractatus de perspectiva is very rudimentary, while the analyses appearing in
the Tractatus de @hera and the revised version of the Per@ectiva communis are
clearly at a more advanced level than the discussion in the unrevised version of
the Perspectiva communis. Indeed, it appears possible to establish the order of
composition of these works by the level at which t hey treat pinhole images,
though on these grounds alone there can be no certainty regarding the order in
which the latter two were composed. By far the most complete exposition of
PECHAM'S views appears in the revised version of the Perspectiva communis, for
which reason attention will be focussed primarily, though not exclusively, on
this work.
PECHAM was concerned with the problem of pinhole images for the same
reason as his predecessors: the fact t hat noncircular apertures can give rise to
34 Ibid., pp. 75--76: "40. Radio luminoso medio puncto foraminis quadrati per-
pendiculariter incidente, lumen superficiei corporis equidistantis superficiei foraminis
incidens est quadrature ad circularitatem aliquam accedens."
" Si t centrum corporis luminosi E et foramen quadrature sit A BCD, cuius puncto
medio (qui sit F) incidat perpendiculariter radius EF; sitque superficies corporis densi
equidistans superficiei foraminis, que est GHKL. Dico quod lumen incidens illi super-
ficiei erit figure quadrate, fiunt enim due pyramides unum verticem habentes punc-
turn E, quarum maioris basis est GHKL, minoris vero basis est ABCD, et earum
bases sunt equidistantes. Sunt ergo similes per 99 t t huius. Quia ergo basis A BCD
ex hypothesi est quadrati, patet quod et basis GHKL est quadrata. Et est hoc pro-
positum primum. Quoniam vero per 35 huius radii longiores ad aliquam equidistantiam
accedunt, accedit et hec figura ad aliquam circularitatem propter compressionem
radiorum vel propter ipsorum intersectionem in punctis linearum terminantium
fenestras, ut diximus ill premissa. Pater ergo propositum." I have capitalized and
italicized letters representing points in the figure.
35 On the composition, contents, and circulation of the Perspectivc~ communis, see
my forthcoming edition and translation. C]. my "The Perspectiva communis of JoHN
PECHAM: Its influence, sources, and content," Archives internationMes d'histoire des
sciences, vol. 18 (1965), pp. 37--53.
1 6 8 D . C . L I N D B E R G :
c i r c ul a r i ma g e s c a s t s d o u b t on t h e r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n of l i ght . PECI-IAM was,
of cour s e, no l ess l oya l t o t h e pr i nc i pl e of r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n t h a n BACON
or WITELO or a n y o t h e r me d i e v a l s t u d e n t of opt i c s ; i nde e d, i t s e r v e d as t h e v e r y
f o u n d a t i o n of hi s e nt i r e s y s t e m of g e o me t r i c a l opt i cs . E a r l y i n t h e Perspectiva
communis, he de c l a r e s t h a t " r a y s of p r i ma r y l i ght a n d col or a r e a l wa y s p r o p a g a t e d
i n s t r a i g h t l i nes unl es s b e n t b y v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e me d i u m, " 36 e x p l a i n i n g t hi s f a c t
b y t h e pr i nc i pl e of e c o n o my : "since a c t i o n i n a s t r a i g h t l i ne i s eas i er a n d s t r o n g e r
f or n a t u r e , e v e r y n a t u r a l b o d y , wh e t h e r vi s i bl e or not , mu s t mu l t i p l y i t s s peci es
i n a c o n t i n u o u s s t r a i g h t l i ne . " ~7 Bu t s i nce t h e p h e n o me n a of pi nhol e i ma g e s cal l
t h e pr i nc i pl e of r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n i nt o que s t i on, PECHAM i nqui r es , i n Bo o k I ,
pr op. 5 of t h e Perspectiva communis, wh y s ol a r r a y s "passing t h r o u g h a n g u l a r
a p e r t u r e s of mo d e r a t e si ze a p p e a r r o u n d e d Ewhen t h e y fall~ on f a c i ng b o d i e s . " as
T h a t i s, wh y do t h e y p r o d u c e a c i r c ul a r i ma g e c onf or mi ng t o t h e s h a p e of t h e
s un r a t h e r t h a n a n a n g u l a r i ma g e c onf or mi ng t o t h e s h a p e of t h e a p e r t u r e ?
PECHAM'S f i r s t t wo a t t e mp t s t o s ol ve t hi s p r o b l e m c a n be s u mma r i z e d v e r y
br i e f l y. I n t h e Tractatus de perspectiva, he ar gues t h a t c or por e a l t hi ngs h a v e a
n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n t o wa r d a c i r c ul a r f i gur e b e c a u s e " t h e p a r t s of a n y whol e
a r e p r e s e r v e d a n d s u p p o r t e d b y u n i t i n g wi t h one a n o t h e r . " 89 As f or l i ght ,
si nce l i ght is mos t act i ve, i t acqui r es a ci r cul ar shape for i t sel f. And t he l ar ger t he
aper t ur e, t he gr eat er t he di s t ance r equi r ed for i t t o assume a ci r cul ar shape, si nce
t he l ar ger t he di mensi ons of t he a pe r t ur e t he mor e i t is el ongat ed f r om a circle, whi ch
f i gur e i t never t hel ess gr a dua l l y acqui r es, as is evi dent t o an obser ver . 4
I n t h e Perspectiva communis, he di s cus s es a n d r e j e c t s t wo pos s i bl e e x p l a n a t i o n s
a d v a n c e d b y ot her s , bef or e p r e s e n t i n g hi s own vi ew. I n t h e f i r s t pl ace, s ome
pe opl e "simply as s i gn Ethe r o u n d n e s s of t h e i mage] t o t h e r o u n d n e s s of t h e sun,
f or s i nce t h e r a y s p r o c e e d f r om t h e sun, t h e r o u n d n e s s of t h e r a y s mu s t r e s u l t f r om
t h e r o u n d n e s s of t h e sun. ' ' 41 To s u p p o r t t h e i r vi ew, t he s e pe opl e ci t e t h e f a c t
t h a t "during a s ol a r ecl i ps e t h e i n c i d e n t r a y s b e c o me c r e s c e n t - s h a p e d , v a r y i n g
36 B k . I , p r o p . 1 4 : " Ra d i u s l uci s pr i mar i e, s i mi l i t er et coloris, i n r e c t um s emper
por r i gi t ur ni si di ve r s i t a t e medi i i nc ur ve t ur . " Te xt s and t r ans l at i ons f r om t he Per-
spectiva communis ar e f r om my edi t i on.
37 B k . I , p r o p . 2 7 , r evi sed ver si on: "Et qui a act i o i n di r e c t um est f aci l i or et
f or t i or nat ur e, necesse est ut omne cor pus na t ur a l e seu vi si bi l e seu non vi si bi l e s uam
speci em mul t i pl i cet i n c ont i nuum et di r e c t um. "
3s ,,... per angul ar i a f or ami na t r ans eunt es medi ocr i s magni t udi ni s i n obi ect i s cor-
por al i bus r ot unda r i . . . . " Pr op. I - - 5 of t he unr evi s ed ver si on cor r esponds t o Pr op. I - - 7
of t he r evi s ed ver si on.
~9 , , . . pa r t e s cui usl i bet t ot i us ex se i nvi cem uni t i s s a l va nt ur et f ove nt ur . " I have
pr e pa r e d an edi t i on of t hi s t ext , f r om whi ch al l quot at i ons ar e dr awn. On t hi s t r eat i se,
see LYNN THORNDIKE, "A J ohn Pe c kha m Ma nus c r i pt , " Archivum Franciscanum
Historicum, v o l . 4 5 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , pp. 459- - 461.
4o ,, Qui a i gi t ur l ux est ma xi me act i va, acqui r i t si bi f i gur am ci r cul ar em. Et qua nt o
f or amen mai us est t a nt o i n mai or i di s t a nt i a acqui r i t , qui a s ecundum mai or es di men-
stones f or ami ni s a ci rcul o magi s el ongat ur , qua m t a me n f i gur am pa ul a t i m acqui r i t ,
u t p a t e t e xpe r i e nt i . "
41 B k . I , p r o p . 5: " Qu i d a m s i mpl i ci t er sol ar i t r i b u u n t r o t u n d i t a t i ut si cut r adi us
a sole sic r ot undi t a s a r o t u n d i t a t e . " Thi s ma y be a r ef er ence t o ROOXR BACON'S
t heor y. I t shoul d be not ed t h a t pr i nt e d edi t i ons of t he Perspectiva communis, begi nni ng
wi t h t he 1 542 edi t i on, cont ai n an edi t ed ver si on of t hi s pr opos i t i on and t her ef or e do
not qui t e r epr es ent PEC~IAM'S t hought except i n br oa d out l i ne.
Pi nhol e I mages 169
as t h e p o r t i o n of t h e s un c ut off b y t h e mo o n . " 43 , , Bu t if t hi s caus e wer e suf f i -
c i e n t , " PECHAM ar gues , " t h e i n c i d e n t r a y s woul d be r o u n d b o t h n e a r t h e a p e r t u r e
a n d f ar f r om t h e a p e r t u r e , t h e c o n t r a r y of whi c h i s obs e r ve d. ' ' 43 Ot h e r pe opl e
a r gue t h a t t h e c i r c u l a r i t y of t h e i ma ge is e xpl i c a bl e i n t e r ms of t i l e i nt e r s e c t i on
of r e c t i l i n e a r r a ys . PECHAM pr oc e e ds t o a l e n g t h y a na l ys i s of t h e v a r i o u s i n t e r -
s e c t i ng r a d i a n t p y r a mi d s pa s s i ng t h r o u g h t h e a pe r t ur e , a t t e mp t i n g t o d e mo n -
s t r a t e t h a t bef or e t h e r a y s h a v e pr ogr e s s e d f a r b e y o n d t h e a p e r t u r e , t h e out e r -
mo s t p y r a mi d ( whi ch gi ves s ha pe t o t h e b e a m as a whol e) i s r ound. 44 Thi s de-
mo n s t r a t i o n u l t i ma t e l y f ai l s, howe ve r , a n d PECHAM c onc l ude s t h a t i n f a c t t h e
o u t e r mo s t p y r a mi d f o r me d b y t h e r e c t i l i ne a r p r o p a g a t i o n of l i ght c onf or ms t o
t h e s ha pe of t h e a p e r t u r e a n d t he r e f or e c oul d n o t p r o d u c e a c i r c ul a r i mage.
" Th e r e f o r e , " he i s f or ced t o a d mi t , " i t i s i mpos s i bl e t o a t t r i b u t e t h e caus e of
r oundne s s e n t i r e l y t o t h e ma n n e r of r a d i a t i n g Ei.e., t o t h e r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n
of l i ght ] . ' ' 45 Th e t r u e e x p l a n a t i o n of r oundne s s , PECHAM deci des , i s t h a t " t h e
s phe r i c a l s ha pe i s a s s oc i a t e d wi t h l i ght a n d i s i n h a r mo n y wi t h al l t i l e bodi e s of
t he wor l d as be i ng t o t h e hi ghe s t degr ee c o n s e r v a t i v e of n a t u r e . . . The r e f or e
l i ght i s n a t u r a l l y mo v e d t o wa r d t hi s s ha pe a n d g r a d u a l l y a s s ume s i t whe n p r o p -
a g a t e d s ome d i s t a n c e . " 46 PECHAM ha s a p p a r e n t l y s acr i f i ced t h e r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p -
a g a t i o n of l i ght t o a mor e ge ne r a l l a w of t i l e n a t u r a l s p h e r i c i t y or c i r c u l a r i t y of l i ght .
The ve r s i on of t hi s s a me p r o p o s i t i o n a p p e a r i n g i n t h e r e v i s e d ve r s i on of t h e
P e r s p e c t i w c o mmu n i s c o n t a i n s b y f a r t he mos t l e n g t h y a n d i mpr e s s i ve of PECttAM' S
f our a na l ys e s of pi nhol e i mages . Once a ga i n he cl ai ms t o be p r e s e n t i n g t i l e vi ews
of ot her s , whi c h f r e q u e n t l y ma k e s i t i mpos s i bl e t o d e t e r mi n e pr e c i s e l y whe r e hi s
own c o mmi t me n t s l i e. The f i r s t vi e w p r e s e n t e d i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f i na l concl us i on
of t h e u n r e v i s e d ver s i on. Some peopl e, PECHAM s t a t e s , " a t t r i b u t e t h e u n i v e r s a l
caus e of t hi s r oundne s s t o a p r o p e r t y of l i ght , f or si nce l i ght is t h e mo s t e xc e l l e nt
of c or por e a l f or ms , i t a l wa y s s t r i ve s t o wa r d t he mos t e xc e l l e nt s hape, n a me l y
r oundne s s . Si nce t hi s s ha pe i s mos t a p p r o p r i a t e f or a s i mpl e b o d y , al l s i mpl e
p a r t s of t he wor l d ar e r o u n d . " a7 Bu t a g a i n s t t hi s opi ni on, i t i s a r g u e d
42 I b i d . : " . . . t e mpor e ecl i psi s sol ari s hui us i nci dent i e f i unt novacul ar es s ecundum
por t i one m quam abs ci ndi t l una de sol e. " PEC~AM is a p p a r e n t l y unawar e t h a t t he sun
and i t s i mage f or med t hr ough a pi nhol e ar e ecl i psed on oppos i t e sides, for as an
obj ect i on agai ns t t he second t he or y - - t h a t " i n t e r s e c t i o n " is t he cause of ci r cul ar i t y - -
he poi nt s out t h a t i n t h a t case, " i f t he sun were ecl i psed on t he eas t er n side, t he
i nci dent r a ys woul d be abs ent on t he west er n si de r a t he r t ha n on t he s ame si de [as
t he ecl i psed por t i on of t he s un] . " ( I bi d. ) On t hi s poi nt , P~Ct~AM is fol l owi ng PSEUDO-
EUCLID.
4~ I b i d . : " S e d si hec causa suf f i cer et i nci dent i a i s t a r o t u n d i t a t e m acqui r er et sic
pr ope f or amen si cut l onge a f or ami ne, cui us c ont r a r i um vi de mus . "
44 Thi s is a cl ever t heor y, si nce i t gi ves pr omi se of expl ai ni ng why t he shape of
t he i mage di ffers di r ect l y behi nd t he a pe r t ur e and f ar behi nd t he aper t ur e.
45 I b i d . : " P e r modum i gi t ur r adi os i t at i s . . . i mpossi bi l e est caus am r ot undi t a t i s
per f ect e r eper i r e. "
46 I bi d. : " . . . I i gur am s per i cam esse l uci c ogna t um et omni bus mundi cor por i bus
esse consonam ut pot e na t ur e ma xi me s a l va t i va m . . . . Ad hanc i gi t ur na t ur a l i t e r l ux
move t ur et earn pr ot e l a t a di s t a nt i a pa ul a t i m acqui r i t . "
4~ Bk. I, pr op. 7, r evi sed ver si on: " Uni ve r s a l e m caus am as s i gnant hui us r ot undi -
t a t i s i ps am pr opr i e t a t e m lucis, quoni am cum l ux si t nobi l i ssi ma f or ma r um cor por al i um,
uni ver s al i t er t e ndi t ad f i gur am nobi l i ssi mam, sci l i cet or bi cul ar em, que ma xi me con-
veni ens est si mpl i ci cor por i ; unde omnes par t es mundi si mpl i ces r o t u n d i t a t e m h a b e n t . "
1 7 0 D . C . L I N D B E R G :
t h a t if i t wer e t r ue t he i nci dent r a ys woul d not a ppe a r cr es cent - s haped dur i ng an
eclipse, for b y t he power of l i ght t he r a ys woul d over come t he def ect r es ul t i ng f r om
t he i nt er pos i t i on of t he moon. Besi des, no ma t t e r wher e i n t he i nci dent be a m t he eye
is pl aced, i t can see t he b o d y of t he sun, and si ght occurs onl y i n s t r a i ght lines. Ther e-
fore, t he shape of t he i nci dent be a m conf or ms t o t he behavi or of such [ r ect i l i near ]
r ays, [so t ha t ] wha t e ve r t he s hape of t he beam, i t is t he b o u n d a r y of r adi al [i . e. ,
s t r ai ght ] lines. Cons equent l y t he beam acqui r es r oundness onl y i nsof ar as t hi s is
caused b y r a di a t i on i n s t r a i ght lines. 4s
I t i s t h u s a f f i r me d ( whe t he r b y PEC~IAM or b y t hos e who o p p o s e t hi s f i r s t opi ni on
i s n o t q u i t e cl ear ) t h a t l i ght (or si ght ) pr oc e e ds o n l y i n s t r a i g h t l i nes a n d t h a t
t h e a n a l y s i s of pi nhol e i ma g e s mu s t , t he r e f or e , be f o u n d e d on t h e pr i nc i pl e of
r e c t i l i n e a r p r o p a g a t i o n .
A s e c o n d vi e w s at i s f i es t hi s c o n d i t i o n : " Ot h e r s c l a i m t h a t r o u n d n e s s i s c a u s e d
b y t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of t h e [ r ect i l i near ] r a y s a n d he nc e i n a ma t h e ma t i c a l ma n -
ner . "49 T h a t i s, t h e a na l ys i s i s no l onge r p h y s i c a l or c a u s a l - - t h e t e n d e n c y of
l i ght t o a s s u me a s p h e r i c a l s h a p e - - b u t ge ome t r i c a l , b a s e d on t he f a c t t h a t t h e
r a d i a t i o n of l i ght c a n be r e p r e s e n t e d b y s t r a i g h t l i nes ; whi c h i s t o s a y t h a t r e c t i -
l i ne a r s ol a r r a ys , a f t e r p a s s i n g t h r o u g h a n o n c i r c u l a r a p e r t u r e a n d i n t e r s e c t i n g
one a n o t h e r , r e a l l y do f or m a c i r c ul a r b e a m. I n o r d e r t o e l u c i d a t e t hi s v i e wp o i n t ,
PECHAM r e mi n d s hi s r e a d e r t h a t p y r a mi d s of i l l u mi n a t i o n e ma n a t i n g f r om a
l u mi n o u s b o d y (as bas e) c a n be c onc e i ve d t o t e r mi n a t e i n ve r t i c e s a t e v e r y p o i n t
of t h e a d j a c e n t me d i u m:
. . . an i nf i ni t e numbe r of p y r a mi d s pr oceed f r om t he whol e vi si bl e sur f ace of t he
sun and ar e i ndi vi dua l l y t e r mi na t e d a t di s t i nc t poi nt s i n t he a dj a c e nt ai r because
of t he i ncl i nat i on of t he r a ys . . . . Fo r exampl e, l et A B C be a p y r a mi d [Fi g. 6]. I t is
cer t ai n t h a t r a ys B A and C A come t oget her a t poi nt A and do not s t op t her e, b u t
E D
Fi g. 6
48 I b i d . : " . . . qui a sic t e mpor e ecl i psi s non a ppa r e r e t hui us i nci dent i a novacul ar i s ,
sed vi ncer et r adi us def ect um qui aeci di t ex i nt er pos i t i one l une per v i r t u t e m l uci s.
Pr e t e r e a uhi cunque p o n a t u r ocul us i n i nci dent i a pot e s t vi der e cor pus solis, vi si o
a ut e m non est ni si per l i neam r ect am. Er go f i gur a i nci dent i e s equi t ur modum r a di or um
hui us; cui uscunque si t f i gur e t er mi nus est l i ne a r um r adi al i um. Er go n u mq u a m ac-
qui r i t r o t u n d i t a t e m ni si quat enus c a us a t ur a l i nei s r adi os i s . "
49 I b i d . : " I d c i r c o di cunt al i i quod r ot undi t a s c a ns a t ur per i nt er s ect i onem r a di or um
et per vi a m ma t h e ma t i c a m. "
Pinhole Images 171
after intersection pass over to points such as D and E; and angles Dal e and BAG
are equal because t hey are Evertically] opposite. 5
Thus are formed i nfi ni t el y ma ny pairs of pyrami ds, j oi ned vert i cal l y at every
poi nt of t he medi um.
Therefore, havi ng supposed these things, some people proceed to assign the cause
of roundness as follows. Assume an equilateral t ri angul ar aperture . . . . GHI EFig. 71-
K I L K ~ I L
Fig. 7 Fig. 8
Let KL be the surface of the sun from which pyramids fall through the aperture
and Einto~ the region beyond. They say t hen t hat KL~I , which is t ermi nat ed at the
middle poi nt of the aperture, is shorter t han any other pyrami d passing through the
aperture [and havi ng its vertex in the plane of the apertureJ; for its axis, which is
the middle line of the pyramid, is shorter t han the axis of any other pyrami d because
it is perpendicular [to the apertureJ, as is evident from the first book of Euclid. If
this is the shortest pyramid, it contains a larger [vertical~ angle t han the others,
and consequently the [vertically~ opposite angle will be larger t han t hat of the other
pyramids. Therefore if the lines enclosing these angles are extended in a straight line
through a small distance, the pyrami d [verticallyJ opposite pyrami d KLM will swallow
up all others, and it is round like the surface of the sun KL. 51
Thi s ar gument is si mi l ar to t he "second opi ni on" discussed i n t he unrevi sed
versi on of t he Perspect i va communi s, t hough bet t er and more persuasi vel y de-
veloped.
Unf or t unat el y, however, t he ar gument is not valid. Pyr ami d KLM is i ndeed
t he short est of all pyr ami ds havi ng t hei r vert ex i n t he pl ane of t he apert ure;
50 Ibid. : " . . . a t ot a superficie solis visibili procedunt pyramides infinite, t ermi nat e
singule in singulis punctis aeris obiecti consistentes ex huius radii declinantibus . . . .
Verbi gratia sit pyramis ABC. Certum erit quod radii BA et CA conveni unt ad
punct um d et non si st unt in A sed t ranseunt intersecando se, verbi gratia ad punet a
D E. Et est angulus DAE equalis angulo BAC cum si nt contraposita. "
51 Ibid. : "Hi t s igitur suppositis, ad causam rot undi t at i s i nveni endam procedunt
qui dam sic: Det ur foramen triangulare equilaterum . . . . qui sit GHI , et sumat ur
superficies solis a qua i nci dunt pyramides per ysopleurum et partes contrapositas,
que fit KL. Di cunt igitur quod omni pyrami dum t ranseunt i um per ysopleurum brevior
est KLM, que scilicet t ermi nat ur in medio punct o foraminis, quoni am axis eius qui
est media linea pyramidis est brevissima eum sit perpendieularis, quod pat er ex primo
Euclidis. Et si brevissima est cont i net maiorem angul um quam alie, et per consequens
angulus eius contrapositus erit maior angulis aliarum pyrami dum contrapositis; et
per consequens si ducant ur linee continentes hos angulos in cont i nuum et directum
per modicum spatium, pyrami s contraposita pyrami di KLM omnes alias absorbebit,
et habebi t i nci dent i am rot undam qualiter est superficies solis KL. "
172 D. C. LINDBERG:
but , as PECHAM poi nt s out, ot her pyr ami ds have t hei r vert i ces bet ween t he aper-
t ur e and t he sun and still ot hers beyond t he apert ure. Moreover, t hose pyr ami ds
havi ng t hei r vert i ces bet ween t he aper t ur e and t he sun are short er and t herefore
t hey are more obtuse t han t he aforementioned pyrami ds . . . . Therefore draw a line
from poi nt K to angle GI H EFig. 81 and another line from point L to angle IGH.
I t is certain t hat lines KI and GL intersect between t he surface of the sun and t he
plane of t he aperture, as at point O, because t hey are drawn from the same base to
angles al t ernat el y opposite. Consequently the pyrami d has a larger angle, bot h con-
t ai ned wi t hi n i t and placed Evertically] opposite. Therefore if t he lines containing the
l at t er angles are ext ended rectilinearly t hey swallow up t he lines and t he incident
rays of all t he longer pyramids. But it is certain t hat t he lines crossing t hrough the
corners [of t he aperture] pass outside all round pyramids, and consequently t he
incident rays must be angular rat her t han round. 53
Thus vani shes t he l ast possi bi l i t y t hat a ci rcul ar i mage can be f or med by rect i -
l i near solar rays passi ng t hr ough a t r i angul ar apert ure. PECHAM'S demonst r at i on
is geomet r i cal l y ri gorous; his concl usi on is beyond reproach. " I t is cl ear, " as
he asserts, " t ha t by di rect r adi at i on t he i nci dent rays are nonci r cul ar i nsofar
as t he aper t ur e is nonci r cul ar . " 5a Or as t he same concl usi on is expressed in t he
Tractatus de sphera,
The incident beam of light takes its shape from t he ext raordi nary and most
dilated rays; but the most dilated are those t hat are in cont act wi t h t he sides of t he
aperture, since all others fall within t hem; and, by hypothesis, t hey proceed directly
and by means of straight lines. Therefore, if these rays are, for example, in the aper-
ture, t hey are of t ri angul ar shape; and if t hey should proceed t o infinity, t hey remai n
triangular, s~
s3 Ibid.: " . . . sunt obtusiores precedentibus . . . . Igi t ur ducat ur a punct o K ad
angul um GI H linea. I t em ducat ur alia linea a punct o La d angulum IGH. Certum
est quod ille due linee KI et GL intersecant se i nt er superficiem solis et superficiem
ysopleuri, pnt a in punct o O, quia ab eadem bast ad angulos sibi invicem contrapositos
ducuntur. Igi t ur per consequens habet pyramis mai orem angul um t am illtra se con-
t ent um quam cont ra se positum. Ergo linee continentes hos angulos absorbent, ill
cont i nuum et di rect um producte, omni nm aliarum pyr ami dum lollgiorum lineas et
incidentias. Sed cert um est quod tile linee transeuntes per angulos t ranseul l t ext ra
omnes pyrami des rot undas; ergo necesse est quod illcidentia sit angularis et non
rot unda. "
53 Ibid. : "Ergo vi det ur quod quant um deest foramini de rot undi t at e t ant um deest
incidentie proport i onal i t er de rot undi t at e per vi am directe radiationis. "
54 In Le syst~me du monde, vol. 3, pp. 524--529, DUHEM prints the t ext of this
section of PECttAM'S De sphera (chap. 3) from Bordeaux MS 4t9, fols. t - - 2 (though,
unaware t hat PECHAM is its author, DUHEM at t ri but es this t ext to a "di sci pl e of
Bacon"). I have corrected the t ext of t he Bordeaux MS on a number of occasions by
reference t o Vat. Lat. MS 5963, fols. 96r - - 98r . The t ext here quot ed is found on
p. $28 Of DUHEM: "I nci dent i a lucis figuram habet a radiis eximiis et maxi me dilatatis;
seal maxi me dilatati sunt qui applicant se lateribus foraminis, quia omnes alii cadunt
inter illos, et ille procedunt recte et linealiter ex hypothesi. Ergo si ill foramine sunt
vel sunt triangularis figure; si ill i nfi ni t um procedant, semper erunt triangulares. "
In t he final sentence of this quotation, PECHAIVl seems to be arguing against
WlTELO. AS I have explained elsewhere, it is uncertain whet her or not PECHAM knew
WITELO'S optical work when he composed the Perspective communis. Since t he Trac-
tatus de sphera seems to have been composed after at least t he unrevised version of
t he Perspectiva communis, PECI-IAM mi ght have seen WITELO'S Perspectiva by t hat
t i me even if he had not had access t o it earlier.
Pi nhol e I mages 1 73
Bu t l est t her e be a n y l i nger i ng doubt , PECHAM i nt r oduc e s an i ngeni ous re-
duct i o ad abs ur dum, whi ch successf ul l y cl i nches hi s poi nt . 55 I ma gi ni ng an equi -
l at er al t r i a ngul a r aper t ur e, he assumes t h a t whi ch is t o be di spr oved, n a me l y
t h a t l i ght passi ng t h r o u g h t hi s a pe r t ur e becomes r o u n d b y di r ect r adi at i on. I f
an opa que ci r cul ar di sk is t he n i nscr i bed wi t hi n t he aper t ur e, t hr ee " s o me w h a t
i r r egul ar t r i a ngl e s " will r emai n i n t he cor ner s f or l i ght t o pass t hr ough. No w
if i t is t r ue t h a t l i ght passi ng t h r o u g h t he ent i r e aper t ur e bef or e i nser t i on of t he
opa que di sk coul d be c ome r o u n d b y di r ect r adi at i on, t he n l i ght now pas s i ng
t h r o u g h each of t he cor ner s mu s t al so be c ome r o u n d b y t he oper at i on of t he s ame
causes. Howe ve r , if t he opa que di sk s houl d be r emoved, r adi at i on passi ng t h r o u g h
t he ci r cul ar r egi on f or me r l y occupi ed b y t he di sk will al so be r ound; b u t i t is
i nconcei vabl e t h a t
t he aforement i oned t hr ee circles [ p r o d u c e d by r adi at i on i nci dent t hr ough t he corners
of t he apert ure] could . . . be i ncl uded i n this beam. Therefore i t is impossible t h a t
t he small beams passi ng t hr ough t he t hree corners of t he aper t ur e out si de t he per i pher y
of t he inscribed circle should, by [direct] radi at i on, converge on t he same ci rcul ar
surface as t he l i ght passi ng t hr ough t he i nt eri or of t he circle inscribed in t he apert ure. 56
Ther ef or e, l i ght passi ng t h r o u g h t he t r i angul ar aper t ur e as a whol e - - whi ch,
af t er all, is b u t t he s um of t he cent r al ci r cul ar r egi on and t he t hr ee " s o me w h a t
i r r egul ar t r i a ngl e s " oc c upyi ng t he cor ner s - - c a nnot be c ome r o u n d b y r ect i l i near
r adi at i on. Bu t t he pr emi se of t he whol e de mons t r a t i on was t he a s s umpt i on t h a t
r a di a t i on i nci dent t h r o u g h t he t r i angul ar a pe r t ur e does be c ome r o u n d b y r ect i -
l i near r a di a t i on; t hi s a s s umpt i on has t her ef or e l ed t o sel f - cont r adi ct i on. Rect i -
l i near r a ys - - b y t hemsel ves, at l east - - c a nnot a c c ount f or t he p h e n o me n a of
pi nhol e i mages.
Thus f ar PECHAM has, wi t h consi der abl e f or ce a nd cl ar i t y, descr i bed and t he n
demol i s hed t wo expl anat i ons of pi nhol e i mages - - a p p a r e n t l y t he onl y t wo vi abl e
expl anat i ons t he n cur r ent . However , when i t comes t o hi s own t heor y, t he r evi s ed
ver si on of t he Per s pect i va c o mmu n i s becomes s t r a nge l y obs cur e a nd conf usi ng.
PECHAM ma ke s sever al poi nt s, whi ch ar e evi dent l y t o be e mbodi e d i n a n y pr oper
t h e o r y of pi nhol e i mages. He not es, fi rst , t h a t e ve r y p y r a mi d of r a di a t i on e ma -
na t i ng s ymme t r i c a l l y f r om t he sun has a ver t i cal axis, whi ch is t he cent r al l i ne
of t he p y r a mi d ; " a n d t he cause of r oundnes s of t he i nci dent r a di a t i on is t o be
s ought chi ef l y i n t hi s l a t t e r ki nd of r a y . " ~7 Bu t PECHAM dr ops t hi s i dea wi t h o u t
devel opi ng i t f ur t her . 5s Secondl y, he poi nt s out t h a t " l i g h t s l i ght l y l acki ng i n
r oundnes s can, if near a not he r l i ght , be j udge d t o ha ve i t s own na t ur a l Ei.e. r ound]
55 The reductio is par t i al l y implicit, since cert ai n steps have been suppressed.
Nevertheless, t here is no mi st aki ng t he st r uct ur e of t he argument .
5~ Perspect i va communi s, Bk. I, prop. 7, revised versi on: " . . . t er mi nabi t ur t andem
radi us sic t ransi ens ad i nci dent i am maioris rot undi t at i s, cuius par t es impossibile est
esse pr edi ct or um t r i um ci rcul orum portiones. Er go impossibile est quod per vi am
radi at i oni s radioli t r ansi t ant es per t res angul os ysopl euri ext r a ci rcumferent i am circuli
i nscri pt i concur r ant i n eadem superficie circulari cure l umi ne t r anseunt e per con-
cavi t at em circuli inscripti ysopl eur o. "
5~ Ibi d. : " E t in hoc ul t i mo genere r adi or um quer enda preci pue est causa r ot undi -
t art s i nci dent i ar um. " Thi s is similar t o PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE'S poi nt , quot ed above,
whi ch stressed t he i mpor t ance of r ays issuing from t he cent er of t he solar disk.
5s I n fact, he l at er denies i t compl et el y; see below.
t 74 D . C . L I N D B E R G :
s ha pe . " 59 PECHAM i nt r oduc e s a t hi r d pr i nci pl e whe n he di scusses s e c onda r y or
acci dent al r adi at i on, not i ng t h a t " l i g h t can al so di ffuse i t sel f as t h o u g h b y
r a di a t i ng out s i de t he ma i n b o d y of r adi at i on. ' ' 6 He i l l ust r at es t hi s pr i nci pl e b y
r ef er ence t o t he cour se of speci es wi t hi n t he opt i c ner ves, wher e " t h e mode of
spi ri t s causes t he speci es t o de pa r t par t i al l y f r om a r ect i l i near pa t h, ''61 whi ch
ma ke s i t possi bl e f or t he speci es ent er i ng t he t wo eyes t o conver ge on t he s ame
p a r t of t he c ombi ne d opt i c ner ve. Bu t h o w t hese t hr ee pr i nci pl es can be e mpl oye d
t o expl ai n t he ci r cul ar i t y of sol ar l i ght pr oj ect ed t h r o u g h a nonci r cul ar aper t ur e,
t he r evi sed ver s i on of t he Per s pect i va c o mmu n i s never reveal s.
For t una t e l y, we ha ve PECHAM'S Tr act at us de sphera, wher e a si mi l ar a r gume nt ,
t her e appl i ed t o a sol ar eclipse, is s umma r i z e d i n conci se a nd v a s t l y mor e i n-
t el l i gi bl e f or m. I n t he i nci dent beam, af t er pas s age t h r o u g h t he aper t ur e, t her e
ar e t wo di s t i ngui s habl e c ompone nt s ,
of whi ch t he i nt eri or is angul ar like t he apert ure, and t he exterior, whi ch is said t o
be less clear and of i nt er medi at e bri ght ness bet ween pr i mar y and secondar y light, is
circular. I call r adi at i ng l i ght " p r i ma r y " and t ha t l i ght whi ch is out si de t he incidence
of t he r ays (as in homes open t o t he nor t h when t he sun is in t he south) " s e c ondar y . " 62
The " i n t e r i o r " p a r t of t he b e a m is f or me d of p r i ma r y l i ght , whi ch is p r o p a g a t e d
i n s t r a i ght l i nes and, whe n i nci dent t h r o u g h an aper t ur e, conf or ms t o i t s shape.
Thus p r i ma r y sol ar r a ys pas s i ng t h r o u g h a t r i a ngul a r a pe r t ur e do not pr oduc e
a ci r cul ar i mage, b u t r a t h e r one t h a t r eveal s t he a ngul a r i t y of t he aper t ur e.
Howe ve r , t her e ar e al so ext er i or or s e c onda r y 6~ r ays , pr oduc e d b y t he p r i ma r y
r a ys ; t hes e ar e di f f used out s i de t he p r i ma r y b e a m a nd gi ve rise t o a ci r cul ar
i mage at all t i mes. No w whe n sol ar l i ght is i nci dent t h r o u g h a t r i a ngul a r aper t ur e,
t he p r i ma r y a nd s e c onda r y i mages are s uper i mpos ed, a nd if t he s e c onda r y i mage
is suf f i ci ent l y br i ght , t he compos i t e i mage appear s ci rcul ar. 64
Bu t t he pr obl e m of i mages f or me d dur i ng a sol ar ecl i pse r emai ns. (Si nce ant i -
qui t y, t he pi nhol e h a d been chi ef l y appl i ed t o t he obs e r va t i on of eclipses, so t h a t
s uch p h e n o me n a coul d h a r d l y be i gnor ed. ) Dur i ng a sol ar eclipse, PECHA~ argues,
t he i nt er i or or p r i ma r y p a r t of t he i nci dent r a di a t i on r eveal s t he eclipse, whi l e
t he ext er i or or s e c onda r y p a r t " i s dr a wn t o r o t u n d i t y b y acci dent out s i de t he
n a t u r a l di f f usi on. " 65 Bu t wh y does t he s e c onda r y r a di a t i on n o t fill out t he i mage,
59 Perspecl i va communi s, Bk. I, prop. 7, revised versi on: " . . . l ux deficiens modi ce
a r ot undi t at e per vi ei ni t at em alterius lucis f or mam i udi cat connat ur al em. "
60 Ibi d. : " . . . l ux ext r a r adi osi t at em possit, quasi radiose, se di ffundere. "
6~ Ibi d. : " E t illum proeessum speci erum pro par t e ext r a r ect i t udi nem faci t vi a
spi r i t uum. "
~2 DUHEM, Op. cir., VO1. 3, p. 527: " . . . in t al l i nci dent i a lucis due sunt par t es
sensui distinguibiles, qua r um una i nt eri or est angul ari s in modum forami ni s al t era
ext eri or circularis, que mi nus cl ara di ci t ur et quasi medi i splendoris i nt er lucern
pr i mar i am et secundari am. Di ce lucern pri mari am, l ncem r adi osam; lucern secunda-
riam, illam que est ext r a i nci dent i am radi orum, ut in domi bus apert i s ad aquilollem,
sole exi st ent e in anst r o. "
63 PECHAM has said t ha t ext eri or l i ght has a bri ght ness i nt er medi at e bet ween t h a t
of pr i mar y and secondar y light, but f r om t he r emai nder of his ar gument i t is clear
t ha t ext eri or l i ght is not hi ng ot her t ha n secondar y l i ght itself.
6a P~cnAM calls secondar y l i ght " e xt e r i or " i n order t o si gni fy t ha t i t spreads
mor e wi del y t han pr i mar y l i ght ; consequent l y i t det ermi nes t he shape of t he com-
posi t e beam.
s~ Ibi d. : " . . . ext eri us nat ur al i diffusione i n r ot undi t at em deduci t ur per acci dens. "
Pinhole Images 1 7 5
gi vi ng i t a ci rcul ar form, as i t does when t he sun is full ? PECHAM'S sol ut i on a d h o c
but i ngeni ous is t h a t " since r adi at i ng l i ght is pr i nci pal and t he cause of l i ght dif-
fused acci dent al l y, when t he r adi at i ng [ i . e . pr i mar y] l i ght is hi ndered, secondar y
l i ght is t her eby cut off, so t ha t duri ng an eclipse, t he roundness of t he Ecomposite~
i mage is not easi l y discerned. ''66 I n ot her words, t he composi t e beam, consi st i ng of
bot h pr i ma r y and secondar y light, is in t r ut h ci rcul ar at all t i mes; but duri ng an
eclipse, t he secondar y l i ght is r educed t o t he poi nt of i nvi si bi l i t y b y t he r educt i on in
t he numbe r of pr i ma r y r ays issuing f r om t he sun. Ther e r emai ns but one di ffi cul t y:
how is t he pr i ma r y beam now abl e t o conf or m t o t he shape of t he l umi nous source
r at her t han t o t he shape of t he aper t ur e ? I s PECHAM gropi ng t owar d t he real i zat i on
t ha t t he i mage reveal s t he shape of bot h t he aper t ur e and t he l umi nous source t o
var yi ng degrees ? I t seems unl i kel y; a safer conclusion is t hat at t hi s poi nt PECHAM
is si mpl y gui l t y of i nc ons i s t e nc y- - t hough pr obabl y not ful l y conscious of it. Indeed,
here his t heor y fails, and consi st ent expl anat i on becomes i mpossi bl e; for al t hough
secondar y r adi at i on can expl ai n ci rcul ar i mages pr oj ect ed t hr ough nonci rcul ar
aper t ur es, i t cannot expl ai n i mages of any ot her shape.
Per haps PECHAM was par t i al l y awar e of some of t he deficiencies of his t heory. I n
any case, t o t he ver y end he expresses a cert ai n l ack of confidence in i t s adequacy,
for he closes his account of pi nhol e i mages in t he revi sed versi on of t he P e r s p e c t i v a
c o m m u n i s wi t h t he following modes t di scl ai mer: " And I shall not envy anyone
t r eat i ng [the mat t er ] bet t er [t han I ] , but woul d vener at e [him] as a t eacher. ''67
VI. Conclusion
I t is obvi ous t o us, equi pped as we are wi t h hi st ori cal hi ndsi ght , t ha t PECHAM
failed in his a t t e mpt t o f or mul at e a correct t heor y of pi nhol e i mages. But i nsi ght
is t o be gai ned r egar di ng t he reasons for his failure and t he precise nat ur e of his
achi evement b y a compar i son bet ween his t heor y and t hose of his cont emporari es,
BACON and WITELO. I n t he fi rst place, it mus t be not ed t ha t PECHAM and BACON
failed t o solve t he pr obl em of pi nhol e i mages for opposi t e reasons. BACON, i n t he
second of his t wo expl anat i ons i . e . t he one t ha t was geomet r i cal and t her ef or e
t he onl y one bear i ng any promi se of yi el di ng a correct sol ut i on chose an aper-
t ur e t ha t was t oo small, and t her ef or e he failed even t o gener at e t he pr obl em;
his aper t ur e was of negligible di mensi ons b y compar i son wi t h t he di st ance be-
t ween t he aper t ur e and t he sun or bet ween t he aper t ur e and t he i mage. Under
such ci rcumst ances, t he shape of t he aper t ur e is i r r el evant , and t he expl anat i on
of i mage- f or mat i on is trivial. PECHAM, b y cont r ast , chose an aper t ur e l arge enough
t o generat e t he probl em, but t oo large t o per mi t i t s solution. PECHAM based his
expl anat i on of pi nhol e i mages on t he anal ysi s of a geomet ri cal figure in whl ch
t he aper t ur e is so l arge b y compar i son wi t h t he ot her di mensi ons in t he figure
t ha t if an i mage of t he sun had act ual l y been f or med usi ng such a n aper t ur e,
it woul d not have been circular, as PECHAM assumed i t was, but t r i angul ar , as
his geomet r i cal anal ysi s r eveal ed t ha t i t ought t o be if formed b y rect i l i near
sol ar rays. Tha t is, t her e was an unf or t unat e di scr epancy bet ween t he obser va:
66 I b i d . : "' Quia . . . lumen radiosum est principale et causa luminis accidentaliter
diffusi, ideo impedito lumine radioso, per consequens i mpedi t ur lumen secundarium,
ut non faciliter discernatur in t empore eclipsis ejus rot undi t as. "
6~ Bk. I, prop. 7, revised version: "Nec invidebo melius pert ract ant i sed ut di-
dascalum venerabor. "
t 2 Ar ch. Hi s t . Ex a c t Sci. , VoL 5
176 D.C. LINDBERG: Pinhole Images
tional dat a to be explained and the geometrical diagram purporting to represent
t hat da t a - - which vitiated the entire analysis. For PECHAM to have formulated a
correct theory, it would have been necessary (among other things) to reduce
the size of the aperture in his diagrams, not to the point of negligibility (as
BACON had done), but to t hat very limited range of sizes where the t'riangular
images cast by individual points on the solar disk are small compared to the
circularity arising from the shape of the sun. The aperture must be, in his own
words, " o f moderate size." Only then would it have become possible to perceive
t hat small overlapping triangular images cast by points or unit areas of the
luminous source can combine to form a circular composite.
WITELO'S mistake was the same as PECHAM'S. The apertures on which he
based his geometrical demonstrations were absurdly large and could not have
exhibited the effect attributed to them. But faced with this predicament, PECHAM
and WITELO responded in very different ways. WITELO at t empt ed to solve the
problem by compromising the rectilinear propagation of light - - or, if you prefer,
by defending the wholly and obviously fallacious proposition t hat light emanating
from a single point and passing through a square aperture becomes rounded at
the corners without deviating from rectilinearity3 s PECHAM, by contrast, demon-
strated rigorously that, given the various dimensions appearing in his geometrical
diagram, rounded images could not be produced by radiation propagated recti-
linearly. But then, how could one maintain (as PECHAM did) both t hat the pr op-
agation of light i s rectilinear and t hat rounded images are formed when solar
light is projected through triangular apertures, as observation clearly revealed ?
His answer - - erroneous, but nevertheless ingenious - - was t hat secondary
radiation, which is able to pass outside the beam of rectilinear rays, fills out the
image cast by the primary rays, thus forming a composite circular image. But
ingenious though this maneuver may have been, we must not forget t hat it was
erroneous; as history has demonstrated, the correct solution was not to be found in
secondary radiation, but in the superimposition of unit images cast by primary light
emanating from points on the luminous body. Thus PECHAM left, as a legacy for his
fourteenth-century commentators, not a solution, but a still-unsolved problem. 6"
The author expresses gratitude to the National Science Foundation, which sup-
ported the research on which this paper is based.
6s Thus it must be kept in mind that WITELO did not consciously compromise
the principle of rectilinear propagation; doubtless, he would have claimed to be its
defender and savior.
~9 It should be noted, moreover, that PECHAM'S best theory of pinhole images,
which appeared in the revised version of his Perspectiva communi s (and ill much
briefer form in the Tractatus de sphera), was not widely known. It is the unrevised
version of the Perspectiva communi s that is now extant in more than forty manuscripts
and that appeared in ten printed editions in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries
(though, as pointed out in n. 41, above, printed editions subsequent to 1542 - - i.e.
the last six editions - - contain an edited version of the proposition on pinhole images,
which somewhat distorts PECHAM'S views); by contrast, there is only one known
extant manuscript of the revised version and a handful of the Tractatus de sphera.
Department of the History of Science
The University of Wisconsin
Madison
(Received Apr i l 29, 1968)